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

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005

BRAC Commission Report and Its Additional

Proposed Legislation

-name redactedSpecialist in National Defense

-name redacted-

October 26, 2006

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

RS22291

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Summary

The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (commonly referred to as the

BRAC Commission) submitted to the President its report on domestic military base closures and

realignments on September 8, 2005. The President approved the list and forwarded it to Congress

on September 15. This report summarizes some of the report’s highlights and examines in detail

the Commission’s proposed legislation for the conduct of a potential future BRAC round. It will

not be updated.

Congressional Research Service

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Closures and Realignments

In the 2005 BRAC round, the Department of Defense (DOD) recommended 190 closures and

realignments. Of this number, the BRAC Commission approved 119 with no changes and

accepted 45 with amendments. These figures represented 86% of the Department of Defense’s

overall proposed recommendations. In other words, only 14% of DOD’s list was significantly

altered by the Commission. Of the rest, the Commission rejected 13 DOD recommendations in

their entirety and significantly modified another 13. It should be pointed out that the BRAC

Commission approved 21 of DOD’s 33 major closures, recommended realignment of 7 major

closures, and rejected another 5.

Costs and Savings

Over the next 20 years, the total savings of the Commission’s recommendations are estimated at

$35.6 billion – significantly smaller than DOD’s earlier estimate of $47.8 billion. The difference

between Commission and DOD estimates has proved controversial.

Results of Jointness

According to the Commission, DOD achieved only minor success in promoting increased

jointness with its recommendations. Most of the proposed consolidations and reorganizations

were within, not across, the military departments.

Air National Guard

Among the most difficult issues faced by the 2005 BRAC Commission were DOD’s proposals to

close or realign Air National Guard bases. Thirty seven of 42 DOD Air Force proposals involved

Air National Guard units.

Commission Process

According to the Commission, its process was open, transparent, apolitical, and fair.

Commissioners or staff members made 182 site visits to 173 separate installations. It conducted

20 regional hearings to obtain public input and 20 deliberative hearings for input on, or discussion

of, policy issues.

Differences between Current and Prior Rounds

In 2005, DOD adopted an approach supporting an emphasis on joint operations. The 1988, 1991,

and 1993 rounds did not include a Joint Cross-Service element. The 1995 round did utilize Joint

Cross-Service Groups in its analytical process, but the three military departments were permitted

to reject their recommendations. In 2005, the Joint Cross-Service Groups were elevated to

become peers of the military departments.

Congressional Research Service

1

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

The 2005 Commission consisted of nine members rather than eight, thereby minimizing the

possibility of tie votes. For the 2005 round, the time horizon for assessing future threats in

preparing DOD’s Force Structure Plan was 20 years rather than six. The 1995 selection criteria

stated that the “environmental impact” was to be considered in any base closure or realignment.

The 2005 criteria required the Department of Defense (and ultimately the Commission) to

consider “the impact of costs related to potential environmental restorations, waste management

and environmental compliance activities.”

Existing BRAC law specifies eight installation selection criteria. The 2005 Commission

emphasized the sixth, which directed consideration of economic impact on local communities. In

prior rounds, homeland defense was not considered a selection criterion. It is now a significant

element among the military value selection criteria.

The 1991 Commission added 35 bases to the DOD list of recommendations, the 1993

Commission added 72, and the 1995 Commission added 36 – where as the 2005 Commission

added only 8.

Finally, prior BRAC rounds did not take place in the face of the planned movement of tens of

thousands of troops from abroad back to the United States.

Subsequent Commission-recommended Legislation

Overview

The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended various changes to

the existing statute governing its creation, organization, process, and outcome. The proposed

revision of the governing Act, if enacted, would arguably represent a significant change in scope

of the BRAC law. It would expand the Commission’s lifespan and mission. It would explicitly

link reconsideration of the defense infrastructure “footprint” to security threat analysis by the new

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the periodic study of the nation’s defense strategy

known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. It would also formalize BRAC consideration of

international treaty obligations undertaken by the United States, such as the scheduled

demilitarization of chemical munitions. By passing legislation containing the Commission’s

recommended language, Congress would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 20142015 BRAC round, should he or she deem it necessary.

