Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC): Background and Issues for Congress

Since 1977, statutory thresholds have effectively constrained the President’s ability to close or realign major military installations in the United States. Congress has instead periodically granted temporary authorities—known as a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)—that have established independent commissions for the review and approval of basing changes submitted by the Secretary of Defense. These unique and transient authorities last expired on April 16, 2006. There have been five rounds of base closures: 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005.

Though Congress has periodically adjusted the BRAC process to account for lessons learned, the modern framework has remained generally consistent with earlier rounds, and includes

establishment of an independent commission;

reliance on objective and uniform criteria;

Government Accountability Office (GAO) review and certification of Department of Defense (DOD) data;

deliberations designed to be transparent that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review; and

requirement that the final list of closure and realignment recommendations be accepted or rejected in their entirety.

Congress has defined BRAC selection criteria in statute, thus requiring the Secretary to prioritize military value over cost savings. Additionally, Congress has required the Secretary to align the Department’s recommendations with a comprehensive 20-year force structure plan. The commission may modify, reject, or add recommendations during its review before forwarding a final list to the President.

After receiving the Commission’s list of recommendations, the President may either accept the report in its entirety or seek to modify it by indicating disapproval and returning it to the commission for further evaluation. If the President accepts the commission’s recommendations, they are forwarded to Congress. BRAC implementation begins by default unless Congress rejects the recommendations in their entirety within 45 days by enacting a joint resolution. During the implementation phase, DOD is required to initiate closures and realignments within two years and complete all actions within six years.

The BRAC process represents a legislative compromise between the executive and legislative branches wherein each shares power in managing the closure and realignment of military bases. The imposition of an independent, third-party mediator was intended to insulate base closings from political considerations by both branches that had complicated similar actions in the past.

This report provides background on the development of BRAC, describes its major elements and milestones, and outlines issues frequently cited in the context of new rounds, such as potential savings.

Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC): Background and Issues for Congress

April 25, 2019 (R45705)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Summary

Since 1977, statutory thresholds have effectively constrained the President's ability to close or realign major military installations in the United States. Congress has instead periodically granted temporary authorities—known as a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)—that have established independent commissions for the review and approval of basing changes submitted by the Secretary of Defense. These unique and transient authorities last expired on April 16, 2006. There have been five rounds of base closures: 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005.

Though Congress has periodically adjusted the BRAC process to account for lessons learned, the modern framework has remained generally consistent with earlier rounds, and includes

  • establishment of an independent commission;
  • reliance on objective and uniform criteria;
  • Government Accountability Office (GAO) review and certification of Department of Defense (DOD) data;
  • deliberations designed to be transparent that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review; and
  • requirement that the final list of closure and realignment recommendations be accepted or rejected in their entirety.

Congress has defined BRAC selection criteria in statute, thus requiring the Secretary to prioritize military value over cost savings. Additionally, Congress has required the Secretary to align the Department's recommendations with a comprehensive 20-year force structure plan. The commission may modify, reject, or add recommendations during its review before forwarding a final list to the President.

After receiving the Commission's list of recommendations, the President may either accept the report in its entirety or seek to modify it by indicating disapproval and returning it to the commission for further evaluation. If the President accepts the commission's recommendations, they are forwarded to Congress. BRAC implementation begins by default unless Congress rejects the recommendations in their entirety within 45 days by enacting a joint resolution. During the implementation phase, DOD is required to initiate closures and realignments within two years and complete all actions within six years.

The BRAC process represents a legislative compromise between the executive and legislative branches wherein each shares power in managing the closure and realignment of military bases. The imposition of an independent, third-party mediator was intended to insulate base closings from political considerations by both branches that had complicated similar actions in the past.

This report provides background on the development of BRAC, describes its major elements and milestones, and outlines issues frequently cited in the context of new rounds, such as potential savings.


Background

The U.S. Constitution does not clearly specify how military bases should be managed. Article II, Section 2, appoints the President as the commander-in-chief, with the implied power to deploy, and redeploy, the armed forces as necessary for national defense. In common practice, this has included the authority to create and close military installations needed to accommodate and train personnel under the President's command. However, Article I, Section 8, charges Congress with the responsibility to raise armies, maintain a Navy, and regulate the militia. Through annual authorization and appropriation legislation, Congress legislates policy for managing DOD real property assets and funds the construction, maintenance, operation, and disposal of military infrastructure.1

Throughout most of American history, the President has exercised broad, relatively unchallenged authority for opening, closing, or realigning military installations. Congress largely deferred to the Executive branch primarily because the President, as commander-in-chief, is empowered with the responsibility of deploying military forces.2

Prompted by large-scale closures of World War II era infrastructure during the 1960s and 1970s, Congress enacted legislation in 1977 that effectively limited the Executive branch's ability to close or realign major military installations. The new statute, later codified as 10 U.S.C. 2687 (Section 612 of the Military Construction Authorization Act of 1978, P.L. 95-82), generally required DOD to conduct comprehensive and lengthy assessments of major basing decisions as part of a congressional report-and-wait process.3 These assessments could be challenged in court on environmental grounds or on questions related to their sufficiency, further lengthening delays.4 The new legislation effectively halted DOD's ability to close or realign domestic bases of significant size.5

In the decade that followed the passage of 10 U.S.C. 2687, congressional pressure grew to accommodate DOD basing priorities. By 1988, ongoing negotiations between the Secretary of Defense and the House and Senate Armed Service Committees led to new legislation (P.L. 100-526) that authorized a limited number of base closures based on the oversight of an independent panel.6 Though later modified, the effort marked the beginning of the first Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which was intended to insulate base closings from considerations such as favoritism or other political interference.7

Widely considered a success, the 1988 BRAC legislation was taken up again and modified in succeeding BRAC rounds; first in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and again in 2005.8

Major Elements of the Modern BRAC Process

The modern BRAC process refers to a temporary authority that amends the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510), hereinafter referred to as the Base Closure Act, and features a framework of elements that entrusts an independent commission with certifying closure and realignment recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense.

BRAC Authorization and Closure Rounds

1988 Round: The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, enacted October 24, 1988 (P.L. 100-526)

1991, 1993, 1995 Rounds: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510, Title XXIX of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, enacted November 5, 1990)

2005 Round: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, (P.L. 107-107; amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510)

In general, the process has required the Secretary to submit a list of military installations recommended for closure or realignment to an independent, bipartisan BRAC commission. After analyzing the Secretary's recommendations, the commission may accept, reject, or modify the list.9 Upon completing its review, the commission forwards its final findings and recommendations to the President. Upon acceptance of commission's recommendations, the President then submits them to Congress. If the President does not submit the recommendations to Congress within the timeframe required under the Base Closure Act, the BRAC process is terminated. Upon receipt of the report from the President, Congress has the opportunity to disapprove of the recommendations in toto through the enactment of a joint resolution.

The hallmarks of this framework include

  • establishment of an independent commission whose members are appointed by the President, in consultation with congressional leadership (and the advice and consent of the Senate);10
  • reliance on objective and uniform criteria for evaluating basing recommendations;
  • GAO review and certification of DOD data;
  • deliberations that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review;
  • requirement that the commission's final list of closure and realignment actions be accepted or rejected in its entirety; and
  • presidential and congressional off-ramps that would terminate the BRAC process when certain conditions are not met.

The timeline to complete an entire BRAC round has varied; however, the most recent one conducted in 2005 took approximately 10 years, from authorization to completion (end of the six-year BRAC implementation period).

Key milestones of a typical BRAC timeline include

  • DOD force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and analysis of options (up to four years);11
  • nomination and confirmation of BRAC commissioners;
  • DOD submission of BRAC recommendations (and associated reports) to the commission;
  • commission deliberations (typically four months);
  • final report sent to the President for approval;
  • 45-day deadline for Congress to reject recommendations in their entirety (Joint Resolution of Disapproval) or allow implementation to begin;
  • DOD implementation (two years to begin; six years to complete); and
  • DOD disposal of real property (indeterminate).

BRAC Selection Criteria

BRAC is often characterized as a cost efficiency measure that enables DOD to more effectively manage its real property assets by allowing it to shed excess infrastructure, but historically, potential costs and savings have been a consideration that have ranked below military value.12 No BRAC round has established cost savings targets, floors, or ceilings.

Transformation Versus Cost Savings

"In previous rounds of BRAC, the explicit goal was to save money and downsize the military in order to reap a 'peace dividend.' It was clear from the Commission's examination of the DoD 2005 BRAC list that the historical goal of achieving savings through eliminating excess capacity was not always the primary consideration for many recommendations. In fact, several DoD witnesses at Commission hearings made it clear that the purpose of many 2005 BRAC recommendations was to advance the goals of transformation, improve capabilities, and enhance military value. In some cases, accomplishing these new goals meant proposing BRAC scenarios that either never paid off (i.e., resulted in a net increased cost) or had very long payback periods...."

