GovernmentExecutive.com

The Senate voted Wednesday to reject an amendment to the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill that would have delayed a round of military base closings scheduled to begin in 2005.

The move came as the Senate worked to wrap up loose ends on the authorization bill (S. 1050), which it passed last month.

Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., offered the amendment, calling the Pentagon's plan to mothball as many as one-quarter of its facilities outdated.

"Many of the threats we face today were not anticipated in 2001, when this round was approved," Dorgan said at a news conference.

The two senators said reducing the number of bases and consolidating forces might make it easier for terrorists to strike.

The amendment failed on a 53-42 vote.

Democrats in the House last month failed in a bid to block the next round of closings during debate on the House version of the defense authorization bill, although language was added that would require the Pentagon to keep open enough bases to allow for a future expansion of U.S. forces.

Supporters of that language said the Pentagon would have to close fewer bases in 2005 to comply with the troop strength provision.

COMMENTS

• Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Byron Dorgan, D-N.D have to oppose base closures because they have no other significant economic basis in their states. Employment at the military bases in their states are a significant source of votes and pork spending for them. This is particularly true for North Dakota because that area is most likely to face closures. If these guys cannot exist on their own (without government spending) they should not be states. The USA has far too many states and far too much federal power. These guys should be pushing a bill to appropriate enough money to bring base infrastructure up to par and fence the appropriation so it only can be used for infrastructure improvements. The only significant improvement to infrastructure on military bases is housing that is costing us (tax payers) an arm and a leg. Also, there are far too many people in the standing military - the numbers should be reduced significantly and overseas bases should be closed - particularly those in Turkey where we cannot use them when we need to. Likewise, there are far too many people in Germany and England. Bring a third to fifty percent of those people back to the USA and then see what bases we need to close. If Congress is worried about the concentration of troops why do they allow the Navy to focus far too much in San Diego and Norfolk? Didn't we learn anything from Pearl Harbor? Also, the fight on terror will be more important in Homeland Security than in a military buildup! We already have paid extensively for Homeland Secureity and all we have are five colors that are meaningless - that too a political appointee to achieve for several hundreds of thousands of dollars of my (tax payer) money. What happened to the war on fraud, waste and abuse? GovExec.com reader Posted June 5, 2003 7:03 AM