Military Installation Real Property and Services: Proposed Legislation in the 111th Congress

Military Installation Real Property and

Services: Proposed Legislation in the 111th

Congress

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in National Defense

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

June 4, 2009

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40620

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Military Installation Real Property and Services

Summary

Several bills (S. 590, H.R. 1959, and H.R. 2295) that would modify or expand statutory

authorities granted to senior executives of the Department of Defense (DOD) have been

introduced to the 111th Congress. These authorities relate to the exchange of real property, the

outsourcing of some military installation support services, and the reimbursement by DOD of

some costs associated with military site cleanup. The proposed legislation would also amend the

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, the BRAC law, to expand existing legal

protections granted to those who have taken title to property at closed military bases and to set

conditions under which future title transfers for surplus military property would be carried out at

no cost to the recipient.

S. 590 and H.R. 2295 are identical. If enacted, these bills would render permanent an expired

authority held by the Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of a military department) to exchange

any defense real property for real property held by non-DOD entities if the exchange will limit

encroachment on military activities or will relieve a shortage of military housing. They would

also expand and make permanent a limited pilot program that allows certain services currently

performed at military installations by DOD employees or private contractors to be noncompetitively outsourced to municipal or county governments.

Another section in the bills would expand the authority of the Secretary of Defense to enter into a

cost-reimbursement agreement for the cleanup of a military site. Current law permits agreements

that reimburse federal, state, and local agencies and other entities for certain costs incurred by

participation in a cleanup program. The bill would allow reimbursement agreements to include

costs incurred in the “processing” of a transfer of title of federal property and would prevent the

Secretary from imposing certain conditions on the funding made available.

The remaining sections of the bills would amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act

of 1990, the so-called BRAC law. They would expand the legal protections available to persons

who have taken title to property on closed military bases and would require the conveyance of

surplus military property at no cost if certain conditions are met.

This report analyzes the key provisions of the legislation, identifies probable effects of the

proposed amendments to existing law, and suggests issues raised for congressional consideration.

Congressional Research Service

Military Installation Real Property and Services

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Conveying Property to Gain Construction and Avoid Encroachment............................................1

Current Statute......................................................................................................................1

Effect of the Proposed Amendment .......................................................................................2

Outsourcing Services to Municipalities .......................................................................................2

Current Statute......................................................................................................................2

Effect of the Proposed Amendment .......................................................................................2

Federal Reimbursements for Military Site Cleanup......................................................................3

Current Statute......................................................................................................................3

Effect of the Proposed Amendment .......................................................................................4

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) ......................................................................................5

Indemnification of Transferees of Closing Defense Properties ...............................................6

Current Statute................................................................................................................6

Effect of the Proposed Amendment .................................................................................6

Requirement for No-Cost Economic Development Conveyances...........................................7

Current Statute................................................................................................................7

Effect of the Proposed Amendment .................................................................................8

Issues for Congress .....................................................................................................................8

Contacts

Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................9

Congressional Research Service

Military Installation Real Property and Services

Introduction

Some Members of Congress have expressed concern that the cost of redeveloping closed military

property may place a burden on local communities. On March 12, 2009, Senator Olympia Snowe

(Maine) introduced in the 111th Congress on behalf of herself and Senator Mark L. Pryor

(Arkansas), the “Defense Communities Assistance Act of 2009” (S. 590). As stated under its

Section 2 (Sense of Congress), the legislation is intended to assist communities located near

military installations “to either recover quickly from [military base] closures or to accommodate

growth associated with troop influxes” brought on by the movement of troops and activities as

part of “base closures and realignments, global repositioning, and grow the force initiatives.”

Representative Chellie Pingree (Maine) introduced the “Defense Communities Redevelopment

Act of 2009” (H.R. 1959) on April 2, 2009. The bill duplicates the no-cost conveyance section of

S. 590. Representative Sam Farr, of California, introduced H.R. 2295 on May 7 on behalf of

himself, Representative Kay Granger (Texas), Representative Pingree, and Representative

William Delahunt (Massachusetts) as an identical companion bill to S. 590. The three Senate and

House bills have been referred to their respective Committees on Armed Services.

