NEWS ANALYSIS : Most Bases on Hit List Lie in Democrat Areas

When Defense Secretary Dick Cheney unveiled a new proposal this week for closing 43 military facilities and cutting back scores of others, congressional Democrats cried foul.

The Bush Administration was disproportionately targeting installations in Democratic congressional districts, they said. They predicted that the Administration would hold the hit list over the heads of congressional Democrats like a club if they deviated substantially from President Bush’s defense budget.

Cheney dismissed the complaints. But a statistical analysis of the Administration proposal shows that whether intentionally or not, the hit list would hit Democratic districts far harder than Republican ones. Cheney himself acknowledged that the list gives the President enormous leverage over individual congressmen in the coming budget battle.

Of the 21 bases on Cheney’s list that are large enough to have major economic impact on their locales, 19 are in Democratic congressional districts. That prompted Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) to call the list an “unacceptable” and “partisan” document in which “Democratic districts are hit and Republican districts get off scot-free.”

Cheney insists his plan reflects purely military judgments.

“I didn’t come down and say, ‘Hit Democrats or hit liberal Democrats and not conservative Democrats,’ ” Cheney told reporters. “If you look at the list, you’ll find that it is in fact the best judgment of the (military) services of what (their) requirements are.”

At the same time, he has conceded the political power of his base-closing list.

“I think it’s a real test for Congress,” he said. “We’ve got a lot of people up there who want to cut the defense budget, and here’s a very simple way to do it. Either they will remove roadblocks to essential readjustment . . . of our base structure, or they aren’t really serious about cutting the defense budget.”

A Trap in Wait?

Prominent Democrats recognize the trap that lies in wait.

“The way they handled it certainly has every appearance of political motives,” said John C. White, former Democratic national chairman. “It says, ‘Look guys, you’re going to have to deal with us this year.’ First it comes out of the blue, it’s laid on the table and then the defense secretary says there’s no final decision yet. It looks like a trial balloon, that it may be negotiable” if a lawmaker has something to offer in return.

No one in the Administration will acknowledge a political motive. A member of a commission that successfully recommended 86 defense facilities for closure in 1986 said there is no way to prove one.

“When we finished our recommendations, we sat back . . . and talked about how you prove politics,” one commission member said. “We decided you can’t do it. You just can’t do it.”

That bipartisan commission prepared a list--by coincidence, according to members--that struck Democratic and Republican districts roughly evenly. That prompted House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-Wis.) to call it “fair and reasonable,” and it set the stage for relatively easy approval.

Several lawmakers, including Aspin and Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), want to establish another bipartisan commission to review the Cheney list. Matsui’s Sacramento district would lose an Army depot in Cheney’s proposed closures.

But for whatever reasons, the effect of Cheney’s proposals is decidedly lopsided. Information released by the Army, Navy and Air Force this week reveals that the vast majority of personnel to be affected by the cuts are in Democratic congressional areas.

Slated for Relocation

Apart from National Guard and reserve personnel, about 95,600 military personnel are slated to be moved if their bases are eliminated, reduced in scope or “realigned.” Of those, more than 87,000--fully 91% of the total--are within Democratic areas.

Of the approximately 60,000 civilian employees on the targeted bases, 93%, or more than 56,000, work in Democratic districts. Many of these civilian workers are not guaranteed alternate employment when their military units are disbanded or moved, military spokesmen said.

Republican-located installations appear to be getting better treatment than equivalent facilities in Democratic areas.

Of seven Army ammunition plants facing closure by 1994, for example, only two are being offered the chance to compete with each other for metal-parts contracts in a bid to survive. Located in Minden, La., and Scranton, Pa., both are in Republican congressional districts.

Case closed? Not so fast, some experts say.

Nearly 60% of House districts are represented by Democrats, and many of the nation’s big military bases are located in traditional Democratic areas of the South and West. According to the House Armed Services Committee, 19 of the nation’s 24 largest bases--which cumulatively account for almost 40% of the servicemen and women stationed in the United States--are located in Democratic districts.

“Congress is controlled by Democrats, the committees that deal with defense are controlled by Democrats, so they’ll have the preponderance of the bases,” said Lawrence J. Korb, a Pentagon official in the Ronald Reagan Administration who oversaw defense installations. “They get on those committees because they have or want a facility in their district, and they stay on to protect them.”

Moreover, although Democratic congressional districts would be hit hard by Cheney’s list, many of the targeted bases are located in states with prominent Republican senators. Among them is Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.), whose gubernatorial bid could be hurt by the proposed closure of 11 installations--bases and smaller facilities--in the state.

Gramm Affected

Other prominent Republicans affected would be Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, whose state accounts for seven of the proposed closures, and Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, whose state would suffer four closures. Gramm, a powerful ally of the Bush Administration, faces a reelection bid this year.

Finally, one analyst said, the base-closing issue could prove to be a political liability for Bush.

The closings “will be an issue in 1990, but they’re going to be realities in 1992” when Bush is up for reelection, said longtime GOP analyst Kevin Phillips. “In those key electoral states, if I were Bush, I don’t know that I would really want very much to win” on proposals to close bases.

Staff writers John M. Broder and David Lauter contributed to this story.

11 CALIFORNIA BASES SLATED FOR CLOSURE

Of the 21 full-fledged military bases that Defense Secretary Dick Cheney proposed to close, 11 are in California. Nineteen are located in the districts of Democratic congressmen.

Military Base Home city Congressman Employees Naval Aviation Depot Alameda D-Fortney H. Stark 35 Naval Air Station Alameda D-Stark 11,410 Naval Supply Center Oakland D-Ronald Dellums 1,560 Naval Hospital Oakland D-Dellums 1,400 Naval Station at Treasure Island San Francisco D-Nancy Pelosi 2,180 Naval Shipyard Long Beach D-Glenn Anderson 37 Naval Air Station, North of Moffett Field San Jose R-Tom Campbell 4,950 El Centro Naval Air Station El Centro R-Duncan Hunter 290 Ft. Ord Military East of Reservation Monterey D-Leon E. Panetta 14,849 Los Angeles Air Force Base El Segundo D-Mel Levine 1,859 Army Depot Sacramento D-Robert Matsui 16

Civilian Base Employees Naval Aviation Depot 4,200 Naval Air Station 1,200 Naval Supply Center 3,300 Naval Hospital 600 Naval Station at Treasure Island 400 Naval Shipyard 5,116 Naval Air Station, Moffett Field 400 El Centro Naval Air Station 99 Ft. Ord Military Reservation 2,294 Los Angeles Air Force Base 1,543 Army Depot 3,505