—2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, Chapter 1: Commission Strategic Overview

During BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to develop and report a set of objective selection criteria that would be used for identifying bases for closure and realignment. For the 2005 round, Congress amended the BRAC statute to require the Secretary to regard military value (defined below) as the primary consideration.13 Other factors, such as potential costs and savings, were explicitly categorized as lower priority. Because the amended legislative language reflected longstanding DOD policy, the 2005 BRAC criteria appear almost identical when compared with previous versions, with additional language added for emphasis or included for explanatory examples.

The excerpt below indicates the 2005 BRAC selection criteria.14 Emphasized text (in italics) represents new language not included as part of the 1995 criteria.15

SEC. 2913. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR 2005 ROUND.

(a) FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA.—The final criteria to be used by the Secretary in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under this part in 2005 shall be the military value and other criteria specified in subsections (b) and (c).

(b) MILITARY VALUE CRITERIA.—The military value criteria are as follows:

(1) The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on operational readiness of the total force of the Department of Defense, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness.

(2) The availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace (including training areas suitable for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and terrain areas and staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions) at both existing and potential receiving locations.

(3) The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge, and future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training.

(4) The cost of operations and the manpower implications.

(c). OTHER CRITERIA.—The other criteria that the Secretary shall use in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under this part in 2005 are as follows:

(1) The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs.

(2) The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations.

(3) The ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support forces, missions, and personnel.

(4) The environmental impact, including the impact of costs related to potential environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities.

Disposal of Real Property

The transfer and disposal of DOD real property made available following the implementation of a BRAC round is a complex process that may extend for years beyond the initial six-year implementation window. Disposal may be delayed or otherwise affected by the participation of local and state communities and the degree to which environmental remediation by federal authorities is necessary.16 The graph below shows the total acreage from previous BRAC rounds yet to be disposed.

Figure 1. BRAC Acreage Disposed of and Not Yet Disposed

Shown by Year of BRAC Round

Source: FY2017 data provided to CRS by the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), May 2017.

The Base Closure Act authorizes a variety of conveyance mechanisms not otherwise available for the transfer and disposal of federal property, a process typically performed by the General Services Administration (GSA).17 Under a BRAC, conveyance authority is delegated from GSA, through the Secretary of Defense to the various military departments, which receive special approval to supersede GSA regulations with BRAC specific regulations. The primary difference between the routine disposal of federal property and real property conveyed under a BRAC is the role of local communities.

Under normal (non-BRAC) circumstances, the General Services Administration (GSA) is directly responsible for disposing of any surplus federal real property, which includes defense property. A military department in possession would, for example, declare property as excess to its needs and turn over the administration of a site to the GSA. The GSA would then follow a number of consecutive steps for disposal of federal property laid out in statute. It would first offer the excess property to other federal agencies. If none expressed an interest, the excess property would be declared surplus. The GSA would then offer the surplus property to state or local governments and non-profits that might use it for a public benefit (public benefit conveyance), such as a homeless shelter or medical center. Finally, if the property has neither been transferred nor conveyed in the previous steps, the surplus property would be offered for sale to the public.18

Under a BRAC, local communities can significantly affect the BRAC property transfer and disposal decisions, which are managed by the Secretary of the responsible military department.19 Once approved for closure, communities around an installation typically organize a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the purpose of creating and executing a redevelopment plan for the property. While the plan is not binding on DOD, the Department has been statutorily directed to give the plan considerable weight. DOD makes economic development grants and technical support available through its Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to assist LRAs with the process.20

In recent BRAC rounds, Congress has authorized a special transfer authority that has permitted DOD to transfer title to property at less than fair market value, or even at no cost, if the LRA agrees to certain conditions designed to create employment at the former defense facility. This has been referred to as an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC).

BRAC Savings

DOD has asserted that savings generated from BRAC are generally the result of avoiding the cost of retaining and operating unneeded infrastructure, with upfront costs eventually offset by annual savings. Between FY2012 and FY2018, the Department consistently argued for a new BRAC, asserting that "absent another BRAC round, the Department will continue to operate some of its installations sub-optimally as other efficiency measures, changing force structure, and technology reduce the number of missions and personnel."21

Emphasizing the potential cost savings, DOD has suggested a new "efficiency-focused BRAC" could save the Department billions of dollars annually: "Savings from BRAC rounds are real and substantial. The last five BRAC rounds are collectively saving the Department $12B annually. A new efficiency-focused BRAC could save the Department an additional ~$2B annually (based on the '93/'95 rounds)."22

In its ongoing series of BRAC-related reports, the GAO has noted the unreliability of DOD cost savings estimates. In 2013, GAO concluded that, though the Department had achieved annual recurring savings as the result of the 2005 round, visibility into the outcome has been limited due to missing and inconsistent recordkeeping.23 Similar studies have raised questions about the data DOD has used to predict and monitor BRAC effectiveness, long-term savings, and outcomes. For example

  • "... the services did not develop baseline operating costs before implementing the BRAC recommendations, which would have enabled it to determine whether savings were achieved."24
  • "... We found that DOD's process for providing the BRAC commission with cost and savings estimates was hindered by underestimating recommendation-specific requirements and that DOD did not fully anticipate information technology requirements for many of the recommendations."25
  • "The department cannot provide documentation to show to what extent it reduced plant replacement value or vacated leased space as it reported in May 2005 that it was intended to do.... In addition, DOD bundled multiple closures ... thus limiting visibility into the estimated costs and savings for individual closures and realignments."26
  • "... DOD has not reported to Congress how the cleanup of emerging contaminants, especially certain perfluorinated compounds, at installations closed under BRAC will significantly increase the estimated (BRAC) cleanup costs."27
  • "... We found that OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) did not have a fully developed method for accurately collecting information on costs, savings, and efficiencies achieved specifically from joint basing, and that OSD had not developed a plan to guide joint bases in achieving cost savings and efficiencies...."28
  • "... DOD has not committed to take action on some of our recommendations related to implementing any future BRAC rounds, such as improving DOD's ability to estimate potential liabilities, and savings to achieve desired outcomes."29

In its final report to the President, the 2005 BRAC commission noted DOD's initial estimate of savings had been "vastly overestimated," and suggested that the Department had claimed savings that were "not truly savings in the commonly understood sense of the term."30 Reflecting on the quality of cost estimates and savings associated with 2005 BRAC round, Anthony Principi, Chairman of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, has suggested opportunities exist for the DOD to improve its analysis by adopting more consistent accounting practices and inclusive metrics:

To start, DoD has to do a better job estimating the true cost of any closure or realignment.... Second, the cost of base realignment actions (COBRA) accounting procedure, used by DoD as a basis of comparison among scenarios, should include cost estimates for environmental restoration not just "clean to current use" standards. In addition, COBRA or some other cost evaluation process should also include transportation and infrastructure costs and burden sharing with the federal government....31

In addition to refining DOD accounting metrics, some observers have suggested congressional visibility into BRAC cost and long-term effectiveness could be improved by amending the process to require the Department to disclose how closure and realignment recommendations meet expected cost saving and reduced infrastructure targets.

Excess Infrastructure

A BRAC process is the chief means by which DOD disposes of excess infrastructure. Each year between 2013 and 2017, the Department requested a new BRAC round as a means of realizing greater efficiency and reducing excess infrastructure. It has also attempted to allay concerns related to the 2005 BRAC experience - marked by unexpectedly high costs and complexity - by emphasizing cost savings and efficiencies rather than force transformation.

In April 2016, DOD submitted to the House Armed Services Committee an Infrastructure Capacity Report (interim version) that assessed 22% of the Department's base infrastructure excess to its needs.32 The methodology used in the report—required by Section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92)—remained consistent with excess capacity reports submitted prior to the 1998 and 2005 BRAC rounds round.33 The Department stated its purpose for obtaining "a sense of excess and whether excess remains after various changes, such as (prior) BRAC or force structure reductions."34 A final infrastructure capacity report, submitted to Congress in October 2017, modified the original excess capacity estimate to 19%.35

Table 1. Infrastructure Capacity Reports; Interim and Final

Percentage of Infrastructure Identified as Excess

Department

FY2016 Interim Report

FY2017 Final Report

Army

33%

29%

Navy

7%

6%

Air Force

32%

28%

Defense Logistics Agency

12%

13%

Total DOD

22%

19%

Source: Recreated from Table 1, Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity Report, October 2017.

Notes: The FY2016 report estimated excess infrastructure DOD would carry into FY2019, according to force structure plans. The FY2017 report measured the value according to FY2012 force structure. Both analyses used 1989 as a baseline. DLA

The Department concluded its infrastructure capacity analysis by arguing it had established sufficient justification for a new BRAC round, a process that would allow it to more effectively dispose of excess infrastructure and manage remaining real property assets.