Conveying Property to Gain Construction and

Avoid Encroachment

Current Statute

10 USC § 2689 authorizes the Secretary of Defense or any military department (Army, Navy, or

Air Force) to convey real property to any legal entity in exchange for either other real property to

limit encroachment that might restrict military activities or for housing at or near a military

installation that is experiencing a housing shortage.1 The Secretary may transfer only property

under his jurisdiction that is located on an installation being closed or realigned. Until his

authority to do so expired on September 30, 2008, the Secretary could also use this conveyance

authority for any other military property declared excess to defense needs. 2

The fair market value of the property, as determined by the Secretary, received in the exchange

must be at least equal to that being conveyed. Should the received property’s value be less than

that exchanged, the person must pay the United States an amount equal to the difference.

Advance notice of any conveyance under this section must be announced in a manner prescribed

by the Secretary of Defense. When military property is to be conveyed by public sale, the

1

Encroachment implies a gradual intrusion upon the rights or possessions of another. In the context of this report,

encroachment connotes the development of private property near an installation for a use incompatible with the military

mission. An example might be the construction of a residential area under the flight pattern of a military airfield, or the

siting of a school adjacent to a military firing range. A conveyance is the transfer of legal title, or ownership, of

property. Real property is defined as land, and generally whatever is erected or growing upon or fixed to land (e.g.,

buildings). Henry Campbell Black, Black’s Law Dictionary, Rev. 4th ed. (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1968),

pp. 402, 1383.

2

10 U.S.C. § 2869(a)(3).

Congressional Research Service

1

Military Installation Real Property and Services

Secretary concerned may notify prospective purchasers that consideration may take the form

described. The Secretary is required to notify Congress of a prospective conveyance and wait for

a period of between 14 and 60 days before entering into an agreement. The Secretary of Defense

is required to report annually on his use of this authority.

Effect of the Proposed Amendment

Section 3 of S. 590/H.R. 2295 would reinstate the Secretary’s authority to transfer property at any

military installation, regardless of its closure or realignment status “without limitation on

duration,” rendering it permanent.

Outsourcing Services to Municipalities

Current Statute

10 U.S.C. § 2465 prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from entering into a contract “for

the performance of firefighting or security-guard functions at any military installation or facility.”

Another provision of law, 10 USC § 2461 note, requires a public-private competition under

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 before any DOD function being performed by

10 or more DOD civilian employees can be converted to performance by a contractor.

Amendments to that statute3 authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to carry out

pilot programs to contract with a county or municipality for certain municipal services. The

permitted services include refuse collection, refuse disposal, library services, recreation services,

facility maintenance and repair, and utilities. The number of installations permitted to be included

in the pilot project is limited to three per military service, and all must be located within the

United States.

All pilot program contracts must terminate not later than September 30, 2012.

Effect of the Proposed Amendment

S. 590/H.R. 2295 would create a new statute, 10 U.S.C. 2465a, that would permanently authorize

military department secretaries to enter into an unrestricted number of contracts with “a county,

municipal government, or other local governmental unit in the geographic area in which [an]

installation is located” for the provision of the same municipal services as the pilot program.

The new authority would permit the Secretary concerned to use “other than competitive

procedures” if the contract would not exceed five years in duration, if he determines that the price

for contracted municipal services represents least cost to the federal government, and if his

supporting business case describes alternative sources and establishes that contract performance

3

See Act Oct. 28, 2004, P.L. 108-375, Div A, Title III, Subtitle C, § 325; Jan. 28, 2008, P.L. 110-181, Div B, Title

XXVIII, Subtitle B, § 2826; and Oct. 14, 2008, P.L. 110-417, [Div A,] Title X, Subtitle F, § 1061(b)(16), 122 Stat.

4613 (effective as of 1/28/2008 and as if included in Act Jan. 28, 2008 as enacted, as provided by § 1061(b) of such

Act, which appears as 5 USCS § 6382 note).

Congressional Research Service

2

Military Installation Real Property and Services

will not increase costs to the federal government. The authority to make the necessary

determinations could not be delegated below the level of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Installations and Environment (or DOD equivalent). The Secretary would have to notify the

Committee on Armed Services of the House and of the Senate of any such contract 14 days

before it could become effective.

