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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40620

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** June 4, 2009
- **Citation:** R40620

## Text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR40620. Public record. Not legal advice.