May 20, 1976
Page 14809
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for his fine cooperation and assistance in the Armed Services Committee approval of a provision in the military construction authorization bill to establish a more rational and open process for the military departments to follow when proposing base closures or reductions. My colleagues are aware that the House of Representatives approved recently the so-called O'Neill amendment on its version of this bill, which would seek to accomplish the same purposes as our amendment.
The current process by which bases are proposed to be closed or reduced has proved unsatisfactory. The localities involved feel victims of some mysterious process which they neither understand nor fully participate in. The National Environmental Policy Act has brought some openness to the process but the military's performance under NEPA has been the subject of many court actions. These actions have refined the accountability of the military departments in closures and reductions, but much is left to be desired. The military's reluctant compliance with NEPA has created additional personal, social, and economic uncertainty in the areas affected by proposed realignments.
Section 612 of this bill addresses that uncertainty by structuring a specific time frame for review and decision making and by requiring full cooperation and disclosure of the factors in the decision. All concerned parties will have an opportunity to air their views and to contribute to the decision making process; and those affected will have lead time to react to the proposed closing by planning a response to it. Now there is simply not sufficient time for affected and concerned parties to develop comprehensive responses to proposed realignment actions. Section 612 of this bill would establish a time frame for this and for business planning and orderly economic adjustment. Finally, the provision includes the opportunity for Congress to influence the decision if the justification is inadequate.
Mr. President, this committee provision, section 612, to the military construction authorization bill is necessary and will be helpful in assuring better cooperation, participation and understanding of the proposed reduction of Loring Air Force Base in Limestone, Maine.
The Air Force has announced that Loring is a candidate for an 83-percent reduction. This action, if fully implemented will have a devastating impact on the fragile economy of Aroostook County, Maine.
Early this month, the Economic Development Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee held a hearing in Limestone, Maine, to evaluate the economic impact of the proposed cutback at Loring. Although illness prevented my participation in that hearing, my good friend and colleague BILL HATHAWAY conducted an excellent hearing with the assistance of both Maine Congressmen, and of community and business leaders concerned with the Air Force proposal.
I have had an opportunity to review the transcript of that hearing. From that record, and from my own exchanges with the people of the Limestone area, I can state that the Air Force proposal will indeed have a devastating impact on the social and economic fiber of the central Aroostook area which it will require months to fully evaluate and far longer to prepare for. My experience with the Air Force planning, evaluation, and information process since the proposed reduction was announced in March, has been disappointing in the extreme. Their refusal or inability to explain the details or rationale of this proposal suggests either evasion or very poor planning.
The provision we are dealing with here today is a step toward assuring cooperation and sound planning that will al least mitigate some of the more disruptive effects of such announcements.
Mr. President, I now yield to my distinguished colleague, Senator HATHAWAY, who chaired that hearing in Limestone,
Mr. HATHAWAY. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding to me at this time and I fully endorse his remarks.Everything he has just stated was borne out in testimony at our day long hearing in Limestone, Maine, on May 10.
I would like to stress that many people in Maine do not believe that the Air Force has been as reasonable and forthcoming with the answers to people's questions as it should be. The Air Force announced its intentions for Loring AFB on March 11, but aside from that broad statement it has turned away all other queries with the bland assurance that all shall be known and revealed this summer. That may suit the Air Force's convenience, but it hampers my efforts to answer the legitimate questions of thousands of people in Maine who quite rightly have a high degree of curiosity about a decision which has the capability of causing major changes in their lives.
So I support with enthusiasm section 612 of the bill, because it does require the Air Force's reasonable cooperation in matters bearing upon the futures of families in areas impacted by major base realignments.
In other ways, this section articulates what the Air Force already strives to do in reduction or closure situations; namely, to assess the impact of such action upon the surrounding community.
At the hearing on May 10, however, I heard testimony that while the Air Force might at some point save money in its proposed reduction at Loring AFB, the local economy and thousands of jobs would suffer greatly, and in response to those dire needs there could easily be an even greater drain on the Treasury than the amount of money now spent to operate Loring.
But I am confident that with the authority we are now clarifying for the Air Force, these and other economic and human concerns will be treated with far more understanding and cooperation than has so far been the case.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have described the difficulty we have encountered in our efforts to secure information on the rationale for the proposal to reduce Loring. Even details as to what operations and facilities will remain at Loring if the proposed reduction is implemented have not been made available to us. I would expect that under the requirement for full cooperation contained in this legislation, a military department would have to provide available materials and information fully explaining the rationale and discriminators leading to proposed action and detailing the consequences of a proposed reduction.
Finally, I would like to have your assurance that section 612 applies to the proposed reduction at Loring Air Force Base?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my colleague.
AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT PORTSMOUTH-KITTERY NAVAL SHIPYARD
Mr. President, I am pleased to note that the military construction authorization bill which is now before us continues the commitment of the Congress and the Department of the Navy to the modernization of facilities at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. This legislation provides $12,789,000 for modernization projects at Kittery, including $4.6 million for additional work on crane-rail modernization, $6.447 million for machine tool shop modernization, $1.77 million for a test steam facility for the nuclear attack submarine, SSN — 688 Class — and $.565 million for energy conservation measures related to the condensate return system.
Continued modernization in these areas will directly enhance the capability of the Kittery Yard to perform its mission effectively and with maximum economy. The $4,058,000 provided for construction of the naval regional medical clinic at Brunswick represents a major improvement in the medical facilities available for personnel at Brunswick Naval Air Station.
Increasing attention has been focused on the role of our naval shipyards in recent months as we evaluate the capability of our naval forces to perform their global missions. Our ability to maintain and improve our fleet readiness is directly related to our shipbuilding and overhaul capabilities in both private and Government shipyards. The necessity for maintaining capabilities in both sectors has been recognized both in the Navy and in Congress. The modernization efforts at Kittery reflect our commitment to that principle and is particularly heartening for those of us who fought earlier efforts to deny the role of our public shipyards.
The Portsmouth-Kittery Shipyard represents an investment of major proportions in material and human resources for the support, repair, overhaul and conversion of the ships of our nuclear submarine fleet. Portsmouth-Kittery is unique among naval shipyards in that it is the greatest single source of submarine skills and crafts within the naval shipyard complex. Nearly 100 percent of its productive output is devoted to submarine work. In an age of specialists, it is a specialists' yard. The expertise assembled there represents technical competence in more than 60 trades and skills. It is one of only three naval shipyards on the Atlantic coast designated by the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission as qualified to perform work on nuclear-powered ships. All the evidence before us today points to a continuing and growing need for the facilities and skills available at Kittery. This action today will help assure that these facilities are available to effectively and efficiently meet those needs.