Transcripts For CSPAN2 Base Realignment And Closure Process 20170908

Prospects for a new round of closures. Speakers included former va secretary who chaired the last commission in 2005. The Heritage Foundation hosted this hourlong event. Good morning and welcome to the Heritage Foundation. Welcome those who join us on our heritage. Org website as well as those joining us on the cspan network and for those inhouse we asked the courtesy to see our mobile devices have been silenced or turned off simply to avoid any unnecessary distractions. For those watching online you are welcome to send questions or comments at any time by emailing speaker at heritage. Org. We will post the program on the heritage home page for future reference following the presentations today. Leading our discussion and welcoming our special guest is frederick zero. Fred is our policy analyst for defense budgeting for the Center National defense at the Heritage Foundation or to join me in welcoming him. [applause]. Thank you for making the time to come over here with the first and congress back in town which i assume is a busy time for everyone. Im going to introduce our guests and then explain to everyone a little bit if you are hereby accident and you dont know what brac is im going to give you like a twominute introduction to make sure the audience knows as well and we arent talking of the same thing. So, to my left is the assistant secretary of defense for Energy Installation environment at dod. He served as a professional staff member on Armed Services committee and provides oversight for the 2005 brac graham. Retired air force officer in Air National Guard to services. To his left is anthony, chairman of the south five Brac Commission from 2001 to 2005 he was secretary of the va and has multiple stints in the Armed Services committee and a graduate of the us naval academy. To his left is andrew hunter. Is a senior fellow at the international securing program. He served as Senior Executive at dod and chief of staff to both ash carter and Frank Kendall while they are working at a p l. He served as professional staff member on Armed Services committee. Brac was created as a political compromise between executive and legislative branch to close realign the plastic real basis. Initially the executive was able to determine which bases would be close. This resulted with legislative push back and in 1977 congress stopped all closures. This reporting requirement as a prohibition base closures. They were only overcome with the creation of brac involving establishing criteria for the evaluation of possible closures are dod developed a list of actions which later resulted in a nine Person Commission before going to the president and congress for approval. The first round of brac took place in 1988 fold by three consecutive rounds and 91, 93 and 95. The fifth and last round took place in 2005. 12 years later author reading authorizing a new route of brac is part of the political discussion. We currently have over 20 of infrastructure and the resources dedicated to the upkeep of these bases could be better allocated somewhere else in the defense budget. To talk about why we need a brac now, secretary niedermayer will inform us on that. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to talk your heritage. A topic thats timely for those of us that watch the ongoing congress from daytoday know that the senate is about to consider the fy 19 Defense Authorization act on the floor and we do have amendments pending for both the chairman and Ranking Member that would provide for an authorization of closure. Its important to be able to talk to you all and take questions and to be able to talk about why we believe that apartment is in a good place now to request an authorization foreclosure and two carried out with the intent of congress and what theyre looking for both and cost savings and the ability to make the military more effective. Couple quick hits for my background on brac. When i was in the air force and on the committee and ultimately now serving in a new capacity ive been in the job for three weeks and two of those weeks i traveled and just got back from 60s in guam. If i start to nod off while im on stage its because im still on guam time. To look at it, brac has been a great process for the department of defense. Stand back and say where do we need to go with military value . Where do we need to look at whats happening in the world with weapons systems, Emergent Technology and how can we best station our forces domestically to take advantage of those opportunities provided by structure as well as to maximize effectiveness of the training . If you look back on it, Congress Took this position and provided authorization for five previous rounds. For those of us who are here say there is no way that congress has been authorized brac my response is that they have done it plenty of times before so ultimately congress believes in the value of conducting a process which is fair and transparent. If we look at also what the authorization provides and again we need to step back a bit. People think sometimes your commission in law or that its a Standing Authority, the only Standing Authority that the commanderinchief has right now is to Close Military installations. Standing in the way of that is section 2867 providing onerous reporting requirement that has made it tough to actually get recommendations up to the hill and have them considered. Thats what has resulted in a separate piece of legislation that allows for a transparent open process with the secretarys recommendations which the commission then looks at fords to the president. The value of that legislation is immeasurable, not that any Community Wants to suffer from a brac or suffer from a closure, but if you look at the law there is only about 20 pages that talk about how the secretary will conduct the review and how the commission will consider those recommendations. The rest of the brac law is actually a series of actions that allows communities to quickly redevelop the property. About 100 pages of authority with the establishment of local redevelopment authority, agencies and also opportunity for funding from the department of defense to assist in transition. If you look at it standing back from what the department is trying to do, brac really does provide not just transparent process, but also a great deal of ability for the department of defense to assist those community impacted by brac. If you look at it from a standpoint of community faced with reduction of forces were community faced with potential of it being closed, they much would prefer to do it under the brac process than under standard process. You go no further to ask folks in the community surrounding Naval Air Station sugar grove and West Virginia as they are still struggling what to do with that parcel peered database was closed a couple years under authority other than brac and they are struggling on how to use the property. With that said, the department has asked for a