Table Of Content

ARCHIVE COPY NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE DEPOT CLOSINGS AND THE DESTRUCTION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION LT COL JEFF BROWN/CLASS OF 1998 COURSE 5603 SEMINARD FACULTY SEMINAR LEADER - DR STEVENSON FACULTY ADVISOR LT COL CLODFELTER Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 1998 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-1998 to 00-00-1998 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Depot Closings and the Destruction of Western Civilization 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION National War College,300 5th Avenue,Fort Lesley J. REPORT NUMBER McNair,Washington,DC,20319-6000 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT see report 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 11 unclassified unclassified unclassified Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 Depot Closmgs and the Destruaon of Western Clvilizatlon ‘%Lg roup of House members came over en masse and predxted that I was about to despoy Western crvllrzation as we tbiow rt It’s an unfortunate commentary on the system, because we ‘re hearing less and less talk about n&onaI secunty challenges, and more and more parochral talk about protecting my depot, my base andmy weapon system The greatest obstacle to modemIzIng our rnlIlta?y forces may be the Congress of the Untied States ” Senator John McCann’ SenatorM cCam’s comments m June 1997 reflected his tistratlon over the progresso f the fiscal year 1998 Defense AuthorEatlon Bill One can only imagine his frustration level-and his fears for Western civilization-m November 1997 when Congressf inally sent the President the authoIlzatlon bill long after the fiscal year had begun and even longer after the completed appropriations bill threatened to make most of it n-relevant2 The source of the delay was not, as might be expected or deslred, a fbndamental disagreementm national secuIlty pohcy or whtary readiness Rather, it was a purely political debate over the dlsposltlon of work being performed at two Au Force maintenance depots targeted for closmg by the 1995 Base Realignment and Closmg Commission The ongms of the congressionals talemate lie m the mmally unrelated issueso f base closings and privatization As the need for maintenance depot reductions became apparent m 1995, the concept emerged of privatlzmg depot actlvltles locally m the closing depot’s community Thus“ pnvatization-in-place” concept becamet he focus of election year pohtlcsc begmmng a cham reactlon that has destroyeda ny support for future base closmgs and nearly destroyedt he defensea uthomation process ’ Kafield, James,“ Colhs~on Course”, Nabonal Journal 29, no 25, (21 Jun 97) 1272 2 Certamp arts of the authonzahon bdl such as pay musesa nd md~taryc onst.ru&on must be passeads m au&o-on before any appropnatton can take Sect Most of the other Wtig Issues,h onever, do not require m au&o-bon q-f “7 !&$AP$'I RMY pRcE ~:!EFSQL ibrary N&c:: ; :-f';l2 The Base Closmg Process The Base Realignment and Closmg Commrssronb egan m 1988 as a way to insulate the base closmg processf rom the politxal process Recogmzing the need to reduce nnhtary infrastructure m concert with already reduced force levels, but unable to make the econonncally and pohtxally painful decrsions,C ongresse stablishedt he base closmg processt o take the decision out of then own hands The Department of Defense (DOD) would develop a list of proposed closures and realignments based on economic and mihtary guldelmes spelled out in the authonzmg language The hst would be submrtted to a non-partrsanc ommrssron,w hich would revrew the DOD analysts and hold hearings where local commumtres and other interested partresc ould challenge or defend DOD’S recommendatrons Ifthe commrssronf ound srgmficant devratronsf rom the estabhshed gmdelmes, they could delete or add baseso ver DOD’S objectrons Once the commrssron’sr eview was complete, they would submit then recommendatronst o the President who would have to approve or reject the report m its entirety In the absenceo f a congressronajlo int resolutron to overturn the recommendatronsw rthm 45 days, the commrssron’sr ecommendatronsw ould become law 3 Thrs was the processt hat gave Congresst he cover rt needed By intentionally taking the decision out of then own hands, and the Presrdent’s,t hey would be able to face the voters m then