State Delegation Braces for Base Closure Battle

WASHINGTON — California’s congressional delegation is mobilizing to block yet another threatened series of base closures, with many members asserting that the state took an unfair beating in the last three rounds and that it’s somebody else’s turn.

Lawmakers are wiser now for having watched the economic fallout from the last three rounds of closures, which shut down or realigned 29 of California’s military installations. They have already begun mapping out political strategy for the coming months to protect the state’s 34 remaining major installations.

“This is an issue where Republicans and Democrats can come together and send a clear strong message to the Pentagon and the White House to say enough is enough in California,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands), co-chairman of California’s House delegation.

“Republicans and Democrats alike will stand together to fight for every military base, every military job in our state.”

This early in the game, analysts can only speculate which bases might be targeted, but three in California have been prominently mentioned. They are Point Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station near Oxnard, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station in the desert northeast of Los Angeles and Beale Air Force Base northwest of Sacramento.

The Pentagon’s call this week for more military base closures and the elimination of 225,000 active duty, reserve and civilian support jobs nationwide was met with dread by California officials. Many argue that the state, which reaped the benefit of years of defense industry growth, in the end shouldered an unfair share of the burden when the Defense Department began its post-Cold War downsizing in 1988.

At that time, California had 15% of the nation’s Defense Department jobs. When the downsizing was over in 1995, it had sustained 60% of the hits, said Tim Ransdell, director of the California Institute, a Washington think tank.

“Every round was as bad as the one before it,” Ransdell said. “So the fear of another one or two base closure rounds is that they will come right back to California and hit it again as unfairly as before.”

New legislation would have to be passed before any more bases are closed or scaled back. Congress earlier authorized the Base Closure and Realignment Commission to conduct just three rounds of closures, which it already has done.

Some lawmakers have pledged to go all out to prevent a new round of closures. Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) summed up the sentiments of many when he greeted news of the idea of further closures with this: “Does ‘over my dead body’ make it clear enough?”

But Rep. Jane Harman (D-Rolling Hills), a member of the House National Security Committee, said she would look objectively at what needs to be done, bearing in mind that the overall goal is to make sure the national defense is well-prepared to win future wars.

Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, a former senator, has been strongly arguing to his former colleagues on Capitol Hill that further downsizing is necessary to free up funds for new weapons and troop readiness.

If Congress will not agree to close bases, it will have to accept the idea of cutting orders for new planes and ships or of cutting the number of active-duty troops, Cohen argues, knowing that both alternatives are as politically controversial as base closures.

Harman and others argue that the best way to shield the state from base closings may be not to focus on killing the idea outright, but to make sure the next set of guidelines for closure takes into account the losses already sustained by particular regions.

“It’s not time to lay our bodies in front of the bulldozers. We have to work with the experiences we’ve had,” Harman said, noting that her district is recovering from past closures and learned to rely less exclusively on defense. “There are successful second acts.”

“California will have the opportunity to fashion the criteria for future base closures,” said Harman. “There was much less experience before. I am sure it was thought that whatever happened would be fair to all regions. I think we are all more realistic now.”

The largest congressional delegation of any state, California’s 52 House members account for one-sixth of the votes necessary to pass any bill, giving them considerable sway as a bloc. Although the group has been notoriously divided on virtually every issue known to man, the members have been working hard lately on finding common ground and solidifying their power. And base closures is the one issue they have never had trouble uniting behind.

“We are becoming a force to be reckoned with in Washington more than at any time in recent memory,” Ransdell said. He suggested that if Californians coalesce into a viable voting bloc, other states might be inclined to curry their favor. “Perhaps the growing unanimity will be recognized by other states and by administration leaders who will realize that we may not be the pushover we have been in the past.”

A new round of closings would undoubtedly be met with more resistance from Congress than before, since the 1995 episode proved to be more politically damaging that anyone expected. And California lawmakers are well positioned on key committees to do battle: Harman is one of five Californians on the National Security Committee; seven are members of the Appropriations Committee, with Rep. Ron Packard (R-Oceanside) heading the military construction subcommittee; Rep. Christopher Cox of Newport Beach is fifth in the Republican leadership and Rep. Vic Fazio of West Sacramento heads the House Democratic Caucus.