July 22, 1976
Page 23367
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, to be safe, because this is an important matter, that we have an additional 30 minutes, with 15 minutes to be allowed to each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield to my distinguished colleague from Missouri.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I am pleased at this time to yield to our distinguished colleague from Maine, and then I shall speak after the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts has spoken.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) in urging the override of this veto.
Mr. President, I congratulate Senator SYMINGTON for his efforts on the military construction bill and join with him to urge the Senate to promptly override the President's veto of this important measure.
The most disturbing aspect of the President's veto was the attack directed on one particular portion of the bill, section 612 — the base closure provision. A provision I had recommended to the Armed Services Committee and supported on the Senate floor in May. A provision drafted very carefully, with Senator SYMINGT0N's support and assistance, to provide an opportunity for full review and analysis by Congress and concerned citizens before a proposed closure or reduction of a major military installation could be instituted. The provision was carefully worded to assure an appropriate congressional role without infringing upon or limiting the President's constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, yet President Ford found this provision "highly objectionable" and based his rejection of the bill on this one provision.
I learned of the President's veto while I was en route to Bicentennial celebrations in Bangor, Maine, and was struck by how contrary this veto was to the spirit of our founders. Their prevailing concern for an open responsive government is clearly served by this provision which the President chose to veto as arbitrary, inefficient, and a threat to his powers. The President's criticisms of this provision are appropriate if the first priority of government is to serve itself but they are empty phrases when the primary task of government is to respond to and serve the people.
President Ford would have been well advised, before he described this provision as arbitrary and inefficient, to consider the situation we face in Aroostook County, Maine, following the proposal to reduce Loring Air Force Base by 85 percent, and view the behavior of the Air Force in this matter from the perspective of those citizens still presumptious enough to believe that government exists to serve them. His concern for the administrative convenience of his own military planners might then have been properly tempered.
He might listen to Martin Krautner, the town manager of Limestone, who testified during a hearing in May that local businessmen in his community would lose between 20 to 97 percent of their business with an average loss of some 45 percent and face a simultaneous increase in local property taxes of more than 30 percent.
He might consider the testimony of Richard McKeon of the Limestone Chamber of Commerce who described the gradual conversion of his community over the last 30 years from an agricultural economy with over 240 farms to a mixed economy dependent on the stability provided by Loring Air Force Base. Those individuals who left farming for jobs at the base or in support of the base do not have the capital it now takes to return and in many cases the land is no longer available but consumed by housing expansions related to the military activities.
Mr. President, I shall read from some testimony that was given by Terry St. Peter, the city manager of Caribou, Maine, in connection with the proposed closing of Loring Air Force Base. If I might read that I think it puts the human element that is involved in these cases very nicely.
I would like to make one other comment, though. I recognize that the military has as its prime function the defense and protection of the United States. I recognize the argument that military decisions cannot be based on the effect of a local economy alone, or even primarily. But I would submit that the military has a larger obligation, and our Government — civilian and military — must consider its actions very carefully. The economic consequences of such decisions could be as drastic, at least to some people, at least to an area, as military or diplomatic consequences in other circumstances.
If the Military Establishment never considered northern Maine to locate a base, if the area did not offer certain advantages for defense, this area would have been none the worse off. People would have lived here, farmed, gone about their routine ways. The local economy would have been in balance.
But that is not what has happened. More than 25 years ago the U.S. Government deemed it wise and necessary to locate a Strategic Air Command base here. It did so, I gather, to establish a significant deterrent aimed at the Soviet Union.
This was fine. The local people, for the most part, welcomed the base here, seeing it as necessary to the defense of their country and enjoying the social, cultural and economic benefits such a base provides.
Indeed, I think many military people at the base will agree — as I have heard them say — the area people made them feel at home and gave them a good reception.
At the same time, many area people, and people who moved to the area, tied their livelihood into the existence of the base. Why shouldn't they? The base was here. Base personnel needed services; people seized opportunities.
Had the base not been here, local people would not have made investments here; they would not have tied their lives to this area. Because the base was here, however, they did.
The military does have an obligation then. It can't dismiss its offspring that were created solely because the base was here, any more than a military man or anyone else can ignore his illegitimate children who were created because of his presence. The condition caused by their presence must not be dismissed as not their responsibility under the guise that it is not part of their mission.
I submit then that the military has a serious obligation to consider the local effects of their proposed action — not just a procedural obligation — and that if they sincerely determine that B-52's at this base are no longer necessary, then they look at other ways that they can productively utilize this base.