drstncts saymg there was nothmg they could do-it was simply not then fault And the process worked Despite emotronal and strident hearings where local communities sought to enhancet he value of their basesa nd malign the value of competing bases,n early 100 basesw ere slated for 3 Defense Base Closure and Realgnment Act, US Code Vol 10, set 2687 (1990) Note The 1988 round of base closmgs was covered by an earher law (Pubhc Law 100-526) m 1938 The proceduresf or nommatmgb asesf or the 1958 Comrmssront iered shghtly from those described here for the 1991 and subsequentr ounds 2 closmg durmg four base closing rounds 4 Yet two of those basesi n the final round, Kelly An Force Base (AFB), Texas and McClellan AFB, Califorma, becamet he focus of electron year pohtics revolvmg around the issue of pnvatizatron Privatrzation Contractmg out, or prrvatizmg, nnhtary support servrcesw as nothmg new in 1995, nor was it tied to the base closing process The servicesh ad been experrmenting with rt as a money saving tool since the late 1980’s In 1991, in responset o congressronall anguage m that year’s defense authorization brll, the Army and Air Force began to conduct pubhc-private competitions for depot work that prtted the DOD avrhan workforce agamst pnvate contractors 5 Neither srde in these competrtions was happy wrth the arrangement Prrvate contractors argued they could not wm contracts becauset he govemment had unfair advantagesm the form of tax breaks and existing infrastructure The government employees, on the other hand, drdn’t want to lose then jobs and argued agamst privatrzatron on readmessg rounds Congressmen representmgd rstncts with depots objected to any Idea that rnrght move jobs out of then-d rstricts 6 Congress’s sol&on to the problem m the 1992 authorrzatronb ill was the 6@/40r ule which limited to 40% the amount of depot work that could be pnvatrzed regardlesso f cost or performance ’ On the surface,t his allowed Congresst o have it both ways It ensuredt he bulk of depot work would stay right where it was, but it also allowed them to clarm they were letting the servicess ave money through prrvatizatlon The effect, however, was to place the location and percentageo f prrvatrzation outside the base closing constramts, makmg rt a temptation too hard to resist as the 1996 presidential elections neared 4 Khahzad, Zalmay and David Ochmanek,“ Rethmkmg US Defence PI-g,” London, Sprmg 1997,43 5 Thompson, Loren B , “Pubhc-Pnvate Compenhon-Bad Proposihon That Refuses To Die” Natzonal Defense, (October 1997) 22 6 Adams, Ellly J , “Managmg DefenseD epot Mamtenance Preparmgf or Change,” Instztute for Natzonal Strategzc Studzes, Natzonal Defense Urzzverszfy,E ssay on SrrategyxN (National Defense Umversity, 1996), databaseo n-lme, at http //wx+w hdu edu/ndu/mss/bookslessa/essamddm.html 3 Setting Off a Cham Reaction Durmg the cold war, DOD built up a serveso f supply and repair depots supportmg everythmg from hand-held radios to C-5 cargo an-craft The highly techmcal skills neededt o reparr much of thrs equipment took extensivet rammg, thus ensurmg the bulk of the work force would be crvrhans( 1 e voters) f?om the local community The Inevitable critrcrsm and expenseo f laying off so many employees mduced the servicest o leave depots largely untouched in the first three rounds of closings ’ However, by the fourth round, scheduledt o begin m 1995, the Air Force, m partrcular, was expectedt o nommate at least one depot, basedo n prehmmary data that the five major Air Force depots were collectrvely operatmg at only 48% capacity ’ It came as a great surprise, therefore, when no An Force depots were on the list the Department of Defense submitted to the Commission on February 28, 1995 The An Force claimed the depots were necessaryf or readinessr easonsa nd that rt would cost less to downsize all their depots than it would to consohdatef ive into three Few m Congresso r on the Base Closmg Comnnssron acceptedt he An Force’s explanatron RepresentatrveD on Nickles R-OK, noted “What’s Cahforma7 Ten percent of the electoral votes It makes one wonder ” Other congressmen,m cludmg House Malorrty Leader Dick Armey of Texas were less subtle, claunmg depots were “rmproperly spared closure for purely partisan reasons“ lo Whether or not the depots were left off the list for pohtrcal reasonso r ’ Ibid * I3ll StafFM ember with hes to the 1995 Base Closmg and Reahgmnent Conumss~onm, temew wnh author at Nahonal War College. 