[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 40 (Tuesday, April 8, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               HELP COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY BASE CLOSURE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BILL McCOLLUM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, April 8, 1997

  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation that 
will facilitate the swift transfer of closed military bases to local 
communities. This action is necessary because current law hinders the 
large and complex transfer of military base property with economic 
redevelopment in mind.
  Many of the laws governing the reuse of military bases are antiquated 
and filled with confusing terms and conditions. One major existing 
hindrance is a clause prohibiting the obtainment of profit by local 
communities. This is a problem because it prevents local communities 
from generating profits through subleasing for the purpose of 
reinvestment to maintain and improve landscaping, maintenance, and 
infrastructure. The remedy for this situation is to replace the clause 
with legislation embodying the provisions of the base closure laws and 
amendments of the 1990's.
  The interim lease provisions have not been as successful as planned 
because many of the terms and conditions act as disincentives to 
economic development conveyance. For example, there is no commitment 
for final ownership by Federal agencies upon assumption of control or 
occupancy of transfered property. Commercial firms are willing to enter 
into leases, but are refusing this option because of the lack of 
commitment for final ownership. In addition, the new occupants of 
closed base property are unable to conduct major renovations unless 
they agree to restore the property to its original condition. Many of 
the facilities require major alterations from their original condition 
just to bring them to local code standards. Why are we requiring 
restoration of undesired conditions? This makes no sense and ultimately 
results in taxpayer waste.
  Prior to 1996, departure of Federal agencies reverted property to the 
Federal Government for disposal by GSA. A leaseback provision was 
established in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
1996 to protect communities from a Federal agency revolving door. Under 
this law, property approved for Federal usage would be transferred to 
the local redevelopment agency, then leased to a Federal agency at no 
cost for up to 50 years. The reasoning behind this is to ensure 
transfer of property to local communities in the event of departure by 
Federal agencies. The lack of a mandatory requirement for leaseback 
acceptance allows for circumvention of the legislative intent. In 
Orlando, FL, the Veterans Administration has requested Orlando Naval 
Training Center property through the Federal screen process. VA has 
refused to enter into a long-term lease which would allow enaction of a 
leaseback provision. This creates major problems for community 
redevelopment authorities as it limits their ability to finalize reuse 
plans. My legislation guarantees an option for communities to obtain 
reuse property after the departure from the property by the first 
Federal agency lessee.
  We must allow common sense to prevail in this base reuse process. 
There are some instances where it makes sense to lease to organizations 
affiliated with the branch of service that previously occupied the base 
property. This is currently prohibited, yet doesn't it make sense to 
relocate recruiting stations, reserve centers, and military processing 
centers onto closed base property? This type of action will allow these 
units to function in a military environment while reducing taxpayer 
burden generated by lease of civilian property.
  The four branches of the U.S. Armed Services are currently able to 
contract with local governments for fire and police services for 6 
months prior to the closure of a base. Families remaining on closed 
bases need these services, yet there is no provision for bases being 
closed in phases as the services do not define phased closures as 
operational. In simpler terms, local communities bear the burden for 
fire and police services because the service branches are unable to 
contract for services.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill I'm introducing today will make major strides 
in reforming the base closure reuse process. We must enact this 
legislation to protect our local communities. I urge my colleagues' 
support.

                          ____________________