request authorization to conduct brac over the last five years. In the past the request was based on the justification that there might be in efficiency to be gained. Savings to be gained. Brac offered as an opportunity where we might have excess capacity to go ahead and close or reduce bases in order to eliminate and save dollars. No doubt that its a noble cause and even in our administration and the current to request thats one of the goals, but i have to say right now the more important thing for us right now is the department of defense. The fact we are undergoing a process within the department for the review and update of the National Defense strategy we are also looking at whole new realm and era of new technologies, new methods of warfare, emerging capabilities and with fifthgeneration weapon systems and that really for us needs an updated strategy to meet emerging and new National Defense strategy. The department of defense, thats the sole and primary reason why congress allowing us the ability to look at are basing to make prudent decisions on where to station forces. In order to optimize our effectiveness in you go back to suck up a modest when he took over he wants to address readiness concerns immediately. You want to increase military capabilities and enhance. From my perspective, working for him the brac process offers us the opportunity to address readiness by providing our forces the best possible range and installation. And how that impacts our defense establishment, changing threat environment, yet we are still at that same footprint. At the same time theres a brac ongoing but its a brac under the radar screen, a stealth brac. Of course dod is limited on what they can do in terms of closing military bases. But they are forced because of budgetary constraints to move people. So brigades are consolidated and other changes are taking place and save a lot of bases with empty buildings that you need to heat and cool. Dollars that could be better expended advancing our defense establishment and our National Security concerns. One could make the argument that indeed we need to have a brac. Of course the many women we charge with leading our defense establishment have been pleading for brac for over several several administrations including the Current Administration has done so as well. 2005 was unlike any other brac in my view, limited expands on the 1993 brac. In terms of major and minor closures and realignments it was double the number of all previous brac rounds combined, 190 recommendations that really had 783 distinct closure or realignment actions associated with it because the way the brac recommendations were structured. Secretary rumsfeld made it very, very clear that this is not about cost savings, primarily about cost savings, this is about military transformation. Im not sure we carried the ball over the goal line but we certainly moved it down the field somewhat. Unlike other previous back rounds were asked to evaluate recommendations at a time of ongoing comics in southwest asia. A stable or increasing force structure where in the past force structure was declining back in 2005. 2005 it was increasing and the redeployment of 70,000 troops and their families from asia and europe. So thats the context upon which 2005 brac took place. A number of things went well. I was blessed to have a commission, of three retired 4star flag officers, army, navy and air force, to form a cabinet officials, two former members of congress both republican and democrat, a former assistant secretary of defense who also served as assistant secretary of energy and at the White House Office of technology. Willie an expert in Nuclear Power matters, and former retired to start Major General to start head of the air force nurse corps. So indeed the some people of experience, the flag officers with insight in the middle to his advice was invaluable to all of us on the commission. We also had an incredible professional staff puts it on previous brac rounds. Detailing some gao and the pentagon who came over to work on the staff, working 24 7 for a period of time, and of course i think as lucian mention it was an open transparent process. You know take politics out of it, never take lobbying complaining of it. We cant especially could make it open, transparent and apolitical. 183 site visits three site visits to military installations around the country, for the hearings around the country and in washington, and having to produce a report to be submitted to congress. A number of things went wrong. When we were nominated for confirmation by president bush, one senator wanted to kill brac so he put a hold on all of our nominations so we had to wait to get recess appointments. The day after we received this form of information from dod, the recommendations of all the data, they determined this is classified. When you consolidate all this information it becomes classified. We had to wait until it was declassified. That took time and, of course, we only had four months upon which to act on all of these recommendations. The cost issues, i mean, you know, the quantitative analysis that is done to determine cost in savings is based on whats the acumen cost of base realignment actions, gao found it was a reasonable calculator to determine what the cost in savings were as you compare these various military bases of closure. But the problem was they underestimated the requirements. For example, they estimated implementation costs of new construction to be about 13. 4 13. 4 billion. It turned out to be 25. 5 billion. They underestimated the Information Technology requirement that cost significant amounts of money to implement brac. And very importantly, they underestimated or overestimated the personal cost savings by saying if you close a military base and jinga 5000 people, you have 5000 troops cost savings, but there was no reduction in force structure. Those people were just being moved. So the savings the projected at 45 billion over, i think was ten or 20 years, i dont recall, willie was significantly less. Those are some of the things that went wrong and im hopeful when the next brac round comes those issues identified and addressed. Can i borrow your pen . Sure. Ill conclude. We were blessed to have lucian as the assistant secretary, and having knowing basically living brac as a member of the Armed Service committee, staff on Armed Service committee. Without i will conclude and be happy to answer any questions you may have. Im going to talk about the environment for brac on the hill, both big picture and in the Current Situation. Im going to start big picture and sort of what is the logic of brac, why did brac ever work and why might it work again. I want to start actually with what i think is the key point which is brac always is hard and its not popular. Its not Something Congress likes to do. They key element is addressed to be a champion. There has to be someone in congress who is highly respected who was really taking this on and pushing it forward and of necessity