Late last night, U.S. Representative Austin Scott (GA-08), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, spoke on the House Floor against an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (FY18 NDAA) offered by U.S. Representative Tom McClintock (CA-04) that would allow for conducting an additional round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).

Click here to watch Rep. Scott’s full remarks.

[[{"fid":"395","view_mode":"full","fields":{"format":"full","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"full","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false}},"link_text":null,"attributes":{"style":"width: 552px; height: 300px;","class":"media-element file-full","data-delta":"1"}}]]

Earlier in the day, Rep. Scott also spoke on the House Floor in support of his amendment to FY18 NDAA aimed at supporting the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and combating transnational criminal organizations. Click here to read more.

Below is a transcript of Rep. Scott’s remarks on BRAC:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment to the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act offered by my friend and colleague Mr. McClintock of California that would strike a bipartisan provision that clarifies that the FY18 NDAA does not authorize a round of Base Realignment and Closures, otherwise known as BRAC.

“After nearly 13 hours of debate in the Armed Services Committee, my colleagues and I on the Committee came together to overwhelmingly approve language in the final mark that prevented a BRAC next fiscal year. We passed that vote by a vote of 60 to 1.

“Many of my colleagues would argue that past BRACs eliminated excess infrastructure in our nation’s military and streamlined our defense spending, but that’s just not the case, Mr. Speaker.

“Earlier this year, Secretary Mattis testified to the Armed Services Committee on the need to reassess our military’s current infrastructure resources and needs before closing or realigning current resources.

“The FY16 NDAA required an updated DOD force structure plan and infrastructure inventory. To date, the DOD has not submitted the required infrastructure report.

“Quite simply, we may not have enough capacity and infrastructure to meet our current needs and our needs going forward as we look at threats coming from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, the threat of global terrorism, and transitional criminal organizations.

“Who knows what threat we will face tomorrow.

“If the Secretary of Defense needs to reassess our current capacity, then the need to halt alignments and closures to give time to do so is all the more important.

“With outdated capacity information, there’s simply no reason to close or realign an instillation just to repurchase or rebuild a new one just a few years down the road. It’s fiscally irresponsible in terms of defense spending and meeting our needs moving forward.

“While I have nothing but respect for my colleague from California for his efforts to cut government waste and spending—which I have supported many times in the past—Base Realignments and Closures miss the mark in those two endeavors and will actually cost us more over time, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this broken bucket amendment.”

-30-