Congress Passes Plan to Cut Bases : Bill Would Save Billions by Helping Pentagon Close Obsolete Facilities

With strong bipartisan support, the House and Senate approved landmark legislation Wednesday that would help the Pentagon close obsolete military bases and trim an estimated $2 billion to $5 billion annually from the nation’s defense budget.

Sponsors said the plan, which marks the first major effort by Congress in the last decade to shut down inefficient military installations, would result in the closure of 20 to 50 bases. President Reagan is expected to sign the measure into law.

“Today’s vote is a victory of common sense over vested interests,” said Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), who joined with his colleagues in approving the bill, 82 to 7.

“There is something in the heart of every politician that loves a dam, a bridge or a military base,” he said. “They want the money flowing into their district . . . even if it’s for a base that was meant to defend America from Canada during the War of 1812.”

‘As Apolitical as Possible’

The legislation is the best approach to the costly problem because it is “designed to be as apolitical as possible,” said Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who voted an hour later with his House colleagues to approve the bill, 370 to 31.

The bill could have an impact on California and many other states. In recent years, military officials have suggested closing facilities such as Mather Air Force Base near Sacramento, the Naval Air Rework Facility in Alameda, the Naval Regional Medical Center in Oakland and the Army’s historic Presidio facility in San Francisco.

However, members of the California congressional delegation, like their counterparts across the nation, have opposed such closings. In the case of Mather, Congress followed the lead of Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) and forbade the use of funds provided in a 1987 supplemental spending bill to close the base, which has an annual payroll of $219 million.

Under the new base-closing legislation, an independent commission would recommend by Dec. 31 a list of bases to be closed or reduced in size. The commission, created in May by Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci, would survey 870 military installations across the nation. The panel is headed by former Democratic Sen. Abraham A. Ribicoff of Connecticut and former Republican Rep. Jack Edwards of Alabama.

Date for Closure

Carlucci would have to approve the proposal in its entirety or veto the entire plan by Jan. 16, 1989. Congress, in turn, would have to approve--or disapprove--the entire package within 45 days, beginning March 1, 1989. If the base closures took effect, no installation could be closed before Jan. 1, 1990.

Sponsors carefully crafted the bill to ensure that lawmakers could not strip out individual base closures from the overall package. They also empowered the Pentagon to limit the time-consuming and expensive “impact reports” required by Congress before an installation can be closed. In recent years, opponents of individual base closures have used such reports to delay or block the military exodus from their communities.

Although estimates vary, a White House cost-savings commission headed by industrialist J. Peter Grace concluded that a shutdown of obsolete military bases could produce annual savings of from $2 billion to $5 billion. Few in Congress disagree that the cutbacks should be made. But several critics blasted the base-closing bill Wednesday, saying that there is no guarantee the recommendations would be fair and take all factors into consideration.

Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.), whose state contains several installations believed to be prime targets for closure, predicted that the process by which bases would be shut down “is not going to be totally objective and nonpartisan . . . it will have regional biases.”

He also criticized the bill for failing to target American military installations overseas, saying that major budget cutbacks could be made abroad, without jeopardizing the economies of U.S. communities that are dependent on military bases.

‘Politics Will Dominate’

Meanwhile, Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) predicted that “there will be no bases on the list from Georgia and Virginia,” in an icy reference to Sens. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), who led the Senate fight for the bill. “No matter what you say, politics will dominate this process,” he added.

Warner responded that he has no idea whether any military bases in his state will be affected. “But if they are,” he said, “this senator will stand up and face his constituency. I’ll take the heat.”

Of the 870 military installations across the nation, 515 are so small that the Defense Department can shut them down without notifying Congress or filing environmental or economic impact statements. But the remaining 355 bases are more difficult to close.

Former President Gerald R. Ford discovered that in 1976, when Congress balked at his proposal to shut down about 160 bases. Subsequently, Congress passed laws making it difficult to close installations employing more than 1,000 civilians without exhaustive environmental and economic studies.

Staff writer Melissa Healy contributed to this story.