Senator to DoD: Explore alternatives before launching BRAC

The Pentagon should consider other ways of shedding unnecessary infrastructure without resorting to the formal Base Realignment and Closure process, one senator told defense officials Wednesday.

At a hearing Wednesday on the Defense Department's request for another BRAC round, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee made clear they are not keen to reprise that potentially rancorous process for a variety of reasons, including the considerable up-front costs required.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he understands the need to periodically assess base infrastructure, but added: "I've had questions about the BRAC process, whether it's the best way to do that. We've all expressed our concerns about BRAC, but we also understand that excess capacity has costs, and if you have to pay for those costs, it has to come from something else."

Kaine said he is not aware of any law that prevents DoD from doing its own study, apart from BRAC, about what portions of a particular installation's infrastructure is no longer needed, and then making recommendations to get rid of that infrastructure without necessarily closing down the entire base.

"We have faith that you'd use the right analytical tools separate and apart from BRAC," he said. "Obviously we have to save on infrastructure. It's just, what is the best way to save on infrastructure?"

The last BRAC round was in 2005; defense officials are seeking another round for fiscal 2017.

Kaine was not the only senator to express deep reservations.                

"I remain opposed to BRAC, and do not want to give [DoD] the open-ended authority to pursue another BRAC round that has the potential to incur significant upfront costs when we do not have room in our budget in the next few years to afford many of the fundamental readiness issues we need to address," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H.

Ayotte said the 2005 BRAC round is conservatively estimated to have cost about $35 billion, and has been the subject of much discussion and criticism. She noted that the proposal for 2017 would use the same legislative framework.

John Conger, acting assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and environment, said defense officials would be open to discussion on changes in the BRAC legislation if that would make it more acceptable to lawmakers.

But in the current tight budget environment, with considerable cuts in force structure since 2005 and sequestration budget caps looming in the fall, Conger said the Pentagon "must look for ways to divest excess bases and to reduce the cost of supporting our smaller force structure."

Defense officials say a new "efficiency-focused" BRAC round could save about $2 billion a year after implementation, with costs and savings during the six-year implementation period being a wash at about $6 billion.

"As the force structure declines, we must right-size the supporting infrastructure," said Katherine Hammack, assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment.

The Army estimates that 18 percent of its infrastructure is excess — and that's based on an end strength of 490,000 soldiers. The Army now has about 498,000 soldiers on active duty, but that service officials said that could be forced down to 420,000 under sequestration.

"As the Army force structure declines even further, excess capacity is going to grow," Hammack said.

Without the cost savings from another BRAC, "the only alternative is to make up for shortages in base funding by increasing risk in readiness," she said.

About 30 percent of the Air Force's infrastructure is excess, said Miranda Ballentine, assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations, environment and energy, who also noted that the BRAC process gives local communities an avenue to engage in the process and receive economic support, which would not be the case if DoD fell back upon some form of non-BRAC process to deal with this issue.

Conger said BRAC sets up a rigorous analytical process. "The recommendations that come out have all that analysis baked into them," he said.

He also noted that in recent years, some non-BRAC proposals have caused strong opposition in local communities, and some have been rejected. One of the more recent examples was a proposal to close U.S. Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.

Kaine said that was a good example of how things could work correctly. After community and congressional leaders pulled together to make a case to the Pentagon, DoD considered their argument, and instead decided to close only part of JFCOM headquarters.

In the end, he said, BRAC simply makes "everybody nervous."

"As soon as you do a BRAC, every last community in the U.S. has to hire lobbyists and lawyers, even if there is no danger that that installation is going to be closed or downsized," he said. "There's this massive collective check written out of public treasuries from states and localities to lobbyists and lawyers to make the case."

###