BRAC Commission Hearing Remarks of Sen. John Thune

BRAC Commission Hearing Remarks of Sen. John Thune

June 21st, 2005 - Rapid City, SD - Thank you for coming today, and welcome to Rapid City and the Black Hills.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I know that you and your fellow commissioners will bear a great responsibility over the coming months. As Commissioners, your decisions will directly impact the safety and security of all Americans.

The B-1 Bomber, as the backbone of our nation's bomber force, plays a critical role in our War on Terror. The question for this Commission is this: Does it make military sense to house the entire B-1 fleet in a single location?

Members of the BRAC Commission, we believe the answer is clear -- any further consolidation of the B-1s would create an unnecessary and unwise security risk, and the Pentagon's proposal to do so should be rejected by this Commission.

Let's take a look at the risks and dangers of the Pentagon's proposal:

As General Loh and General Wolfe explained, putting all our B-1s in a single location would make our B-1 fleet unnecessarily vulnerable.

First, as we have so painfully learned, military installations are not immune from attack. We should never forget about the short-sightedness we had as a nation before Pearl Harbor. We might dismiss that as just some past, distant war from another time and another place, not really applicable to today's threats. But it is.

We were reminded of this on September 11th, when Al Qaeda attacked the Pentagon itself, with tragic results. And there were also reports that the terrorists had targeted other military installations before September 11th.

With the terrorists clearly bent on targeting our military assets and their willingness to use unconventional weapons, we should make it harder, not easier, to destroy or immobilize our fleet of B-1s. But the Pentagon's proposal would create the possibility that a single terrorist attack could wipe out our entire B-1 fleet, or all of the B-1 pilots and flight crews.

Second, the risk of natural disasters is a constant reminder that we shouldn't put all our B-1 assets in a single location, particularly one located in the heart of "tornado alley." We simply cannot afford to risk our nation's security on the whims of a single deadly tornado that could destroy or damage our entire B-1 fleet. This tornado came within 1,000 feet of the runway at McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita, KS. The Air Force is good, but they can't control the weather.

Third, we can't afford to look only at the world as it is now. Instead, we have to look to the emerging threats our nation will face 10 or 20 years from now. This is not as easy as it sounds.

From the abrupt ending of the Cold War to the events of September 11th, it is clear that we live in an uncertain world full of surprises.

We must learn from our history. Although the Soviet Union is gone, countries like China, North Korea, and Iran either have nuclear weapons or are actively developing them. What's more, they are seeking the means to deliver those weapons by long-range ballistic missiles.

The lesson in all this is that the threats we face as a nation will continue to change. And to respond to those threats, we need to maintain or increase our flexibility, not reduce it. If the Pentagon is allowed to close Ellsworth, it will be difficult or impossible to re-open it if we are once again surprised by the unexpected.

The statement by General Loh and General Wolfe that we should not over-consolidate our B-1 fleet makes perfect sense. It is also supported by sound military principle.

The Department of Defense itself has stated, in its National Defense Strategy report issued just three months ago, that we should be guided by the goal of "developing greater flexibility to contend with uncertainty by emphasizing agility and by not overly concentrating military forces in a few locations."

Similarly, the DOD has stated that they need "secure installations . . . that ensure strategic redundancy."

Finally, Ellsworth's military value is clear even under the Pentagon's own analysis, and could easily expand with additional missions. The Pentagon gives Ellsworth one of its highest scores for a tanker mission - a significantly higher ranking than the three bases that will actually bed tankers under the Pentagon's plan -- McConnell, Fairchild and McDill.

Among the three bases in North and South Dakota -- Ellsworth, Grand Forks, and Minot -- Ellsworth scored highest in six of the eight Air Force mission evaluation categories, with the other bases scoring first in only one category each. The surge capacity of Ellsworth is unmistakable.

We fully understand that one of the purposes of this BRAC round is to save money. But we should not do so at the expense of our nation's security. With the ever-changing threats we face in this century, we simply cannot take the chance of closing Ellsworth. If we eliminate this base, it cannot be easily replaced later.

Members of the Commission, we are all here today urging you to take Ellsworth off the Pentagon's proposed closure list. Obviously, Ellsworth is critically important to our state. But it is even more important to our country and to our national defense. Ellsworth is a first-class base with a critical mission in our War on Terror, both now and in the future. As a nation, we simply cannot afford to lose it.

http://thune.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=99&Month=6&Year=2005