that needs to be someone who chairs one of the two Armed Services committee, because thats message you need to be in to would serve as the champion. In the past there is folks have served that role. The last 2005 rent it was really senator warner who served in that role, what is interesting and notable anything for a significant this year is that we have a champion with steps forward and senator mccain, along with his colleague senator reed, the two of them together to serve as the champion. That is a critical and deep critical event. I should recognize congressman smith has been there for some time as the Ranking Member and has been pushing the issue which has been greatly helpful and pushed it, moved the process forward, but as a regular he hasnt been in a position to really push it through. Thats a key element that has fallen into place this year. The basic formula that the previous brac rounds of operate on is that they start of the level of theory, and so the authority is granted. When there are no specific winners and losers, the authority has been granted when in theory as one could be either a winner or loser. In reality a lot of members of congress either know or believe that have a target on their back when comes to brac. They think their facility is at risk. And by the way there are winners in brac although we tend to think of it as a losing game, i happen to work for one member of congress during my stint on the hill, norm dicks, again out of every brac round, substantially at every brac round, interests arent enough to your point about stealth brac, the one facility that didnt benefit from brac and lost a lot of work, which was a shipyard in his district, just because the navy got smaller s support the shipyard got smaller, they never benefited from brac. There was no brac action the lead to the navy getting smaller. It was just a decline in the number of ships. They lost half the personnel and never received any economic assistance as a result of a 50 decrease in their scope because it wasnt under brac. But under brac his district was always a big gain in terms of fort lewis and other facilities in washington state. There are winners and brac and in many cases the folks who are likely to win know who they are. But one of the key formulas has been at the brac authority has granted before the winners and losers have been definitively identify. When the recommendations come back from the commission its an up or down vote, and the vote is to disapprove if you are trying to stop something thats in process rather than affirmatively voting to close someone elses face. Your voting to keep the process going, and generally speaking, the political winners in the process have been able to just say the process work its will, its that were greedy and were trying to diss avenge our college but this is the process and all were doing is supporting whats already underway. Ill circle back to that when we they get to where we are in todays, the Current Situation in congress. Congress has in recent years obviously really struggled to cope with brac, the idea of a new brac round. A number of injections to objection seven race, upfront cost during a time when the department of defense was hit with a very sad this been reduction in 2013 as result of sequestration and the budget control act. There was a strong logic for saving money, but one of the big concerns congress had, right now for the first years of sequestration is when the budget was the lowest and the was the biggest cut and thats when the wouldbe increase costs as a result of doing a brac round, if they have been at the time when the department started requesting it at that point. And so the idea that funding is as short as now but if you need to get money today to start closing bases which we really dont want to do anyway. That was not a political winner at that time. So upfront cost has always been a concern. Obviously the concern of Economic Impacts in the communities and dropoffs has been huge concern for members of congress as i mentioned thats tempered by the fact that only a relatively small number of folks whose bases actually get closed. Theres a small number of losers from the concern is acute. There is been traditionally a concern, in fact, brac originate under the concern of politicization in base closures. That remains a concern. Every brac round folks have found a way to detect a hint of politicization whether its really there or not. Its one reason why this issue of military value has always been so profound, that the recommendations need to be based on military value, and that gets a little complicated as the secretary indicated, when youre to crunch the numbers to determine can return this military value thing into a a number that we can then compare to costs. A tricky thing to do. Then the other issue thats been very concerning to a lot of members of cars is the idf capacity loss. The theory going that once you give up land, you will never give get it back. The history of the Department Says that, in fact, the department has acquired land from time to time over its course. Theres nothing that says as a first principle that once you get something up you will never get it back, but thats generally the theory that congress has operated on. Even where theres been a fairly obvious mismatch between force structure and a structure, congress has are still said well but, thats only today. What about ten years, what about 20 or some today . Doing a brac is an irrevocable decision that we can can come k from if we determined later that our needs have changed and weve got to move forward. And as lucian very clearly explained, that argument works both ways because you can develop this mismatch between what we need today and what we have in terms of infrastructure and i agree with him that we are there. So let me talk a little bit about where things stand on the hill. As i mentioned that a key fact, the most overriding fact is that we now have a champion, now three out of four champions with the Senior Leaders in the Armed Services committee. Doesnt guarantee they can get their members to go along with them and vote for it, but its definitely a sinequan on for a brac round coming to pass. There was a vote on the house side. I dont think was a terribly perfect predictor as a vote of where the votes actually are in the house but the was an amendment to the house version of the Defense Authorization bill on the mcclintock amendment which was to strike a psych in the bill that is pinafore never viewed this as nothing in this bill shall be interpreted to authorize a brac jerk that was really i guess protective language because of the language in the bill because happen prior brac round some of which are still being executed that talks about authorizing brac activities and the just want to make it really clear, thats the old brac round because nothing in it to do a new brac round as lucian clearly illustrated. Brac legislation is overcome its 200 pages long and its a bit of a stretch that anything in the would be