Support Grows for Delaying Base Closings : Military: House and Senate bills would push back next spring’s round of shutdowns for two years.

The prospect of delaying--or softening--another punishing round of military base closings in California has suddenly gathered significant momentum, bolstered by a combination of legislative pressure, budgetary restraints and political pragmatism.

Previous efforts to slow the process of shutting down excess Defense Department facilities have been swiftly defeated. But proponents have new hope and bills have been introduced in the House and Senate to push back next spring’s round of closures--expected to be the most ambitious yet--for two years.

Perhaps more important, Defense Secretary William J. Perry last week issued a statement signaling his concern over the pace and cost of the base-closing process and expressed willingness to request additional rounds of closures to diffuse the impact on states and regions reeling from previous cutbacks.

“We must proceed to close bases in order to save money,” Perry said, “ . . . (but) too much too soon jeopardizes our current program. . . . If closures beyond the amount we can responsibly accomplish in 1995 are required . . . we will seek authority for future rounds.”

Perry’s remarks reflect a growing consensus that a pause is needed in a process that has worked almost too efficiently.

Since 1988, 70 major bases have been ordered closed--21 of them in California.

“Though we need to downsize our military in the aftermath of the Cold War, we need to slow down and catch our breath,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said last week as she introduced a bill to delay the 1995 round of closings for two years. Feinstein offered similar legislation last year, but it was soundly defeated, 79-18.

Several forces are combining to make the prospects for a delay more promising this year.

With midterm elections looming in November, political pressures are building to offer some relief to states, such as California, that have suffered from massive closings.

“It probably would be very popular to delay,” Rep. Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.), chairman of a House armed services subcommittee overseeing base closings, said recently. “Any time we can delay pain, whether it’s going to the dentist or cutting the budget, we will do that.”

So obvious are the potential political benefits that top Clinton Administration officials are carefully avoiding any appearance of promoting the idea, preferring to let Perry take a lead role.

Proponents of delaying the next base-closing round point out that projected savings are less than Pentagon planners anticipated. According to a 1993 General Accounting Office report on savings from previous base closings, revenues from land sales were “significantly less” and environmental cleanup costs were “substantially higher” than expected.

Critics also argue that the base-closing decisions are being driven too much by budget considerations and not enough by long-term military requirements.

“It is unfair to subject many additional communities to the ravages of the base-closure process without more detailed analysis,” said Rep. James V. Hansen (R-Utah), who is leading the fight in the House for delaying the 1995 round. His bill, identical to Feinstein’s, has attracted about 30 co-sponsors.

But strong arguments also are made against tinkering with the base-closing law.

Congress passed the law in 1990 in full recognition of its inherent inability to put impartial base-closing decisions ahead of local political considerations. Under the law, an independent commission, beholden to no legislative district or party, makes the base-closing recommendations, and Congress can only approve or reject the entire list--with no changes.

Allowing political and economic considerations to affect the process would subvert the law’s sound public policy foundation, some members of Congress say.

“My first concern was the manner in which (President Clinton) was politicizing something and was predicated on the notion that it would not be politicized,” said Rep. Dick Armey (R-Texas), a highly partisan Republican considered the father of the base-closing law.

Armey also predicted that members from districts that have already suffered from closings would strenuously object to minimizing the unpleasantness for other regions of the country.

But perhaps the strongest constituency for the law is the military itself. Defense budget cuts have reduced forces by about 30% since 1990, but the number of bases has dropped only about half as much. The uniformed military, hoping to free scarce funds for new weapons programs, opposes any delay in base closings. Military leaders want the process to go forward so they can afford to modernize their forces.

Gov. Pete Wilson strongly favors delaying the 1995 round because the impact of base closings has been so large in California. But for California House members, the issue is a delicate one. Only four members have co-sponsored the Hansen bill--Reps. Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-San Diego), Steve Horn (R-Long Beach), Walter R. Tucker III (D-Compton) and Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon).

“There is a feeling in Congress, from members in a number of states, that we should put off the round to 1997,” Horn said last week. “Personally, I think they’re right. The money is not in the defense budget for the environmental cleanup of these bases (or) to implement the closure recommendations from the last two or three rounds.”

The Long Beach Naval Shipyard--in Horn’s district--barely survived the 1993 round and remains highly vulnerable.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Marina del Rey) has not signed on to the Hansen bill, fearing that delaying base closures will force the Pentagon to cut back on other programs.

“It’s very important to save the L.A. Air Force Base,” said Harman, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, “but it is also important to fully fund a number of defense programs which impact L.A. County enormously. If you take some bases off the table, that throws (defense budget) calculations into chaos.”