The Department believes we have addressed all congressional concerns.... The time to authorize another BRAC round is now. The BRAC process requires considerable time to analyze and develop recommendations, have those recommendations reviewed by the independent BRAC Commission, and then implemented over a six-year period of time. The longer authorization is delayed, the longer the Department will be forced to expend valuable resources on unnecessary facilities instead of weapons systems, readiness, and other national security priorities.36

Critics of the Department's methodology for estimating excess infrastructure have asserted it includes unreasonable research assumptions and metrics, undermining the basis for DOD's conclusion. For example, observers have cited the report's reliance on Cold War baseline values to establish excess capacity, inconsistent application of existing metrics for measuring capacity shortfalls, and overly broad categorization schemes.37 Some observers have also cited longstanding data management challenges that continue to affect the Department's ability to measure current excess facility inventory and utilization rates.38 Others have noted the dearth of data that support DOD claims related to BRAC effectiveness and the disposal of excess property.39

During a news briefing on the FY2019 defense budget, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) David L. Norquist noted that the Department had declined to propose a BRAC round that year, stating that it would work instead to focus on internal reforms while preparing for a financial audit.

And so, I think we're looking at doing two things, going forward. One is, working with Congress to find common areas where we can make reforms and changes that don't create the same types of obstacles. The other is that we are undergoing a financial-statement audit that includes a look at property, and assets and investments and improving the accuracy of the data behind it. And as a view of being able to take advantage of the data coming out of that process, to help us make better decision-making on real property. But, yes, you are correct, there is not (a) request for another BRAC round in this budget.40

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, Lucian Niemeyer, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, indicated DOD would be working in FY2019 to improve its excess infrastructure accounting processes and demolish unneeded infrastructure:

In lieu of another request for legislation in FY 2019 to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we will review our facilities, to include facility usage optimization review to ensure we have a better accounting of excess infrastructure. We also have proposed for FY 2019 increased efforts to demolish unneeded or obsolete facilities over the course of this year.41

Legacy of the 2005 BRAC Round

Context of the 2005 BRAC Round

"Prior BRAC rounds occurred at the dusk of the Cold War, when military budgets and force structure were shrinking. The 2005 BRAC round occurred in a post-9/11 environment with our armed forces deployed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan with stable or increasing force structure and defense budgets. During the 2005 BRAC implementation period, the armed forces expect to relocate 70,000 servicemembers from overseas to installations within the United States. Prior BRAC rounds took place in the context of military doctrine and force structure shaped by the Cold War. The 2005 BRAC round occurred during the transformation of military doctrine and force structure to meet the needs of an entirely new threat and security environment...."

—2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report, Chapter 1: Commission Strategic Overview

The 2005 BRAC round was unique among all previous rounds due to its relative size, scope and complexity. (See Figure 2 for comparison of major and minor BRAC actions between rounds.)42 Colloquially called "the mother of all BRACs," the objectives of the 2005 round were primarily about transforming military infrastructure; however, unanticipated expenses have played a role in shaping subsequent congressional views of the BRAC process and, according to many observers, dampened support for consideration of a new round.

Savings estimates submitted during the 2005 round were overvalued by as much as 67%, according to GAO analysis, with one-time implementation costs rising from $21 to $35.1 billion.43 GAO found that the $14.1 billion increase was due primarily to the rising cost of new construction associated with subsidiary projects not included in the original BRAC implementation plan.44

Figure 2. BRAC Major and Minor Actions

Base Closures and Realignments

Source: GAO-13-149, "Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base and Realignment and Closure Rounds," March 2013.

Notes: For the 2005 BRAC round, major and minor actions are based on DOD defined values. Actions during previous rounds represent GAO estimates.

Referring to the implementation of the 2005 round, Assistant Secretary Niemeyer, noted, "BRAC legislation effectively limited the ability of Congress to oversee BRAC implementation costs and the Department made deliberate decisions to use BRAC implementation as a recapitalization tool, expanding facility requirements and associated costs."45

To address congressional concerns about spiraling costs in new BRAC rounds, DOD has periodically proposed legislative language that would constrain the Secretary's ability to recommend BRAC actions that would not yield savings within 20 years and to emphasize recommendations that would yield net savings within five years.46

The Department of Defense Base Closure Account

Each year, Congress appropriates funding for the Department of Defense Base Closure Account, part of the Military Construction Defense-Wide appropriation. With no BRAC round authorized or underway, the primary purpose of continuing BRAC appropriations is to fund the environmental cleanup and caretaker functions at bases that were closed under prior rounds (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Historical View of BRAC Appropriations, FY2001-FY2020

Source: CRS Compilation of annual DOD Comptroller, C-1 Military Construction Appropriations.

Notes: Amounts reflect budget execution in "APPN" column of annual C-1 spreadsheets and include all BRAC accounts. FY2020 represents the Administration's current request.

In FY2020, the Trump Administration has requested $278.5 million for BRAC continuing environmental and caretaker costs, with $158.3 million provided for the Navy (57%), $66.1 million for the Army (24%), and $54 million for the Air Force (19%).47 The total request represents a $63 million decrease (19%) from FY2019 enacted levels ($342 million).

In FY2018, Congress urged DOD to accelerate environmental remediation at BRAC sites. In report language, appropriators stated that additional funds were provided to speed environmental remediation at installations closed under previous rounds.

Accelerated cleanup.—The agreement includes additional funding to accelerate environmental remediation at installations closed during previous Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. Priority should be given to those sites with newly identified radiological cleanup cost. There are many factors hindering the cleanup of BRAC sites. However, strategic investments can lead to quicker clean-ups and faster turnover of DOD property to the local community. Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the congressional defense committees a spend plan for the additional BRAC funds not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act.48

Congressional Action on BRAC

Prohibition on Conducting a New Round

Congressional authorizers and appropriators have regularly inserted language into annual defense legislation that would disallow the use of funds for the purpose of a new BRAC round. In FY2019, for example, though DOD did not propose a BRAC, authorizers inserted language into the annual NDAA that prohibited a new round:

SEC. 2703. Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.49

A similar provision was included in the final FY2019 defense appropriations bill:50

SEC. 8122. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new or additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.51

BRAC Legislation in the 115th Congress

In 2017, Members in both chambers proposed legislation that would have authorized a new round of base closures.52 Though no legislation for a full BRAC was enacted, a provision included the following year in the final FY2019 NDAA.

Under the new scenario described by Section 2702 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515, P.L. 115-232), BRAC-like actions are authorized within the confines of a state based on the recommendation of the governor and support of local communities affected by the proposed actions. Unlike a traditional BRAC process, the new authorities would forgo the creation of an independent review panel. The Secretary of Defense is, instead, required to deliver a report of planned BRAC actions to congressional defense committees and, following a 90-day waiting period, begin implementation. For details, please refer to "In-State BRAC" in Appendix A of this report.

The BRAC related legislative proposals above illustrate the flexibility Congress has for amending or adopting the template of past BRAC processes that DOD has called "the only fair, objective, and comprehensive process to achieve these goals (eliminating excess infrastructure)."53 Congress may consider whether future legislative proposals for base closures and realignments will adopt the lessons learned from previous rounds while retaining the basic framework, or fundamentally alter the process.

BRAC Legislation in the 116th Congress

No BRAC legislation has so far been proposed in the 116th Congress. Additionally, the Department has asserted that it does not intend to use the new BRAC-like authorities authorized by Section 2702 of the FY2019 NDAA.54 To date, DOD has received no state requests under this authority.

Appendix A. Legislative References

BRAC Authorizing Legislation

1988 Round

The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, enacted October 24, 1988 (P.L.100-526)

1991, 1993, 1995 Rounds

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, enacted November 5, 1990 (P.L. 107-107, Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Title XXIX)

2005 Round

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, (P.L. 101-510; amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510)

10 U.S.C. 2687, 10 U.S.C. 993 Summary

In 1977, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 2687, the first statutory restriction on the President's ability to close or realign military installations. Amended over the years, the statute has retained its essential elements, establishing procedures the Secretary of Defense must follow before closing a military installation where a threshold number (currently 300) of civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or realigning an installation that involves a reduction by more than 50% (or 1,000) of civilian workers. A more recent statute, 10 U.S.C. 993, introduced additional reporting requirements that would restrict the Secretary's ability to realign installations if the plan would affect more than 1,000 assigned members of the Armed Forces.

In-State BRAC

Section 2702 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H.R. 5515, P.L. 115-232) authorizes new in-state BRAC authorities. Text of the provision is included below in its entirety.

SEC. 2702. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO REALIGN OR CLOSE CERTAIN MILITARY

INSTALLATIONS.

(a) Authorization.—Notwithstanding sections 993 or 2687 of title 10, United States Code, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation in a State during a fiscal year if—

(1) the military installation is the subject of a notice which is described in subsection (b); and

(2) the Secretary includes the military installation in the report submitted under paragraph (2) of subsection (c) with respect to the fiscal year.

(b) Notice From Governor of State.—A notice described in this subsection is a notice received by the Secretary of Defense from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia) in which the Governor recommends that the Secretary carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation located in the State, and which includes each of the following elements:

(1) A specific description of the military installation, or a specific description of the relevant real and personal property.

(2) Statements of support for the realignment or closure from units of local government in which the installation is located.

(3) A detailed plan for the reuse or redevelopment of the real and personal property of the installation, together with a description of the local redevelopment authority which will be responsible for the implementation of the plan.