The concerns which these individuals and others voiced were very much in the minds of Congress as we enacted section 612 of this bill and are concerns which I and other Members have repeatedly tried to impress upon the Executive in so many matters. The particular working of this provision are detailed in the relevant section of the committee report (94-856) which I request unanimous consent to have reprinted in the RECORD at this point. But the message can be paraphrased quite simply, "Be candid and open and provide the opportunity for people to evaluate, alter or challenge" your decisions.
In matters which affect as many lives as base realignments do, we cannot allow this basic principle to be subordinated to executive convenience or military expedience.
I was further disturbed by the President's veto because I believe this legislation contained a well thought out program of priority construction essential to our military operations within and outside the United States. A significant part of this year's construction is $12,173,000 for modernization of facilities at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, and $4,058,000 for construction of medical facilities at Brunswick Naval Air Station. Both of these facilities play a vital role in our Nation's defense and we in Maine are proud of that role and appreciate the commitment to continuing and improving those facilities which this construction program represents.
The military does have an obligation then, and it is that obligation, Mr. President, to which this amendment is addressed.
The military simply cannot arbitrarily, without explaining its reasons, without justifying its reasons, without taking into account its impact, pull these bases out irresponsibly without sufficient time given to the problem that is created by the decision.
That is all this amendment does. It is reasonable. It was carefully worked out by Senator SYMINGTON and his committee staff, and I think the President was ill advised, indeed, to veto it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the language of the report pertaining to base realignments.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
BASE REALIGNMENTS
The committee is concerned procedures used by the Department of Defense to effect base closures or reductions are not adequately defined. Nearly every base closure announcement made in recent years has been the subject of litigation that is costly and time consuming. The committee, in adding Section 612 to the bill, is seeking, not to unnecessarily limit the flexibility of the Department to realign its base structure, but to put into law the base realignment procedures essentially as they are now accomplished by the Department of Defense. The committee feels that Section 612 will have the following beneficial effects: (1) it sets a specific time table so that everyone affected by a potential action can plan accordingly, (2) it insures that all parties concerned with such a proposed action will have the opportunity to be heard and to contribute to the decision making process, and (3) it affords the opportunity for the Congress to influence the decision if there is inadequate justification. The committee emphasizes that Section 612 is not a means for the Congress to approve or disapprove of every base closure or significant reduction; to the contrary, the committee feels strongly that decisions on base realignments are properly made by the Department of Defense. Section 612 simply formalizes the decision making process insuring that the Congress has the opportunity to exercise its Constitutional obligation with regard to "raising and supporting" the armed forces.
The provision first places a prohibition on (1) any base closure, (2) any significant reduction, defined as a reduction of more than 250 civilian employees or 50 percent of the civilian force employed as of the end of the fiscal year preceding the year in which Congress is notified that such action is a "candidate", and (3) any construction in support of such a closure or significant reduction, until certain actions are taken.
There are four sequential actions required. First, the Secretary of the military department concerned must notify the Congress of a "candidate" action. Notification to Congress includes public notice, notice to the Armed Services Committees, and notice to affected Congressional delegations, as well as formal notification to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. The notification should include the rationale for the action being selected as a "candidate", and the estimated personnel and economic impacts to the extent that they can be determined without detailed study.
A period of at least nine months must then expire during which time the decision making process is pursued. During this period the Department is to cooperate fully with affected parties. The committee recognizes that "full cooperation" is not a readily definable term and that the test of "reasonableness" will have to be applied. The committee expects the Department of Defense to respond to every reasonable request for information that can be accommodated within the time frame specified. The requirement for "full cooperation" must not delay the base realignment process. The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act will pertain during this period and the committee expects each potential action to be assessed in accordance with the Act and that Environmental Impact Statements will be prepared, when required. The committee considers that the candidate base closure and reduction actions announced in late March and early April of 1976 are now in the nine-month study period and that preliminary notification has been accomplished.
The decision of the Secretary of the military department concerned will follow the aforementioned study period. The decision, together with supporting documentation and estimates of the consequences of the decision will be furnished to the same parties that received notice of the candidate action.
Finally, a 90-day period must expire before the decision may be implemented. This waiting period is to give the Congress the opportunity to remedy the decision, if warranted; and, more importantly, to permit those people affected by the decision to make provisions to accommodate the decision.
The committee recognized that such a deliberate process, while appropriate during time of peace, was not tolerable in time of national emergency and has given the President the authority to override the provisions, if he deems it necessary.