Subsection (c) of this section of the proposed amendment appears to reference the original pilot

program for contracted municipal services. The pilot program was originally created under

Section 325(f) of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

20054 and authorized only the Secretary of the Army to initiate two such contracts that would

terminate not later than September 30, 2010. A 2008 amendment5 expanded the pilot program to

all military departments, raised the limit to three contracts in each, and reset the termination date

to September 30, 2012. This new legislation would permit these pilot program contracts to

terminate as late as September 30, 2020.

Federal Reimbursements for Military Site Cleanup

Current Statute

Section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-499)

required the Secretary of Defense to establish a Defense Environmental Restoration Program to

clean up environmental contamination and address other safety hazards on current and former

military installations in the United States, subject to appropriations. The Secretary is authorized to

enter into agreements to reimburse other entities for expenses they may incur in participating in

the cleanup of a military installation under this program.6 These other entities that are eligible for

reimbursement include: other federal agencies, state, territorial, or local agencies, Indian tribes,

nonprofit conservation organizations, and owners of “covenant” property. This latter category

refers to owners of former military property conveyed with a deed that includes a covenant

stating the continuing cleanup responsibility of the United States.

Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA)7 generally requires contaminated federal property to be cleaned up prior to transfer

out of federal ownership. However, additional cleanup may be needed after the transfer if the

contamination was found not to have been sufficiently remediated. To address such situations,

Section 120(h)(3) requires the deed to a transferred federal property to include a covenant stating

the continuing responsibility of the United States to conduct additional cleanup that may be

needed subsequent to transfer.8 Such a covenant must be included in the deed to all surplus

federal property transferred out of federal ownership, on which a hazardous substance was stored

for one year or more, was known to have been released, or was disposed of. If the owner of the

covenant property wishes to perform cleanup actions that may be necessary after acquiring

4

P.L. 108-375, Div A, Title III, Subtitle C, § 325.

P.L. 110-181, Div B, Title XXVIII, Subtitle B, § 2826.

6

10 U.S.C. § 2701(d).

7

42 U.S.C. § 9620(h).

8

42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3).

5

Congressional Research Service

3

Military Installation Real Property and Services

ownership, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with the owner to reimburse its costs, as

the United States ultimately would be responsible for those actions under the covenant.9

Historically, the Secretary has most often exercised this agreement authority to reimburse states

for the expenses they incur in participating in cleanup decisions at military installations within

their jurisdictions. As of the end of FY2007, the Department of Defense had entered into

cooperative agreements with 47 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 U.S. territories, to govern

the types of expenses that are eligible for reimbursement.10 These agreements typically allow the

reimbursement of expenses that a state or territory may incur in exercising its statutory right

under Section 120(f) of CERCLA to participate in the planning and selection of a “remedial”11

action to clean up a federal facility, including the review of available data and the development of

studies, reports, and plans.12

Under current law, states cannot be reimbursed under these agreements for the costs of

enforcement actions they may take against the Department of Defense for failure to carry out a

planned cleanup action or to comply with other cleanup requirements.13 Whether enforcement

action taken by a state may affect the Secretary’s willingness to enter into, or renew, an agreement

with such state to reimburse expenses it may incur in participating in cleanup decisions.

Nevertheless, the Secretary is not required to enter into these reimbursement agreements, but may

do so at his discretion.

Effect of the Proposed Amendment

This section of the proposed legislation would expand the scope of current law to allow the

Secretary to enter into agreements for reimbursement of expenses that other entities may incur in

“processing” a transfer of federal property, before or after cleanup is performed. Like the

agreements for reimbursement of expenses associated with cleanup, the Secretary would not be

required to enter into agreements for reimbursement of these processing expenses. Rather, the

Secretary would be authorized to do so at his discretion. Although the title of the section,

“Reimbursable Activities under the Defense-State Memorandum of Agreement Program,” implies

that this provision would apply only to agreements with states, the entities that would be eligible

for reimbursement of these processing expenses would be the same as those under current law for

reimbursement of expenses associated with cleanup: other federal agencies; state, tribal, or local

agencies; Indian tribes; nonprofit conservation organizations; and owners of covenant property.

9

The United States is usually held responsible for further cleanup of contamination that it caused, to the extent

necessary to make the property suitable for the land use specified in the deed. If the owner later decides to use the

property for another purpose that would require additional cleanup, the owner ordinarily is held responsible for the

additional costs. Further, a deed may restrict the use of the land to a purpose(s) that would be suitable relative to the

level of cleanup performed by the United States. Such restrictions are sometimes used to prohibit certain uses that

would require a greater level of cleanup than may be technically or economically feasible.

