GovernmentExecutive.com

Several House Armed Services Committee members Wednesday attempted to use the markup of the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill to halt the work of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission, to no avail.

The committee defeated an amendment offered by Rep. Jeb Bradley, R-N.H., to terminate the process. Bradley then introduced a subsequent amendment to delay base closings until the Pentagon completes several strategic reviews and forces deployed to Iraq return. It was defeated on a voice vote.

Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Joel Hefley, R-Colo., who last year led the drive to delay the BRAC round by two years, indicated that now is not the right time to shutter bases around the country, but conceded that it is too late.

"This train has left the station," Hefley said. "I don't see any way to call it back."

Bradley's amendment measure was supported by Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., whose district might lose up to 8,500 jobs if the commission agrees with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recommendation to close the Naval Submarine Base New London.

Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., a longtime opponent of base closings, likewise voiced support for Bradley's amendment. His district is home to Pascagoula Naval Station, also slated for closure.

Lawmakers also pushed for changes in Pentagon weapons-buying, a key piece of subcommittee markups.

During the full committee mark, members unanimously passed an amendment, introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, that requires the Pentagon to study using "capital budgeting" approaches for major acquisition programs.

"We continue to use an acquisition system that would be worthy of a Dickens novel," Abercrombie said.

Used by many local and state governments, the capital budgeting approach to acquisition separates revenues and outlays for major programs from revenues and outlays from operating budgets.

It also provides budget authority to spread acquisition of a major asset over several years, rather than pay for everything in the first year of acquisition.

COMMENTS

• Don't you all get it??? Rummy and Bush have to close and rearrange bases here to save money. They have sent and still sending money to Iraq that they have to shut our bases in US so they can build $13 million dollar gyms and $592 million dollar embassies in Iraq. Be careful they may even build a new WHITE HOUSE there. They don't care how many lives they destroy by this BRAC. All they care about is making sure the Iraqi people are living a better life. Forget the US people who are suffering. GovExec.com reader Posted May 26, 2005 2:08 PM
• "Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, that requires the Pentagon to study using "capital budgeting" approaches for major acquisition programs." My God there is a voice of reason on the hill. Now if others only will listen and implement a capital budget and not let the government appointees attach worthless junk to the interpretation of a capital budget. A capital budget and an operations budget will go a long way to fix budget processes in DoD and the services but I fear that the top management will be unable to implement a capital budget correctly and will continue the stupid seven year budget for operational expenses rather than move to a two year operational budget. The top management does not even know what an accrual accounting system should do and the financial people only implement the operational peoples recommendations even though they have nothing to do with the financial statement of an accrual accounting system. taxpayer Posted May 20, 2005 6:32 AM