SENATE AGAINST CLOSURES

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

SENATE WANTS BASE CLOSURE STUDIED

On Wednesday, July 9, the U.S. Senate voted two to one against 
authorization for a new round of base closures. Instead, in adopted the 
bi-partisan Dorgan amendment, which called for a study of past and 
future closures instead. If enacted into law, this will delay, but not 
prevent what I consider the inevitable closure of additional military 
bases. I believe the Dorgan amendment was passed - though the main bill 
(the Defense Authorization Act) may be under consideration for some 
time - in the form printed below.

 Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Conrad,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Burns, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Ford, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Coverdell) proposed an
amendment to amendment No. 705 proposed by Mr. McCain to the bill, S. 936,
supra; as follows:

After `Sec.' on page 1, line 3 of the amendment, strike all and insert:

. REPORT ON CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT OF MILITARY BASES.

(a) Report: The Secretary of Defense shall prepare and submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the costs and savings
attributable to the base closure rounds before 1996 and on the need, if any,
for additional base closure rounds.

(b) Elements: The report under subsection (a) shall include the following:

(1) A statement, using data consistent with budget data, of the actual costs
and savings (in the case of prior fiscal years) and the estimated costs and
savings (in the case of future fiscal years) attributable to the 
closure and
realignment of military installations as a result of the base closure rounds
before 1996, set forth by Armed Force, type of facility, and fiscal year,
including--

(A) operation and maintenance costs, including costs associated with
expanded operations and support, maintenance of property, administrative
support, and allowances for housing at installations to which functions are
transferred as a result of the closure or realignment of other
installations;

(B) military construction costs, including costs associated with
rehabilitating, expanding, and construction facilities to receive personnel
and equipment that are transferred to installations as a result of the
closure or realignment of other installations;

(C) environmental cleanup costs, including costs associated with assessments
and restoration;

(D) economic assistance costs, including--

(i) expenditures on Department of Defense demonstration projects 
relating to
economic assistance;

(ii) expenditures by the Office of Economic Adjustment; and

(iii) to the extent available, expenditures by the Economic Development
Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the Department of
Labor relating to economic assistance;

(E) unemployment compensation costs, early retirement benefits (including
benefits paid under section 5597 of title 5, United States Code), and worker
retraining expenses under the Priority Placement Program, the Job Training
Partnership Act, and any other Federally-funded job training program;

(F) costs associated with military health care;

(G) savings attributable to changes in military force structure; and

(H) savings due to lower support costs with respect to installations that
are closed or realigned.

(2) A comparison, set forth by base closure round, or the actual costs and
savings stated under paragraph (1) to the annual estimates of costs and
savings previously submitted to Congress.

(3) A list of each military installation at which there is authorized 
to be
employed 300 or more civilian personnel, set forth by Armed Force.

(4) An estimate of current excess capacity at military installations, set
forth--

(A) as a percentage of the total capacity of the installations of the Armed
Forces with respect to all installations of the Armed Forces;

(B) as a percentage of the total capacity of the installations of each Armed
Force with respect to the installations of such Armed Force; and

(C) as a percentage of the total capacity of a type of installation with
respect to installations of such type.

(5) The types of facilities that would be recommended for closure or
realignment in the event of an additional base closure round, set forth by
Armed Force.

(6) The criteria to be used by the Secretary in evaluating 
installations for
closure or realignment in such event.

(7) The methodologies to be used by the Secretary in identifying
installations for closure or realignment in such event.

(8) An estimate of the costs and savings to be achieved as a result of the
closure or realignment of installations in such event, set forth by Armed
Force and by year.

(9) An assessment whether the costs of the closure or realignment of
installations in such event are contained in the current Future Years
Defense Plan, and, if not, whether the Secretary will recommend
modifications in future defense spending in order to accommodate such costs.

(c) Deadline: The Secretary shall submit the report under subsection 
(a) not
later than the date on which the President submits to Congress the budget
for fiscal year 2000 under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.

(d) Review: The Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller General
shall conduct a review of the report prepared under subsection (a).

(e) Prohibition on Use of Funds: No funds authorized to be appropriated or
otherwise made available to the Department of Defense by this Act or any
other Act may be used for any activities of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission established by section 2902(a) of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) until the later of--

(1) the date on which the Secretary submits the report required by
subsection (a); or

(2) the date on which the Congressional Budget Office and the Comptroller
General complete a review of the report under subsection (d).

(e) Sense of Senate: It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the Secretary should develop a system having the capacity to quantify
the actual costs and savings attributable to the closure and 
realignment of
military installations pursuant to the base closure process; and

(2) the Secretary should develop the system in expedient fashion, so that
the system may be used to quantify costs and savings attributable to the
1995 base closure round.

 [Page: S7124]