May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6679 

POST-CLOSURE OF MILITARY 

BASES 

Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, on March 

16, 1995, the Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Commission conducted a 

hearing to explore the Federal Government’s response to the economic trauma of military base closings. This 

hearing on so-called post-closure matters was extremely useful in assessing 

the challenges facing communities 

that will lose a base this year, and I applaud the Commission’s able Chairman, 

former U.S. Senator Alan Dixon, for 

his leadership in this regard. 

At the request of Chairman Dixon, I 

am submitting into the CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD various documents outlining 

the positions of several community organizations concerning recommended 

improvements to the process of closing 

and redeveloping military bases. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that information supplied by the 

U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Installation Developers, the National Association of 

Counties, and others, along with a copy 

of my statement at the March 16 hearing, be printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAVID PRYOR BEFORE THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION, MARCH 16, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members 

of this Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the 1995 Base Closure 

Commission on the important subject of redeveloping closed military installations. 

First, I applaud this Commission and its 

Chairman for having the vision and courage 

to address an issue that previous Commissions declined to confront; the issue of helping local communities rebound from the economic trauma of losing a military base. 

By also focusing on so-called post-closure 

matters, some may feel that this Commission is straying too far from its nest. I, however, disagree with this notion. This Commission can fulfill its base closure responsibilities while at the same time, fulfilling 

its moral responsibilities by recommending 

ways to assist those who will be devastated 

by your actions and findings. 

Distinguished Commissioners, we are 

about to complete our fourth and final base 

closure round. We have learned many lessons 

from the first three. The most obvious lesson 

is that base closings hurt. 

Mr. Chairman, like yourself, I am personally aware of the pain caused by base closure 

announcements. The 1991 Commission closed 

Eaker Air Force Base, a B–52 SAC base located in Mississippi County, Arkansas. They 

also took away a majority of the work at Ft. 

Chaffee near Ft. Smith, Arkansas. Now this 

Commission must determine whether to 

close Ft. Chaffee, as the Army has recommended, and whether to close Red River 

Army Depot, located in the town of Texarkana on the Arkansas-Texas border. 

For many cities where military bases are 

located, the military is the largest employer 

and the loss of a base can cause an economic 

tailspin. Such would be the case at Red River 

Army Depot, which accounts for 10 percent 

of the local economy in Texarkana. 

To be certain, base closings are painful. 

The first three base closure rounds have 

also taught us that the task of replacing lost 

military jobs through the civilian redevelopment of closing bases is difficult, costly, and 

often slow in producing good results. 

However, finding a new use for an old base 

is a worthwhile endeavor, and like it or not, 

it is an effort that involves the federal government. 

Since we began closing obsolete military 

installations in 1988, we have struggled over 

the appropriate role of the federal government in the closure, cleanup, and redevelopment of these bases. 

I must admit that our original approach to 

post-closure matters failed miserably. In the 

1988 and 1991 base closure rounds, the federal 

government, including this very commission, 

took a ‘‘hands-off’’ approach. The results 

were disastrous. 

Job creation was virtually non-existent. 

Closure costs skyrocketed. Communities 

threw up their hands in frustration over the 

government’s refusal to provide help when 

help was needed. When this process began in 

the late 1980’s, the federal government was 

the primary obstacle to a quick recovery, 

due to our hands-off approach. 

I believe that instead of standing in the 

way of progress, government should form 

partnerships with local communities and 

work together with shared resources and 

know-how to replace lost military jobs. 

We should not turn a cold shoulder to the 

people who helped us win the Cold War. Base 

closure communities deserve much more 

than a simple ‘‘thank you’’. 

Fortunately, on July 2, 1993, President 

Clinton announced that the federal government would reverse its policy and begin pursuing partnerships with communities. 

The President’s five-point plan for helping 

communities included giving them greater 

access to base property, fast-track environmental cleanup, transition coordinators at 

every base to help cut through the red tape, 

larger federal grants for economic development, and bolder job retraining and transition services for those who lose their jobs. 

After the five-point plan was offered, it became clear that several changes in law would 

be necessary to fulfill the President’s vision. 

As a result, the Senate Democratic Task 

Force on Defense Reinvestment, which I 

chaired, developed the necessary legislation 

during the summer of 1993. 

The resulting legislation, commonly referred to as the Pryor Amendment, was accepted as an amendment to H.R. 2401, the 

Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Defense Authorization Act, and signed into law by the 

President later that year. 

The Pryor Amendment ratified the President’s five-point plan by making major 

changes to the base closure laws that would 

provide communities with desperately needed assistance. A summary of this legislation 

will be submitted for the record with my prepared remarks. 

The primary contribution of the Pryor 

Amendment is its recognition that the land 

and property on closing bases can be a catalyst for future development and economic 

growth. Our legislation gives the Secretary 

of Defense authority to transfer or lease base 

properties to communities below fair market 

value or, in some cases, for free. 

Communities nationwide are currently 

using this legislation to enhance their 

chances for economic revival. Just last week, 

the U.S. Air Force recently conveyed 600 

acres of land at Norton Air Force Base in 

San Bernardino, California at a reduced 

price. This land transfer will create 1,000 jobs 

immediately due to expansions in local manufacturing. I am also aware that the government of Taiwan wants to open a foreign 

trade center at Norton, creating almost 4,000 

new American jobs. 

I am pleased that communities like Norton 

are taking advantage of the government’s renewed willingness to help beat swords into 

plowshares. 

In 1994, our Senate task force was successful in passing legislation in Congress to exempt closed military bases from the Stewart 

B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. 

The task force had been notified that some 

homeless assistance groups were trying to 

acquire base property through the McKinney 

Act even though local communities had already agreed to using the property for other 

purposes. 

This disruption was truly counterproductive and an unintended consequence of 

the McKinney Act. 

Due primarily to the leadership of Senator 

Nunn and Senator Feinstein, we formed a 

consensus for passing legislation to exempt 

closed bases from the McKinney Act. Our 

bill, the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homelessness Assistance Act of 

1994, established a new process for addressing 

local homeless needs in a way that is supportive of local redevelopment efforts. 

I am proud to say that this legislation was 

supported by base closure community groups 

and homeless assistance groups, Democrats 

and Republicans. It was signed into law by 

the President late last year. 

Each of these initiatives—the President’s 

five-point plan for increased federal funds 

and assistance, the Pryor Amendment, and 

the McKinney Act exemption—represent a 

decisive shift in the government’s response 

to base closings. 

The good news for communities that will 

lose bases in this round is that the federal 

government is now ready and willing to help 

you beat swords into plowshares. We are 

much better prepared now to meet these 

challenges than we were in 1988 when the 

base closure process began. I applaud the 

Clinton Administration for its vision in this 

regard. 

At the request of this commission, I have 

devised a few brief recommendations for 

communities that lose a base in this round. 

First, begin planning early for the future. 

Communities that have found the most success are those that embarked on an early, 

aggressive effort to find civilian uses for 

their base. 

For example, when England Air Force Base 

in Alexandria, Louisiana was recommended 

for closure in 1991, the community formed 

two committees. One led the fight to keep 

the base open, the other committee, which 

operated largely in secret, was laying the 

foundation for bringing in new business. 

To date, England has created almost 1,000 

new jobs on base, due mostly to the J.B. 

