Office of
the Secretary of Defense

ANSWER: The process is governed by law; specifically, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990. The process begins with a threat assessment of the future national security environment, followed by the development of a force structure plan and basing requirements to meet these threats. DoD then applies published selection criteria to determine which installations to recommend for realignment and closure. The Secretary of Defense will publish a report containing the realignment and closure recommendations, forwarding supporting documentation to an independent commission appointed by the President, in consultation with congressional leadership. The commission has the authority to change the Department's recommendations if it determines that the Secretary deviated substantially from the force structure plan and/or selection criteria. The Commission will hold regional meetings to solicit public input prior to making its recommendations. History has shown that the use of an independent commission and public meetings make the process as open and fair as possible. The Commission forwards its recommendations to the President for review and approval, who then forwards the recommendations to Congress. Congress has 45 legislative days to act on the commission report on an all-or-none basis. After that time, the Commission's realignment and closure recommendations become binding on the Department. Implementation must start within two years, and actions must be complete within six years.

ANSWER: The process outlined in the BRAC Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended, remains primarily the same as used in the three previous rounds. This process has served the Department well during the previous rounds and is designed to be as fair as possible. However, there are some changes.

Military value will continue to be an element of the published selection criteria. In previous rounds, as DoD policy, the military value criteria took priority over the other criteria. However, in BRAC 2005, there is now a statutory requirement that military value be the primary consideration.

The BRAC 2005 process requires a separate report prior to the Secretary’s recommendations on closures and realignments. In this report, which is due to Congress along with the budget for fiscal year 2005 (about February 2004), the Secretary must include, among other things, the 20 year force structure plan of probable threats, a comprehensive inventory of installations, a discussion of categories of excess capacity and a certification by the Secretary that a BRAC round in 2005 is necessary.

In addition to statutory changes, there are BRAC process changes which the Secretary directed in his November 15, 2002, kick-off memorandum, Transformation Through Base Realignment and Closure. For example, based on recommendations from the Infrastructure Steering Group to the Infrastructure Executive Council, specific common or business oriented support functions will receive analysis by Joint Cross-Service Groups (JCSG) rather than within individual Military Departments. The JCSGs are empowered to make closure and realignment recommendations for review and approval by the Secretary. During previous BRAC rounds, JCSGs developed alternatives for consideration by the Services.

Also at the outset of the process, we will identify a broad series of options for stationing and supporting forces and functions to increase efficiency and effectiveness. We refer to these options as analytical frameworks.

ANSWER: The 2005 BRAC round has the following milestones:
--DoD will publish proposed selection criteria for a 30-day comment period by December 31, 2003;
--Publish final selection criteria by February 16, 2004;
--Submit a report to Congress with the FY 2005 budget justification that includes:

ANSWER: The Department’s position that significant excess capacity remains in the defense infrastructure is supported by independent agencies. The specific level of excess is very dependent on the assumptions used in the analysis. Past experience indicates that more extensive study of joint basing use and cross-Service functional analysis could further increase the level of excess through better utilization of the remaining infrastructure.

The Department estimates that a future BRAC round, based on the costs and savings experiences of BRACs 93/95 and a reduction in installation infrastructure of approximately 20 percent, could generate approximately $7 billion if annual recurring savings in today’s dollars. Resources currently being spent on excess installation infrastructure could be allocated to higher priority requirements, such as efforts to modernize weapons, enhance quality of life, and improve readiness.

Additionally, another BRAC round will afford the Department a significant transformation opportunity. September 11, 2001, reinforced the imperative to convert excess capacity into warfighting ability. The performance of our forces in Iraq underscores the benefit of transformational war fighting. The Department must be allowed to reconfigure its infrastructure to best support the transformation of our warfighting capability. The Department must be allowed the opportunity to assess its installation infrastructure to ensure it is best sized and placed to support emerging mission requirements for our national security needs.

ANSWER: All military installations within the United States and its territories will be examined as part of this process.

ANSWER: It's too early to say and there are no specific numbers or "targets." Using specific selection criteria that emphasize military value, DoD must complete a comprehensive review before it can determine which installations should be realigned or closed. In 2005, an independent Commission will review the Secretary of Defense's recommendations, hold public hearings, visit various sites, and ultimately send its recommendations to the President.