interpreted to authorize a brac of that of thee is there nonetheless. I mentioned that all because i think voting against that, striking the language may not mean someone is irrevocably opposed to brac. It was relatively easy if a member sent this language is harmless, why do we need to strike it out . The vote was 175two and 48, pretty balanced between republican and democrat. There were support in both parties for striking the language and some significant amount of resistance to striking it. The one thing i would say as a longtime house staffer is, unlike in the senate were each vote is its own struggle to get one vote, votes in houston to come in blocks. They dont come one by one. They come in tens and 20s because likeminded members can devote together and your regional groupings that both together. Hence a general if you turn about and as you have entered one photo, you generally turn ten to 15 votes, sometimes as many as 20 or 30 i 30 been on te site youre working with. So i would say that vote 175, you need to under 18 is only about two, two and half blocks away from becoming a yes, and house and thats not that far when you think about it. If you can dress some of the current concerns congress has had. I think us that visitors that far away in the house with the leadership and the senate coming along board. I should say historically its always been the sin that has taken the lead on brac, has made it happen, and i dont see any reason thats likely to change. There is real hope this year that might be able to get there. The other point i think worth making is that helped, last year of the year before, authorized the department to do the excess capacity analysis that has now become one of the major justifications or bases for the request for brac showing theres 22 access infrastructure. So that also was a bit of weakening in the resistance of congress to the idea of brac. One interesting idea is, other 20 almost none almost none of it is department of navy. The navy will essentially took a knee on brackets and we think we probably have done enough, and notwithstanding there was some recommendations and fire rounds that never were executed or were turned down by the commission where you might thought the need to rethink to go again but the navy is very good at detecting clear messages and i think theyw that handwriting on the wall. So really the excess capacity is in the army and air force. Im not sure what political dynamic that has. It may free members represent naval institutions who may feel more favorable to brac. May, talking of the political dynamics of that. It may make it less compelling because theres less opportunity to gain. This icon to be as navy winners as in the past. I suspect it significant that the navy didnt really identify any excess capacity. The last thing ill say is that, you know, brac was really secure for the overriding concern about politicization, and really to some extent the cure was received to become the disease. People felt like the brac process itself had become problematic, and so both in congressman smiths version of the bill is introduced and is and for some years, and out in the draft that senator mccain and senator reed have released for discussion, they tried to address this idea that the cure needs to be th secure again andt the disease. And so fundamental questions is likely to work on is this question of there needs to be an independent arbiter in this process to make sure that politicization hasnt crept in. Should there be another Brac Commission as it has been for the previous five rounds, or should be some of the process, anderson as propose using gao as an arbiter to validate the analysis, and then letting congress itself make the final call about whether they think the round is correct or not. What are the issues about that, as i mentioned earlier, previously theyve always had the initial vote when there were no winners and losers and then it was just essentially defending deposition later on. The senate formulation essentially, you would know who the winners and losers were when congress was being asked to vote for it. As i mentioned that the roots of a small number of losers and so that could work, but in the past the theory has been when you know whos bases your targeting with your vote, and that maybe a friend or colleague, an ally for you on other issues, it makes it harder. Even for those who are not affected by brac to vote for it. Ill stop there and le lets moe on to the question portion. One of the things that andrew brought up that i think a special interesting that lucian could address is a capacity analysis done in march of 2016. Its a document that has served as the crux of all the arguments on quantifying the excess capacity. Secretar niemeyer, which my typo what the documents say and what does it not say and what are the limitations . Theres been a concerning questions in congressman years, what are using as the analysis to justify a request for authorization . When i was on the Committee Staff working for senator warner and mccain would ask the same questions. The concern was at the time were looking at growing rift distinction our difference between the threats we face as a nation, the strategy we did help to address those threats and then the forces with providing ambience of our nation to me that strategy, theres a concern that we were not taking into account the full range of threats, really using brac request as an underpinning as a strategy. So for a few years Congress Asked and you provide us more justification on why you think you have excess capacity . Willie it is difficult for the department to do that without conducting a brac round. What congress as, give us the analysis before we give you the authorization, and the response in congress, from the finns, we need to authorization your to be able to do the analysis. We havent offramp. People dont realize the law does provide, the secretary of defense at the first year of analysis, looking at the four structure, like at the defense strategy, look at what we have for threats around the world, decides that you know what, ive done the analysis, i dont believe its worth the expense we will find the savings or when you to continue, then he certifies to congress that he does a happily a brac should go forward and it stops. Folks have forgotten that, that is on pain of the law and it still exists in the proposal. What congress trying to do is get a better understanding for what the department feels its at. Its difficult as department to do that Detailed Analysis without causing concern, without creating hysteria out there as far as what theyre looking at as far as basis. There has been done no analysis until we get authorization, there would be no analysis accomplished into we do, till we get an authorization. The idea theres a list of base closure and Ground Department of defense is actually false. Still congress persisted with theithe legislative request in e 2015 Defense Authorization act to try to give us something. The department undertook