10

Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report to Congress, March

2008, Appendix Q, p. Q-3.

11

Remedial actions typically are longer term cleanup actions intended to provide a more permanent solution to address

potential health and environmental risks. Shorter term actions that address more immediate risks are referred to as

“removal” actions.

12

42 U.S.C. § 9620(f).

13

10 U.S.C. § 2701(d)(3).

Congressional Research Service

4

Military Installation Real Property and Services

The section does not define what activities would constitute the “processing” of a transfer of

federal property, making it unclear as to what specific activities would qualify for reimbursement.

Absent such definition in statute, the Secretary presumably would have the discretion to

determine what processing expenses may be eligible for reimbursement. In practice, a recipient of

federal property could incur legal or administrative expenses in the process of acquiring a

property, in addition to the actual cost of the property itself, if payment is required to provide fair

market or other value in exchange for the property.

Even though a state may not be the recipient of a property, a state still could incur administrative

expenses in its involvement in the transfer of a property before cleanup is complete. Although

federal property generally must be cleaned up prior to transfer out of federal ownership, Section

120(h)(3)(C) of CERCLA allows transfer to occur before then if certain conditions are satisfied,

including the providing of assurances that the cleanup will be performed and that the land use

would be protective of human health and the environment.14 Transferring a federal property

before cleanup is complete is subject to the concurrence of the governor of the state in which the

property is located. The review and approval of such property transfers by a governor could result

in a state incurring administrative expenses.

The proposed language also is intended to prevent the Secretary from imposing certain conditions

on the funding made available through a reimbursement agreement. If the Secretary enters into a

reimbursement agreement with another entity, the Secretary would be required not to make the

reimbursement conditional upon whether a state may take an enforcement action against the

Department of Defense, or upon a state’s willingness to enter into dispute resolution with the

Department of Defense to avoid an enforcement action. This requirement would appear to apply

to any reimbursement agreement entered into under this authority, including both those that

would apply to expenses associated with cleanup and those that would apply to expenses

associated with the processing of property transfers.

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)15

On September 8, 2005, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission submitted nearly

200 recommendations to President George W. Bush. These recommendations would

fundamentally alter the stationing of military forces and the functions carried out at many posts,

bases, and stations throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions.16 President Bush

14

42 U.S.C. § 9620(h)(3)(C).

The term “Base Realignment and Closure,” or BRAC, originated with a 12-member Commission on Base

Realignment and Closure created by the Secretary of Defense during 1988 to assess the continued utility of military

installations throughout the United States. The Commission recommended the closure of those installations no longer

needed for national defense and the rededication of others to new functions.

16

For more information on the BRAC process, seeCRS Report RS21822, Military Base Closures: DOD's 2005 Internal

Selection Process, by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Military Base Closures: DOD's 2005 Internal Selection

Process, by (name redacted) and (name redacted);CRS Report RS22291, Military Base Closures: Highlights of the

2005 BRAC Commission Report and Its Additional Proposed Legislation, by (name redacted) and (name redacted),

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report and Its Additional Proposed Legislation, by

(name redacted) and (name redacted);CRS Report RS22061, Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC Commission,

by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC Commission, by (name redacted)

and (name redacted); CRS VideoCRS Report MM70068,

Military Base Closures: DOD's Internal 2005 BRAC

Selection Process. Online Video. Video Tape., by (name redacted) and (name redacted), Military Base Closures:

DOD's Internal 2005 BRAC Selection Process, by (name redacted), et al.; or CRS VideoCRS Report MM70084,Military

(continued...)

15

Congressional Research Service

5

Military Installation Real Property and Services

approved the recommendations and, in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Act of 1990 (DBCRA), as amended,17 the Secretary of Defense is putting into effect

the entire list prior to September 15, 2011.

The final two sections of S. 590/H.R. 2295 would further amend the DBCRA to expand the

indemnification (holding harmless) of persons who have taken title to property on closed military

installations and to require the conveyance at no cost of surplus military property under certain

conditions.

Indemnification of Transferees of Closing Defense Properties18

Current Statute

Section 330 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1993 (P.L. 102-484) indemnifies all

recipients of property on closed military installations from any claim arising from personal injury

or property damage resulting from contamination caused by past military activities on such

property. This indemnification applies specifically to military properties declared surplus to the

federal government under the DBCRA.