Hunt trucking company’s decision to train 

truck drivers on the old runways. 

I encourage local communities to follow 

England’s example. If any of the towns with 

bases on the 1995 list chose to begin planning 

early, Congress has given the Department of 

Defense the authority to provide grants for 

such purposes. Also, last year Congress 

passed legislation prohibiting this commission from penalizing towns that chose to 

begin planning for redevelopment even as 

they are fighting to keep their bases open. 

I also encourage communities to speak 

with one voice. Each of the federal programs 

I have outlined are designed to help communities help themselves, but it is difficult to 

help communities that are not unified. 

For example, George Air Force Base in 

Southern California was closed in 1988 and 

immediately thereafter two nearby cities engaged in a power struggle over who was entitled to federal aid and future revenue from 

the base. A legal battle ensued and the matter was fought in the courts for almost five 

years. Businesses interested in locating on 

base went elsewhere. Today there is little to 

show for their efforts at George except 

missed opportunities and lost hope. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6680 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

The government can do little to help communities unless they speak with one voice. 

I have also been asked to make recommendations to this Commission on ways 

to improve the government’s response to 

base closings. 

First, the federal government should continue vigorously pursuing partnerships with 

local communities. 

Every government employee, top to bottom, must be fully committed to forming 

successful partnerships. 

While I am convinced that the top levels of 

government are committed, I question 

whether this cooperative spirit is alive at 

the working level. 

Although we have made substantial improvements, local communities are still frustrated by the service they often receive. 

Every day, government officials and community leaders must choose between working together hand-in-hand or engaging in 

hand-to-hand combat. I believe this Commission could explore ways to improve the cooperative spirit. Let me suggest a few. 

First, find ways to remove the ‘‘government knows best’’ mentality. In most cases, 

government attorneys and government bureaucrats are making key decisions on private sector development issues with little or 

no consultation with local experts who know 

their region best. We must remember that 

communities are in the best position to inform us of responsible ways for government 

to contribute. 

Second, the Commission could explore 

ways to make government more nimble, capable of making decisions quicker and delivering services more rapidly. 

The interim leasing process exemplifies 

the dangers of moving too slowly. Currently, 

the military services are taking about 6 

months to complete a lease agreement. This 

is entirely too long. Without a lease, businesses interested in locating on base go elsewhere. We should explore ways to speed up 

the leasing process and the delivery of other 

important services. 

One suggestion for making government 

more nimble is to empower the workers in 

the field. Give them more flexibility and 

greater authority to make decisions on the 

spot. 

The commission could explore this and 

other ways for speeding up decisions and results. 

Finally, we must not undo the tremendous 

progress we have worked so hard to achieve. 

Specifically, I urge this Commission to caution Congress against cutting funds for base 

closure assistance programs, especially environmental cleanup, planning grants, and 

EDA grants for infrastructure improvements. 

Although Congress has provided the necessary funds in recent years, this year these 

monies are at risk. 

If Congress cuts base closure assistance 

funds, communities would experience paralysis. Economic development would suffer 

and the cost of closing bases would skyrocket. Such funding cuts would be counterproductive, and I hope this commission will 

see the merits of fully funding these base 

closure assistance programs. 

Again, I applaud Chairman Dixon and this 

commission for accepting its moral responsibility and exploring ways to help communities rebound from the economic pain of 

base closures. I thank the commission for 

the opportunity to give testimony at today’s 

hearing. 

THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, 

Washington, DC, February 27, 1995. 

Hon. WILLIAM J. CLINTON, 

President of the United States, The White 

House, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: With the pending 

BRAC 1995 process, meeting the challenge of 

defense conversion is a high priority for the 

nation. While we recognize the administration’s need to downsize the Department of 

Defense’s base structure, arming cities with 

the tools they need to combat the negative 

impact of this downsizing is equally important. 

In 1993, you announced a five-point plan to 

ease the impact of military base closings on 

local communities. Following your announcement, the United States Conference of 

Mayors began a series of steps to assist communities responding to the challenges of a 

military base closures. These steps included 

appointing a Mayors’ Task Force on Military 

Base Closings and Economic Adjustments, 

and holding two national meetings to help 

solicit ideas to improve the process and ease 

the difficult transition following a military 

base closing. 

Copies of our recommendations are being 

delivered today to the BRAC Commission, to 

all members of your Cabinet, and to the leadership in both the House and Senate. These 

recommendations are being released today 

to coincide with the list of base closings 

which is expected to be released tomorrow. 

As co-chairs of the Mayors’ Military Base 

Closing and Economic Adjustments Task 

Force, which represents mayors of cities 

that are currently trying to convert former 

defense facilities to private uses, we would 

like to demonstrate that defense conversion 

can happen. However, in the absence of the 

reforms we have proposed, we are concerned 

that successful conversion will never truly 

be achieved. It is our hope that you will actively support these recommendations, 

which are necessary to ensure that ‘‘defense 

conversion’’ is no longer a buzz word, but a 

reality. 

Respectfully, 

SUSAN GOLDING, 

Mayor, San Diego, 

Task Force Co-chair. 

EDWARD RENDELL, 

Mayor, Philadelphia, 

Task Force Co-chair. 

A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN ON MILITARY BASE

CLOSINGS

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MAYORS’ TASK

FORCE ON MILITARY BASE CLOSINGS AND ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PRESIDENT OF

THE UNITED STATES AND THE 104TH CONGRESS

Foreword 

At the U.S. Conference of Mayors Annual 

Meetings in Portland, Oregon, June 11, 1995, 

the Conference adopted two resolutions regarding military base closings. Following 

our Annual Meeting, Conference of Mayors 

President, Knoxville Mayor Victor Ashe, appointed a Task Force for Military Base Closings and Economic Adjustments. Mayors 

Susan Golding of San Diego and Edward 

Rendell of Philadelphia were appointed cochairs of this Task Force. 

With the help of a grant from the Economic Development Administration of the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, the Conference of Mayors held two meetings to assist mayors in preparing for the next round 

of base closings scheduled to be announced in 

February 1995. Approximately 150 communities were represented at the two meetings. 

The first was held in San Diego on December 

8–9, 1994 and the second was held in Washington on January 24, 1995 in conjunction 

with the conference of Mayors Winter Meeting. 

The attached recommendations are an outgrowth of those meetings, as are the quotes 

that appear in the margins. 

On behalf of our officers, members, and 

staff; we think those mayors and city representatives who attended the two meetings, 

and especially appreciate the tremendous assistance given to us by the Economic Development Administration and the Office of 

Economic Adjustment at the U.S. Department of Defense. Without their help, this 

historic Conference initiative would not 

have gone forward. 

In addition, I would like to thank our cochairs, Mayors Golding and Rendell, for their 

outstanding leadership on the Task Force. 

We also recognize Mayor Jerry Abramson 

of Louisville, past president of the Conference of Mayors, for making this issue of 

base closing a priority for the mayors last 

year, as well as current President Victor 

Ashe who recognized the importance of this 

issue and kept military base closings a top 

priority for the mayors, even though he had 

no military bases in his community. 

Michael Kaiser, our Conference Staff Director, deserves special thanks for his determination and hard work in following 

through to make our first past-Cold War initiative on base closings and economic adjustments a success for our members as we confront the challenges of economic conversion 

in the year ahead. 

J. THOMAS COCHRAN, 

Executive Director. 