a process trying to grapple with how do we do this without necessarily starting a brac analysis . They came up with an idea to take a look at the ratio of forces existing in 1989, 88, look at the ratio of forces the infrastructure we have been and then apply that forward to current four structure. The original analysis was done looking at what then the department of defense in 2016 that like the of research would be in 2019. Although Congress Asked for it to be applied to a four structure that existed in fy 12. The department sent over a first report to congress in april 2016 that show 22 excess capacity across all dod. Based on that racial of analysis. So looking at it objectively and i think this is what secretary mattis did is im looking at, 1980 wasnt the right ratio . Is that now how we apply this forward . That some of the concerns he raised under testimony earlier this year about the capacity analysis and whether we do have 22 , 25 , 25 , 28 in the air force. I know there are concerns the still exist about that. Still we tried to do the best we could, the department tried to do the best we could with the authorities we had to come up with what we felt was the best gas. Thats what you saw delivered to congress. First in april 2016. August is asking us to update that report and to accurately reflect what the asfoor which was fy 12, in the process of working the package back to congress. One of the things that gets brought up multiple times the 2005 and was uniquely transformational, that there was that emphasis of joint miss. One question i personally have is that if brac is the adequate venue to do this transformation. And i think that secretary principi would be able to comment on it if that is the appropriate venue to do those transformations and to emphasize joint miss, and a lot of the answer to that starts with what are the instruments is dod have . Would you mind company on that, secretary principi . Sure. Commenting on that. Transformation is not synonymous with the joints. Its not synonymous with colocation. If you look at the 2005 round, many of the recommendations we received were within each service. There wasnt much Cross Service integration come if you will. There was some but clearly that wasnt overwriting. So i think it is an opportunity for secretary defense to move that ball down the field, in terms of true transformation of our armed forces, did really more operational effectiveness in joint war fighting, training and readiness. But clearly the cost savings has to be an important factor, and whether that is racy one of military value criteria is really up to the congress. It is not a military value, it was in 2005. Important, yes, but again as i indicated it was a clear charge to commission that the secretary, secretary rumsfeld, was really more concerned about this transformation of our military and how it was structured. Going forward i think its going to be an important factor, but i also think that cost savings is going to be equally important, if not more important. Ive been wrestling with the term transformation. That was really a product of where the Bush Administration was trying to get with the round. Round. Its also a great way to separate with the Previous Administration wanted to go which is the one to be efficient space versus transformationalbased. Im not sure how you can do one without the other. Every brac authorization offers opportunity to look at better ways to do things. You call that transformational. So be it. What i really a much more concerned about how do we enhance lethality and enhance readiness . We ultimately have the stationing of forces right now and the United States that may not be ideally placed in order to get to the readiness they need every day. Each a difficult to have to send our military forces summer else in the United States to train when they are already deployed for one year out of every two or three years. So we need to look at how do we ultimately station those forces at locations that they can do more effective, more efficient, and a wider array of full spectrum of training close to where they actually live and where the families are . If you call that transformational, okay fine, then well have a bit of information or i look at is just increasing readiness, increasing lethality. Where we position weapon systems that a best access to the most ideal ranges for that weapon system, unless you thats transformational. I call that just be able to make sure our weapons system is ready to go. I would say that goes more towards the faldo. Putting a label and with is right is going to be, but that red is going to be, i think really what we looking at is theres around that will allow us to take a National Defense strategy, look at how that informed military value. Because coming of our National Defense strategy we will have a clear indication of what the military value needs to be for installations and applying that value to the station of forces. I think really to me that is what we should be focusing on. This ithis is a key, maybe ty point because i was always a a little concerned with the Obama Administration say its all about savings savings savings. The nature of the legal restriction on moving people and on moving at on closing facilities mean that the department is sclerotic, limited and what its able to do, aside from outright closures, reductions in force, in terms of optimizing its use of its assets, its base of research. So the department is not typically thought of bases as i sit there and a lot of cases it just boils down to cost. So this idea of whether a next brac would be to optimize our strategic posture or just a savings drill, those are two essentially fundamentally different exercises, not unrelated. Im a military guy and i responded to my secretary of defense this is going to save money in the next brac, were going to save money. And you can. Optimizing, theres a cost savings, certainly opportunity there to be had, but its a very different going in point to say this is for strategic posturing versus saying without a budget cut and so were going to go find some savings. One of the questions i wanted to pose to you is on the resistance that congress has been shown to authorizing a new route. You Start Talking about four Different Things from not mistaken, costs, Economic Impacts, political process involved another becomes about politics, and the capacity they hold. How many concerns are real concerns the need to be addressed for changes in the brac process, and how much of those simply excuses to avoid a painful process . I think they are all real at some level. I would say none of them is illegitimate as a concern at all. I would say of all of them upfront cost one, it is actually true that theres an upfront cost. It is also i think in some ways the weakest reason to a prose brac because if your aunt is, i cant vote for brac because of upfront cost, your vote is unattainable. Because i its always an upfront cost involved if that your objection, then theres no way to get to yes. Its