(c) Response to Notice.—

(1) Mandatory response to governor and congress.—Not later than 1 year after receiving a notice from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, from the Mayor of the District of Columbia), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a response to the notice to the Governor and the congressional defense committees indicating whether or not the Secretary accepts the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of the notice.

(2) Acceptance of recommendation.—If the Secretary of Defense determines that it is in the interests of the United States to accept the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of a notice received under subsection (b) and intends to carry out the realignment or closure of the installation pursuant to the authority of this section during a fiscal year, at the time the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees which includes the following:

(A) The identification of each military installation for which the Secretary intends to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to the authority of this section during the fiscal year, together with the reasons the Secretary of Defense believes that it is in the interest of the United States to accept the recommendation of the Governor of the State involved for the realignment or closure of the installation.

(B) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a master plan describing the required scope of work, cost, and timing for all facility actions needed to carry out the realignment or closure, including the construction of new facilities and the repair or renovation of existing facilities.

(C) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a certification that, not later than the end of the fifth fiscal year after the completion of the realignment or closure, the savings resulting from the realignment or closure will exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure, together with an estimate of the annual recurring savings that would be achieved by the realignment or closure of the installation and the timeframe required for the financial savings to exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure.

(d) Limitations.—

(1) Timing.—The Secretary may not initiate the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section until the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date the Secretary submits the report under paragraph (2) of subsection (c).

(2) Total costs.—Subject to appropriations, the aggregate cost to the government in carrying out the realignment or closure of military installations pursuant to the authority of this section for all fiscal years may not exceed $2,000,000,000. In determining the cost to the government for purposes of this section, there shall be included the costs of planning and design, military construction, operations and maintenance, environmental restoration, information technology, termination of public-private contracts, guarantees, and other factors contributing to the cost of carrying out the realignment or closure, as determined by the Secretary.

(e) Process for Implementation.—The implementation of the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section shall be carried out in accordance with section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (title XXIX of P.L. 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) in the same manner as the implementation of a realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of such Act.

(f) State Defined.—In this section, the term ``State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(g) Termination of Authority.—The authority of the Secretary to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to this section shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2029.

Appendix B. BRAC Acreage Disposal Status, By State

Table B-1. Status of BRAC Acreage Disposal, By State/Territory and BRAC Round

State

BRAC Year

Closure or Realignment

Installation Name

Acres Disposed

Acres Remaining to be Disposed

Sum of Excessed

Alabama

1988

Major Closure

COOSA RIVER STORAGE ANNEX(ANNISTON)

2,834

0

2,834

 

 

Minor Closure

ALABAMA AAP

2,235

0

2,235

 

1993

Major Closure

MOBILE - NS

0

0

0

 

 

Minor Closure

GADSDEN - NRC/AFRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MONTGOMERY - NRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

FORT MCCLELLAN

18,431

12

18,443

 

 

Minor Closure

HUNTSVILLE AL - NAVRESCEN

3

0

3

 

2005

Minor Closure

BG WILLIAMS P. SCREWS USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

CLEVELAND LEIGHT ABBOT USARC

6

0

6

 

 

 

FAITH WING USARC

2

0

2

 

 

 

Finnell AFRC & AMSA#154

5

0

5

 

 

 

HARRY L. GARY, JR. USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MOBILE - NMCRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

NRC TUSCALOOSA

0

0

0

 

 

 

PFC GRADY C. ANDERSON USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

WRIGHT USARC

0

0

0

Alabama Total

 

 

 

23,521

12

23,533

Alaska

1995

Major Closure

ADAK - NAF

0

0

0

 

 

Major Realignment

FORT GREELY

0

0

0

 

2005

Minor Closure

GALENA AIRPORT

0

0

0

 

 

 

KULIS AGS

0

0

0

Alaska Total

 

 

 

0

0

0

Arizona

1988

Minor Closure

CAMP NAVAJO

0

0

0

 

1991

Major Closure

WILLIAMS AFB

3,878

144

4,021

 

2005

Minor Closure

AFRL MESA

7

0

7

 

 

 

ALLEN HALL USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

DEER VALLEY USARC #2

0

0

0

Arizona Total

 

 

 

3,888

144

4,032

Arkansas

1991

Major Closure

EAKER

3,401

0

3,401

 

1993

Minor Closure

FAYETTEVILLE - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

FORT SMITH - NRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

FORT CHAFFEE

7,050

0

7,050

 

2005

Minor Closure

ARKADELPHIA USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

ECS-15/ERA/ARLOG

39

0

39

 

 

 

HOT SPRINGS USARC

1

0

1

 

 

 

LEROY R. POND USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

MALVERN USARC OMS

0

0

0

 

 

 

RUFUS GARRETT JR. USARC

3

0

3

 

 

 

SAMUEL STONE JR USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC CAMDEN

2

0

2

 

 

 

USARC JONESBORO

3

0

3

Arkansas Total

 

 

 

10,503

0

10,503

California

1988

Major Closure

GEORGE

4,196

866

5,062

 

 

 

HAMILTON ARMY AIR FIELD

659

0

659

 

 

 

MATHER

5,661

0

5,661

 

 

 

NORTON

2,221

0

2,221

 

 

 

PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO

1,480

0

1,480

 

 

Minor Closure

SALTON SEA TEST RANGE

5,877

0

5,877

 

1991

Major Closure

CASTLE

2,777

0

2,777

 

 

 

FT ORD

19,301

7,778

27,080

 

 

 

LONG BEACH - NH

31

0

31

 

 

 

LONG BEACH - NS

413

56

469

 

 

 

LONG BEACH - NSY

351

0

351

 

 

 

MOFFETT FIELD - NAS

2,951

0

2,951

 

 

 

Tustin MCAS

1,341

233

1,574

 

 

Minor Closure

SACRAMENTO AD

406

0

406

 

 

 

TREASURE ISLAND NS HUNTERS PT ANNEX

89

846

935

 

1993

Major Closure

ALAMEDA - NAS

2,392

256

2,649

 

 

 

El Toro MCAS

4,402

292

4,694

 

 

 

MARE ISLAND NSY

1,201

415

1,617

 

 

 

NOVATO DOD HOUSING FACILITY

551

0

551

 

 

 

OAKLAND - NH

182

0

182

 

 

 

PORT HUENEME CA ENGSRVCEN

33

0

33

 

 

 

SAN DIEGO - NTC

380

51

431

 

 

 

TREASURE ISLAND - NS

917

161

1,077

 

 

Major Realignment

MARCH

4,441

0

4,441

 

 

Minor Closure

PACIFIC GROVE - NRC

4

0

4

 

1995

Major Closure

MCCLELLAN

2,995

457

3,452

 

 

 

OAKLAND - FISC

697

0

697

 

 

 

OAKLAND ARMY BASE

377

18

395

 

 

Major Realignment

FORT HUNTER LIGGETT BRAC

0

0

0

 

 

 

SIERRA ARMY DEPOT

4,999

4,488

9,487

 

 

Minor Closure

EAST FORT BAKER

91

0

91

 

 

 

LOMPOC BRANCH DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS

2,457

0

2,457

 

 

 

ONTARIO

8

0

8

 

 

 

POMONA - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

RIO VISTA RES TRNG AREA

28

0

28

 

 

 

STOCKTON - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

Minor Realignment

ONIZUKA

0

0

0

 

2005

Major Closure

ONIZUKA AFS

20

0

20

 

 

 

RIVERBANK AAP

0

172

172

 

 

Major Realignment

CONCORD NWS

59

4,972

5,031

 

 

Minor Closure

ARNG RC BELL

0

0

0

 

 

 

DESIDERIO HALL USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

HAZARD PARK

0

0

0

 

 

 

MOFFETT FIELD USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

PVT GEORGE L. RICHEY USARC

9

0

9

 

 

 

SCHROEDER HALL USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

USARC MOUNTAIN VIEW

7

0

7

California Total

 

 

 

74,016

21,062

95,078

Colorado

1988

Major Realignment

PUEBLO AD

0

15,953

15,953

 

 

Minor Closure

BENNETT ARNG TRNG SITE

242

0

242

 

1991

Major Realignment

LOWRY

1,786

0

1,786

 

1995

Major Closure

U.S. ARMY OPERATIONS FITZSIMONS

558

0

558

 

2005

Major Closure

BUCKLEY ANNEX

70

0

70

Colorado Total

 

 

 

2,656

15,953

18,609

Connecticut

1995

Minor Closure

NEW LONDON - NUSC/NUWC DET

32

0

32

 

 

 

STRATFORD ARMY ENGINE PLANT

1

77

78

 

2005

Minor Closure

AMSA 69

3

0

3

 

 

 

AMSA 72 USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MIDDLETOWN USARC/OMS

24

0

24

 

 

 

SGT LIBBY USARC/OMS

6

0

6

Connecticut Total

 

 

65

77

142

Delaware

2005

Minor Closure

MAJ ROBERT KIRKWOOD MEMORIAL USARC

10

0

10

Delaware Total

 