RESOLUTION ON BASE CLOSINGS

Whereas, the United States Conference of 

Mayors has formed a military base closing 

and economic adjustment task force, and 

Whereas, this task force has held two 

meetings in San Diego, California and Washington, DC to help mayors effectively deal 

with the consequences of military base closings, and 

Whereas, mayors attended these two task 

force meetings in San Diego December 8–9, 

1994 and in Washington January 24, 1995 in 

conjunction with the Conference of Mayors 

Winter Meeting, Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, mayors call for several actions 

necessary to ease the impact of base closings 

on various communities to return the land 

to economically productive civilian use, including: 

Providing and continuing federal funding 

for communities affected by defense 

downsizing, including,but not limited to, the 

support of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA); 

Streamlining the process for transfer and 

clean-up of military facilities scheduled for 

closure; and 

Securing local control of decision-making 

relating to infrastructure and resources; be 

it further 

Resolved, The United States Conference of 

Mayors will issue a formal report to the 

White House and Congress prior to the next 

round of base closings scheduled to begin 

March 1st to address these actions. 

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MAYORS’ TASK

FORCE ON MILITARY BASE CLOSINGS AND

ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS

RECOMMENDATION 1: SPEED AND IMPROVE

FUNDING FOR AFFECTED COMMUNITIES

Mayors ask that the federal government 

respond to a base closing as the would to any 

natural disaster. Mayors call for federal 

agencies to respond as quickly as FEMA 

(Federal Emergency Management Agency) to 

assist communities affected by base closings. 

Financial and technical support should be 

given immediately upon designation of a 

base closing. This impact aid should be 

awarded without excessive paperwork or 

time delays. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6681 

RECOMMENDATION 2: ELIMINATE HUD APPROVAL

OF LOCAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE MC KINNEY

ACT (I.E., THE BASE CLOSURE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOMELESS ASSISTANCE

ACT OF 1994)

Under the Base Closure Community Redevelopment and Homeless Assistance Act, cities must work with homeless assistance providers and local redevelopment authorities 

to develop a local reuse plan for surplus federal properties. The Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) must then 

approve the plan, and the Development of 

Defense (DOD) then acts in accordance with 

HUD approval. Mayors believe that the requirements of this statute, particularly the 

requirement of HUD approval, essentially 

represents another unfunded federal mandate. How facilities are reused should be entirely a local decision. 

RECOMMENDATION 3: STREAMLINE THE PROCESS

FOR TRANSFERRING TITLE AND CONTROL OF

MILITARY BASE PROPERTY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

As a result of the President’s five-point 

plan and emphasis on community input, 

there have been tremendous improvements 

in the property transfer process. However, 

much more needs to be done. 

Because existing efforts have not been effective, mayors call for the President to appoint an official Ombudsman at the National 

Economic Council in the White House, who 

can respond in a timely fashion, impose coordination and communications between federal agencies, and cut the red tape to facilitate property transfer and economic development of military bases. 

Additionally, mayors call for a revision 

clause for properties considered for public 

benefit. In many cases, the property was 

given freely by the local community to the 

federal government when the bases were first 

built. This property therefore should be 

given back to the local community, not sold 

back. 

RECOMMENDATION 4: DEFINE WHAT CONSTITUTES

A ‘‘REUSE PLAN’’

There are different points of view among 

federal agencies about what constitutes a 

reuse plan. For example, current law requires that a reuse plan be completed within 

nine months. But this time is not sufficient 

if the definition of a reuse plan includes environmental impact studies and related documentation. 

The law should recognize the variety and 

differences among military bases. A standard 

nine month period may be appropriate for 

smaller bases, but it is not enough time for 

larger bases where multiple jurisdictions are 

involved or where environmental contaminants are more difficult to identify. A range 

therefore (e.g., 6–12 months) should be considered rather than a standard nine months 

for all bases. 

RECOMMENDATION 5: QUALIFY MILITARY BASES

FOR AUTOMATIC CONSIDERATION AS ENTERPRISE ZONES

If bases were automatically designated as 

‘‘Enterprise Zones,’’ it would give cities 

many advantages to undertake economic development projects. For example, special enterprise zone designation for military bases 

would allow communities to use tax credits 

for hiring out-of-work federal employees. 

RECOMMENDATION 6: ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT MILITARY BASE CONVERSIONS

COMPLY WITH DUPLICATIVE STATE AND FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS

Mayors call for better coordination between state and federal governments to 

eliminate the needless duplication of efforts 

required for environmental compliance. The 

cost and time involved in trying to comply 

with both federal and state regulations are 

enormous. Many of these regulations are duplicative. The federal government should 

agree to find compliance with state regulations that are substantially equivalent, provided that the state agrees to meet federal 

timetables and provide a single point of contact. 

RECOMMENDATION 7: CLARIFY NATIVE AMERICAN

PARTICIPATION IN THE REUSE PLAN

The law remains unclear regarding which 

entities of the federal government have the 

authority to make claims on behalf of Native 

American Tribes. Some communities have 

spent months on reuse plans, only to have 

them stopped at the last minute by claims 

from the Department of Interior. Mayors call 

for better coordination among the armed 

services and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) within the Department of Interior to 

clarify the rights of Native Americans with 

regard to military bases. 

RECOMMENDATION 8: EXEMPTION/EXTENSION OF

MILITARY BASE CONVERSION FROM UNIFORM

BUILDING CODES, UNIFORM FIRE CODES AND

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE

Although all mayors feel compliance with 

federal and local laws is important, immediate compliance with many federal building 

codes is simply impossible. Most military 

properties are not up to code. Unless the federal government is willing pay to bring these 

properties up to code, mayors ask that the 

time for compliance be lengthened, or that 

compliance be left to the discretion of the 

local governments which are responsible for 

enforcing these codes. 

RECOMMENDATION 9: CLARIFY OWNERSHIP

RIGHTS TO AIR EMISSION CREDITS UPON CLOSURE OF A MILITARY BASE

All air emission credits should be classified 

as a local asset under the law, especially in 

those cities where strict air emission limits 

exist. The federal government should provide 

for prompt transfer of any credits formerly 

used by the military in connection with base 

property. 

RECOMMENDATION 10: REQUIRE THE FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR THE REMOVAL OF

FUNCTIONALLY AND ECONOMICALLY OBSOLETE

STRUCTURES AND FIXTURES ON CLOSED MILITARY BASES

As noted in Recommendation #8, many 

buildings on military bases do not meet 

building codes. In many cases it would cost 

more to fix us these buildings than it would 

to tear them down. Mayors ask that the federal government provide the funding to remove all obsolete structures and fixtures 

from closed military bases. Further, that 

these anticipated costs be considered among 

the criteria used by the Base Realignment 

and Closure Commission (BRAC) to determine whether or not a particular base should 

be closed. 

RECOMMENDATION 11: ENACT LEGISLATION TO

PERMIT DUAL USE OF BASES

Although the law makes reference to dual 

use capability (i.e., military and civilian use 

of base properties simultaneously), the reality is that dual use is largely left to the 

discretion of the local base commander. 

Mayors call for clarification and consistency 

from the Department of Defense to permit 

dual use activities on all military bases and 

that a prescribed method be established for 

communities to actively present a dual use 

plan for those facilities considered to be surplus by the military. 