the most problematic of the reasons for me for that reason. There are economic implications. Lucian has pointed out very correctly that the best way to address those is through a brac, the brac authority gives you the ability to work with communities and to reduce, minimize or even ultimately reverse job loss by utilizing that land base, that facility to some other means. I get the wonderful opportunity every year to go out to monterey, Postgraduate School for some work we do there and going past oregon and seeing the development thats happened up and around its taken some time but its been a real success story. I would not even possible if we had not had brac authority, if it is just been a decision by the department to close without any assistance for the community. That job, economic peace come to me you can turn that around naked people on board with brac because they stand to gain from having that authority. The politicization peace, thats kind of where brac started was trying to address politicization. Thatlthats obit in the eye ofe beholder to my view. Im not sure i am persuaded that there was politicization in the 2005 round bu but i know there e some who feel that is the case. There was a lot of outrage in 1997 when the Clinton Administration said we were going to privatize in play some of the facilities that have been on the brac round. Actually, his dress somewhat borne out that decision because theyre still work going on in san antonio that suggest the economic rationale for staying there may have made sense. Thats really the tricky one, how do you come how do people feel comfortable aspect of politicization has been addressed . Its very doable, its just a matter of how to get number of votes you need to make people feel that they can support that new process. Let me follow up on that a bit because for a few years i was part of the resistance in congress. A couple of things we were paying attention to very much in the committee when the department was coming over with the brac requested first of all there was, they said we are cutting forces, we have excess infrastructure therefore we need to cut infrastructure. Natalie wood in the committee felt like cutting forces was right thing to do. More importantly a lot of folks felt like it was a result of budget and a strategy. A lot of folks felt their military strategy was in no way connected to wear our threats were in the nation. So there was a feeling that if we were not going, if we felt like were heading in the wrong direction with force structure reductions, theres no way we would allow the department to reduce infrastructure. It was a concern of strategy, resources and threats mismatched that kind of fueled some of the initial reaction to authorizing a brac. There also is a concern that we needed to change the law and updated because there was no way anyone to include cindy mccain is going to allow a process to proceed that result in a 14 billion cost overrun in 2005. Theres a lot of reasons for that but bottom line thats an aircraft carrier. And so my charge was before going to look at an authorization for another route, to update the law, not change it fundamentally updated and would submit to put more cost controls, greater transparency, and a bit more accountability into the process. And so that never came over from the department of defense. That really was a huge Sticking Point that we asked for improvement for the actual law, and those are not provided. You did have Congress Smith version of the brac conversation that does contain some of those cost controls, still working with my colleagues in the department, to what degree does can be carried out in that something we will need to take a look at moving for to see what actually gets authorized. But those Major Concerns really kept us from entertaining the idea of him and there is need to look at. The law does need to be updated to allow for more effective round, a more efficient round without seeing the cost balloon up. I would add i think we need to keep in mind that many of the costs, my brac round 2005 came after implementation. Just one example, the National Geospatial Agency Facility was budgeted at 1. 1 billion, the final cost of that was 2. 5 billion. You can go mark center, the vast amount of construction, Major Military construction that took place was just astronomical. You might even say a little gold plating went into it, but clearly i think the commission if limited the law as it was drafted. I mean, we approved 86 of the recommended closures and realignments, thats the historical average. We did disapprove a number of major closures. The marine base, which we learned was the center of excellence in submarine warfare, fort smith Naval Shipyard we learned was a most costeffective productive shipyard in the navy. They could turn around, refurbish and refuel a nucleus of facts that any shipyard in the navy. The data that went into the pentagon to justify that was used by the pentagon to close it without the data we received. It was different. So i think thats one advantage of the commission itself. Thats not to say you cannot have a brac without a commission. You certainly can, but we also worked hand in glove with gao. They were detailed. We met with them. I met with the comptroller general sometimes to talk about the recommended closures and realignments. Some of these costs came upon, came out after the implication in 2005. One last thing on congressional resistance. For my thumb on the committee and the entire 11 years i met with every Defense Community in the country. And since then, since i left the committee, talked about just about with every state in the country. Im not so sure theres not a growing realization that brac provides more opportunity for bases than it does threats. I think you go around the country right now, talk to defense committees use the majority of them, not of long majority but there are more and more communities and states would you sign up and tell delegations yes, we want a brac. You kept pace with high military value that only 60, 70 utilized. They realize their ultimate going to get potentially stronger from a brac round. I think you are seeing a growing swell of support for what brac can do for an opportunity for those basis that feel that they have a significant contribution to National Security. That really is ultimately what it should be about. When were looking at, the country should increase a process that allows us to put our forces at locations at ultimate will provide the most benefit, the most effective force available at the most efficient cost. I have the feeling that the congressional resistance, if these senators and congressmen talk to their defense communities over the next few weeks to try to forget we are going to vote on brac, im hoping the senators take the opportunity to talk to their defense leaders, to communities, to the adjutant generals. The national guard, those adjutant general certificate of the brac process in 2005 got really well really fast because we were able