 

 

10

0

10

District of Columbia

2005

Major Closure

WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER

110

0

110

 

 

Minor Closure

POTOMAC ANNEX

8

0

8

District of Columbia Total

 

 

118

0

118

Florida

1988

Minor Closure

CAPE ST. GEORGE

6

0

6

 

 

 

COCONUT GROVE - NRC

3

0

3

 

1993

Major Closure

CECIL FIELD - NAS

17,061

0

17,061

 

 

 

ORLANDO - NTC

2,070

0

2,070

 

 

 

ORLANDO FL NAVAL HOSPITAL

44

0

44

 

 

Major Realignment

HOMESTEAD

976

0

976

 

1995

Major Realignment

KEY WEST - NAS

176

0

176

 

 

Minor Closure

Big Coppit Key

0

0

0

 

 

 

ORLANDO - NRL (USR DET)

18

0

18

 

2005

Minor Closure

ST. PETERSBURG - NRC

4

0

4

Florida Total

 

 

 

20,359

0

20,359

Georgia

2005

Major Closure

ATLANTA - NAS

0

0

0

 

 

 

FORT GILLEM

772

399

1,171

 

 

 

FORT MCPHERSON

474

14

487

 

 

Minor Closure

ATHENS NAVSCSCOL

56

0

56

 

 

 

COLUMBUS USARC #1

2

0

2

 

 

 

ROME - MCRC

0

0

0

Georgia Total

 

 

 

1,304

412

1,717

Guam

1993

Major Closure

AGANA - NAS

1,819

0

1,819

 

1995

Major Closure

GUAM - SHIP REPAIR FACILITY

0

0

0

 

 

Minor Closure

GUAM - PWC

979

0

979

 

 

Minor Realignment

GUAM - NAVACTS

1,805

0

1,805

Guam Total

 

 

 

4,604

0

4,604

Hawaii

1988

Minor Closure

KAPALAMA MIL RESERVATION

21

0

21

 

1993

Major Closure

BARBERS POINT - NAS

2,290

217

2,507

 

2005

Minor Closure

HILO KUNIEDA USARC

0

0

0

Hawaii Total

 

 

 

2,311

217

2,528

Idaho

2005

Minor Closure

NRC POCATELLO

0

0

0

Idaho Total

 

 

 

0

0

0

Illinois

1988

Major Closure

CHANUTE

1,799

401

2,200

 

 

 

FORT SHERIDAN

386

0

386

 

1993

Major Closure

GLENVIEW - NAS

1,196

0

1,196

 

 

 

O'HARE

274

0

274

 

1995

Major Closure

SAVANNA DEPOT ACTIVITY

4,994

7,890

12,884

 

2005

Minor Closure

COPPLE USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

FOREST PARK - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

PFC R. G. WILSON USARC

3

0

3

 

 

 

SSG R. E. WALTON USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

WAUKEGAN AFRC

4

0

4

Illinois Total

 

 

 

8,665

8,291

16,956

Indiana

1988

Major Closure

INDIANA AAP

859

0

859

 

 

 

JEFFERSON PROVING GROUND

3,113

1,122

4,235

 

1991

Major Closure

FT BEN HARRISON

2,331

60

2,391

 

 

Major Realignment

GRISSOM

1,345

0

1,345

 

1993

Minor Closure

FORT WAYNE IN NMRC

4

0

4

 

 

 

TERRE HAUTE - NRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

INDIANAPOLIS - NAWC-AD

163

0

163

 

2005

Major Closure

NEWPORT CHEMICAL DEPOT

7,241

0

7,241

 

 

Minor Closure

EVANSVILLE NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

HALLIDAY USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

NMCRC GRISSOM ARB

0

0

0

Indiana Total

 

 

 

15,055

1,183

16,238

Iowa

1988

Minor Closure

FORT DES MOINES

51

0

51

 

2005

Minor Closure

BURLINGTON MEMORIAL USARC/AMSA

11

0

11

 

 

 

CEDAR RAPIDS AFRC

6

0

6

 

 

 

DUBUQUE - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

SIOUX CITY NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC MUSCATINE

0

0

0

Iowa Total

 

 

 

68

0

68

Kansas

1993

Minor Closure

HUTCHINSON - NRC/AFRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Minor Closure

OLATHE - NARC

0

0

0

 

2005

Major Closure

KANSAS AAP

13,951

0

13,951

Kansas Total

 

 

 

13,951

0

13,951

Kentucky

1988

Major Closure

LEXINGTON (BLUE GRASS) ARMY DEPOT

777

0

777

 

1995

Major Closure

LOUISVILLE - NOS

142

0

142

 

2005

Minor Closure

LOUISVILLE - NOS

0

0

0

 

 

 

MG BENJAMIN J. BUTLER USARC

7

0

7

 

 

 

NRC LEXINGTON

0

0

0

 

 

 

PADUCAH MEMORIAL USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

PADUCAH USARC #2

3

0

3

 

 

 

USARC MAYSVILLE

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC RICHMOND

0

0

0

Kentucky Total

 

 

 

933

0

933

Louisiana

1988

Minor Closure

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL,NEW ORLEANS

18

0

18

 

1991

Major Closure

ENGLAND

2,351

0

2,351

 

1993

Minor Closure

LAKE CHARLES - NS

0

0

0

 

 

 

MONROE LA NAVRESCEN

3

0

3

 

1995

Minor Closure

NEW ORLEANS - NAVBIOLAB

0

0

0

 

2005

Major Closure

NEW ORLEANS - NSA

149

0

149

 

 

Minor Closure

BATON ROUGE - NMCRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

ROBERTS USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

SHREVEPORT USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC BOSSIER CITY

0

0

0

Louisiana Total

 

 

 

2,521

0

2,521

Maine

1991

Major Closure

LORING

9,276

0

9,276

 

2005

Major Closure

BRUNSWICK - NAS

2,777

578

3,355

Maine Total

 

 

 

12,053

578

12,631

Maryland

1988

Major Realignment

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE

8,452

13

8,465

 

 

Minor Closure

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

0

0

0

 

 

 

GAITHERSBURG RES FACILITY

23

0

23

 

 

Minor Realignment

FORT HOLABIRD (88)

7

0

7

 

1995

Major Closure

FT RITCHIE

590

0

590

 

 

 

WHITE OAK - NSWC DAHLGREN DIV DET

662

0

662

 

 

Minor Closure

ANNAPOLIS - NSWC CARDEROCK DIV DET

68

0

68

 

 

 

FORT HOLABIRD

13

0

13

 

2005

Minor Closure

ADELPHI - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

NGA DALECARLIA SITE, BETHESDA, MD

0

0

0

 

 

 

SUMNER SITE (NGA)

39

0

39

Maryland Total

9,854

13

9,867

Massachusetts

1988

Major Closure

ARL - WATERTOWN

47

0

47

 

1991

Major Closure

FORT DEVENS

3,982

138

4,120

 

1993

Minor Closure

LAWRENCE - NMCRC/AFRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

NEW BEDFORD - NRC

2

0

2

 

 

 

PITTSFIELD - NRC

11

0

11

 

1995

Major Closure

SOUTH WEYMOUTH - NAS

1,983

113

2,097

 

 

Minor Closure

HINGHAM ANNEX

125

0

125

 

 

 

SUDBURY TRAINING ANNEX

2,277

0

2,277

 

2005

Minor Closure

ARTHUR MACARTHUR USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

WESTOVER USARC

0

0

0

Massachusetts Total

 

 

8,432

252

8,684

Michigan

1988

Minor Closure

PONTIAC STORAGE ACTIVITY

29

0

29

 

1991

Major Closure

Wurtsmith AFB

1,696

274

1,969

 

1993

Major Closure

K.I. SAWYER

2,857

0

2,857

 

1995

Major Realignment

DETROIT ARSENAL & DETROIT TANK PLT

152

0

152

 

 

Minor Closure

CADILLAC MI NAVRESCEN

0

0

0

 

2005

Major Closure

USAG SELFRIDGE

0

103

103

 

 

Minor Closure

MARQUETTE NRF

0

0

0

 

 

 

STANFORD C. PARISIAN USARC

0

0

0

Michigan Total

 

 

 

4,735

376

5,111

Minnesota

2005

Minor Closure

CAMBRIDGE MEMORIAL USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

DULUTH - NRC

2

0

2

 

 

 

GEN BEEBE USARC/AMSA 111

6

0

6

 

 

Minor Realignment

FORT SNELLING USARC/AMSA 22

0

0

0

Minnesota Total

 

 

 

11

0

11

Mississippi

2005

Major Closure

NS PASCAGOULA

0

0

0

 

 

Minor Closure

MISSISSIPPI AAP

0

0

0

 

 

 

VICKSBURG USARC

0

0

0

Mississippi Total

 

 

 

0

0

0

Missouri

1988

Minor Closure

NIKE KANSAS CITY 30

24

0

24

 

1991

Major Closure

RICHARDS-GEBAUR

196

0

196

 