RECOMMENDATION 12: EDUCATE BOND RATERS

AND INSURERS REGARDING THE ACTUAL IMPACT OF CLOSED MILITARY BASES ON BOND

RATINGS

There is a deep lack of understanding 

among bond raters and insurers with regard 

to the impact of base closings on local communities. Although this is not a federal concern, the mayors would like the federal government to be aware that they plan to send 

a delegation to Wall Street to meet with 

bond raters and insurers to help reduce the 

misunderstandings that result in lower bond 

ratings and difficulties for cities to obtain 

the necessary insurance coverage following a 

base closing. 

RECOMMENDATION 13: OPEN THE FEDERAL

APPRAISAL PROCESS

Many communities have had the experience of not knowing how the federal appraisal of base properties was made, and 

have had no chance to react to it, challenge 

it, or offer an appraisal of their own. Since 

the property appraisal process has a tremendous impact on the local community, this 

process needs to include more local involvement. More importantly, this process needs 

to emphasize the exchange of properties for 

local conversion to promote private sector 

participation (i.e., in cases where the local 

government retains ownership and then 

leases these properties to the private sector). 

RECOMMENDATION 14: PRESERVE FINANCIAL AND

TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY PREVIOUS BASE CLOSURE PROCESSES (1988, 1991, 1993)

Mayors unanimously support the involvement of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce and the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) at the U.S. Department of 

Defense in assisting those communities affected by military base closings and defense 

industry downsizing. The majors call for the 

continued support of these agencies and for 

increased funding, commensurate with the 

impact of the 1995 BRAC round, and any subsequent rounds. 

Additionally, mayors call for special consideration to be given to those communities 

hard hit by previous BRAC rounds and ask 

that the 1995 BRAC decisions take into account the cummulative economic impact on 

these communities. Whenever possible, the 

federal government should consider relocating other federal agencies/programs to 

these affected communities. 

RECOMMENDATION 15: CLARIFICATION OF THE

DEFINITION OF MILITARY BASES

Military bases should be clearly defined 

under the law (i.e., what constitutes a military reservation for the purposes of BRAC). 

In addition, mayors ask that GOCO (Government Owned Contract Operated), munitions 

and other defense related facilities be considered for inclusion under the BRAC law, 

should the BRAC law be extended beyond 

1995. (Note: Currently these properties are 

evaluated under GSA and other federal rules 

and regulations.) 

RECOMMENDATION 16: MAKE FURTHER

REVISIONS/REVIEW OF THE PRYOR AMENDMENTS

The local reuse authority should have the 

right to reserve—prior to any non-Department of Defense screening—all or part of a 

base for an economic development conveyance application. This application could 

occur prior to or during the planning process, but should not have to wait until the 

plan is completed. 

RECOMMENDATION 17: ADDRESS HAZARDOUS

WASTE CLEANUP OF BASES

There is no question that the federal government is responsible and liable for cleanup 

of military bases. However, it is clear that 

the federal government greatly underestimated the cost of cleanup. Since communities cannot develop sites until they are 

cleaned up, it is recommended that the Federal government either allocate more money 

for cleanup or change the regulations for 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

military bases. The federal government must 

adhere to a timetable for clean up, just as it 

imposes timetables on local governments 

and private contractors. Furthermore, communities in all states should be allowed to 

separate clean parcels of land from dirty parcels to allow economic development plans to 

move forward. 

RECOMMENDATION 18: GIVE CONSIDERATION TO

LOCAL JOB CREATION

Many of the jobs created by a base closure 

are in the area of environmental cleanup, 

base security, utility improvements, and the 

demolition of buildings. Priority should be 

given to local residents for these jobs/contracts. Also, special job training should be 

made available locally to ensure that federal 

employees who served the nation so well for 

so many years receive every possible opportunity we can give them, especially since 

many of these people are just a few years 

away from receiving retirement benefits. 

RECOMMENDATION 19: PRIORITY FOR PUBLIC

BENEFIT TRANSFER

Every piece of property should be considered for Public Benefit Transfer/Economic 

Development Conveyance (EDC) before the 

federal government begins selling to the 

highest bidder. As soon as a piece of property 

is identified for an EDC, a community should 

be allowed to approach local financial lending institutions to give interested parties 

quick access to these properties. 

RECOMMENDATION 20: PROVIDE TITLE

INSURANCE FOR FEDERAL PROPERTY

Mayors recommend that the federal government provide title insurance for all federal properties. Given the hazards and unknowns about federal properties, particularly from an environmental point of view, it 

is not going to do a city any good to have 

title to these properties, and then attempt to 

turn around and convey them—whether that 

be to a non-profit or private outfit—only to 

find out that they cannot get the title insured. 

THE AMERICAN COUNTY PLATFORM AND RESOLUTIONS 1994–1995—COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(From the NACO National Association of 

Counties) 

2.5 CHALLENGES AND LOCAL IMPACTS OF BASE

CLOSURE

The adverse economic impacts of military 

base closures are devastating for small or 

rural communities and metropolitan areas. 

Base activities of ten play a dominant role in 

local and regional economies. Many communities have witnessed the departure of ten to 

30 percent of their population as a result of 

a base closure. Economic downturns and 

slow economic growth over the past several 

years have hurt the ability of large and 

small communities to adjust to base closures, particularly when they must grapple 

with the cumulative effects of cuts in other 

federal programs. For an impacted community of any size, the transition of a closing 

military base to civilian use is a long, difficult and costly process. 

Job Loss. The most immediate impact felt 

by a base closure community is the loss of 

both military and civilian jobs at the base, 

followed by secondary jobs, particularly retail and service positions in the surrounding 

community. These job losses then lead to 

population loss as people leave the area in 

search of new jobs. The Department of Defense (DoD) often does not allow local businesses to provide environmental testing and 

cleanup services that would create jobs in 

communities in which bases are closed. 

Eroding Tax Base. Local sales and income 

tax revenues decline as population and incomes drop, and the decline in real estate 

values reduces property tax revenues. This 

erosion of the tax base reduces the ability of 

local governments to provide needed services—job training, job search assistance, 

health services, substance abuse counseling, 

domestic violence prevention, and possibly 

welfare assistance—just as the need for them 

increases. 

Increased Local Government Costs. Local 

governments can incur substantial long-term 

costs as a result of a base closure within 

their jurisdiction. These costs include maintenance of roads, buildings and other infrastructure and provisions for police and fire 

protection on the base. These services may 

be provided by a caretaker force until the 

base property is transferred, but the local 

government will have to provide services to 

the area after transfer. It is important for 

local governments/reuse entities to have the 

opportunity to provide caretaker services 

which would provide continuity and enhance 

transition to reuse. Large portions of base 

property are often available for public benefit transfer for aviation, education, health 

care, public recreation and historic preservation. Organizations that receive base property for these purposes are typically tax-exempt and pay no property taxes to offset the 

costs of local government services. 

Substandard Buildings and Infrastructure. 

Many buildings and much of the physical infrastructure, such as streets and utility 

lines, on military bases do not meet the requirements of the uniform building, electrical and other codes that set the national 

standard for what is required for civilian use. 

Unless the federal government assures that 

transferred facilities are in good working 

order and comply with applicable federal, 

state and local codes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, local governments will face burdensome maintenance 

and renovation costs as they assume jurisdiction over closed bases. 

