August 25, 1976
Page 27595
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS — H.R. 14846
AMENDMENT NO. 2219
(Ordered to be printed and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit an amendment to the military construction authorization, concerning the process of base realignments by the Department of Defense. Senators HATHAWAY, KENNEDY, McGOVERN, ALLEN, McINTYRE CASE, SPARKMAN, EAGLETON, WILLIAMS and DURKIN have joined me in sponsoring this amendment. The Military Construction Authorization has been approved by the House and referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee. I am pleased that the committee will be reviewing the bill along with this amendment, which is designed to protect local communities from the devastating impact of sudden base realignment actions. President Ford vetoed an earlier version of the bill, but I am confident that the new language in the amendment provides guidance to local communities without interfering with the authority of the President. The amendment was carefully drafted with the assistance of Senator KENNEDY, Senator HATHAWAY and Senator McGOVERN and many others including Senators who earlier supported President Ford's veto.
The amendment coordinates existing programs for base closures into a comprehensive process which should benefit all affected parties. The amendment brings together in a coherent manner activities which are already required by existing law and administrative directive in an effort to take the "wild card" element out of the existing system. What we propose is that local businessmen and local government officials should know as soon and as completely as possible the full meaning of a proposal for base closure or major realignment. They should know precisely what is proposed in order to evaluate the consequences and they should know what opportunities for positive adjustment are available. As it stands now the prospect of major economic loss associated with a base closure may hang over local people for months, during which the local businessman or town manager has no information and nowhere to turn for help.
The difficulties which many constituents face in attempting to respond to the proposal to cut back the force at Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine, offer a good example of the need for this amendment. Maine people are frustrated and annoyed at what we might describe as a "presumption of administrative convenience." Federal bureaucrats seem to presume that Federal decisions and Federal priorities are by their nature more important than individual or local or even State problems and needs.
The unwillingness of the DOD and the President to make allowances for local economic adjustment problems and the language the President used to support his earlier veto illustrate the operation of the "presumption of administrative convenience" in favor of the Federal Government. Periods of review are described as arbitrary and unnecessary while the President claims the necessity, beyond any military emergency, to make changes, "if and when that becomes necessary."
Military departments are perhaps most accustomed to "the presumption of administrative convenience" because of the discipline and control so necessary in some of their affairs. This sort of discipline should not be allowed to spill over and taint their relations with community leaders and businessmen. Beyond the military, it is a phenomenon which infects every area of government and, I believe, is a major reason that people think the Federal Government is too big, and think at the same time that it should be doing more.
If I took this amendment to town officials and businessmen in Maine and asked whether the Federal Government should consult with community leaders regarding economic adjustment while approaching a decision to remove 250 or more civilians from the community, the response would be nearly unanimous support. I dare say any of my colleagues would encounter the same response. Yet, the generals over at the Pentagon claim that it is inconvenient for them and they will recommend a veto.
If we propose to restore confidence in the Federal system, we shall have to do more than eliminate waste and outdated programs. We shall have to be continually vigilant to assure that consideration of local problems is built into Federal programs and activities in every way possible. This amendment is a small step in that direction. I hope the President will help us take that step. I ask unanimous consent that the language of this draft provision be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the Amendment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT No. 2219
SEC. 612. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action may be taken prior to October 1, 1981, to effect or implement—
(1) the closure of any military installation;
(2) any reduction in the authorized level of civilian personnel at any military installation by more than one thousand civilian personnel or 50 per centum of the level of such personnel authorized as of March 1, 1976, or the end of the fiscal year immediately preceding the fiscal year in which the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of the military department concerned notifies the Congress that such installation is a candidate for closure or significant reduction, whichever occurs later; or
(3) any construction, conversion, or rehabilitation at any other military installation (whether or not such installation is a military installation as defined in subsection (b)) which will or may be required as a result of the relocation of civilian personnel to such other installation by reason of any closure or reduction to which this section applies; unless—
(A) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned notifies the Congress in writing that such military installation is a candidate for closure or significant reduction; and then
(B) the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of the military department concerned complies with all terms, conditions and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, and then
(C) the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of the military department concerned submits to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate his final decision to close or significantly reduce such installation and a detailed justification for his decision, together with the estimated fiscal, local economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of the proposed closure or reduction; and then
(D) a period of at least ninety days expires following the date on which the justification referred to in clause (C) has been submitted to such committees during which period the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of the military department concerned may take no irrevocable action to implement the decision.
