mr. chairman , as a member of the house armed services committee , i reluctantly support the brac recommendations today , and oppose this motion of disapproval pending before the house .  i support these recommendations because i believe that the goals of brac are worthy -- to maximize warfighting capability and efficiency for both traditional warfighting and counterterrorist efforts .  an integrated military force able to communicate and coordinate effectively in response to conflict remains crucial to national security and the war on terrorism .  i am concerned by technical errors and the overall process used by the pentagon and the base realignment and closure -- brac -- commission to reach the recommendations before us this evening , and it is my hope that in the future , significant improvements will be made on the current model when realignment and closure decisions are made .  however , within the current model , there are some successes to which we can point .  for instance , the pentagon and the brac commission rightly highlighted the key role that hanscom air force base , located in my congressional district , plays in our national security efforts .  the process reaffirmed hanscom 's role as the military 's pre-eminent development center for communication and intelligence technologies .  hanscom will clearly play a central role as we transform our military in the coming decades .  in its decisions on hanscom , the brac process recognized that the success or failure of a base in fulfilling its mission relies on the availability of skilled and experienced personnel and the connections that develop in intellectual clusters .  unfortunately , the commission wrongly decided to move an estimated 200 jobs from hanscom 's air force research lab -- afrl -- space and sensors directorates .  those functions are best left at hanscom to maintain existing synergies and human capital .  when the brac commission held their new england regional hearing in boston on july 6 , i submitted testimony to the commission arguing that the decision to realign the afrl at hanscom was inconsistent with other aspects of the pentagon 's analysis of hanscom , and could disrupt key programs operating there .  i am deeply disappointed by the commission 's decision to move these directorates from their home at hanscom .  i am concerned that the recommendation to realign the afrl did not appropriately value the highly skilled workforce currently at these facilities , and that the expertise of many of these employees will be lost as the recommendations are implemented .  the relocation of afrl 's sensors and space vehicles directorates will result in significant costs with few gains .  while i strongly protest this decision , i am pleased that overall , the commission 's recommendations on hanscom reaffirmed the value of the regional human capital capabilities in science and technology -- and i am encouraged by the commission 's indication that the air force will look to expand the mission at hanscom outside of the brac process .  i look forward to working with the air force as this process takes shape .  with respect to the overall brac process , i am concerned by flaws in the current model that led to a number of errors .  for instance , questions remain unanswered about the pentagon 's failure to consult with state governors , state adjutants general , and the department of homeland security on decisions related to the national guard and key homeland security functions located outside the pentagon 's bureaucracy .  these questions resulted in lawsuits against the pentagon and the brac commission by a number of states , including my home state of massachusetts .  additionally , a lack of organization was evident during the commission 's consideration of the possible expansion of hanscom , as well as the commission 's overall recommendations related to otis air force base at cape cod .  while i support the 2005 brac recommendations , i am deeply concerned that these types of errors set a bad precedent for future brac rounds .  the pentagon must ensure that the department of homeland security and other relevant stakeholders are appropriately included in their process , and that our nation 's homeland security needs are fully evaluated .  