Declining Real Estate Values. In response 

to the loss of job opportunities and the drop 

in population, real estate values decline, particularly in residential real estate. There 

often is a sudden surplus of housing and a 

deficit of people who want to live in the area. 

This decline in real estate values can be exacerbated by the presence of vacant military 

housing on the base which is perceived as 

adding to the supply of housing. The value of 

commercial and industrial real estate also 

declines. Building space on the base may represent more than a ten year supply for the 

local community. Owners have less incentive 

to invest in their property as real estate values decrease. As a result, local governments 

will likely encounter new hazards throughout their community from under maintained 

and abandoned property. 

Adverse Impact on Local Banks. Often 

large numbers of small multi-family units 

exist around military bases. When the military withdraws, the units are empty, and 

owners cannot pay their mortgages. Local 

banks have indicated a willingness to restructure loans. However, examiners from 

the Comptroller of the Currency will reclassify these loans as non-performing. Regulatory relief is needed during the transitional period to allow an orderly restructuring of these loans. 

Strong, proactive support from the President is vitally needed to assist in conversion 

and reuse efforts. Active leadership on the 

part of the Secretary of Defense and the 

service secretaries is critical. The administration needs to look for ways to expedite 

reuse, reduce delays, and cut costs to closure 

communities. 

2.5.1 Federal Oversight of Base Closures—

Efficient conversion of closed bases to productive civilian uses will require the coordinated efforts of several departments of the 

federal government. Conflicting missions 

within DoD and among other federal departments and agencies have slowed the base 

reuse process and added to the difficulties 

reuse communities face. Congress and DoD 

have made unrealistic estimates of the profits that the federal government will receive 

from reuse of closed installations. As a result, the conversion process is delayed, because base commanders are often forced to 

make economically unrealistic demands in 

the sale or lease of base facilities. 

An Assistant Secretary of Defense should 

be appointed in DoD whose primary responsibilities are to ensure rapid conversion of 

facilities and economic development which 

enhance local economies and the nation’s development as a whole. This senior official 

must have the authority and responsibility 

to administer base closure activities for the 

three branches of the military and coordinate actions taken by federal departments 

and agencies which impact conversions. It is 

critical that this person have the confidence 

and support of the president. This official 

should foster an intergovernmental partnership through continuing dialogue with the 

affected communities. 

A new working group should be formed or 

modification made in the membership of the 

Economic Adjustment Commission to meet 

with the Office of Economic Adjustment. 

Counties, redevelopment districts, states and 

cities should have representatives on this 

working group, and pertinent federal departments and agencies should participate. These 

include Labor, Commerce, Treasury, Health 

and Human Service, the Office of Management and Budget, Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection 

Agency and Small Business Administration. 

The base closure commission should have 

greater geographic representation and representatives from local government. 

The Secretary of Defense should provide 

clear orders to all commanders on installations designated for closure that their primary mission shall be facilitating swift civilian reuse of the installation while minimizing adverse impacts on the community in 

which the facility is located. 

2.5.2 Economic Adjustment Assistance—To 

maximize the fiscal benefit of base closure, 

the federal government must assist in the rehabilitation of substandard base facilities 

and provide creative financing terms to purchasers or developers of closed bases. In addition, DoD must recognize that many facilities, such as airfields, will lose substantial 

value if they are used and unmaintained or if 

key equipment is taken from the facility for 

use elsewhere. 

Economic adjustment assistance, from the 

Officer of Economic Adjustment or the 

President’s Economic Adjustment Committee, is absolutely necessary. Such funding should not be limited to reuse planning, 

but should also be available for special 

projects on a discretionary basis and for preparing strategic marketing plans, including 

development, printing and distribution of 

marketing materials. Funds currently available for planning are inadequate. The cost of 

preparing general and specific land use 

plans, while different throughout the United 

States, exceeds, in every instance, the 

amount of funds available for reuse planning 

from the Office of Economic Adjustment. 

‘‘Bridge funding’’ to enable communities to 

assume responsibility for large airfields and 

other military facilities with civilian uses 

should continue for several years after closure, until the facilities can begin to generate revenue. To preserve taxpayers’ investment in these assets, facilities should be 

maintained, and equipment that is essential 

for their functioning should remain intact 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6683 

for long-term economic development following conversion. 

To assist with economic stimulus, the federal government (and state governments) 

should enter into joint marketing agreements with local governments to promote 

development of these properties. 

Continued support for projects related to 

base closure through the Economic Development Administration remains important. Affected local governments should be eligible 

for federal dollars which can be used for local 

priorities, including making loans or grants 

to businesses that utilize former bases. Any 

loan repayments should go into a revolving 

loan fund for use by local governments in financing additional conversion activities. 

DoD must explore alternative methods to 

finance the transfer of bases out of federal 

ownership and the development of new, productive uses on the property. Financing 

often can be provided without expense to the 

federal government merely by extending the 

time period during which an installment purchase of a facility must be paid. Coordinating the disposition and reuse plans with 

funding available through other federal departments, such as Labor and Transportation, will allow the federal government to 

obtain a greater overall, long term value for 

closed bases while mitigating adverse local 

impacts. 

Legislation is needed to allow economic 

development activities to qualify as a public 

benefit transfer. The cost of appraisals 

should qualify for these funds. 

The federal statute which prohibits those 

who acquire federal property from disposing 

of it at a profit should be modified, possibly 

with the federal government sharing a portion of the profit. 

Allow local reuse authorities to issue taxexempt industrial development bonds, to 

serve as business incentives and provide financial support to local closure authorities 

during the conversion phase. 

Closing military bases should be made foreign trade zones and federal enterprise zones 

with the associated tax advantages and investment credits to enable them to attract 

private investment. Distressed base closure 

communities should not have to compete for 

zone designation with other distressed communities. If authorizing legislation limits 

the number of zones, then base closure sites 

should be designated in addition to designations for other areas. 

Any national infrastructure financing programs should set aside funds for infrastructure improvements on former military installations. Bases slated for closure often 

have substandard and poorly maintained 

streets, sewers and other utility systems. Infrastructure improvement costs can create 

insurmountable obstacles to reuse of bases. 

Conversely, without infrastructure improvements, the federal government will face increasingly costly maintenance costs after 

base closure. 

Local contractors should have preference 

in providing environmental remediation. 

Local government/reuse entities should have 

preference in providing interim management 

and caretaker services. 

2.5.3 Property Transfer—It is imperative to 

design and implement a review and transfer 

process that is consistent among the operating branches within DoD. This needs to be 

responsive to community reuse objectives 

and provide prompt transfer of property to 

accomplish early economic recovery. 

There has been only one transfer of a 

major base property pursuant to the 1988 or 

1991 base closure laws, out of 200 eligible 

properties. Only interim leases have been approved, most of which have been limited to 

one year, and all of which can be canceled 

with a 30 day notice. This has been one of the 

greatest obstacles to local planning and development. It is difficult to recruit private 

businesses to locate on a base when the local 

governing entity can only offer a one year 

lease. 

The pace at which leases are approved is 

too slow. There have been instances where 

lease applications have been delayed for 

more than nine months. DoD should process 

interim lease applications within 60 days as 

required by law. 

DoD should act swiftly to implement PL. 

