Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and of House Joint Resolution 313 and to express my opposition to House Joint Resolution 308, which would disapprove the list of military base closings and realignment recommended by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Undoubtedly, we must scale down our oversized military, and closing and realigning the bases on the Commission's list will be an important step in this direction.

I regret, however, that many decisions made by the Base Closure Commission were not based just on merit. It is clear that the incomplete Stapleton homeport at Staten Island, NY, would not have survived a process based on merit and integrity alone. This becomes obvious upon examination of the Commission's own final analysis of Stapleton.

The Commission's documents state that closing the Staten Island homeport would result in significant savings, $100 million outright and $500 million annually. Those estimates appear to be grossly understated. The savings would not come at the expense of national security, for according to the Commission, Stapleton is not essential. First, the analysis notes that Staten Island is not needed for its berthing capacity. The Navy already has a large excess berthing capacity for its Atlantic Fleet and existing ports--Norfolk, Mayport , and Charleston--can easily berth the 1997 fleet.

Second, the Commission's final analysis obviates the Staten Island homeport's lack of clear purpose. Stapleton was originally conceived as a homeport for the battleship Iowa and its support fleet. The Iowa has since been decommissioned and supporters of the Stapleton homeport have been searching for a new justification for completing the base. The Commission's analysis notes the port's altered mission and that the number of ships in surface action group recently designated for Staten Island has been diminished from five to three. The report also notes that deployment of this surface action group as an independent group is uncertain.

In terms of using the Staten Island homeport as a naval reserve training center, the Commission states that it merely would be `helpful.' Helpful is a far cry from necessary, and for the $100 million required up front to finish the port and the additional $50 million required annually thereafter, a base had better be more than just helpful, it had better be indispensable.

While homeport's supporters have stated that a completed and operating homeport will produce 4,000 jobs in New York and bring the city $375 million a year, the Commission concluded that only 800 military and 800 civilian jobs would result, and that will be a substantial annual fiscal loss based on the Navy's COBRA.

Mr. Speaker, while I oppose scrapping the whole base closure and realignment list, I do question the irrational decision to exclude an unfinished, exorbitant, unnecessary base. The Commission's decision in this case clearly was not based on merit, and thus must have been based on some other considerations. I'm afraid this independent Commission was not above politics as we intended it to be.

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].

(Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the rule. I have been listening to the debate about the complexities of the rule, and I think perhaps a better way for all Members to understand why we need a vote on foreign base closings, and why we need this rule, was best expressed to me by a shipyard worker at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, a worker who now has layoff looming over his head as a result of the Base Closure Commission recommendation.

Shortly before the recommendation of the Base Closing Commission, there was the volcano eruption around the Subic Bay Naval Facility in the Philippines. This worker came up to me and said: