Dave Hobson

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Congressional Record two items on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC) recommendations. I am submitting pages 156-157 from the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President that includes a summary of the flawed rationale used for the recommended realignment of the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station. Mr. Speaker, I also include a chart showing the strength and efficiency of the response time by members of the Air National Guard in response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, especially relative to the active Air Force.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in support of this motion. I have always supported the BRAC. I have been here through three of these, and I always thought they were well reasoned before, win, lose or draw; and by the standards of win, lose or draw, I probably came out okay in a lot of ways in this, because four out of five facilities in my area did well. The Army did well in this BRAC. But I always thought the BRAC was based upon numbers and savings and mission, and suddenly I find out that is not true. I am going to read something here in a minute about that. That is what troubles me in this one, because the Air Force set out on a plan to arrive at a number, and they destroyed, in my opinion, much of what one of their components does best, and that is the Air National Guard. Let me give you an example. At Mansfield, Ohio, they realigned the base. ``Realignment'' means you do not technically get BRAC'ed, but you get no airplanes, so you have to find something else to do. Let me tell you, the soldiers that were in the Dome shortly after Katrina were Ohio Army Guardsmen. They were flown there in 130s out of Mansfield. The soldiers that were in Mississippi from Ohio were flown down by 130s from Mansfield. The soldiers that were in Texas from Ohio were flown in by 130s from Mansfield. When BRAC gets done, there are not any airplanes at Mansfield. So how many days are we going to wait to come in and pick those people up and bring them down? Because we have still got a large Army Guard that can perform, and they have shown they can perform; but 2 years from now, that is not going to happen. That does not look smart to me. If you look at the chart that shows the support in the hurricane by the Air National Guard, it is far superior to what the Air Reserve did or especially the active duty in response to these hurricanes. That is not going to be there 2 years from now. Now, closer to home, my Springfield Air National Guard Base. It is a training base. I did not ask to do this mission. The Air Guard and the Air Force came to me and said, We screwed up. We have closed much of our flight training. We need another place to do this. Will your State take this on? My State said it will. They came to me, I was chairman of the MILCON, if you wonder how they came to me. They said, Will you take this on at your Springfield F-16 base? We saluted and said, Yes, sir, we will do it. We put in over $85 million to make this a first-class flight school. We have not even opened the $8.5 million tower yet. We just finished the fire station. We put in a $10 million pad. And what do we find out? We are being realigned. ``Realigned'' means you lose your airplanes; you lose your mission. What are we going to do? Now I find out there is another mission available for flight school, but they want to take it and possibly put it in another place, someplace else, and spend the money again and take these airplanes. Let me tell you what the Commission's findings were regarding Springfield Air National Guard Base. I am upset because they always did this by the numbers in the past. This was not done by the numbers, and that is why I am so infuriated about what happened, because I do not mind a fair fight. We thought we had this won, until the Air Force went to the commissioners at the last moment and said, Hey, you have got to change this, because they were going in the right direction the day before. The next day when they got up, I knew we were dead. Let me read the commission findings: ``The commission found that the Department of Defense recommendation to realign Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport Air Guard Station should be supported even though the military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost instead of a savings to the Department.'' I mean, give me a break. It is flawed and there is no savings; but, by the way, the mission is going away, and we are not going to train these pilots. This place is training pilots better than they were expected to do and more than they were expected to do, and yet it is being realigned. The airplanes are gone. If we are going to do this this way, this is wrong and we have to stand up and say it is wrong. I think this happened in more instances than just mine, and that is why I am so upset about the way this was done. It was not done by the numbers; it was done to drive to a number that the Air Force had to get to to save some airplanes like the F-22 and some other things. So I am just hoping the people will vote in support of the resolution. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this resolution of disapproval on the Base Realignment and Closure Commission's (BRAC) recommendations that are now before Congress. This is not a decision that I have come to lightly. During this latest BRAC round, there were several recommendations made that will benefit the State of Ohio and the 7th Congressional District that I represent. However, I cannot in good conscience accept a process that was fundamentally flawed and very unfair in the decisions made with regard to our country's National Guard and Reserve. I represent four military bases, including the Springfield Air National Guard Base (ANG), the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), Wright Patterson Air Force Base (AFB), and Rickenbacker International Airport. Each of these military installations has an exceptional workforce dedicated to the military missions assigned to them, whether it is logistical support for deployed troops, research and development, or pilot training. Mr. Chairman, this is the third BRAC round that I have been through, so I understand the importance of community leaders and base officials doing the homework necessary to define the installation's military value, and the potential economic impact this process will have on communities where bases are located. During this latest round, I would argue that Ohio had some of the most hardworking and competent individuals working on behalf of our State's installations. We testified at hearings in Buffalo and Washington, DC, and briefed BRAC Commissioners and staff during site visits to DSCC in Columbus and to Wright-Patterson. We also worked together in reviewing the numbers used by the Pentagon in making their BRAC recommendations. Mr. Chairman, I think that I can speak for other delegations when stating that our efforts in getting information from the Air Force during this BRAC round did not start well. When we requested material on how they came to their recommendations, we didn't receive it for weeks. And when we did receive the data, it was inaccurate. As I've already stated, I was very disappointed by the DOD and BRAC Commission's final recommendations with regard to the Air National Guard. This was especially true regarding their recommendations to redistribute the 178th Fighter Wing F-16 aircraft from the Springfield Air National Guard Base. I have said all along that if the BRAC process had been fair and done ``by the numbers'', that I would accept the outcome, even if I didn't like it. But unfortunately, this was not the case. First of all, the BRAC analysis material stated there is only one F- 16 Formal Training Unit in the Air National Guard. This is wrong! There are two Air National Guard F-16 Formal Training Units, and one of them is at the Springfield ANG Base. Second, I was asked several years ago if I would support Springfield taking on this training mission that would require specialized infrastructure to support it. I was the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for Military Construction at the time, and I agreed to support the Air Force in this effort. More than $75 million in federal funding has been invested in the Springfield base to support its F-16 training mission. Over the years, we have put in a new ramp to accommodate the plane, a flight simulator, a dining hall, an operations building, and a new control tower that is still under construction. Some of these assets are only now becoming operational. Third, everyone agrees there are no cost savings achieved by realigning the Springfield ANG Base. In fact, the commission actually concluded in its report that DOD's ``recommendation to realign the Springfield base should be supported even though the military value criteria were flawed and the realignment will be a cost instead of savings to the Pentagon.'' Fourth, the Air Force lacks sufficient training capacity for F-16 pilots. If we further reduce this capacity through this proposed realignment, it even further diminishes this capability, especially since this unit is the highest F-16 pilot production unit in the Guard. The BRAC analysis on Springfield shows