102–426. This bill requires prompt identification and transfer of uncontaminated parcels 

of base property. ‘‘Parcelization’’ of bases 

with contamination on them has been held 

up by the Superfund law which forbids the 

transfer of federal property on the Superfund 

list until the contamination has been remediated. The law clarifies that 

uncontaminated parcels of bases on the 

Superfund list may be transferred before 

cleanup of contaminated parcels has been 

completed. 

Negotiated sales of base property should 

require congressional review only if valued 

at $1 million or more. Current law requires 

congressional review for sales worth $100,000 

or more. 

The McKinney Homeless Assistance Act requires that all federal property, including 

closing bases, be made available to providers 

for the homeless. The enormous number and 

size of public properties on bases were not 

envisioned when this act was drafted. In 

order to eliminate any possibility of delay to 

reuse efforts which result from the ongoing 

nature of making federal property available 

to the homeless, legislation should be introduced which limits the screening period for 

McKinney Act uses on closed bases to the 

same screening period as federal agencies. 

Key ‘‘person property’’ items such as machinery, equipment, and rolling stock should 

also be made available to assist in local economic recovery. 

DoD should reexamine the policy which 

precludes the demolition of buildings prior 

to transferring bases. Many buildings are unusable because, for example, they contain asbestos, or do not comply with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act and state and local 

building codes. 

Interim agreements should give local governments preference in exercising police 

powers and rendering caretaker services. The 

federal government should reimburse local 

governments for maintenance costs. 

2.5.4. Indemification—The threat of catastrophic liability for environmental contamination has seriously dampened efforts 

to attract private businesses to locate on 

closed military bases, and directly threatens 

local governments with potential liability. 

Reuse of facilities will often require public 

and private financing for infrastructure, 

buildings and business operations. Local governments and businesses will not find lenders 

willing to invest in construction of new facilities on closed bases unless lenders are assured that the federal government will be responsible for damages arising from toxic 

contamination caused by DoD. Indemnification is a waiver of sovereign immunity that 

places the federal government in the same 

position as any other owner of contaminated 

property. By waiving its sovereign immunity 

rights, the federal government will enhance 

the value of its property by making new investment possible. 

DoD should expeditiously develop policy or 

regulations to permit interim leasing without demanding waiver of rights to indemnification against environmental liability. 

2.5.5. Environmental Cleanup—Environmental contamination on bases must be 

cleaned to a standard that not only protects 

human health, but also permit reuse of the 

facility in accordance with locally generated, legally defensible land use plans 

without the local agencies or private sector 

having to incur additional cleanup costs in 

order to reuse the facility. Local jurisdictions must have the opportunity to be active 

participants in all phases of environmental 

cleanup, including evaluation of site conditions and selection and implementation of 

remediation programs. The timetable for environmental impact statements, 

parcelization, and prioritization should be 

coordinated with civilian reuse plans. 

Federal cleanup programs should provide 

training and employment of local residents 

to help mitigate the loss of jobs caused by 

base closure. Use of local contractors should 

improve compliance with local and state as 

well as federal standards. Funding for environmental cleanup at closing bases should 

continue at levels that support timely transfer and conversion. 

2.5.6 Fair Market Value—Legislation is 

needed to enable DoD to transfer closing 

base property to local interests at no cost, 

reduced cost, or through flexible payment 

methods according to local conditions. Congress and DoD have made unrealistic estimates for profits the federal government will 

receive from reuse of closed installations. As 

a result, the conversion process is delayed, 

because base commanders are often forced to 

make economically unrealistic demands in 

the sale or lease of base facilities. 

Currently, leases and sales of base property 

are required to be at ‘‘fair market value’’

even in cases where the purchasing community provided the original land to the military at no cost. This requirement hurts the 

ability of communities to attract new private sector jobs and investments and increases the financial burden on the base closure community. 

The time period over which local governments must amortize loans to purchase these 

facilities is too short. Flexible payment 

methods could include installation sales 

with payment commencing after reuse operations have begun to show a positive cash 

flow. Alternatively, a Federal Finance Bank 

could be authorized to purchase federally 

guaranteed bonds to be issued by communities for local acquisition of closing base facilities with minimal down payments and at 

low interest rates. 

The basis of market value is reuse. Highest 

and best reuse must be physically possible, 

appropriately supported, financially feasible, 

produce the highest monetary return or 

serve a public or institutional purpose. The 

appraisal of military bases is complex and 

challenging. The above definition of highest 

and best use allows considerable flexibility. 

A preappraisal agreement between the parties of negotiation would bridge a communication gap in the appraisal process. Areas 

of agreement may be (1) reuse assumptions, 

(2) existing physical conditions (including infrastructure), (3) community building code 

standards required for reuse, and (4) conversion funding resources. Properly communicated, realistic professional differences of 

opinion can bring about positive insight and 

assist in identifying the best alternatives 

and resolving issues. On the other hand, values based on limited knowledge, unrealistic 

assumptions, or simply widely different 

reuse considerations can cause communication gaps and negotiation roadblocks. A professional appraisal report that appropriately 

and realistically addresses existing physical, 

functional and market conditions and recognizes the gap (costs) between these existing 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 15, 1995 

conditions and the ultimate reuse is a valuable resource to assist in disposition/acquisition negotiations. To understand an appraiser’s opinion of value, all premises, assumptions, and projections that directed the appraiser should be stated. 

The appraisal process tends to inflate the 

value of sites by failing to consider certain 

factors. For example, the fair market value 

of an interim lease will go down after the 

base closes and the available supply of building space skyrockets. The federal government, however, uses the pre closure figure 

for the value. The government also should 

consider the cost of holding and maintaining 

real estate when evaluating the present 

value of base property. For example, if a base 

could be sold today for $1.5 million, or four 

years from now for $10 million, which is the 

better deal for the federal government if the 

annual caretaker cost of the property is $2.5 

million? A discounted cash flow analysis 

should be used. 

Local entities and the military should do 

joint appraisals. At a minimum the federal 

government should share appraisal instructions with localities so there is a common 

basis in assigning value to the cost of such 

things as asbestos removal and correcting 

building code violations. Appraisers should 

be instructed to value land based on uses 

that are consistent with locally developed 

land use plans even if the appraiser concludes that such use is not technically 

‘‘higher and best use’’. As background, the 

‘‘higher and best use’’ standard is appropriate in circumstances in which land use 

plans have not been modified for a long time 

and the appraiser concludes that there is a 

realistic chance of obtaining local government approval of more intensive uses of the 

site. Local government will be involved in 

the reuse plans of any closed base and they 

will rezone the base in the context of an 

overall strategy to mitigate the adverse impact of the closure. It is inappropriate, in 

that context, for an appraiser to step in and 

suggest that the community or a business 

cooperating with the community pay a higher price because the appraiser believes that 

there are other uses to which the land could 

be put. 

2.5.7 Job Retraining—The Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Act 

(EDWAA) administered under Title III of the 

Job Training Partnership Act currently 

serves displaced workers including those displaced due to defense downsizing. JTPA programs should continue to be utilized as the 

framework of any new comprehensive retraining program for dislocated workers. 

The current EDWAA program would be 

greatly enhanced by making several changes 

at the state and federal level: 

The administration should continue to target discretionary job training funds to those 

areas in which military bases have been 

closed or are in the process of closure. 