1993

Minor Closure

JOPLIN - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

ST JOSEPH - NRC

0

0

0

 

2005

Minor Closure

CAPE GIRARDEAU - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

GREENTOP USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

KANSAS CITY - MCSA

27

0

27

Missouri Total

 

 

 

247

0

247

Montana

1993

Minor Closure

GREAT FALLS MT NAVRESCEN

0

0

0

 

2005

Minor Closure

FORT MISSOULA

21

0

21

 

 

 

GALT HALL USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC HELENA

0

0

0

 

 

 

VEUVE HALL USARC/AMSA #75 (G)

12

0

12

Montana Total

 

 

 

33

0

33

Nebraska

2005

Minor Closure

COLUMBUS USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

HASTINGS USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

LINCOLN NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MCCOOK USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC KEARNEY

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC WYMORE

0

0

0

Nebraska Total

 

 

 

0

0

0

New Hampshire

1988

Major Closure

PEASE

4,037

0

4,037

New Hampshire Total

 

 

4,037

0

4,037

New Jersey

1991

Major Realignment

FORT DIX

0

0

0

 

1993

Major Closure

TRENTON NAWC

529

0

529

 

 

Major Realignment

FT MONMOUTH

220

0

220

 

 

Minor Closure

ATLANTIC CITY - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

PERTH AMBOY - NRC

3

0

3

 

1995

Major Closure

MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL, BAYONNE

679

0

679

 

 

Major Realignment

FORT DIX BRAC

235

0

235

 

 

Minor Closure

Camp Kilmer

48

0

48

 

 

 

Camp Pedricktown

47

0

47

 

2005

Major Closure

FORT MONMOUTH

998

128

1,126

 

 

Minor Closure

INSPECTOR-INSTRUCTOR WEST TRENTON

8

0

8

 

 

 

KILMER/AMSA 21

22

2

24

 

 

 

SFC NELSON V. BRITTIN USARC/S-S

8

0

8

New Jersey Total

 

 

 

2,797

130

2,927

New Mexico

1988

Major Closure

FT WINGATE

8,350

6,318

14,669

 

2005

Minor Closure

JENKINS AFRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MCGREGOR RANGE USARC/ECS 87

0

0

0

New Mexico Total

 

 

8,350

6,318

14,669

New York

1988

Minor Closure

BROOKLYN, NY - NAVSTA

34

0

34

 

1993

Major Closure

PLATTSBURGH

3,463

0

3,463

 

 

 

STATEN ISLAND - NS

246

0

246

 

 

Major Realignment

GRIFFISS

3,314

0

3,314

 

 

Minor Closure

JAMESTOWN - NRC/AFRC

2

0

2

 

 

 

NIAGARA FALLS - DOD FAMILY HOUSING

44

0

44

 

 

 

POUGHKEEPSIE - NRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

ROSLYN

52

0

52

 

 

 

SENECA AD

10,035

652

10,687

 

 

Minor Closure

FORT TOTTEN

95

0

95

 

 

 

NEW YORK NS FORT WADSWORTH

0

0

0

 

 

 

STATEN ISLAND - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USA BELLMORE MAINT. FACILITY

17

0

17

 

2005

Minor Closure

2LT GLEN CARPENTER USARC

3

0

3

 

 

 

AMITYVILLE USARC

16

0

16

 

 

 

BUFFALO - NRD

0

0

0

 

 

 

FORT TILDEN USARC

0

10

10

 

 

 

HORSEHEAD NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MCDONALD USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MULLER USARC

1

0

1

 

 

 

NIAGRA FALLS USARC/AMSA 76

0

22

22

 

 

 

NRC GLENS FALLS

0

0

0

 

 

 

ROOSEVELT USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

STEWART NEWBURGH USARC

17

0

17

 

 

 

WATERTOWN NRC

0

0

0

New York Total

 

 

 

17,344

683

18,027

North Carolina

1995

Minor Closure

Recreation Center #2 Ft Bragg (91)

4

0

4

 

2005

Minor Closure

ADRIAN B. RHODES AFRC

4

0

4

 

 

 

ASHEVILLE - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

JESSE F. NIVEN JR., USARC

4

0

4

North Carolina Total

 

 

13

0

13

North Dakota

2005

Minor Closure

JOHNSON USARC

0

0

0

North Dakota Total

 

 

0

0

0

Not Applicable

1988

Minor Closure

53 Stand Alone Family Housing Areas

399

0

399

 

1993

Major Closure

MIDWAY NAF

1,535

0

1,535

Not Applicable Total

 

 

1,934

0

1,934

Ohio

1991

Major Realignment

RICKENBACKER

1,764

0

1,764

 

1993

Major Closure

NEWARK

70

0

70

 

 

Minor Closure

GENTILE

164

0

164

 

2005

Minor Closure

ARNG RC OXFORD

0

0

0

 

 

 

FT HAYES MEMORIAL USARC

11

0

11

 

 

 

LT JACOB PARROTT USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

NMCRC AKRON

3

0

3

 

 

 

NMCRC CLEVELAND

0

0

0

 

 

 

SFC M. L. DOWNS USARC/AMSA 58

3

0

3

 

 

 

SSG ROY CLIFTON SCOUTEN USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

WHITEHALL MEMORIAL USARC

5

0

5

Ohio Total

 

 

 

2,027

0

2,027

Oklahoma

2005

Minor Closure

ASHWORTH USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

BURRIS USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

DONALD A. ROUSH USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

FARR USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

JOE A. SMALLEY USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

KEATHLEY USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

KROWSE USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

NMCRC TULSA

11

0

11

 

 

 

PARKER USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

PEREZ USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

ROBBINS USAR

0

0

0

 

 

 

TWADDLE USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC BROKEN ARROW

0

0

0

Oklahoma Total

 

 

 

20

0

20

Oregon

1988

Major Closure

UMATILLA AD

0

0

0

 

2005

Major Closure

UMATILLA CD

0

12,229

12,229

 

 

Minor Closure

2LT ALFRED SHARFF USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

NRC CENTRAL POINT

0

0

0

 

 

 

SGT JEROME SEARS USARC

4

0

4

Oregon Total

 

 

 

9

12,229

12,238

Pennsylvania

1988

Major Closure

PHILADELPHIA - NH

49

0

49

 

 

Minor Closure

TACONY WAREHOUSE

14

0

14

 

1991

Major Closure

PHILADELPHIA - NS

910

0

910

 

 

 

WARMINSTER - NAWC

757

0

757

 

1993

Major Closure

DSC PHILADELPHIA

86

0

86

 

 

Minor Closure

ALTOONA - NRC

6

0

6

 

1995

- Select One -

CHARLES KELLY SUPPORT FACILITY

31

0

31

 

 

Major Realignment

LETTERKENNY AD

917

212

1,129

 

 

Minor Closure

FORT INDIANTOWN GAP

0

0

0

 

 

 

ORELAND - NAWC-AD (OWTC)

14

0

14

 

 

Minor Realignment

PHILADELPHIA - NSY

270

0

270

 

2005

Major Closure

WILLOW GROVE - NASJRB

32

1,067

1,099

 

 

Minor Closure

1LT RAY S. MUSSELMAN MEMORIAL USARC

3

0

3

 

 

 

BLOOMSBURG USARC

2

0

2

 

 

 

CHARLES KELLY SUPPORT FACILITY

145

0

145

 

 

 

CORAOPOLIS USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

GERMANTOWN MEMORIAL USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

HORSHAM MEMORIAL USARC

7

0

7

 

 

 

JAMES W. REESE USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

LEWISBURG USARC

10

0

10

 

 

 

LYCOMING MEMORIAL USARC/OMS

7

0

7

 

 

 

NORTH PENN USARC

0

19

19

 

 

 

PHILADELPHIA MEMORIAL AFRC

10

0

10

 

 

 

READING - NMCRC

7

0

7

 

 

 

SERRENTI USARC / OMS

2

0

2

 

 

 

USARC WILKES-BARRE (AMSA 32G)

4

0

4

 

 

 

WILSON-KRAMER USARC / OMS

4

0

4

Pennsylvania Total

 

 

3,298

1,298

4,596

Puerto Rico

1995

Major Closure

ROOSEVELT ROADS - NS

7,891

814

8,705

 

2005

Minor Closure

1LT PAUL LAVERGNE USARC

7

0

7

Puerto Rico Total

 

 

 

7,898

814

8,712

Rhode Island

1991

Major Closure

DAVISVILLE - NCBC

753

163

916

 

1993

Minor Closure

NEWPORT NETC

0

0

0

 

2005

Minor Closure

PT LLOYD S. COOPER III USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

USARC BRISTOL, RI

5

0

5

 

 

 

USARC, CPT JONATHAN HARWOOD

3

0

3

 

 

Minor Realignment

NEWPORT NS

0

222

222

Rhode Island Total

 

 

767

385

1,152

South Carolina

1991

Major Closure

MYRTLE BEACH

3,933

0

3,933

 

