On June 4, by a vote of 42 to 53, the Senate defeated an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1588) that would have prevented a round of military base closures in 2005.
Those in favor of the amendment feared losing the government-induced stimulus that a military base can bring to their home states economy.
However, they instead argued with the excuse that the featured an abdication of responsibility from the executive to the legislative branch, and that the politicians were simply relying on recommendations from the Pentagon. Apparently, the nations premier office of national security isnt a trustworthy source on this issue.
In contrast, supporters of this amendment were concerned more with military bases in their home states closing down than they were issues of national security.
“Look, we have closed bases before,” said Sen. Trent Lott (R.-Miss.). “We did it after World War II. We did it after the Korean War. We did it after the Vietnam war. I know of bases around my region of the country [where] the Pentagon looked at them and made recommendations to Congress of what bases needed to be closed. In many instances, I do not know exactly how it worked.
“I have never liked this process,” Lott continued. “I think this process takes out the considerations that can be given by a congressman or by a senator who knows about a base in [his home state].”
But base realignment and closures, otherwise known as BRAC 2005, helps the military eliminate excess physical capacity in order to maximize warfighting capability and efficiency.
In a letter that Sen. John Warner (R.-Va.) read on the floor, from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B. Myers to Warner, Myers stated that “we must eliminate excess physical capacity to allow for increased defense capability focused on jointness.”
Still, liberals like Sen. Hilary Clinton (D.-N.Y.) mistook themselves for military officials. Clintons statement was especially telling, since she pretended as if the base closing were going to hurt the military, and not the parasitic economy surrounding the bases.
“Our troops need to know that we support them in their efforts,” Clinton spouted, “and standing by a bill that was passed in the months before Sept. 11 does a disservice to them. It places communities under tremendous stress to have to prepare for a base closing round.”
A “yes” vote is one in favor of the amendment to forego military base closings in 2005. A “no” vote is in opposition to the amendment and in favor of base closings.
|FOR THE AMENDMENT: 42||AGAINST THE AMENDMENT: 53|
|REPUBLICANS FOR (20):
DEMOCRATS FOR (22):
|REPUBLICANS AGAINST (29):
DEMOCRATS AGAINST (23):
INDEPENDENT AGAINST (1):
NOT VOTING: 5
|REPUBLICANS (2):||DEMOCRATS (3):|
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter