CQ WEEKLY – IN FOCUS
Feb. 4, 2012 – 1:07 p.m.
Military Plan Hits BRAC Wall
By Megan Scully, CQ Staff
The Pentagon’s plan to start another round of closing and consolidating military bases as early as next year has been met with sharp criticism from all corners of Capitol Hill, where many lawmakers contend that the heartburn-inducing process simply won’t produce enough savings.
|
||
|
Lawmakers, who would have to authorize a base realignment and closure process, or BRAC, weigh the benefits of a streamlined defense infrastructure against their fears of losing job-producing installations in their districts and states. So far, the scales in Congress are tipped against the Pentagon’s proposal.
The last round of base closures, in 2005, has soured many lawmakers, who argue that the BRAC cost $35 billion through fiscal 2011 while yielding only $15.4 billion in savings, according to Defense Department figures provided to Congress last year.
The upfront costs of those closures — which include environmental remediation and the relocation of civilian and military personnel — are largely over. But it will still take years for the Defense Department to recoup its initial investment in the now-seven-year-old BRAC. After that, the savings generated by shedding excess infrastructure will add up over time.
This potential for significant long-term savings, however, will likely do little to sway most lawmakers to support another BRAC. The Budget Control Act enacted in August placed caps on defense and non-defense discretionary spending over the next decade, a move intended to put a dent in the nation’s deficit. As a result, lawmakers are focused intently on the next 10 years, with little attention given to what comes next.
In short, any politically painful proposal that costs money in the short term with no promise of savings within the 10-year window will face stiff political resistance.
Lawmakers — including key Democrats such as Senate Armed Services Chairman
“BRAC is a painful process with questionable cost savings,” Conrad, whose state includes Minot and Grand Forks Air Force bases, said in a recent written statement.
Excess Capacity
The Pentagon acknowledges that it has more facilities than it needs. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said last month that his service has plenty of excess capacity — estimated to be 20 percent back in 2005 and likely higher now. As the Pentagon trims the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, excess capacity will likely increase.
Todd Harrison, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says that it may not make much sense to drag another politically sensitive issue into the already-charged budget debate.
“Is this even a realistic option; is this even a serious option, right now?” he asks.
Military Plan Hits BRAC Wall
The lack of early cost savings from the 2005 BRAC doesn’t help. But some BRAC veterans say the 2005 round isn’t a good example. Congress approved that BRAC in late 2001. With the subsequent wartime buildup of ground forces, the process ended up focusing heavily on shifting and relocating forces and offices, with relatively few major closures.
By comparison, the four earlier BRAC rounds — in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 — were all conducted in relative peacetime. From 1988 through 1995, the military shrank from 2.2 million to 1.6 million troops, necessitating the closures of dozens of bases.
During those four rounds, the Defense Department cut its infrastructure by about 20 percent, yielding a net savings of $29 billion through fiscal 2003, with rough expectations at the time to save another $7 billion annually, according to a May 2005 Government Accountability Office report. By 1998, the cumulative savings generated by those rounds surpassed the costs.
The situation in 2013 — with cuts to ground forces under way and overseas deployments winding down — may more closely resemble the earlier BRAC rounds.
The 2005 round “is a horrible example of what base closures ought to be,” says David Berteau, a senior official on the 1991 and 1993 BRAC commissions. “The difference between what DoD is proposing now and the situation in ’05 is, we actually are reducing the size of force structure and the defense establishment.”
It is “much more legitimate to consider a base closure under these circumstances,” says Berteau, now an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The goal, he says, should be to reduce the upfront costs while also boosting near-term savings. In short, the Pentagon must make tough decisions, standing down unneeded units and force structure rather than focusing on relocation. “It’s critical that base closures be done, but it’s also critical that they be done right,” Berteau says. “We can’t repeat the mistakes of 2005 the next two times around.”
There might be a political logic, too. South Carolina Republican
FOR FURTHER READING: Downsizing, CQ Weekly, p. 156; Budget Control Act (PL 112-25), p. 29; BRAC, 2005 Almanac, p. 6-8.