1993

Major Closure

CHARLESTON - NS

0

0

0

 

 

 

CHARLESTON - NSY

1,373

0

1,373

 

 

 

CHARLESTON - REDCOM 7

0

0

0

 

1995

Minor Closure

CHARLESTON - FISC

0

0

0

 

2005

Minor Closure

ROCK HILL MEMORIAL USARC

0

0

0

South Carolina Total

 

 

5,306

0

5,306

Tennessee

1993

Major Realignment

MEMPHIS - NAS

1,865

0

1,865

 

 

Minor Closure

MEMPHIS - NRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

DDMT MEMPHIS

608

34

642

 

2005

Minor Closure

CLARKSVILLE USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

GUERRY USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC CHATTANOOGA

0

0

0

Tennessee Total

 

 

 

2,472

34

2,507

Texas

1988

Minor Closure

GALVESTON - NS

9

0

9

 

1991

Major Closure

BERGSTROM

333

0

333

 

 

 

CARSWELL

492

0

492

 

 

 

CHASE FIELD - NAS

3,388

0

3,388

 

1993

Major Closure

DALLAS - NAS

65

0

65

 

 

Minor Closure

ABILENE - NMRC

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

REESE

2,987

0

2,987

 

 

Major Realignment

KELLY

1,907

0

1,907

 

 

 

RED RIVER ARMY DEPOT

737

60

797

 

2005

Major Closure

BROOKS AIR FORCE BASE

0

0

0

 

 

 

INGLESIDE NS

155

0

155

 

 

 

LONE STAR AAP

14,292

1,297

15,589

 

 

Major Realignment

RED RIVER AD

3,189

646

3,835

 

 

Minor Closure

ALICE USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

BENAVIDEZ USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

GRIMES MEMORIAL USARC

9

0

9

 

 

 

HANBY-HAYDEN USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

HOUSTON USARC #2

6

0

6

 

 

 

HOUSTON USARC #3

6

0

6

 

 

 

JULES E. MUCHERT USARC

5

0

5

 

 

 

LUBBOCK NMCRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

LUFKIN USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MARSHALL USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

MILLER USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

NRC Orange

14

0

14

 

 

 

RATHJEN USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

Round Rock USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

SAN MARCOS USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

SEGURA USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

THARP MEM USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

USARC PASADENA TEXAS

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC SAN ANTONIO (BOSWELL)

9

0

9

 

 

 

USARC SAN ANTONIO (CALLAGHAN)

5

0

5

 

 

 

USARC TYLER

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC, WILLIAM HERZOG MEMORIAL

6

0

6

 

 

 

WATTS-GUILLOT USARC

7

0

7

 

 

 

WICHITA FALLS USARC

3

0

3

Texas Total

 

 

 

27,634

2,002

29,636

Utah

1988

Minor Closure

FORT DOUGLAS

51

0

51

 

1993

Major Realignment

TOOELE ARMY DEPOT

1,662

0

1,662

 

 

Minor Closure

OGDEN UT NAVRESCEN

0

0

0

 

1995

Major Closure

USARC OGDEN DEPOT

1,086

0

1,086

 

2005

Major Closure

DESERET CD

0

0

0

Utah Total

 

 

 

2,799

0

2,799

Vermont

2005

Minor Closure

AMSA 160 RUTLAND

0

0

0

 

 

 

Berlin USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

CHESTER USARC

3

0

3

 

 

 

COURCELLE BROTHERS USARC

5

0

5

Vermont Total

 

 

 

8

0

8

Virginia

1988

Minor Closure

Cameron Station

163

0

163

 

 

 

DEFENSE MAPPING AGENCY - HERNDON

12

0

12

 

1991

Minor Closure

ARL-WOODBRIDGE

579

0

579

 

1993

Major Closure

VINT HILL FARMS STATION

696

0

696

 

 

Minor Closure

DRIVER - NRTF

600

0

600

 

 

 

STAUNTON - NRC

1

0

1

 

1995

Major Closure

FORT PICKETT

2,873

0

2,873

 

2005

Major Closure

FORT MONROE

74

183

257

 

 

Minor Realignment

ALEXANDRIA NRC

0

0

0

Virginia Total

 

 

 

4,998

183

5,181

Washington

1991

Major Closure

PUGET SOUND NS

156

0

156

 

1995

Minor Closure

CAMP BONNEVILLE

3,013

0

3,013

 

2005

Minor Closure

1LT RICHARD H. WALKER USARC

10

0

10

 

 

 

FOUR LAKES CS

63

0

63

 

 

 

FT LAWTON USAR COMPLEX

8

34

42

 

 

 

OSWALD USARC

3

0

3

 

 

 

PFC DANIEL L. WAGENAAR USARC

7

0

7

 

 

 

PFC JOE E. MANN USARC.AMSA 80

7

0

7

 

 

 

TACOMA - NMCRC

9

0

9

 

 

 

VANCOUVER BARRACKS AFRC/AMSA 82

0

0

0

Washington Total

 

 

 

3,276

34

3,310

West Virginia

2005

Minor Closure

1LT HARRY B. COLBORN USARC

4

0

4

 

 

 

MOUNDSVILLE - NMCRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

USARC ELKINS

4

0

4

 

 

 

USARC RIPLEY

5

0

5

 

 

 

USARC, MAJ LESLIE BIAS

5

0

5

West Virginia Total

 

 

18

0

18

Wisconsin

1995

Minor Closure

SHEBOYGAN - NRC

1

0

1

 

2005

Minor Closure

GENERAL MITCHELL AIR FORCE BASE

102

0

102

 

 

 

LA CROSSE - NRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

MADISON - NMCRC

0

0

0

 

 

 

O'CONNELL USARC

0

0

0

 

 

 

OLSON USARC

4

0

4

Wisconsin Total

 

 

 

107

0

107

Wyoming

2005

Minor Closure

AVIATION SPT FAC, CHEYENNE

0

0

0

Wyoming Total

 

 

 

0

0

0

Grand Total

 

 

 

315,025

72,683

387,708

Source: FY2017 data provided to CRS by the DOD Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), May 2017.

Author Contact Information

Christopher T. Mann, Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Acknowledgments

This report would not have been possible without the generous contributions and continuing support of Dan Else, who retired from CRS in 2018.

Footnotes

1.

"Real property includes lands, buildings, structures, utility systems, improvements, and appurtenances thereto. Includes equipment attached to and made part of buildings and structures (such as heating systems) but not movable equipment (such as plant equipment)." See Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms," April 2018. Available at http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf#page=199.

2.

Regarding overseas installations, Congress continues to defer to the President. Domestically, it has intervened more assertively to manage the process.

3.

Other notifications include assessments by DOD of the economic and strategic consequences of basing actions.

4.

For details, see Schlossberg, George, "How Congress Cleared the Bases," Journal of Defense Communities, Volume 1. Available at https://www.defensecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/FINALJournal1.pdf.

5.

In general terms, 10 U.S.C. 2687 establishes reporting thresholds based on the number of DOD civilians affected by the reduction. A second statute enacted later, 10 U.S.C. 993, establishes reporting thresholds based on the number of service members.

6.

The statute authorized a panel appointed by and reporting to the Secretary of Defense to recommend a limited number of base closures.

7.

Earlier efforts at large-scale base closures were marked by accusations of such conduct.

8.

Subsequent BRAC legislation required the Secretary of Defense to report to an independent commission. In the 1988 round, a commission chartered by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci reported to him.

9.

Commissioners are required to assess whether DOD recommendations deviate substantially from the Department's force structure plan and final selection criteria. Modifications to the list are prohibited in cases where recommendations do not deviate substantially. Installations added to the list require the commission to allow input from the Secretary and require additional conditions be met.

10.

The 2005 BRAC process included nine commissioners (a tie-breaking number). Members were appointed by the President after consultation with Congress. Congressional leadership makes a total of six recommendations, with the number divided between: House speaker (2), House Minority Leader (1); Senate Majority Leader (2), and; Senate Minority Leader (1). The President transmits the final list of nominations to the Senate for its final consent. By statute, the process of congressional consultation is not mandatory. See BRAC amended legislation available at the BRAC commission (2005) official archive site at https://www.brac.gov/docs/BRAC05Legislation.pdf.

11.

DOD recommendations are based on certified data, a long-term force structure plan (20 years), and comprehensive inventory of DOD real estate.

12.

Prior to the 2005 BRAC round, however, cost savings and downsizing the military was an explicit goal.

13.

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, (P.L. 107-107).

14.

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended.

15.

Comparison derived from Government Accountability Office, "Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149)," March 2013. See Figure 2. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=17.

16.

As amended in 1986, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund) generally requires the clean-up of contaminated federal property prior to transfer out of federal ownership. For more information on CERCLA see CRS Report R41039, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: A Summary of Superfund Cleanup Authorities and Related Provisions of the Act, by David M. Bearden.

17.

A conveyance is the transfer of a property title.

18.

The transfer or disposal of federal property is primarily performed by the General Services Administration (GSA) pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (FPASA) 40 U.S.C. 521-559.

