Democrats Seek Panel to Close Military Bases : Politics: The setup was successful last year in closing 86 facilities. Bush’s list is called an ‘intimidation tactic.’

Two powerful Democrats, seeking to calm a congressional uproar over President Bush’s proposal to close or realign more than 200 military bases, moved Tuesday to take politics out of the process.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) introduced legislation to revive a bipartisan selection commission that was responsible last year for the relatively bloodless closure of 86 bases.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) strongly backed the move as Democrats scrambled to counter what they see as a clever ploy by Bush to head off deep cuts in the massive defense budget.

Aspin, saying “all hell has broken loose” in Congress over the military base issue, charged that Bush can use “candidates” on his list as bargaining chips in budget battles and veto fights.

“This puts a political gun to the head” of any lawmaker who has a targeted base in his state or district, the congressman declared at a news conference.

Aspin noted that Bush’s proposed base cuts affect four times as many Democratic House districts as Republican. Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress and are much more disposed than Republicans to slash defense spending. Thus, Democratic leaders see the Administration as using its military base reduction list to put potential Democratic budget-slashers on the defensive.

In an interview, Nunn said he had suggested to Defense Secretary Dick Cheney a month or two ago that the bipartisan commission be revived to recommend a new round of base closures in light of the diminishing Soviet military threat.

But Cheney rejected the idea.

“It is much more complicated now because the package (of proposed base cuts) is already out there and everybody knows whose ox is about to get gored,” Nunn said.

The senator, regarded as Congress’ most influential member on military matters, said he also had suggested to Cheney that legislation be enacted to streamline the process of reviewing proposed base closings for environmental and economic impacts.

Cheney accepted that suggestion and Bush made it part of the fiscal 1991 budget that he sent to Congress on Monday.

Aspin said Congress might be willing to go along with the streamlining legislation if the Administration agrees to let the bipartisan commission run the base selection process. He conceded that bases need to be closed or realigned.

“There is no question that, if the current trends in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact continue, we will need to close some bases,” the congressman said.

But he acknowledged that Congress will be reluctant to go through another round of base closings, especially after last year’s round produced relatively small savings--less than $700 million annually.

Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae), whose Bay Area colleagues face a number of possible base closings and consolidations, engaged in a sharp exchange with Budget Director Richard G. Darman at a House Budget Committee hearing Tuesday.

“This is an intimidation tactic by the Administration which is saying that, if we move against the defense budget, there will be a lot of pain for us,” she asserted.

Darman rejoined: “If you are going to have substantial troop reductions, you are going to have base closings.”

Meanwhile, Cheney told a group of reporters that he thought there was a good chance of being able to accomplish the base closures and realignments, despite seemingly dim prospects.

“I would put it on the same scale of probability as the Berlin Wall coming down,” he said. “Anything is possible.”

Aspin described the kind of political leverage that he said the base closing hit list gives Bush.

“This is merely a list of candidates for closure,” he said. “The Administration hasn’t even officially triggered the cumbersome legal machinery for base closings.

“The upshot is that the list can be changed. Bases can be deleted or perhaps added. That creates hostages for the Administration. Vote against a veto override, your base is threatened. Simple as that.”

Of 55 military facilities tagged for possible closing, 10 are in California. They include Ft. Ord near Monterey, the Long Beach Naval Shipyard, Los Angeles Air Force Base in El Segundo, El Centro Naval Air Facility and three Navy facilities in the San Francisco Bay area.

Despite the protestations of Democratic leaders, a number of Republicans also are unhappy with the list. They include Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who particularly opposed closing the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. He also said he had not been convinced that any of the other California bases on the list should be closed or cut back.

Staff writer Melissa Healy contributed to this story.