June 28, 1965
Page 15011
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of section 608 of the House version of the military construction bill which has the effect of requiring notification to the Congress pertinent to the prospective military base or installation closings, reductions, or consolidations. Such notification would then provide the Congress the opportunity to express its approval or disapproval of these proposed actions.
Much has been made of the base closure issue. I, for one, am fully sympathetic with the needs for economy throughout our military establishments. I am however, cognizant of the economic impact of such closures upon our local domestic economies. In Maine and New Hampshire we have the Portsmouth-Kittery complex of naval facilities which the Department of Defense has scheduled for phase out. I have seen difficult circumstances arise in similar situations in the past..
Along with my New England colleagues, I am working on several approaches to achieve future economic stability for the Portsmouth-Kittery area based upon a revitalized civilian economy. I think this can be done -- but it will take time.
Regardless of this economic problem I believe the basic issue involved with the Rivers amendment centers around an interpretation of the constitutional powers of the Congress with regard to raising and supporting our military forces.
On this matter the Constitution is clear:
The Congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a Navy, to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Throughout the years of our history, the delegation of this Power to the Congress has been upheld.
In the 1875 edition of Blackstone's "Commentaries," it is noted that:
Congress can alone raise armies; and may put them down, wherever they choose.
In this separation of powers issued between the executive and legislative branches, I see no corollary between President Johnson's concern in this general area when he vetoed the flood relief bill for the Pacific Northwest and the subject of military base closings under discussion here today.
In supporting this amendment we do not infringe upon the tactical or strategic disposition of military forces. We simply mean that the Congress will review and determine the total effect upon our national security of the proposed closure of a military facility. It is not only commonsense, but clearly constitutional intent that these military installations and facilities authorized and supported by the Congress shall also be disposed of only with congressional approval.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Kansas.