H.R.443 - Parris Island Protection Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 443, the Parris Island Protection Act, aims to prevent the closure or realignment of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, South Carolina, by prohibiting the use of federal funds for such actions. The bill emphasizes the historical and cultural significance of Parris Island to the Marine Corps and its continued importance for training. It asserts that Parris Island is the physical home of the Eastern Recruiting Region of the Marine Corps and requires continued investment.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would ensure the continued operation of the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island by restricting the use of federal funds for its closure or realignment. This would maintain the base's presence and operations in South Carolina. The bill would also require continued investment into the base.
Potential Benefits
- Preserves jobs and economic activity associated with the base in the local community.
- Maintains a historical and culturally significant site for the Marine Corps.
- Ensures the continued availability of a key training facility for the Eastern Recruiting Region.
- Provides stability for military families and personnel stationed at Parris Island.
- Upholds the legacy of excellence and faithful service associated with Parris Island.
Potential Disadvantages
- May limit the flexibility of the Department of Defense to optimize resource allocation and base realignment.
- Could potentially lead to inefficient use of resources if Parris Island becomes less strategically important in the future.
- Might hinder potential cost savings that could be achieved through base closures or realignments.
- Could set a precedent for protecting other military installations from closure, regardless of strategic need.
- May divert funds from other potentially more critical defense priorities.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with Congress's constitutional authority to provide for the common defense and to raise and support armies, as outlined in Article I, Section 8. The decision to maintain or close military installations falls within the purview of these powers. However, the specific earmarking of funds to prevent closure could be viewed as limiting the executive branch's flexibility in managing defense resources, potentially raising separation of powers concerns.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).