Congress’ Unanimity Dissolves Over Base Closures

Despite pressure on Congress to rally behind the president as the nation mobilizes for war, sharp debate broke out in the Senate on Monday over a Bush administration plan to close military bases it deems unneeded.

Seeking to protect their home-state bases, several senators of both parties argued that in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, any steps toward cutbacks should be postponed.

But others complained that many bases are protected by political patronage rather than a rational assessment of defense needs. They also noted that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is pushing Congress for special authority to close obsolete bases or consolidate redundant ones.

“We simply must have the freedom to maximize the efficient use of our resources,” Rumsfeld wrote to senators Friday. “The authority to realign and close bases and facilities will be a critical element of ensuring the right mix of bases and forces within our war-fighting strategy.”

With a vote scheduled this morning on whether to back the administration’s position, it was by no means certain that the Senate would rebuke the president on military policy just two weeks after terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon.

Yet by Monday afternoon, at least 17 senators had joined a movement to remove a Bush-backed provision in a defense bill that would allow the administration to start a new round of base closures in 2003. If the senators follow through with their declared intent, it would be the largest statement of congressional opposition to an administration policy since the terrorist attacks. Scarcely any vote of substance over the last two weeks in the House and the Senate has yielded any dissent.

Among those signaling their intent to vote against the administration on base closures were such senior Republicans as Minority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, Larry E. Craig of Idaho, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Ted Stevens of Alaska. They were joined by several Democrats, including Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana.

Spearheading the effort to halt base closures, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) declared that in a time of new reckonings for national defense, Congress has no way of knowing which bases are needed.

“Because of this uncertainty, it is unwise to begin hacking away at our military infrastructure,” Bunning said. In pointed language, he called the steps toward base closures “foolish and dangerous,” adding that Rumsfeld himself has acknowledged that the military is “uncertain” about what bases it will need.

Still, Bunning’s effort to halt the plan put him at odds with the administration’s position just days after the senator, along with the overwhelming majority of his peers, declared that Congress and the American people “will rally behind” the president.

But plenty of influential senators were lining up behind the administration, including Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.), the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, respectively, and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), the Senate majority leader.

“This will be a defining vote,” warned Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who also supports the administration position. “The president of the United States has clearly asked for the authority” to close unneeded bases.

Warner said he was persuaded by Pentagon estimates that four previous rounds of base closings, from 1988 to 1995, were now saving taxpayers about $6 billion a year. During those years, Congress agreed to shut down 97 bases--29 of them in California--on the recommendation of an independent commission created to reduce the inevitable partisan and regional influences on a process of extreme political sensitivity.

The legislation would set up a new base-closing commission, to be appointed by the president after consulting Congress, but it would give the administration a greater hand in the shaping of the final list of bases to be closed. As before, Congress would have the final word in an up-or-down vote, but it would not be able to amend the list.