that operational personnel will begin to leave the base in 2007, while there are student pilots scheduled for training in 2008. Mr. Chairman, there is also the issue of homeland security. Like some of my colleagues, I think it is fair for us to consider what these BRAC recommendations will mean for the future of the National Guard in responding to emergency situations. As we saw in the days following the recent hurricanes in the gulf coast region and on 9/11, the Air National Guard was a critical resource in transporting troops, supplies and protection. For example, the Mansfield, Ohio-based 179th Airlift Wing flew over 50 missions in support of Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. Yet, homeland security did not appear to be a major part of this BRAC process. Overall, I was very disappointed in the process by which the Air National Guard decisions were made, particularly the flaws in the Air Force analysis. These flaws run throughout the entire BRAC process, from the consolidation of aircraft models, and the so-called right sizing of operations, to the poor or nonexistent analysis of the cost to replace the people from the locations that are being set aside. This doesn't even consider the recruiting and retention issues that we already face. And, it doesn't speak to the cost of personnel training to recreate this capability, and the loss of experience that will occur by the Air Force plans. Finally, I was dismayed that there was absolutely no discussion by the BRAC commissioners or staff regarding the National Guard recommendations during the final considerations on August 26th. Until then, there was much talk about the lack of consultation and the quality of the recommendations by the Air Force throughout this BRAC round. There was even the suggestion that the entire set should have been thrown out by the BRAC commission. On the day the BRAC Commission upheld their recommendation to realign the Springfield Air National Guard Base, I wrote a letter to each BRAC Commissioner to express my disappointment with the way they handled decisions regarding the National Guard. I pointed out that there was no discussion when, by the numbers, we had demonstrated the flaws in the Pentagon's proposal. I also asked for an explanation on how the commissioners arrived at their decision, and I received no answer. Finally, in early September, I wrote to the President requesting the same information, and for his consideration to send the recommendations impacting the Air National Guard back to the BRAC Commission with instructions to use programmatic changes to reshape our state militia forces. Unfortunately, for the men and women in the Guard and Reserve, I am still waiting for a reply. As I stated before, opposing the BRAC recommendations was not an easy decision. Overall, Ohio faired well during the commission's final proceedings. Wright-Patterson will keep over 2,000 information and technology jobs that were to be transferred to Hanscom, Massachusetts, and it will also keep a first-class post-graduate program known as the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT). In Columbus, the Defense Supply Center will maintain its 6,000 jobs, and is scheduled to receive many high-paying jobs. But, Mr. Chairman, I think that in the years to come when the recommendations regarding the Guard and Reserve are set in motion, people will realize that this latest BRAC round was flawed, and consequently the wrong thing to do. It is for these reasons that I will stand here today and support this resolution to overturn the 2005 BRAC recommendations.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate St. Peter's Lutheran Church in Lancaster, Ohio, for 1 celebrating its 200th anniversary as a congregation on October 16, 2005. The history of St. Peter's began in 1804, when a traveling preacher, the Reverend Johannes Stauch, visited Lancaster. A year later, Reverend William Forster was sent to the territory by the Ministerium of Pennsylvania to preach throughout the area, most notably in Fairfield and Perry Counties. The result was the founding of St. Peter's Evangelical Lutheran Church, which is the oldest existing Lutheran congregation in the State of Ohio. For several years, the church had no regular place of worship. A parcel of land was secured on the banks of the Old Canal, and a cornerstone for the log cabin church was laid in 1819. The congregation worshipped at this site until 1832, when a brick building was constructed as a new home for the church. And in 1882, the present building at the comer of Broad and Mulberry Streets in Lancaster was dedicated. The current church is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places. Over the years, members of St. Peter's Church have dedicated themselves to their faith through their worship and involvement in the community. The congregation is involved in a variety of programs that help provide food, clothing and shelter to those in need in the region and throughout the State of Ohio, including the Mid-Ohio Food Bank and the church's ``We Care Corner''. In addition, St. Peter's church has also been a part of the Fairfield Heritage Association's annual candlelight tour of churches in downtown Lancaster. The event takes place December and attracts nearly 800 people each year. Mr. Speaker, I join with the residents of the 7th Congressional District of Ohio in congratulating St. Peter's Lutheran Church for its honored history and its contributions to the religious and community life of the Lancaster area for the past 200 years.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Dennison family of Fairborn, Ohio. The Dennison's are a wonderful family that has made many contributions to the community over the years. Originally from West Virginia, Steve Dennison joined the Air Force in 1983 as a Munitions Systems Specialist. He served for 22 years and retired from the service on May 31, 2005 to go to work as a Conventional Munitions Specialist at the Headquarters of the Air Force Materiel Command, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio. Steve and his wife, Tammy, had two children, Megan and Jacob. Unfortunately, these children were born with the lethal genetic childhood disease, ataxia-telangiectasia, or A-T for short. This disease causes the progressive loss of muscle control, cancer and immune system problems. Generally, the lifespan for children with A-T is 20 years. Unfortunately for the Dennison family, both of their children were born with severe symptoms of this already brutal disease. In 2004, the Dennisons lost Megan at the age of 16, even as they worked night and day to keep her healthy and were greatly supported by the community. Jacob, age 16, whose mental capacity is sharp, like most children with A-T, misses his sister and is fully aware of what the future may hold for him. In closing, the Dennison family's courage and strength and Steve's distinguished service to the country are an inspiration to us all. I wish the Dennison family the best in the future. For the Dennison family and all the other families with children suffering from this devastating disease, I wish for a cure.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to United States Air Force Lieutenant General Richard V. Reynolds for his 34 years of distinguished and honorable service in the U.S. Air Force and to our country. On August 1, 2005, General Reynolds will be retiring from his current position as Vice Commander of the Air Force Materiel Command at Wright- Patterson Air Force, Ohio. The command conducts research, development, test and evaluation, and provides acquisition management and logistics support necessary to keep Air Force weapon systems ready for war. This high level of research and development is critical to our Nation's defense, and requires effective leadership and experience. It is those qualities that General Reynolds has demonstrated during his service at Wright-Patterson AFB, and throughout his military career. General Reynolds received his commission as a Second Lieutenant at the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1971. During his career, he has served as a pilot training instructor, a combat-ready bomber air crew commander, and as an experimental test pilot. He has also commanded the 4952nd Test Squadron and has served as a program director for several strategic and tactical aircraft acquisition programs, including the B-2 Spirit. In addition, General Reynolds was the Air Force Program Executive Officer for Airlift and Trainers at the Pentagon, commanded the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB California, and, prior to his current position, was Commander of the Aeronautical Systems Center located at Wright-Patterson AFB. He is also a commanded pilot with more than 4,000 flying hours in 60 types of aircraft. Throughout his distinguished career, General Reynolds has received military awards for his service, including: the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Meritorious Service Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, and the Air Force Commendation Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters. In closing, I commend General Reynolds for his honorable and distinguished service to our country over the years, and I send my best regards to him and his family as he embarks on this new chapter in his life.

