Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) offered and withdrew an amendment to an annual defense bill Wednesday that would have allowed the Pentagon to carry out another round of base closures.
“The central cloud hanging over this committee is we don’t have the resources to do what we have to do,” said Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee. “In a situation like that, you try to save resources wherever you can save them. [Base closures] would be one way of doing that.”
{mosads}Smith withdrew the amendment to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act because of procedural issues, but said he wanted to offer it nonetheless to urge the committee to continue assessing the issue.
Right now, the 2017 National Defense Authorization would explicitly prohibit a new round of what’s known as Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
The Pentagon recently submitted a report to Congress arguing for another BRAC, saying it will have 22 percent excess capacity by 2019.
The last round of BRAC was in 2005. Lawmakers have repeatedly denied requests for another round because of the potential for negative economic effects on the communities around bases, making the prospect politically unpopular.
“I know the committee by and large is not fond of the b-word, but if we’re looking at saving money in a responsible way, it’s better than the ad hoc way the military is doing it now.”
Under Smith’s amendment, base closures would have been allowed if the Pentagon submitted a report to Congress, the Defense secretary certified they are necessary, an independent commission reviewed the recommendations and Congress didn’t block them, among other steps.
The process would have differed from the 2005 in areas such as providing Congress a chance to block the process after the Pentagon’s report and placing an emphasis on cost savings after five years instead of 20.
Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), the chairman of the committee, said he believes the Pentagon hasn’t provided enough information to support another BRAC.
“I don’t personally have the information I need to say, ‘Yes, we need another round of BRAC,’” he said. “I don’t know anybody that wants to repeat 2005. We have not yet broken even from the cost of the 2005 round of BRAC. We’ve got to do better than that if we’re going to have it. So I certainly have not ruled it out, but my personal opinion is we do not yet have the information we need to authorize it.”