Other recommended provisions would enable the Commission to suggest new vehicles for the

expeditious transfer of title of real property designated for disposal through the BRAC process. In

addition, recommended legislative language suggests expanding the requirement for Department

of Defense release of analytical data and strengthens the penalty for failure to do so. It would

increase the responsibilities of the Commission’s General Counsel and would exempt the

Commission from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) while retaining conformity with

the Freedom of Information (FOIA) and Government in the Sunshine Acts. The recommended

legislation would also make permanent the existing temporary authority granted to the

Department of Defense to enter into environmental cooperative agreements with federal, state,

and local entities (including Indian tribes).

Finally, the recommended legislation, while it retains many of the features new to the 2005 round

(such as the super majority requirement), it repeals others, such as statutory selection criteria.

Congressional Research Service

2

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Placing BRAC in the Broader Security Context

The 2005 BRAC round was the fourth in which an independent commission reviewed

recommendations drawn up by the Department of Defense, amended them, and submitted the

revised list to the President for approval. While the 2005 process resembled the previous three

rounds, it was profoundly different in many respects.

For example, the DOD’s analytical process attempted to reduce former rounds’ emphasis on

individual military departments by enhancing the joint and cross-service evaluation of

installations. BRAC analysis in 2005 also attempted to project defense needs out to 20 years,

whereas previous rounds used a much shorter six-year analytical horizon. This encouraged DOD

analytical teams to base their assessments on assumptions of the needs of transformed military

services, not formations created for the Cold War. These assumptions were embodied in the forcestructure plan and infrastructure inventory submitted by the Secretary of Defense.

In its legislative recommendation, the Commission suggested that a potential 2014-2015 BRAC

round be placed in a strategic sequence of defense review, independent threat analysis, and base

realignment. The new statute would couple the existing Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),

currently required every four years, with consideration of a new BRAC round. If the QDR leads

the Secretary of Defense to initiate a new BRAC round, the DNI would produce and forward to

Congress an independent threat assessment.

BRAC Commission

Under the 2005 statute, the BRAC Commission was terminated on April 16, 2006. The proposed

legislation would have extended the life of a subset of the Commission (Chairman, Executive

Director, and staff of not more than 50), which would have maintained the Commission’s

documentation and formed the core of an expanded staff for a possible 2014-2015 Commission.

In addition, the continued Commission would have been tasked to monitor and report on: (1) the

use of BRAC appropriations; (2) the implementation and savings of 2005 BRAC

recommendations; (3) the execution of privatizations-in-place at BRAC sites; (4) the remediation

of environmental degradation and its associated cost at BRAC sites; and (5) the impact of BRAC

actions on international treaty obligations of the United States.1

Commission Reports

The proposed law would have required the prolonged Commission to prepare and submit three

reports to Congress and the President: an Annual Report, a Special Report (due on June 30,

2007), and a Final Report (due on October 31, 2011).

1

BRAC recommendations dealing with certain installations are driven by chemical weapon and other international

treaty obligations external to the BRAC process itself. The proposed legislation would have authorized the

Commission’s Executive Director to request staff detailees from the Government Accountability Office, the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), who would

monitor and track use of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Account 2005 (the BRAC appropriation),

environmental remediation, restoration, and compliance, and international treaty compliance, respectively.

Congressional Research Service

3

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Annual Reports

The Commission would have reported not later than October 31 of each year on Department of

Defense utilization of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Account 2005, implementation

of BRAC recommendations, the carrying out of privatization-in-place by local redevelopment

authorities, environmental remediation undertaken by the Department (including its cost), and the

impact of BRAC actions on international treaty obligations of the United States.

Special Report

The legislation would have authorized the Commission to study and analyze the execution of

BRAC 2005 recommendations. This report, undertaken if the Commission considered it

beneficial, would have been completed not later than June 30, 2007. It would have focused on

actions taken and planned for those properties whose disposal proves to be problematic,

including:

Properties Requiring Special Financing. Some properties planned for transfer to local

redevelopment authorities or others may require special financial arrangements in the form of

loans, loan guarantees, investments, environmental bonds and insurance, or other options.

National Priorities List (NPL) Sites. NPL sites and other installations present particularly difficult

environmental remediation challenges necessitating long-term management and oversight.