23 October, 1997 ’ Cassata,D onna, “GAO Faults Au Force Declslon to Shut No Repau Depots,” Congresszonai Quarterly 53, no 15, (15 Apnl, 1995) 1075 lo CongressionalQ uarterly Ahnanac 10-P Congress,l st Session 1995, (WashmgtoDn C CongressionalQ uarterly Inc , 1996), 9-20 It ISw orth notmg that RepresentahveA rmey of Texas made his comment before It was apparent that Kelly AFB, Te?rasw ould be one of the depots closed 4 for sound economic reasons,t he perception was for the first time partisan pohtlcs had been injected mto the process-and the perception was all that mattered The Commission was no less convmced by the DOD Justification for leavmg the depots off the list From the first day they were susp~clouso f the hr Forces savmgs figures” and a Government Accounting Office report issued in Apr111 995 seemedt o confirm their suspicions l2 To make matters worse, at least one member of the commission staRwas convmced the AU Force really wanted to mclude the depots,b ut had been overruled by a Secretary of Defense to avoid antagomzmg the electoral vote-nch stateso f California and Texas l3 Amld these accusationso f pohtrcal tampermg, the commission elected to put Kelly and McClellan back on the table I4 After emotional testnnony by the California and Texas congressionald elegations and an 1l fh hour vlslt by the Secretaryo f the hr Force and Chef of Sttiof the Air Force, the commission voted to close both bases l5 Former SenatorA lan Dixon, the comfTLlsslon’sc hairman, citing the panel’s obligation to savem oney for the servicesn oted “ths [was] the most slgmficant deviation from the secretary’s recommendation in the hlstory of base closures “16 The perceived pohtlcizatlon of the process and subsequentd ebateg alvamzed the partles on both sideso f the depot issue The supporterso f the Kelly and McClellan depots had been dealt a substantial economic blow and were desperatelyl ookmg for any formula to rmtlgate the damage The opponents of Kelly and McClellan, mostly the congressionald elegation from dlstncts with other depots, felt they had won a major victory by undoing the partisan actions of the Secretaryo f Defense-and securmgJ obs for their districts as workload transferred out of the closmg depots l1 CassataD,o nna, “Panel Votes to Slash Depot Despite Au ForceP rotests.C”o ngresszonal Quarter& 53, no 25, (21 June 1995) 1855 l2 Cassata,“ GAO Faults Ax Force,” 1075 I3 Hdl Staffer, 28 Ott 97 I4 Ibxd I5 CongressionalQ uarterly Almanac 104* Congress, 9-2 1 5 In pohtrcs, though, few issuesa re ever final The day of the vote, SenatorD ranne Femstem called on the president to “step in “r’ With hrs 1996 election Just gettmg in gear, President Clinton agreedw ith the need to assuageC ahforma and Texas workers without resorting to the pohtrcally extreme measureo f rejecting the entreeC ommrssronr eport HIS solutron was prrvatization-m-place The Prrvatrzation-m-PlaceD ecision The depot debate durmg the commrssion hearmgs highlighted the adversei mpact of closmgs on three constrtuencresk ey to President Clmton’s 1996 reelection campargna nd the Democratic Party umons, Hispamcs, and Cahformans A maJority of the workers who would lose then Jobsw ere uniomzed government employees By somehow protecting their Jobs, Clinton could not only garner the support of the srzableg overnment employees umons, but also appeal to the larger traditronally Democratic labor constrtuencyn atron-wrde At the samet rme, he could shore up the Hispanic vote representeda t both depots Although the Hrspamc workforce at McClellan itself was comparatrvely small, there were 618,000 new Hrspanic voters m Cahforma, an increaseo f almost 45% since 1992 I8 More srgmficantly though, 61% of Kelly’s workforce was Mexrcan-American, mcludmg 40% of all Mexrcan- Amerrcans in San Antomo who earnedm ore than $25,000 per year rg By rescuing the srzabie Hispanic middle-class in San Antomo, the president could posmon himself as a frrend of all Hispamcs, especially those m the electoral rich stateso f Texas, Cahfornia, and Florida Finally, Clmton recognized Cahforma, with rts 54 votes, was the ultrmate electoral prrze He owed Cahforma for ins 1992 vrctory and neededt o solid@ It for the 1996 campargn Saving l6 Cassata,“ Panel Votes to Slash Depots,” 1856 li IbId, lS55 I8 Barnes, JamesA , “Along the C~~PZU~II TM, NatzonaZ Journal 28, no 43. (26 October, 