Mr. HOBSON

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I intend for Yucca Mountain to be fully funded, and our bill does just that. As a matter of fact, I have gone head to head with the Senate since I have been the chairman of this subcommittee to ensure that the nuclear waste disposal program receives as close to the budget request as possible. The gentleman is absolutely right that the ratepayers are not getting what they paid for because DOE has not fulfilled its statutory and contractual obligation to accept spent fuel for disposal. I have ratepayers in my own State who also have not received value for what they have paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund. We are not intending, and I want to be very pointed about this, we are not intending to divert or diminish attention to Yucca Mountain.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we provided our guidance only in report language and direct the Secretary to provide Congress with legislative language if he determines that changes to the authorizing statutes are necessary.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mack) for the purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I agree that the development of safe chemical treatment options may provide the Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority with alternatives to many of the conventional methods of control that often have unintended consequences.

Mr. HOBSON. I agree.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. HOBSON. The gentlewoman is correct. Our intention is to waive only the cost-sharing requirements for clean coal technological projects for FutureGen, and the cost-sharing requirements that are intended to operate instead are also on page 20.

Mr. HOBSON. If the gentleman is agreeable, we are willing to accept this amendment and move forward.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. I understand the gentleman from Michigan's concerns about the effects this policy may have on small harbors. While I believe that tonnage should be a consideration when the Army Corps prioritizes operations and maintenance dredging projects, I do not believe it should be the sole basis. I look forward to working with the gentleman from Michigan and the Army Corps to address this issue and identify appropriate factors for consideration.

Mr. HOBSON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit and urge a speedy passage of the underlying bill, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title I be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. HOBSON. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.