Plan Gives Pentagon Final Word on Bases

WASHINGTON â€”  Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld would have broad new authority to decide which military bases to shutter or consolidate under legislation the Pentagon is sending to Congress to jump start a new round of base closings in 2003.

While the proposal would create an independent commission similar to one used in previous base closings, it would place authority to select which bases to close firmly within the Department of Defense and would severely limit the commission’s power to refine the Pentagon’s proposals.

The proposal comes amid growing angst among lawmakers about closing more military bases. Just this week, a House committee rejected the Bush administration’s proposal to reduce the B-1 bomber fleet amid fears that such cuts would result in base closures. But it also comes as a growing minority of legislators says that base closings are necessary to save money.

The Pentagon plan, to be formally submitted to Congress today, is designed to alter the base-closing process to “take it away from the political environment,� Pete Aldridge, the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said Thursday.

Aldridge said every U.S. military installation would be subject to review, but he provided no estimate of the number that might ultimately be closed, consolidated or realigned. The Pentagon had been considering a proposal favored by some lawmakers to exempt certain bases from the review but rejected the idea as too politically charged. Aldridge said the military has 20% to 25% more U.S. base capacity than it needs.

But the effort to consolidate decision-making on the volatile issue within the Pentagon is already arousing controversy.

“The whole point of having the commission process, that has been set up and worked reasonably well a number of times, was to minimize political influence,� said Rep. Vic Snyder (D-Ark.), a leading proponent of the need for base closings.

“I have great confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld, but the fact is the people who make the decisions at [the Pentagon] are all political appointees. And the people in the communities who have supported military bases for decades need to have confidence that the process is free of politics.�

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said, “While I am pleased that the administration wants Congress to authorize another round of base closures, I am concerned that some details of their legislative proposal would inject politics back into the base-closure process, when the goal of that process has always been to remove politics.�

Levin, along with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), has authored his own proposal for starting another round of base closings, one that would maintain the commission’s authority.

Under the Pentagon proposal, a nine-member independent commission, appointed by the president under consultation with congressional leaders, would get a list of base-closing recommendations from the Pentagon by March 2003 and would have until July 7, 2003, to submit its own list of recommended actions to Bush. But it would only be able to make changes to the Pentagon’s recommendations if it can prove the Pentagon deviated substantially from its own criteria for what makes a base eligible for closure.

Even if the commission made such changes, the secretary of Defense would be able to block them with a written notice to the commission. The legislation would further limit the commission’s role by allowing it only to propose subtracting bases from, not adding to, the closing list.

In the previous four base-closing rounds, from 1988 to 1995, the independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission was allowed to take a far more active role. It reviewed every domestic military base and submitted a list of shutdown candidates to Congress for a straight up-or-down vote. Commissioners traveled to bases to gather data and analyze the Pentagon’s recommendations and could add to or subtract from the base-closing list. In the last round of base closings, its list differed substantially from the Pentagon’s.

But the base-closing process that year was plagued with charges that it was politically tainted. Commissioners were accused of being beholden to the lawmakers who appointed them. Then-President Clinton was accused of subverting the process by privatizing operations at targeted bases in California and Texas.

All told, 97 bases were shuttered, 29 of them in California. The Pentagon estimates the closings saved $14.5 billion.

Under the Pentagon’s proposal, the president would have until July 22, 2003, to accept or reject the commission’s findings, but he could not alter them. If he rejected them, the commission would submit revised recommendations to Bush by Aug. 18. If Bush were to reject the revised findings, the process would end and no bases would be closed.

If Bush were to accept the commission’s findings, he would have until Sept. 3 to transmit them to Congress. They would become binding in 45 days unless Congress passed a joint resolution rejecting them.

While such a move ultimately would save money, the Pentagon would have to spend about $10 billion initially to pay for environmental cleanup and other costs associated with closures, Aldridge said. By 2007, there would be net savings, ultimately reaching $3.5 billion a year, he said.

Rumsfeld has said repeatedly that the Pentagon needs to close bases to save money needed to buy new weapons, research high-tech weapon systems and improve housing and other troop conditions.