[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6679-S6685]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 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. [[Page S6680]] 
       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 
     co-chairs 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 co-chairs, 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.

[[Page S6681]]

 Recommendation 2: Eliminate HUD Approval of Local Compliance with the 
   McKinney 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 [[Page S6682]] 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 
     [[Page 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 tax-exempt 
     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 
     [[Page S6684]] 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 short-term 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 full-court 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]                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Fiscal year--                   
                                     ------------------                 
             Department                 1995     1996    Change  Percent
                                       appro.  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. [[Page 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.
     

                          ____________________