As discussed earlier, Section 120(h)(3) of CERCLA states that the United States is responsible for

conducting additional cleanup deemed necessary after a property is transferred out of federal

ownership, generally relieving the recipient of the property from such responsibility. However,

this provision does not address the responsibility of the United States for personal injury or

property damage that may result from contamination caused by past activities of the federal

government. This potential responsibility for personal injury as a consequence of receiving

ownership upon transfer has been perceived as a deterrent to the acquisition of certain surplus

federal properties. Section 330 of P.L. 102-484 specifically indemnifies recipients of BRAC

property from responsibility for personal injury or property damage resulting from contamination

caused by past military activities.

Effect of the Proposed Amendment

This section of S. 590/H.R. 2295 would amend Section 330 of P.L. 102-484 to indemnify

recipients of BRAC property not only from responsibility for personal injury or property damage

arising from contamination caused by past military activities, but also specifically from

environmental remediation (i.e., cleanup) of that contamination. Although Section 120(h)(3) of

CERCLA already states that additional cleanup found to be necessary after the date of transfer

“shall be conducted by the United States,” this provision does not explicitly indemnify recipients

of surplus federal property from responsibility for such additional cleanup.

(...continued)

Base Closures: BRAC Commission and Beyond. Online Video. Video Tape., by (name redacted) and (name red

acted),

Military Base Closures: BRAC Commission and Beyond, by (name redacted), et al.

17

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note.

18

Indemnify: To save harmless, to secure against loss or damage; to give security for the reimbursement of a person in

case of an anticipated loss falling upon him. Black's Law Dictionary, p. 910.

Congressional Research Service

6

Military Installation Real Property and Services

This section would explicitly remove recipients of BRAC property from responsibility for

cleanup of contamination caused by past military activities and would indemnify them against

statutory or regulatory requirement or cleanup order for contamination caused by past military

activity. It would also protect the new owners from the costs of compliance with any such

requirement or order. In effect, only the United States could be held subject to statutory or

regulatory requirements or orders, and the associated costs, to perform additional cleanup of

contamination it originally caused.

Requirement for No-Cost Economic Development Conveyances

Current Statute

Section 2905 of the DBCRA specifies the manner in which the Secretary of Defense is to

implement the approved recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission (the BRAC Commission). It grants the Secretary the authority to dispose of excess

and surplus property using a variety of methods, such as public sale or auction.

Subsection 2905(b)(4) augments this disposal authority by stating that the “Secretary may transfer

real property and personal property located at a military installation to be closed or realigned

under this part to the redevelopment authority [sometimes referred to as a Local Redevelopment

Authority, or LRA] with respect to the installation for purposes of job generation on the

installation.”19 This is the so-called Economic Development Conveyance (EDC).

If such is the case and the installation was approved for closure or realignment after January 1,

2005, the subsection further requires the Secretary to “seek to obtain consideration in connection

with any transfer under this paragraph of property located at the installation in an amount equal to

the fair market value of the property, as determined by the Secretary.”20 The statute permits the

Secretary to transfer the property to the redevelopment authority under this authority at no cost if

the recipient agrees to utilize proceeds from the sale or lease of any portion of the transferred

property “during at least the first seven years after the initial transfer to support the economic

development of, or related to, the installation,” and executes the agreement of transfer and accepts

control of the property “within a reasonable time after the date of the property disposal record of

decision or finding of no significant impact under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).”21

19

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2904(b)(4)(A).

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2904(b)(4)(B).

21

10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2904(b)(4)(C). The subsection specifies that only these expenditures are considered

appropriate to “support the economic development of, or related to, the installation”:

(i) Road construction.

(ii) Transportation management facilities.

(iii) Storm and sanitary sewer construction.

(iv) Police and fire protection facilities and other public facilities.

(v) Utility construction.

(vi) Building rehabilitation.

(vii) Historic property preservation.

(viii) Pollution prevention equipment or facilities.

(continued...)

