The Bush administration is pushing hard for base closures, saying the Defense Department has about 24 percent more base capacity than it needs. The Pentagon says billions of dollars could be saved annually by shutting unneeded bases.

Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, voted to authorize a new closure round in 2001. But as he campaigns for the White House, he has called for an indefinite delay on base closures.

"I am concerned that the Bush administration's approach to base closure is driven more by ideology than by careful planning," Kerry said in a statement issued last month.

The Vietnam veteran has called for increasing the size of the Army by 40,000 troops and noted Pentagon plans to pull thousands of troops out of Europe and return them to U.S. bases.

"There's a terrible disconnect between the stated goals of the base closure process and the realities we face today in managing our force structure and providing for our troops," Kerry said. "In my first days in office, I will instruct my secretary of defense to conduct a long-range review of the nation's military force structure needs. And until that review is done, I will not appoint a base-closure commission."

Critics accused Kerry of political pandering by withdrawing his support for a Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, process.

"Candidate Kerry is playing politics with national security," said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, a private watchdog group that supports base closure. "As a senator, he voted in favor of BRAC three times, but as a candidate he is pandering to potential voters."

Kerry has argued that the increased demands on the U.S. military and the stresses placed upon it from the Iraq war have made clear the need to rethink military force structure.

"We shouldn't be wasting resources with excess bases, but we also have to know what our future needs will be at home and around the world," he said. "Base closures must be driven by logic, not ideology."

Congress is scheduled to decide whether to approve a 2005 closure round when it completes work on a defense authorization bill sometime this fall.

Ghost fleet lawsuit

The U.S. Maritime Administration unveiled a new argument last week to defend itself from a federal lawsuit filed by environmentalists over a plan to send 13 ships from the James River Reserve Fleet to England for disposal.

Environmental groups have charged that the plan to send ships overseas would violate the Toxic Substances Control Act, which generally bans the export of toxic polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs.

Many of the obsolete ships contain PCBs in their cables, gaskets and pipe insulation.

But the Maritime Administration, in its latest court filing, argues the charge is "essentially moot" because of changes in the contract with the British disposal company, Able UK, since the lawsuit was filed last year.

Four of the 13 ships have already been sent to England with court approval, the Maritime Administration, or MARAD, noted. And most of the rest of the ships have since been designated for domestic scrappers because of the lengthy court battle.

MARAD amended its contract with Able UK to allow other ships to be substituted for the original 13. Those substitute ships could be sent to England at a later time, depending on how the lawsuit is resolved.

But some of the ships in the James River fleet were built after 1980 and do not contain any PCBs, MARAD said, and the agency has not yet decided which ships would be sent to England. Therefore, MARAD said, the claim that the contract would allow for exporting PCBs "is not yet ripe."

The four ships already in England, however, do contain PCBs. Disposal of those ships can't begin until Able UK obtains a new waste management license and local planning approvals.

A U.S. District Court judge is scheduled to hear the case Oct. 1.

David Lerman can be reached at (202) 824-8224 or by e-mail at dlerman@tribune.com

Copyright © 2004, Daily Press