19.

The Base Closure Act directs the Administrator of the GSA to delegate specified transfer and disposal authorities to the Secretary of Defense for use at BRAC installations, and the secretary has, in turn, delegated this authority to the secretaries of the various military departments.

20.

See the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (as amended), Section 2905, Implementation: "Before any action may be taken with respect to the disposal of any surplus real property or facility located at any military installation to be closed or realigned under this part, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Governor of the State and the heads of the local governments concerned for the purpose of considering any plan for the use of such property by the local community concerned."

21.

Department of Defense, Infrastructure Capacity Report (Interim), March 2016. Provided to CRS.

22.

Statement of Mr. Peter Potochney, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations, and Environment), Before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, FY2018, June 7, 2017. Available at https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/060617-Potochney-Testimony.pdf.

23.

Government Accountability Office, "Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149)", March 2013. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf ; See page 33 "lack of consistent documentation;" page 32 "did not consistently document the assumptions;" page 43 "department does not have effective management controls in place to monitor leased space."

24.

Government Accountability Office, "Military Base Realignments and Closures: More Guidance and Information Needed to Take Advantage of Opportunities to Consolidate Training (GAO-16-45), February 2016. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675295.pdf#page=2.

25.

Government Accountability Office, "Military Bases: More Guidance and Information Needed to Take Advantage of Opportunities to Consolidate Training (GAO-16-45)", February 2016. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675295.pdf#page=6.

26.

Government Accountability Office, "Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149)", March 2013. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=2.

27.

Government Accountability Office, "Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Has Improved Environmental Cleanup Reporting but Should Obtain and Share More Information (GAO-17-151)", January 2017. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682204.pdf#page=27.

28.

Government Accountability Office," DOD Joint Bases: Implementation Challenges Demonstrate Need to Reevaluate the Program (GAO-14-577), September 2014, page 2. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665964.pdf#page=7.

29.

Government Accountability Office, "High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others (GAO-17-317)", February 15, 2017. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/682765.pdf#page=319.

30.

See "2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report," Volume 1, page 3. "However, as discussed elsewhere in this Report, the Commission noted in many cases that DoD claimed savings from proposals on the basis of eliminated military personnel. Yet, because total end strength was not being reduced proportionately, these so-called 'savings' will not actually reduce total DoD spending levels. Hence, they are not truly savings in the commonly understood sense of the term. No new equipment or increases in operations could be purchased with these 'reductions' in military personnel. Because these military personnel would not be eliminated, but merely reassigned to higher-priority tasks, the commission concluded that DoD's initial estimates of $49 billion in net savings over a 20-year period were vastly overestimated, although "military value"—the primary selection criterion—might be increased.

31.

Anthony Prinicipi, former Veterans Affairs Secretary and Chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission, "BRAC Chair Reflects on Decisions, Offers Ideas for Future," May 9, 2011. Available at https://federalnewsradio.com/defense/2011/05/brac-chair-reflects-on-decisions-offers-ideas-for-future/.

32.

Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, March 2016. Available at https://defensecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2016-4-Interim-Capacity-Report-for-Printing.pdf.

33.

GAO, "DOD's Excess Capacity Estimating Methods Have Limitations (GAO-13-535)," June 2013; "DOD continues to use the same methodology in 2017 that it has previously used to estimate excess capacity; thus these limitations continue…" GAO, "Defense Infrastructure: DOD needs to Improve the Accuracy of Its Excess Capacity Estimates," May 2018. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691990.pdf#page=14.

34.

Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, March 2016. Available at https://defensecommunities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2016-4-Interim-Capacity-Report-for-Printing.pdf.

35.

Department of Defense Infrastructure Capacity, October 2017. Available at https://fas.org/man/eprint/infrastructure.pdf.

36.

Department of Defense, "Infrastructure Capacity Report," October 2017. Available at https://fas.org/man/eprint/infrastructure.pdf#page=35.

37.

GAO, "Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Improve the Accuracy of its Excess Capacity Estimates (GAO-18-230), May 2018. For example, "DOD's excess capacity methodology and analysis has limitations that affect the accuracy and analytical sufficiency of the estimate. Specifically, DOD's use of a 1989 baseline for excess capacity results in inaccurate estimates of excess capacity; DOD's methodology included assumptions that were not always reasonable; and DOD's approach to estimating excess capacity is not always sufficient or implemented consistently across the military departments." Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/691990.pdf#page=11.

38.

GAO, "DOD Needs to Improve its Efforts to Identify Unutilized and Underutilized Facilities (GAO-14-538)," September 2014.

39.

See GAO, "DOD Should Address Challenges with Communication and Mission Changes to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-18-231), March 2018. "In reviewing DOD's data we found that the department ultimately did not have the needed data to calculate excess infrastructure disposed of during BRAC 2005."

40.

Department of Defense News Briefing on the President's Fiscal Year 2019 Defense Budget, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) David L. Norquist, February 12, 2018. Available at https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/1439782/department-of-defense-news-briefing-on-the-presidents-fiscal-year-2019-defense/.

41.

Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, "Statement of Honorable Lucian Niemeyer (Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment)," April 26, 2018. Available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/eie/Downloads/Testimony/FY19%20EI&E%20Posture%20Statement%20-%20SAC-M.pdf#page=18.

42.

Quantifying BRAC complexity can be difficult. During the 2005 BRAC round, DOD defined major closures as those that had a plant replacement value (PRV) of greater than $100 million. Major realignments qualified as those that had a net loss of 400 or more military or civilian personnel. In earlier rounds, DOD did not use compatible definitions for BRAC actions. See Figure 2 for results of GAO analysis.

43.

GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds (GAO-13-149), March 2013, page 3. Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=3.

44.

GAO, "Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings Estimates from BRAC 2005 (GAO-12-709R)," June 29, 2012, page 34. "DOD's own data confirmed that the majority of the $14 billion in the BRAC 2005 cost increase was related to military construction... construction of additional facilities to enhance capabilities, address deficiencies—BRAC as a recapitalization engine—and construction industry inflation since 2005 ($11 billion)...." Available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/660/652805.pdf#page=34.

45.

Advance Policy Questions for Lucian Niemeyer, Nominee for Assistant Secretary of Defense of Energy, Installations and Environment, July 18, 2017. Available at https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Niemeyer_APQs_07-18-17.pdf.

46.

See Office of Legislative Council (website), FY2018 DOD Legislative Proposals, "First Package of Legislative Proposals Sent to Congress for Inclusion in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018—Consolidated Section-by-Section Analysis (Sent to Congress on May 25, 2017)." Available at http://ogc.osd.mil/olc/docs/25May2017NDAASectionalAnalysis.pdf#page=70.

47.

Department of Defense, "DOD Base Realignment and Closure Executive Summary Program Year 2020: Justification Data Submitted to Congress." March 2019. Available at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2019/budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/BRAC_Exec_Sum_J-Book_FINAL.pdf#page=8.

48.

See Explanatory Statement to Accompany H.R. 1625 (P.L. 115-141), Committee Print Book 2 of 2, Division J. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-115HPRT29457/pdf/CPRT-115HPRT29457.pdf#page=509; See also Hpt 115-188, House Appropriations Committee Report to accompany H.R. 2998, "Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2018." Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/crpt/hrpt188/CRPT-115hrpt188.pdf#page=34.

49.

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, H.R. 5515, Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr5515/BILLS-115hr5515rh.pdf#page=841.

50.

Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.R. 6157, H.R. 245).

51.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Division C, (H.R. 1625, P.L. 115-141), Available at https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1625/BILLS-115hr1625enr.pdf#page=144.

52.

On January 31, 2017, Representative Adam Smith, then Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, submitted the Military Infrastructure Consolidation and Efficiency Act of 2017 (H.R. 753), which would have reauthorized a BRAC that would have begun in FY2019 with a framework similar to previous rounds. A second proposal, drafted by Senator John McCain, then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and submitted as an amendment to the annual NDAA for FY2018 (H.R. 2810), would have taken a different approach. By omitting the appointment of a BRAC commission charged with reviewing recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense, Senator McCain's amendment would have altered what long-time observers had considered the basic tenets of the modern BRAC framework (third party appraisal by an independent commission, and expansive opportunity for public comment by affected communities and other stakeholders).

53.

"The Department must be able to eliminate excess infrastructure to avoid wasting resources maintaining unneeded facilities - resources that that could be much better spent on readiness. BRAC provides the only fair, objective, and comprehensive process to achieve these goals." See Data Submitted to Congress, "DoD Base Realignment and Closure: BRAC Rounds (BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995 & 2005)," May 2017. Available at http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2018/budget_justification/pdfs/05_BRAC/FINAL_FY18_BRAC_Summary_Book.pdf#page=8.

54.

In official correspondence, DOD has stated, "The Department does not intend to use section 2702 because it undermines the Department's ability to prioritize the military value of an installation as informed by the National Defense Strategy, instead substituting the judgment of a Governor based on economic value." Department of Defense Response to Congressional Research Service Request for Information, April 11, 2019.