Tough Battles Expected Over New Round of Military-Base Shutdowns : Defense: Process begins this week. Affected communities have already started lobbying the decision-making panel to save their facilities.

The federal government is about to embark on another major round of military-base closings, with the prospect that this year’s decisions will be more difficult to make--and far more controversial--than those ordered in 1991.

Defense Secretary Les Aspin is slated to send a list of suggested shutdowns to the independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission this week, in time to begin what is expected to be a tortuous round of hearings leading to final decisions sometime in early autumn.

James A. Courter, a former New Jersey congressman who serves as chairman of the panel, says the commission plans to go to special lengths this year to ensure that the decision-making process is fair.

“I guarantee that each community whose base is targeted . . . will get a fair hearing,” he told an audience at the National Press Club last week. “Everything will be public and out in the open.”

Even so, policy-makers and members of Congress, who ultimately must sign off on the commission’s recommendations, said they fear that the pressures--and the potential for a sharp public backlash--are likely to be stronger than ever before.

For one thing, previous base-closing efforts in 1988 and 1991 already have shut down the most obvious prospects, leaving a bevy of installations with relatively little to differentiate them from one another. As a result, the decisions will be more difficult.

For another, although the economy has improved since 1991, analysts said the affected communities may be less willing to accept the shutdowns quietly. Some have lost bases in previous efforts and fear that they cannot survive if another nearby base is closed.

At the same time, both the communities and the affected workers are now more familiar with the base-closing process and are far more adept at lobbying both the commission and members of Congress to save their bases.

Even though Aspin’s list still is not out, community groups have begun besieging the eight-member commission to arrange for conferences and briefing sessions in hopes of persuading the panel to keep their bases open.

“The battle has begun,” said a Washington-based lawyer who represents several of these localities in their dealings here. “Everybody wants to start now. No one wants to risk waiting until the list finally has come out.”

Among bases in California believed to be on some preliminary closure lists are Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Oakland, McClellan Air Force Base, the Oakland Navy Supply Center, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Air Station, the Presidio in Monterey, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the Tustin Marine Air Station, El Toro Marine Air Station and March Air Force Base.

The 1991 base-closing process was sizable by any standard. After months of hearings and testimony, the commission ordered the Pentagon to shut down 34 bases (out of more than 500) and to consolidate 48 others by 1997. Eighteen of the 1991 total were in California.

Although there have been no advance disclosures, early indications suggest that this year’s list will be longer, with a far larger proportion of the facilities coming from the Navy, which had resisted earlier base-closing efforts.

Moreover, the decision process this time will be more complex because the military itself is undergoing a restructuring and because the pressure for saving defense dollars is intensifying under the new Administration.

For example, Gen. Colin L. Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has proposed eliminating seven or eight of the 30 military maintenance depots around the country.

He also has suggested consolidating the initial flight-training schools operated by each of the armed services. Those two proposals alone are expected to result in sizable numbers of shutdowns and consolidations.

In another new element, the commission will begin considering whether it would be cheaper to allow private contractors to take over some jobs. For example, would it be better to close the Navy’s shipyards and have private yards maintain and repair U.S. warships?

And, in a change that could provide some relief for California, the panel will begin taking into account how many military installations a community already has lost before deciding whether to close another one in that area.

Commission officials caution that will not necessarily mean a community will be protected this time around if it has already lost a base, but it could prove to be an influential element in cases where all other factors are equal.

The commission itself has learned something from the 1991 experience and will be altering its own procedures. One change this time will be Courter’s plan for commissioners to visit every target community as a way to help demonstrate that the panel is listening to concerns.

The commission also has revamped its own staff to reduce the percentage of Pentagon staff members in its key review-and-analysis section. The high proportion of military personnel in that section previously led to charges that the panel was too heavily influenced by the Pentagon.

Finally, the panel has pushed through new restrictions designed to heighten pressure on the Pentagon to make sure that the data it provides on bases is accurate and unbiased. It also will lean more heavily on the General Accounting Office for independent advice.

The timetable for the base-closing process is set by law. After the Pentagon unveils its initial recommendations, the commission will have until July 1 to consider that list and to make its own proposals to the President.

President Clinton then will have two weeks either to return the proposals or send them to Congress. If the lawmakers do not pass a joint resolution disapproving the recommendations within 45 legislative days, the commission’s report becomes law.

In any case, the process should be over by Sept. 1.

The criteria the commission must use for deciding which bases should be closed are also dictated by statute. Foremost is consideration of whether a base really is needed, but the panel also considers potential savings and economic and environmental impact.

Despite the potential for controversy, few analysts expect lawmakers to overturn the commission’s recommendations this year. After all, the panel was created to provide political cover for Congress, which was unable to muster the will to cut the bases on its own.