The 2005 Commission report proposed that this study examine freeing the Department, after a set

period, to withdraw from unsuccessful title transfer negotiations with local redevelopment

authorities in order to seek other partners. It also envisioned potential Department contracts with

private environmental insurance carriers after the completion of remediation in order to mitigate

risk of future liability.

The study could have considered the advisability of crafting a financial “toolbox,” similar in

concept to the special authorizations granted to the Department of Defense in the creation of the

Military Housing Privatization Initiative, in order to expedite the disposal of challenging

properties. Other alternatives studied were the creation of public-private partnerships, limitedliability corporations, or independent trusteeships to take title to and responsibility for properties.2

The Commission would have consulted closely with the Department of Defense, the military

departments, the Comptroller General of the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, in preparing its study and

report.

Final Report

Existing law requires all BRAC implementation actions to be completed not later than six years

after the date that the President transmitted the current Commission’s report, or September 15,

2

See CRS Report RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues, by (name redacted), for

more information.

Congressional Research Service

4

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

2011. The recommended legislation would have required the Commission to submit a final report

on the execution of these actions not later than October 31, 2011.

Other Noteworthy Considerations

The recommended legislation included other provisions suggested by the experience of the 2005

round.

Submission of Certified Data

The proposed legislation would require the Secretary of Defense to release the supporting

certified data not later than seven (7) days after forwarding his or her base closure and

realignment recommendations to the congressional defense committees and the Commission.

Failure to do so would terminate the BRAC round.

Prolongation of Commission Analysis and Recommendation Period

The 2005 Commission report notes that the four months allotted by statute for the Commission to

complete its work was shortened considerably by delays in staffing the Commission, the

appointment of Commissioners, and the release of Defense Department certified data, among

other considerations. The Commission proposed legislation to extend the period to seven (7)

months.

Commission Subpoena Power

The 2005 Commission suggested that a future body be granted the Commission the power to

subpoena witness for its hearings.

Commission General Counsel as Sole Ethics Counselor

The Commission recommended a statutory designation of the Commission’s General Counsel as

its sole ethics counselor. The 2005 Commission found that questions concerning recusal from

consideration, potential conflicts of interest, etc., were not materially assisted by consultation

with other agency counsel.

Transparency

Legislation recommended by the Commission stated that the “records, reports, transcripts,

minutes, correspondence, working papers, drafts, studies or other documents that were furnished

to or made available to the Commission shall be available for public inspection and copying at

one or more locations to be designated by the Commission. Copies may be furnished to members

of the public at cost upon request and may also be provided via electronic media in a form that

may be designated by the Commission.” It would continue the traditional practice of opening all

unclassified hearings and meetings of the Commission to the public and provides for official

transcripts, certified by the Chairman, to be made available to the public.

Congressional Research Service

5

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Repeal of Existing Law

The recommended legislation would have repealed Sec. 2912-2914 of the existing law. These

sections authorized the 2005 round and include, among other provisions, the statutory installation

selection criteria.

Table 1.Timeline of Proposed 2014-2015 BRAC Round

Date

Event

September 30, 2013

Secretary of Defense issues 2013 QDR

January 31, 2014

Director of National Intelligence issues threat assessment report

February 2014

Presidential budget request, including force-structure plan and defense infrastructure

inventory

March 15, 2014

Secretary of Defense certification of need for BRAC round

April 15, 2004

Secretary of Defense draft selection criteria publication in Federal Register

May 30, 2014

GAO report on force-structure plan

June 30, 2014

Final BRAC selection criteria publication in Federal Register

September 30, 2014

Presidential nomination of Commissioners (failure terminates process)

October 1, 2014

Secretary of Defense final force-structure plan submission

November 30, 2014

Secretary of Defense BRAC recommendation list submission

December 7, 2014

Secretary of Defense submission of certified data (failure terminates process)

January 15, 2014

GAO report on BRAC process

June 30, 2015

BRAC Commission report submission to President

July 15, 2015

Presidential approval/disapproval of BRAC Commission report

August 15, 2015

BRAC Commission revised submission to President (if needed)

August 30, 2015

Presidential submission of recommendations/certification of approval to Congress (failure

terminates process)

Submission + 45 days

Enactment of recommendations unless joint resolution of disapproval passed

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Specialist in National Defense

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

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)

6

Military Base Closures: Highlights of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report

Congressional Research Service

7

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.