20

Congressional Research Service

7

Military Installation Real Property and Services

Effect of the Proposed Amendment

The law currently requires the Secretary concerned to seek fair market value consideration for

BRAC property transferred to the LRA as part of an EDC, but allows the Secretary the discretion

of granting a no-cost EDC under certain circumstances. Under S. 590/H.R. 1959/H.R. 2295, the

DBCRA would be returned to the provisions that were in effect on December 27, 2001,

essentially removing the fair market value requirement. 22 The Secretary would no longer have the

discretion to grant a no-cost EDC. He would be required to transfer the property to the LRA at no

cost as long as the LRA agrees to certain requirements.

The amendment would also require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to

implement the revived provisions within 60 days of enactment. The Secretary is to “ensure that

the military departments transfer surplus real and personal property at closed or realigned military

installations without consideration to local redevelopment authorities for economic development

purposes, and without the requirement to value such property.”23 Because the proposed legislation

is silent on the question of its applicability to the 2005 round versus earlier base closures, it is

unclear what impact, if any, this change would have on property now or in the future being

transferred as part of the2005 BRAC round. Arguably, any agreements not concluded by the date

of enactment of the bill would be subject to the new framework and would be eligible for transfer

at no cost. It is uncertain if the bill would allow the LRA to modify its redevelopment plan to

include a no-cost EDC that was not previously recommended.

Issues for Congress

Although the introductory sections of S. 590 and H.R. 2295 state that the legislation’s purpose is

to enhance communities’ ability to recover from installation downsizing or to adjust the military

population growth, the discussion above indicates that the potential impact of the proposed

legislation could extend beyond the current BRAC round. As Congress considers these bills,

Members may wish to weigh questions such as the following:

•

If current law permanently authorizes DOD to exchange property on closing or

realigning military installations for non-DOD property that could increase its

supply of housing or ease encroachment pressure, to what extent does extending

the authority to all excess DOD property serve to satisfy the stated purpose of the

legislation—assisting communities to recover from the effects of base resizing or

closure?

(...continued)

(ix) Demolition.

(x) Disposal of hazardous materials generated by demolition.

(xi) Landscaping, grading, and other site or public improvements.

(xii) Planning for or the marketing of the development and reuse of the installation.

22

The late December 2001 amendment to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 that authorized the

2005 base closure round inserted the “fair market value” requirement and substituted “may” for “shall” in permitting

the Secretary to effect an EDC without consideration when the LRA agreed to reinvest sale and lease proceeds and took

timely control of the property.

23

S. 590, 111th Cong. (2009).

Congressional Research Service

8

Military Installation Real Property and Services

•

What are the risks and benefits relative to the merits of authorizing the military

departments to outsource base support, such as refuse removal, the operation of

golf courses, libraries, and fitness centers, and public works functions, to county

or local governments rather than provide for them through DOD employees or

private contractors?

•

Are there advantages in broadening the Secretary of Defense’s ability to

reimburse agencies and organizations for military site cleanup activities to

include expenses associated with “processing” of a conveyance of the property?

If there are disadvantages, what are they, and could they decrease the Secretary’s

willingness to enter into reimbursement agreements?

•

An extension of indemnification to include removal of statutory and regulatory

requirements for site cleanup of past military activity will effectively add to the

cost of remediation borne by the federal government and correspondingly reduce

the burden on the state or locality near the site or the new owners. What are the

implications for future federal costs?

•

Current law requires the Secretary of Defense to “seek fair market value” for

surplus 2005 BRAC property conveyed to redevelopment authorities for the

purposes of job creation on the former military site. Nevertheless, the Secretary is

permitted to execute such an Economic Development Conveyance for no

consideration (at no cost) under certain circumstances. Existing statute requires

that all “proceeds received from the lease, transfer, or disposal of any property at

a military installation closed or realigned” be used only to defray the cost of

implementing BRAC recommendations or remediating environmental

degradation on BRAC-surplus property. 24 If the Secretary is required to convey

surplus property at no cost, revenue could be lost that would have to be replaced

by appropriated funds. What are the advantages and disadvantages of foregoing

this potential revenue stream?

•

How much in toto will these proposed changes cost the federal Treasury relative

to the benefits gained by federal agencies, local governments, and private

enterprise?

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coordinator

Specialist in National Defense

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Legislative Attorney

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

(name redacted)

Specialist in Environmental Policy

[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

24

10 U.S.C. 2687 note, Secs. 2906 and 2906A.

Congressional Research Service

9

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

copyright on any CRS report we have republished.