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

CRS Report for Congress
Military Base Closures: Highlights
of the 2005 BRAC Commission Report
and Its Additional Proposed Legislation
Daniel H. Else
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
David E. Lockwood
Specialist in Foreign Affairs and National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
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.¹
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.

¹ Other BRAC-related CRS products are listed on the CRS website under the Defense Current
Legislative Issue: “Military Base Closures.” Online video presentations and VHS-format
videotapes of CRS seminars, including those associated with military base closures, can be found
in the CRS Multimedia Library, which is also available at the CRS website.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

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.
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 2014-2015 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.
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 force-structure 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.²
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).

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.

² 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.

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, limited-liability corporations, or independent trusteeships to take title
to and responsibility for properties.³
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, 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

³ See CRS Report RL31039, Military Housing Privatization Initiative: Background and Issues,
by Daniel H. Else, for more information.

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.
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.
Timeline of Proposed 2014-2015 BRAC Round
DateEvent
September 30, 2013Secretary of Defense issues 2013 QDR
January 31, 2014Director of National Intelligence issues threat assessment report
February 2014Presidential budget request, including force-structure plan and
defense infrastructure inventory
March 15, 2014Secretary of Defense certification of need for BRAC round
April 15, 2004Secretary of Defense draft selection criteria publication in Federal
Register
May 30, 2014GAO report on force-structure plan
June 30, 2014Final BRAC selection criteria publication in Federal Register
September 30, 2014Presidential nomination of Commissioners (failure terminates
process)
October 1, 2014Secretary of Defense final force-structure plan submission
November 30, 2014Secretary of Defense BRAC recommendation list submission
December 7, 2014Secretary of Defense submission of certified data (failure terminates
process)
January 15, 2014GAO report on BRAC process
June 30, 2015BRAC Commission report submission to President
July 15, 2015Presidential approval/disapproval of BRAC Commission report
August 15, 2015BRAC Commission revised submission to President (if needed)
August 30, 2015Presidential submission of recommendations/certification of
approval to Congress (failure terminates process)
Submission + 45Enactment of recommendations unless joint resolution of
daysdisapproval passed