The current application process for receiving these funds should be streamlined. Eliminating the lengthy delays in this process 

would increase the ability of local service 

providers to administer this program to dislocated military and civilian personnel on a 

timely basis. 

Local entities should be given increased 

flexibility in the types of retraining programs they deem appropriate to operate and 

be able to bypass the current maze of approvals necessary at the state and federal level. 

[From the National Commission for 

Economic Conversion & Disarmament] 

COMMISSION CALLS FOR MORE BASE CLOSURES

AND ADVANCE PLANNING IN CURRENT ROUND

A SMALLER FOURTH ROUND? 

On January 24, Defense Secretary William 

Perry announced that the next and fourth 

round of base closings ‘‘will not be as large 

as the last one.’’ This represents a sharp 

change from previous plans to make the next 

round larger than the previous three combined. 

Secretary Perry claims the closure process 

is being slowed by the rising costs of base 

closure and the current shortage of funds. 

Yet ‘‘postponing closures only means the 

likelihood of greater closure costs in the future,’’ said ECD Executive Director Greg 

Bischak, Ph.D., ‘‘and the delay of savings 

that could be realized from these closures.’’

Driving the base closure process is the goal 

of saving money while bringing the base 

structure in line with the Administration’s 

force structure plans. These intentions have 

come up against the political pressures provided by the ’96 elections as well as shortterm budgetary pressures—because it takes 

money to make money through the base closure process. Yet ‘‘closing fewer bases now 

will only exacerbate the current mismatch 

between an extravagant base structure and a 

smaller force structure,’’ said Dr. Bischak. 

‘‘The far-flung base structure of the Armed 

Services is still not scaled to the reduced 

threats of the post-Cold War world. The taxpayer still pays too much and more 

downsizing needs to be done.’’

FORCE STRUCTURE REDUCTIONS SHOULD SHAPE

CURRENT ROUND

In the last three rounds of base closures, 

over 70 major bases were selected for closure. 

The majority of the 20 bases targeted for closure in 1988 in the first round were Army 

bases. During the 1990 round the Air Force 

closed 13 and the Navy nine major installations. In the 1993 round the Navy was targeted for the bulk of the closures. 

Planned reductions in the 1995 round will 

likely focus on downsizing bases home to 

heavy armor, bomber wings, Air National 

Guard tactical air wings and Navy air maintenance depots and ship repair facilities. A 

number of DoD laboratories sited on bases 

may be affected by the base closure round. 

‘‘Additional force structure reductions are 

also possible without compromising this nation’s security,’’ said Dr. Bischak. This 

would permit additional base closures, for 

additional savings. According to Commission 

estimates, over $3.5 billion could be saved 

from the defense budget on an annual basis 

by closing unneeded additional bases. 

ADVANCE PLANNING IS NEEDED

Efforts to keep bases off the final list constitute the predominant strategy of communities facing possible closure. According to 

Bischak, ‘‘In past base closure rounds, a 

‘Save the Base’ impulse led communities 

across the nation to spend millions of dollars 

to save bases while not spending a dime on 

promoting conversion.’’ In the last round of 

closures, Charleston, South Carolina spent 

over a million dollars to protect five installations, but managed to save only the local 

Navy hospital. California mounted a fullcourt press costing the state millions of dollars. Already this year San Antonio has commitments worth $250,000 to save Brooks Air 

Force Lab, Kelly Air Force Base and other 

local facilities. Oklahoma has raised $200,000 

to save Tinker Air Force Base and Utah has 

already spent $300,000 to protect Hill Air 

Force Base and plans to spend another 

$300,000 before the final decision is made. 

A Commission report by Catherine Hill 

with James Raffel, ‘‘Military Base Closures 

in the 1990s: Lessons for Redevelopment,’’

concludes from a review of past base closure 

experiences that communities doing the 

most advance planning reap the greatest returns in jobs and economic opportunity. 

Those communities on the hit list in this 

round of closures should take advantage of 

protection offered by the FY95 Defense Authorization Act which allows communities to 

do advance planning without prejudicing 

them for closure in the decision-making 

process. 

BASE CLOSURE CONVERSION-RELATED PROGRAMS 

[Dollars in millions] 

Department 

Fiscal year— 

Change Percent 1995 

appro. 

1996 

request 

Defense Department: 

Military Personnel Assistance ..... $985 $1,146 $161 16 

Community Assistance (OEA) 1 ... 39 59 20 51 

Base Closure Implementation .... 2,809 3,897 1,088 39 

Environmental Restoration ......... 2,298 2,087 ¥211 ¥9 

Commerce Department: 

EDA Defense Conversion ............. 120 120 ............ ............

Labor Department: 

Dislocated Defense Worker Assistance 2 ................................ 178 178 ............ ............

Grand total ............................. 6,429 7,487 1,058 16 

1 Does not include JROTC or National Guard youth programs. 

2 Numbers based on White House, National Economic Council estimates of 

dollars going to defense workers from general dislocated workers assistance 

funds (Title III, JTPA; FY95 appropriation for this program was $1.3 billion; 

FY96 request is $1.4 billion). 

BASE CLOSURE CONVERSION-RELATED FUNDING

In addition to legal protection for advance 

planning, funds are available for communities affected by proposed base closures that 

wish to pursue planning for economic development, worker retraining, and facility conversion. DoD was appropriated $2.8 billion for 

base closure implementation for FY95. The 

$2.3 billion appropriated for environmental 

restoration of Defense Department facilities 

may be the most important investment, because toxic contamination remains the 

greatest obstacle to base redevelopment. According to Bischak, ‘‘Up-front investments 

are required to enable rapid and environmentally responsible economic development.’’

In addition, the assistance provided by the 

Defense Department’s Office of Economic 

Adjustment (OEA) is invaluable in providing 

technical assistance and grants to communities seeking to do advance planning. The 

implementation of communities’ conversion 

planning is made possible by grants from the 

Economic Development Administration 

within the Commerce Department. These 

grants provide substantial funds for a range 

of services including: infrastructure development, technology initiatives, revolving loan 

funds and other economic development strategies. These funds are of vital importance 

because they leverage private sector and 

local public sector dollars for targeted investments to alleviate the sudden economic 

dislocation caused by base closures. 

Funds from the Labor Department’s Dislocated Worker Program and the Defense Department’s Military Personnel Transition 

Assistance Program round out the palette of 

available assistance for communities and 

workers facing base closures. Both defense 

industry workers and employees of closed 

bases are eligible for assistance under the 

$178 million going to dislocated defense 

worker retraining, and active duty personnel 

and civilian base employees are eligible for 

military transition assistance. 

SUCCESSFUL CONVERSION MODELS

Communities at risk should look to successful models of conversion for instruction 

and encouragement. Both past and current 

bases possess assets of considerable potential 

use to the surrounding communities. Reuse 

is largely conditioned by the nature of the 

facilities on the base. Such facilities may include airfields, hospitals, or clinics, child 

care facilities, stores, theaters, recreational 

facilities and housing. Successful base reuse 

usually results from a community’s ability 

to identify the comparative advantages of its 

regional economy and connect its base redevelopment effort to them. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 15, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6685 

Urban base reuse is generally easier than 

rural base reuse given a city’s economic diversification and demand for the real estate 

and services that a redeveloped base might 

provide. As an example, the transformation 

of McCoy Air Force Base in Orlando into an 

air cargo transport hub brought about the 

employment of 6,000 people, easily compensating for the loss of 395 jobs. 

