Bases on Senate Panel Bill’s Chopping List

A Senate committee Friday approved a spending bill that calls for a new round of military base closings and would pare more than one-third of the new money that President Bush wants for his missile defense program next year.

On a party-line 13-12 vote, the Democratic-led Senate Armed Services Committee approved all $343 billion that Bush sought for the military in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.

But it removed $1.3 billion of the $8.4 billion that Bush has sought for missile defense next year, earmarking the money to be spent on other military accounts.

The administration sought an additional $3 billion for missile defense next year. The $343-billion total is $18.4 billion more than Bush sought in February.

The Democratic majority on the Senate committee, led by Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan, has been concerned that missile defense testing planned by the administration could violate a key arms control treaty, the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

The bill would give Congress a procedure for cutting off funds for any such test if it didn’t approve.

“I want to give Congress a voice,” said Levin, who is the most influential senator in favor of restraining Bush’s missile defense program.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said that, while the Democrats support spending for the shorter-range antimissile systems, they are concerned that the ambitious Bush program could involve tests that violate arms control agreements and don’t want “premature deployment of systems that aren’t technologically proven.”

GOP members opposed the language and contended that it would hobble Bush in upcoming talks with the Russians to work out a new nuclear relationship. They vowed to fight the committee language when the the matter comes to the Senate floor.

Congress is expected to continue skirmishing over the missile defense funding for weeks to come as the 2002 authorization and appropriation bills are debated.

In some ways, the vote suggested that Levin has a fairly strong hand on missile defense, as he was able to keep all the Democrats on the committee on his side. The committee includes such moderates as Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrats’ vice presidential candidate last year; and Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), who in the past has indicated support for a national missile defense.

“That they were able to line up all the Democrats is significant,” said John Isaacs, president of the Council for a Livable World, an arms control advocacy group that opposes the national missile defense issue.

On the other hand, some missile defense critics had hoped that Levin might be able to win over a GOP vote or two, such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the ranking GOP member on the panel, made a last-ditch effort to restore $1 billion of the missile defense funds. But his motion failed.

The missile defense issue is difficult for many Democratic senators, who are reluctant to be seen voting against a major initiative to protect national security. Levin made this vote easier for centrist Democrats by writing the bill to shift the missile defense money to other defense projects, rather than cutting it out entirely.

Overall, the defense bill would represent an 11% increase from 2001. Even with the cut, missile defense spending would rise by 37%.

“We’ve given him the largest increase probably of any program in the defense budget,” Levin said.

The committee vote suggested there may be surprising momentum for a new round of base closings.

Such proposals pose big political risks for lawmakers and have languished for the last five years.

But the committee vote was 17 to 8 in favor of a new round, suggesting that a campaign by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other advocates may be having an effect.

Democrats and Republicans voted on each side of the issue, aides said.

The House, which has been more resistant to arguments for new base closings, put no language on the issue in its version of the authorization bill. But base closing advocates hope that the absence of language in that version could mean that the House will quietly acquiesce to the Senate’s version when the issue goes to conference committee.

The new round of cuts would take place in 2003 and would follow roughly the same procedure as previous closings. It would set up a special commission to consider which bases might be closed or reorganized.

The White House and Congress each would be given an opportunity to accept or reject the commission’s entire proposal.

Rumsfeld and Levin both have lobbied heavily for a new round of cuts, which they contend is needed to raise money for modernization of the military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are on record as favoring a new round.