(b) (1) upon announcement that any military installation is a candidate for closure or reduction as provided in subsection (a) (A)of this section, the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense shall immediately begin consultation with the President's Economic Adjustment Committee and with other appropriate Federal agencies to determine what Federal programs may be available to assist communities that may be adversely affected by the proposed closure or reduction and to develop preliminary recommendations for—
(A) alternative productive uses of facilities which may become surplus to the needs of the Department of Defense if the military installation is closed or its operations are significantly curtailed; and
(B) alternative employment opportunities to replace those that will be lost if such installation is closed or its operations are significantly curtailed.
Such recommendations shall include proposed specific action which should be taken by agencies of the Federal Government to assist in avoiding economic hardship, and shall be submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate together with the justification required under subsection (a) (C) of this section.
(2) As soon as practical after any announcement is made under subsection (a) (A) of this section regarding closure or reduction, the Office of Economic Adjustment of the Department of Defense shall begin consultation with appropriate State and local officials, provide expert and technical assistance to such officials in the development and implementation of economic adjustment plans, and coordinate such plans with other Federal agencies.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term "military installation" means any camp, post, station, base, yard, or other facility under the authority of the Department of Defense—
(1) which is located within any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Guam; and
(2) at which not less than five hundred civilian personnel are authorized to be employed.
(d) For purposes of this section, the term "civilian personnel" means direct hire permanent civilian employees of the Department of Defense.
(e) This section shall not apply to any closure or reduction if the President certifies to Congress that such closure or reduction was publicly announced prior to January 1, 1976.
On page 42, line 9, strike out "SEC. 612" and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 613".
On page 42, line 17, strike out "SEC. 613" and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 614".
On page 43, line 4, strike out "SEC. 614" and insert in lieu thereof "SEC. 615".
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I join my colleague Senator MUSKIE in recommending to the Armed Services Committee an amendment to the military construction authorization bill which establishes base realignment procedures.
The amendment consolidates practices now existing under law and administrative directive to assure an orderly decisionmaking process. It assures a process which the American people have a right to demand.
There are few Senators who can point to their own State where a greater number of reductions have occurred in military installations. The most destructive aspect of those actions was the failure to insure a full disclosure of the reasons for the action and the failure to permit the local communities adequate time or the necessary assistance to cope with those decisions.
This amendment, which replaces the provision that caused the veto of this bill, has been carefully drafted.
This amendment is an effort to meet the objectives of the original provisions of the vetoed measure while avoiding the pitfalls that prompted what I continue to believe was an unwarranted veto. However, recognizing the concern of many Senators, we have redrafted this amendment in a manner which meets the concerns expressed in the message from the President.
It does not infringe upon the prerogative of the President to decide on major base realignments. It does not significantly delay base closures or reductions. It does assure our constituents in areas affected by these base realignments that they will have a detailed justification of the action.
Those constituents have, and this Congress has a right to know.
Specifically, what does this amendment provide? First, it requires that the Defense Department notify Congress when a military base is a candidate for closure or significant reduction. That is reasonable and fair.
Second, the amendment requires that the Defense Department comply with the Policy Act. That is not only reasonable, but it is now the law.
Third, the amendment requires that Congress be notified when a final decision is made by the Defense Department. That is reasonable and fair.
Fourth, the amendment requires that 90 days expire after the final decision is made, so that communities affected have some time to adjust. That is reasonable and fair.
And finally, the amendment requires that an existing structure within the Defense Department be used to plan and coordinate efforts toward economic adjustment. This provision does not make the Defense Department into a welfare agency. It simply requires that the Department provide vital information and technical assistance to local officials and other Federal agencies responsible for implementing economic adjustment programs. That, too, is both reasonable and fair.
Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has experienced first hand the drastic consequences of ill-defined and erratic procedures in implementing base realignments.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has experienced first hand the crippling economic consequences of inadequate leadtime and cooperation in preparing local communities to adjust to major base realignments and closures.
The people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts have rightly demanded that I ask why.
And the people of Massachusetts have rightly demanded that I work to provide legislation to prevent this from happening again.
This amendment does not ask for much. At the very least, the people we represent are entitled to a rational and equitable explanation of Government decisions.
These provisions are not designed to cost the Federal Government money.
They are merely designed to adopt an open, adequate, and realistic approach to base realignments which would better serve the Nation.