Rural base reuse can also be successful 

given the proper planning. Presque Isle, 

closed in 1961, was located in an isolated 

rural location. However, the local leadership 

was able to transform the base into an economically diverse center by planning strategically, inviting outside companies to the 

site and prorating rent to the number of new 

jobs created. 1,302 jobs were created with new 

industrial tenants including Indian Head 

Plywood, Arrostook Shoe Company, International Paper, Converse Rubber Company, 

Northeast Publishing and a vocational training school. 

Industrial parks are a popular option for 

base reuse. However, communities should be 

conscious of the wide variety of other possible projects. Air Force bases and naval air 

stations remain clear candidates for new municipal or regional airports and air cargo 

hubs. Redevelopment of former bases as 

schools has been a successful model with 47 

bases closed in the 1960s and 1970s now having schools on them. And while using bases 

for low-income and homeless housing does 

not raise money through sale, it does achieve 

other important national objectives while allowing local governments to acquire the 

property at little or no cost. Other government uses are also possible, including administrative facilities, hospitals, postal distributions centers and offices, rehabilitation centers and prisons. Often, bases are large 

enough to accommodate public services and 

private developments under a ‘‘mixed-use’’

strategy. 

INGREDIENTS OF SUCCESSFUL BASE CONVERSION

(1) Advance Planning; Communities should 

take full advantage of the protection provided by the law as well as the assistance 

provided by the Office of Economic Adjustment in the Defense Department to plan for 

base reuse before a closure occurs. They 

must evaluate the comparative advantages 

of alternative civilian purposes and the 

means of linking these economic development strategies with retraining options. 

(2) The programs responsible for funding 

advance planning, economic development 

and retraining must all be funded sufficiently to provide adequate resources to support the base closure process. 

(3) These programs, spread out over the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Labor, 

must be coordinated so that they can deliver 

comprehensive services efficiently. 

(4) Cleanup funding should come from the 

DoD budget to discourage further pollution. 

The Federal Facilities Compliance Act and the 

federal agreements signed by the DoD, the 

EPA and State governments give State officials authority to enforce hazardous waste 

laws by levying fines and exacting other penalties on the Federal Government for lack of 

compliance with environmental regulations. 

Governor Pete Wilson of California recognized this right in a recent letter to Defense 

Secretary Perry stating, ‘‘California expects 

DOD to comply with the federal/state cleanup agreements it has signed at California 

military bases. DOD is contractually obligated to seek sufficient funding to permit 

environmental work to proceed according to 

the schedule contained in those agreements. 

California will not hesitate to assert its 

right under those agreements to seek fines, 

penalties and judicial orders compelling DOD 

to conduct required environmental work.’’

(5) There are many stakeholders in base 

reuse development. Local, state and federal 

government officials, private developers, 

universities, and local citizens and citizens 

groups all have a valuable role to play. No 

single party should be excluded or allowed to 

dominate the process. An active government 

role is essential to ensure that in instances 

where reuse is feasible, conversion plans 

carefully weigh the interests of private developers and the community’s social and economic needs. 

Since the bases are government property, 

the opportunity to use these former bases for 

public purposes should not be overlooked. A 

concreted planning effort, informed by an 

understanding of the differences among 

bases, is essential. With federal leadership 

and local activism, the downsizing of the 

military base structure could produce a host 

of assets to spur new economic development 

in communities across the nation. 

f 

IS AMERICA GOING TO LEAD? 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, there is 

an important question hanging over us 

like Damocles’ sword today. It will 

loom over us as we consider the budget. 

It will confront us directly as we debate the reorganization of our foreign 

affairs agencies. The question is, Is 

America going to lead? 

This is not a question that keeps people awake at night anymore. After all, 

people ask, we won the cold war, did we 

not? There is no longer any real threat 

to America’s security, is there? 

Mr. President, there have been few 

times in history when the United 

States can less afford to be complacent. The world today is anything but 

a predictable, peaceful place. While we 

are fortunate that the military threat 

to our security has receded, it is more 

true today than ever that American 

prosperity is linked to conditions in 

the rest of the world. 

Millions of American jobs depend 

upon persuading other countries to 

open their borders of U.S. exports, and 

helping them raise their incomes so 

they can afford to buy our exports. Ensuring that we have clean air and clean 

water depends upon international action to protect the environment. Keeping Americans healthy depends on 

joint action to fight the spread of infectious diseases in other countries. 

Imagine if we are unable to contain the 

recent outbreak of a deadly virus in 

Zaire—very quickly you would see Senators clamoring for more aid to stop it 

from reaching our shores. 

Stemming the flow of illegal immigrants and refugees to the United 

States depends on promoting democracy and economic development in the 

countries from which the refugees are 

fleeing. These are just a few examples 

of why we continue to have an enormous stake in what happens in the rest 

of the world. 

Fortunately, the United States, the 

only remaining superpower with the 

largest economy and the most powerful 

military, can influence what happens 

in the rest of the world. 

But influence is not automatic. It requires effort. And it costs money. 

Perhaps most important, the United 

States needs to maintain its leadership 

in and its financial contributions to 

the international organizations that 

make critical contributions to promoting peace, trade, and economic development. Organizations like the 

United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary 

Fund, and the World Bank, to name a 

few. These organizations are the glue 

that holds our international system together. They may not always act in 

precisely the way we would like, but 

they are dedicated to spreading the 

values that Americans hold dear—freedom, democracy, free enterprise, and 

competition. 

The American people also want to 

help alleviate the suffering of people 

facing starvation or other calamities, 

like refugees fleeing genocide in Rwanda, or the hundreds of thousands of victims of landmines. 

Finally Mr. President, the polls show 

that most Americans believe we should 

help developing countries and countries making the transition from communism to democracy and market 

economies. It is through this aid that 

we fight poverty, that we stabilize population growth, that we educate people 

who have never known anything except 

tyranny in the basics of representative 

government, and that we encourage 

countries to open their economies to 

trade and competition. 

We do these things because it is in 

our national interest. Yet, in the rush 

to reduce Federal spending some are 

dismissing spending on international 

affairs as a luxury we cannot afford, or 

even a waste. 

The United States cannot pay these 

costs alone, but no one is asking us to. 

The United States now ranks 21st 

among donors in the percentage of national income that it devotes to development assistance. Twenty-first. Right 

behind Ireland. We aren’t even the 

largest donor in terms of dollar 

amount anymore. Japan, which has a 

keen sense of what is in its national interest, has passed us. 

Six years ago, when I became chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, the foreign operations 

budget was $14.6 billion. We cut that 

budget by 6.5 percent, not even taking 

into account inflation—while the remainder of the discretionary spending 

in the Federal budget increased by 4.8 

percent. Those cuts were a calculated 

response to the end of the cold war. 

Foreign aid today is substantially less 

than it was during the Reagan and 

Bush administrations. Our entire foreign aid program, including funding for 

the Exim Bank and foreign military financing and other activities that have 

as much to do with promoting U.S. exports as with helping other countries, 

today accounts for less than 1 percent 

of the total Federal budget. 

We must recognize that there is a 

limit to how far we can cut our budget 

for international affairs, and still 

maintain our leadership position in the 

world. Just when many people thought 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS