“As your commander in chief, I am immensely proud of who you are, what you stand for and what you are doing. ... I pledge to you that as long as I am president, you and the other men and women in uniform of this country will continue to be the best-trained, the bestprepared, the best-equipped and the strongestsupported fighting force in the world." me that gent of tough and versatile Marines, enabling you to address new potential challenges such as evacuations or taking control of troubled ports. You have the services working together in new ways. That enables you to operate perhaps with fewer ships and personnel, but with greater efficiency and effectiveness. This isn't downsizing for its own sake, it's rightsizing for security's sake. The changes on board the Theodore Roosevelt preview the changes I believe we must pursue throughout our military. We must keep, however, a few core ideas in mind as we pursue those changes. Our military must be exceptionally mobile, with first-rate sealift, airlift and the ability to project power. And there is no more awesome example of that than the fearsome striking power that can be launched from the deck of this mighty ship. Our military must also be agile, with an emphasis on maneuver, on speed, on technological superiority. That's exactly what the specialpurpose Marine air-ground task force you have on board is all about. Our fire power must be precise, so that we can minimize the exposure to harm for the men and women who wear our uniforms and reduce civilian casualties where we must act. Our military increasingly needs to be flexible so that we can cooperate with diverse coalition partners in very different parts of the world. And we must be smart, with the intelligence and communications we need for the complex threats we face. And I might say I was deeply impressed with a wide array of communications equipment that many of you showed me today. Above all else, we must always be ready, given the unpredictability of new threats. None of these goals are possible unless we have a quality force. You, the crew of this ship, exemplify that quality — with your skills, your experience, your training and your dedication, many of you at astonishingly young ages. You have shown you know how to get the job done. I know our nation now can have confidence that America's vital interests are well protected. While all of you — from the grapes on the roof to the aviators in the ready rooms to snipes in the holes — while you carry out your missions so far from home over the next few months, we back at home will be engaged in a raging debate about defense policy. As you watch the news on CNN or read the newspapers that are delivered here to your ship, you will hear us talk of roles and missions. You will see news about bases and budgets. But as we reduce defense spending, we will not leave the men and the women who helped to win the Cold War out in the cold. As bases close, and they must, we must not close our eyes and hearts to the need for new investments to create opportunities in the communities with the old bases. jobs; an insufficient plan for the communities that have been devastated or for the companies that have been hurt. We cannot repeal the laws of change. After all, you and those who preceded you in uniform worked so hard, fought so hard and many died so that the Cold War could be won and we could rely less on defense and focus more of our resources on building our economy here at home. But still, we must act boldly to deal with the consequences of the changes we face. That's why it's so important to make the investments we need in defense conversion and the education and training in new jobs and new industries, but also to continue to make the investments we need in the defense that must be there for the United States and for the world tomorrow. As you follow the news of these events during your voyage, while our voyage back home into this great debate is taking place, I ask you to remember this: As your commander in chief, I am immensely proud of who you are, what you stand for and what you are doing. As these changes proceed, I pledge to you that as long as I am president, you and the other men and women in uniform of this country will continue to be the best-trained, the bestprepared, the best-equipped and the strongest-supported fighting force in the world. There is no single decision I take more seriously than decisions involving the use of force. As weigh crises that confront America around the world, you will be in my mind and in my heart. This is a hopeful time, yet one still full of challenges. It is uncertain, and therefore, we are glad that missions such as this, while not darkly framed by the Cold War confrontation with a nuclear adversary, are still smartly focused on the challenges we might face in the days ahead. Many new duties and dangers are taking place. And there is no clear direction or what things we all might have to face in the future. There is no sonar that can enable us to fathom all the changes in the terrain over which we are now setting sail. Napoleon had a standing order to his corps commanders to "march to the sound of the guns." He meant that when the shooting starts on a Laws of Change Defense spending has been declining ever since 1986. But I believe we have not had a strong enough plan for what to do with the new defense we are building and with those who contributed to the old defense; an insufficient plan for military personnel who muster out; an insufficient plan for civilian workers who made the wonderful weapons that helped us to dominate the world who now have lost their “This is a new and hopeful world, but one full of danger. I am convinced that your country, through you, has a historic role in trying to make sure that there is, after all, a new world order, rooted in peace, dedicated to prosperity and opportunity." battlefield, it is the soldier's obligation to move into the fight. Well, today, there are different security challenges into which we must march. And at times, you who serve our nation in uniform may be called upon to answer not only the sound of guns, but also a call of distress, a summons to keep the peace, even a cry of starving children. The calls will be more diverse, but our values remain unchanged. Our purposes remain clear. And your commitment to serve remains the linchpin in every new and continuing effort. I know this has been a difficult day for many of you. It can't be easy to leave family and friends for six months at sea, especially when the challenges before us seem unclear and when you wonder whether world events may or may not place you in harm's way. But I hope you understand that your work is vitally Aspin: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. I am here today to present my recommendation for closure or realignment of military installations in the United States. In addition, I wish to offer some comments on why it's important that we close bases and on the process we used in arriving at these recommendations. Because of the collapse of the By downsizing in this way, we My recommendations represent closed until two years ago, follow- It is important to note that DoD ing decisions made in the 1988 and is reducing its military forces and 1991 rounds of base closures. bases overseas much more than in Under those two rounds, domestic the United States. base structure was reduced by only To date, we have announced we 9 percent, measured by plant will terminate or reduce overseas replacement value. The 1993 operations that amount to 28 program, coupled with the previ- percent of our plant replacement ously approved 1988 and 1991 value. We announced additional closures, will reduce the domestic overseas reductions last week, and base structure by about 15 percent there are more to come. Our plan of plant replacement value. is to reduce the overseas base Plant replacement value is the structure by 35 to 40 percent, based standard we chose so we could on plant replacement value, as the accurately reflect the significance number of personnel stationed of closing facilities both large and overseas declines. small. Plant replacement value is what it would cost to replace the Selection Criteria facilities, pavements and utilities. Here is the way in which this year's recommendations for domesWhy Close Bases tic base closings were decided The military departments and compelling characteristics: defense agencies submitted their o It saves money that would recommendations to me on Feb. otherwise go to unnecessary 22, 1993. The military departments overhead. and defense agencies followed It supports military effective- detailed guidance based on the law ness by reducing the competition dealing with this process. The Joint for ever scarcer resources. Staff reviewed the recommendaIt is fair and objective. tions from a warfighting perspective It hits bases overseas harder to ensure they would not harm the than those at home. military capabilities of the armed It supports the investment services. necessary to foster economic The chairman of the Joint Chiefs growth. of Staff supports the recommendaLet's talk about savings. My tions I have made. Key elements of recommendations will save $4 my staff reviewed the recommendabillion during the six-year imple- tions to ensure all eight selection mentation period and produce criteria were considered. The 1. The current and future force; ,!!!V 18 1993 To sum up “The review took into consideration the cumulative impact of decisions of three rounds of base closures, the cumulative impact of the recommendations from the three military departments and the defense agencies and the effect on the local job market. That is, the commuting area, not the state or some other larger region." — Aspin nomic growth” policy proposed transferring from the federal government to local taxpayers the burden of financing facilities used by the Department of Defense. the recommendations, they include closing 31 major bases and realigning 12 others. I am also recommending realignment, disestablishment or closure of 122 smaller bases or activities. Approximately 24,000 military jobs are affected. Some 57,000 DoD civilian jobs are also impacted by my recommendations. These are net reductions. We are also moving about 140,000 people from one place to another. There are a lot of ways to review the impacts of these recommendations. We believe they are fair and that no particular state was singled out. The 1993 round of base closures represents shared pain, but it is pain shared as the result of the rigorous application of sensible criteria in an objective, analytical process. Indeed, some of the states hardest hit are those which receive the largest amount of total DoD spending 2. The availability and condition of land, facilities and associated airspace at both the existing and potential receiving locations; 3. The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization and future total force requirements at both the existing and potential receiving locations; 4. The cost and manpower implications; 5. The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed costs; 6. The economic impact on communities; 7. The ability of both the existing and potential receiving communities' infrastructure to support forces, missions and personnel; 8. The environmental impact. The staff next made certain that the recommendations were consistent with the force structure plan, the prescribed DoD policies and procedures were followed and the analyses were objective and rigorous. My staff also reviewed the recommendations to ensure they would not harm essential training and support capabilities. realignments. The review took into consideration the cumulative impact of decisions of three rounds of base closures, the cumulative impact of the recommendations from the three military departments and the defense agencies, and the effect on the local job market. That is, the commuting area, not the state or some other larger region. The proposed closure at McClellan Air Force Base (Calif.) was the facility that demanded a second look on cumulative economic impact. I believe that the cumulative economic impact of 1988, 1991 and 1993 actions on the Sacramento area would be too great if McClellan AFB and the related Defense Logistics Agency distribution depot were not removed from the list of recommendations proposed by the military departments and defense agencies. I also agreed with the serious intelligence community concerns regarding the Army recommendation to close the Presidio of Monterey (and the Fort Ord annex). This action would move the Defense Language Institute and require contracting out of the language training now done there. Relocation and contracting of DLI's mission could hurt our intelligence capabilities, so it deserves further examination before it is undertaken. I also had serious concerns about the plan for selecting sites for Defense Finance and Accounting Service locations. The site-selection process, known as the "opportunity for economic growth," offered DoD jobs only to those communities willing to make the highest bids for those jobs. In effect, the "opportunity for eco Medical Facilities Finally, I want to mention the issue of hospitals. DoD hospitals are located on nine major installations that will be closed or realigned. They are K.I. Sawyer (Mich.), Homestead (Fla.), Griffiss (N.Y.), March (Calif.), McGuire (N.J.) (all Air Force bases); Alameda (Calif.), Charleston (S.C.), Orlando (Fla.) (all Navy facilities); and Fort McClellan (Ala.). The administration will look for imaginative ways to include the medical assets in its new, comprehensive health care proposals. It is too early to specify the role DoD's hospitals may play, but the power of the concept is another sign of our determination to speed the productive use of these facilities and contribute directly to the overall strength of the nation's economy - a vital part of our national defense. I look forward to working with you during your deliberations on the list I have proposed today. Thank you very much. O Cumulative Economic Impact Staff within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, including the principal deputy assistant secretary for production and logistics, provided conclusions and recommendations to me. Included was an analysis of the cumulative economic impact of the recommendations, factoring in the economic impact of previously approved 1988 and 1991 closures and |