ANSWER: Based on the Secretary’s guidance in his March 20, 2003, memorandum, “Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy,” the Department is currently developing a long-term, comprehensive and integrated overseas strategy. The Department anticipates that decisions regarding the closure of overseas installations, if warranted, will be developed after a thorough review of this strategy later this year. This effort will inform the BRAC process as the statutory requirement for publishing BRAC recommendations in May 2005 will accommodate decisions regarding overseas basing generated by the effort that is now underway.

ANSWER: Altering the existing BRAC process to require an exclusion list would seriously undermine the Department's ability to reconfigure its current infrastructure into one in which operational capacity maximizes both warfighting capability and efficiency.

Developing an “Early-Out List” or excluding an arbitrary number of installations from consideration for closure or realignment destroys the Department's ability to conduct a comprehensive rationalization of its infrastructure to its force structure, thereby undermining its efforts to continue transformation of the force to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. The 2005 BRAC round is not merely an installation capacity reduction exercise. The Department will emphasize an analysis of joint functions and joint use of facilities more so than in previous rounds to enhance the transformation effort. Excluding installations up front would preclude options that only become apparent as a result of conducting a comprehensive analysis covering all installations. In order to truly reshape infrastructure to match force structure, realignment options under BRAC 2005 will be critically important; exclusionary lists would restrict realignments and preclude these options.

ANSWER: The four previous BRAC rounds have eliminated approximately 20 percent of DoD’s capacity that existed in 1988 and, through 2001, produced net savings of approximately $16.7 billion, which includes the cost of environmental clean-up. Recurring savings beyond 2001 are approximately $7 billion annually. In independent studies conducted over previous years, both the general accounting office and the Congressional Budget Office have consistently supported the Department's view that realigning and closing unneeded military installations produces savings that far exceed costs.

ANSWER: The BRAC Act of 1990, as amended, specifies the selection process for the nine Commissioners, who must be nominated by the President for Senate confirmation no later than March 15, 2005. In selecting individuals for nominations for appointments to the Commission, the President will consult with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the majority leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of two members each, and consult with the minority leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate concerning the appointment of one member each.

ANSWER: A primary role of installation commanders in the BRAC process is to certify information used to conduct the analyses. To enhance fairness in the BRAC process by treating all installations on an equal footing, all information submitted to the Secretary of Defense and the 2005 BRAC Commission for use in making recommendations for base closures and realignments must be certified by the submitter as accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. Much of this information regarding installation facilities and operations will be gathered in data calls initiated by the Military Departments and sent to installations for processing. Installation commanders will have the ultimate responsibility for certifying that information before it is used in the BRAC process.

Installation commanders may attend meetings, in a liaison or representational capacity, with state and local officials, or other organizations that may seek to develop plans or programs to improve the ability of installations to discharge their national security and defense missions. However, DoD officials may not manage or control such organizations or efforts. In their official capacity, DoD personnel may not participate in the activities of any organization that has as its purpose, either directly or indirectly, insulating DoD installations from closure or realignment. This guidance is aimed at ensuring the fairness and rigor of the BRAC process.

ANSWER: Yes. The BRAC Act of 1990, as amended, addresses this issue with the following guidance: “The Secretary of Defense shall consider any notice received from a local government in the vicinity of a military installation that the government would approve of the closure or realignment of the installation.”

ANSWER: The Department must consider all military installations equally, without regard to whether the installation has been previously considered or proposed for closure or realignment. Additionally, the Department will do adhere to the statutory requirements regarding the selection criteria that will be used in the BRAC process, of which military value is the primary consideration. In doing so, the Department will consider “the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations.” Application and evaluation of economic impacts will be consistently and fairly applied.

ANSWER: Some base realignments and closures may cause near-term social and economic disruption. However, there are many success stories from previous closures. For example, at Charleston Naval Base, S.C., the local community, assisted by DoD, was able to create approximately 4,500 new jobs. Approximately 90 private, state and federal entities are currently reusing the former naval base. Since the closure of Mather Air Force Base, CA, more than 54 leases have been generated at the new Mather Field complex. Its prime location and one of the country's longest runways have made it an active air cargo hub for California's central valley and the Sacramento region. Additionally, the former base now employs nearly 3,700 personnel with its high-technical businesses, manufacturing, operations, educational centers, government agencies, and recreational facilities. At the former Fort Devens, MA, more than 3,000 new jobs have been generated and 2.7 million square feet of new construction has occurred with 68 different employers on site, redevelopment ranges from small business incubators to the Gillette Corp., which occupies a large warehouse/distribution center and manufacturing plant. A base closure can actually be an economic opportunity, especially when all elements of a community work together.