to close Readiness Centers that were underperforming in poor demographic areas, move over to emerging demographic areas. They were able to make themselves much stronger to come out of the brac round. As folks are listening to their tags or defense committee, their states, starting to see folks a yes, brac is the right time. Weve been working for ten years on improving our military value. We think with a better product to provide the department of defense, therefore, ring it on, we are ready for it. Just very briefly, i guess my view is that this is why having a champion is so important. Really the department is not optimized to carefully craft or revise legislative proposal for this. The senator is, thats his skill set and i think having a champion to do that work of improving the legislation, thats the key difference. I wanted to ask one last question to the panel before we open up for questions from the audience is there a better way to close facilities other than brac . Secretary of defense . I think the hard questions should be passed over. You hope in an ideal world, again our military leaders both civilian and uniformed can make those decisions with congressional oversight. , was some kind of format we determine if there was significant deviation for military criteria without the need for a Brac Commission, but clearly it starts with the secretary of defense. Hes the one who is charged with our National Security, and perhaps increased authority if you will. Again, there is no limitation on the number of military personnel that can be moved. There are limitations with regard to civilian personnel, but you can move combat brigades. You can move and wings. You can do all that and thats happening. If the people Bring Community to life, not the buildings, not into buildings, not with chainlink fence around some portion upon installation, that doesnt serve the community very well. I think the role of the second of defense is fundamental and very important in the decisions to close and realign military bases. I guess in my ideal world, the law would be less rigid and the department would have more flexibility to move folks including civilian personnel because it started with large number of military without also affecting a relatively significant number of civilian folks. They would have more flexibility to optimize infrastructure to strategy, infrastructure to force structure over time, and i think would be reasonable for congress to say either going to all the way to the point of closure of the major installation, check with us first whether we some safeguards around that. I did feel like the statute could be opened up, and is been narrowed successively over succeeding years saying reducing the size of actions that you can take without congressional approval, they could open that back up and you might not need a full brac round again for a very long time. Obviously its been a while since the last wonder i was a wee needed it for much of the time that we havent had. I think you could make it unnecessary to have brac authority over longer present time if the lawgiver department more flexibly to optimize. I think ideally you want to go back to what our Founding Fathers intended, that is commanderinchief should have the ability to open or close bases as he or she determines to be the best interest of the National Defense. I would love to go back to those days. And just have congress at least be advise and maybe some type of consent. The we look at it thats the way the current amendment proposed by senator mccain tried to give back to some extent. Well see to what degree policy place in the process and, unfortunately, thats whats happening the last 20 years is the secretary of defense is look at a base closure, that is ultimately involve jobs and politics. But yes, if i had an opportunity to do it again all over again i would just like to go back to discretion of secretary of defense advising the president to say look, we probably dont need the space anymore, its time to close it and save those dollars. One aspect of the mccain amendment dealing with the vote as lucian indicated, or andrew come in 2005, five, took about of disapproval. Now according to the amendment, requires a vote of approval and is a going to inject more politics in a . Will stop in any senator put a hold on the provision of law that establishes a brac . That one aspect concerns me, how that would play out. Not to mention the scene as a very empty calendar that it has nothing else to consider. With that were going to open up for question for me i did. Please ask your question in the form of the question. I believe we have a microphone, and please identify yourself if you want to try to question to anyone, also say so. Brac is going to become the Sticking Point for National Defense authorization in the senate, and going for two conference if the senate successful in passing the mccain amendment . Do think it will be a Sticking Point . Ill take a first crack at it. It. I guess my quick answer would be no. It is certainly true that historically it is played several in the past, former chairman bob stump at one point got up and was ready to bail out on the ndaa altogether result of brac and senator warner cutting back to table and openly they reached an agreement, but they came close. He came close to philly. It is not my sense that chairman thornberry is that oppose to brac, that he would literally walk away. I could be wrong and i havent, i have had a personal conversation with either him or his staff director on this point but i dont since that his level of resistance is at that, if you will, bob stump threshold of opposition to i wouldnt see this being a bill killer. [inaudible] i mean, the way that structured it and, of course, that was a decision by senator mccain and senator reed told the proposal back not put in the Committee Bill and have it on the floor. Not to get sdram but there was another very controversial provision on dont ask, dont tell with it with a different route and he put in the bill in committee and it almost killed the bill because they couldnt get to the floor. By structuring the way have, look, it will either pass or fail to give up that the boat to go in as an amendment and it cannot be a bill keller because its got substantial support. The way that structured this i dont see it being a huge barrier in the senate. Next question. Thank you. My question is for secretar niemeyer. You mentioned that one of the improvements the needs to occur in brac lies against either certain cost controls that are put in especially at the 2500 im curious if you can just, on the mccain reed unlimited as we discuss it with a not that contain some of those provisions that youre looking for . It does. It provides an overall cost of temptation of a think 5 billion if im correct. So that is a good first step. Im not so sure now that it on the department side that up want to be capped by that. I was hoping they would trust me as far as keeping the costs down. Theres also, in the smith version, theres