1996) 2296 I9 Jarboe,J an, “Grounded,” TexasMonth& 23, no 8, (August 1995) 5 6 Califorma jobs would go a long way towards that end, partrcularly smce Califorma had been the hardest hit by previous rounds, losing 22 basesa nd 82,000 jobs 2o These three constituencresc reated a powerful incentive for the Chnton admmrstratront o find a loophole m the commission’s recommendatronst o close Kelly and McClellan With one exception, the commissron report authorrzedD OD to transfer the depots’ workloads to other depots or the private sector as rt saw fit 21 The Chnton adrmmstration seized on the Idea that rf the workload was prrvatrzed,t here was no reasont hey couldn’t order the An Force to privatize the functrons in place m Sacramentoa nd San Antomo While thrs formula wouldn’t savee very job, rt would, presumably, causec ommercial compamest o l-me many of the former government workers, thus appeasmgt he key constrtuencres The decrsrone nergrzeda nd polarized congress To the Texas and Cahforma delegatrons, the decrsronw as a justifiable way to protect federal workers and they rmmedrately began efforts to change or repeal the 60/40 rule to allow more work to be pnvatlzed m place To the Depot Caucus, a brpartrsang roup of over 100 Representativesa nd Senatorsf ormed to promote government work at the depots they represented,t he president’s decision was a dn-ecta ttack on the defenseb enefits in their drstncts And to the leadershrpm both housesa nd m both parties, the decrsronr epresenteda breach of faith m a base closmg process desrgnedt o spreadt he pam and blame between the executive and legrslatrve branches Umntended Consequences It’s not surpnsmg, therefore, that the prrvatrzatron-m-placed ecision has had consequences far beyond the short term election gains that drove It The hngermg bitterness over the 2oC ongressroualQ uarterly Almanac, 104* Congress,9 -2 1 21D IXON,“ Alan J “Defense Base Closurea nd Rea@mnent Conumsslon Report to the President,” published as “House Document 104-96, DefenseB ase Closure and RezQmnent Commwon Report to the Presdent, Message from the President of the Umted StatesT ransmttmg HE certrficahonof hrsA pprovaol f All the Recommendahons Contamedm the Connmsslon’s Report,” (WasbmgtonD C GPO, 13 July, 1995), 54,108 The comnusslon recommendedg round elech-omcse qmpmentm amtenaucet ransfer to the Army’s Tobybanna Depot 7 politrcrzation of the processa nd the contmumg efforts to reverse or expand the decrsronh ave affected defensep olicy far beyond the simple monetary issue of where the defensed ollars go It has fundamentally damagedt he defensep ohcy process in two critrcal areas future base closings and the relevancy of the defensea uthorrzation process Recognizmg there has been a 33% reductron in force structure with only a 21% reductron in infrastructure, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) report DOD submitted to Congressm May 1997 called for two more rounds of base closings-the savings from whrch would go to pay for modermzatron 22 However, the perceived pohtrcrzatron of the base closing processl ed CongressmanJ oe Hefley (R-CO), Chairman of Mrhtary Installatrons Subcomrmtteeo f the House Natronal Securrty Atfans Committee to declare another round of base closings would occur only “over my dead body ” Even after Secretaryo f Defense Cohen agreedt o prohrbrt privatrzatron-m- place m any future rounds, both houseso f Congress,b ut particularly the House, replied Clmton had “poisoned the well” whrle he 1sp resident 23 If Congress’sp osmon remams firm, another round of closmgs could not occur untrl well after the turn of the century-too late to offer offsettmg savings for Air Force modermzation programs More rmportantly, however, the debate over the final drsposrtion of the depot work nearly brought the defensea uthorizatron bill to a standstrll and called mto question the relevance of the defensea uthorrzatronc ommrttee process In 1996, when the Senatep roposed changmg the 60140r ule to 50/50 to allow more privatrzatron (in place or otherwrse), House members of the Depot Caucusf irst raised the specter of the destructrono f Western crvihzatron However, becauser t was an electron year, the debate was muted and the bill was passedo n trme by deferring any changes 22H udson, RebeccaJ , Y$ence RespondsT o Cohen On Ad&tmal Base Closures”, Sea Power 10, no 7, (July 1997) 20 23I fWield, “Colhslon Course,” 1271 8