also a requirement for the department to develop more detailed estimates beyond that of cobra. I think there was an understanding that cobra as a parametric modeling for doing certain scenario assessments was a very useful tool to build or set aside certain scenarios and for the visit others. At some point you get to move beyond cobra and maybe deliver more engineering analysis of whatever recommendation would cost. The smith amendment does provide for some of those requirements to the form of plans to be smitten along with recommendation. Not sure to what degree department can intimate that pic thats something we would need to take a look at, but it really was, those are the types of things that is trying to get congress to be able to put some type of control, the 2005 round, unfortunately, congress is very minimal authorization or ability to do anything about the explosive growth of the brac request. Thats something that they are both wrestling with different solutions. Thank you. Sandra irwin with nuclear defense. I wanted to ask secretary niemeyer about this whole idea that you want to optimize readiness and make that a part of the analysis. Can you say whos involved in doing the analysis right now, where does that stand . And when you expect to have some actual recommendations on that . We are not doing any analysis on optimizing readiness as far as installations so were not doing the brac analysis. We are looking everyday the best utilize our ranges and also looking at to what degree our current ranges can support fifthgeneration weapons systems. Those discussions are happening every day in the military. To what degree can we support the President Energy policy. So theres a lot a discussion, and the secretary is charged each of us to the media address the readiness concerns that exist, not just in infrastructure but also in training and many, things like that. Theres a lot of analysis going on there. How it would apply to a brac round, that connection has been not made because we dont have authorization for a brac round get. That would be one of the things we want to do is look to see how readiness and capability are addressed in the new National Defense strategy, and then take that National Defense strategy, o,apply to mr. Donnelly and stat looking how to set try changes, infrastructure enrages . We have not been any analysis right now of realignment and closure or anything to do with any type assistan of system or. Were strictly looking at what Infrastructure Solutions we have now and how to best use what we have now to maximize readiness. [inaudible] thats a good question. I think that is deadly on top of my mind. There is a lot of discussion going on within the joint chiefs that secretary of defense, and im not sure exactly when were going to see that. Can i just, i think this is, one thing i wanted throw the table is gets to the threat is, certainly the range of opportunity is the opportunity potential in a new brac round to look at ability to do more Publicprivate Partnership and cut down some of the upfront investment required on the governments and i having some private capital invested as well. If you look at the ranges, training ranges, if you look at the dod labs and you look at the infrastructure, these are Real National assets and then value beyond just military mission. And so we have an opportunity to leverage, and not just improve, not just make a onetime improvement to redness but an ongoing improvement by bringing in some private capital that would get some access to these National Assets in return. I think theres a real opportunity there in this round pick some hoping the language is flexible enough to make those opportunities bible. One of my concerns about the approach of the last administration which is all about savings, savings, savings is you couldnt d is maybe somef his more creative things. I think its also pretty brac, Publicprivate Partnerships is a great way to reduce operational costs, whether its in services, building joint cogent plans to serve the great in the community, so the military base your lots of ways the military can save money and partner with the community to advance some of those services and better position to survive a brac round. One of the elements is how fragile the brac process is for the sheer off rent you have throughout the process. I think it was secretary niemeyer that started talking about that, after there is an actual study, to assess the capacity and matching it to the force structure, if congress think thats an adequate they can just stop the process there. Slight clarification. The second a defense can stop the process. Once a brac is authorized, then yes, congress can unauthorized a brac process but what i was talking about was, once a brac round is authorized, the secretary of has the ability, has the prerogative to say okay, now that ive done the indepth analysis that you want me to do, and they dont see any reason to go forward. In the same token, what almost happening 2005 was the commissioners were not confirmed, and if the commissioners were not confirm you would stop the authorization of the brac round as well. Those types of offramp i was referring to littered the legislation. Is there any of the questions from the audience . I have a question about the costs of the brac. There has been a criticism that the cost has escalated beyond what the estimates of the department were. In the previous brac rounds from the previous five brac rounds, Environmental Remediation was not considered one of the costs. There seems to be an indication or an effort certainly in center of mccains amendment and in some of the house language that Environmental Remediation would be included as a cost. In the past this is had essentially to application for environmental costs have just skyrocketed. They are unknowable as secretary principi has said. Its one of those costs that have gone up and you would never know that until you open up the ground. Environmental costs were not included in the previous rounds because it was considered a governmental responsibility, governments had to clean it up with its, the basis open or close so its not a unique cost to brac. And secondly, if you included, then theres a tremendous bias to only close clean bases. You put one shipyard on the list like mayor Island Shipyard or hunters point, you have blown your 5 billion cap right there. Should Environmental Remediation costs be included in the process . Let me begin from 2005, apart from the four military value treachery community for economic criteria. One of us has to do with Environmental Remediation, but the remediation is not the future uses like redevelopment to a residential community, its clean up to its current use. Military use. Youre absolutely right. Its not for redevelopment. You will close the military base and its going to be redevelop redeveloped, i talked about, that is life after brac in many, many places. Those costs have to be born, if you will, by the community or the developers that will come in and redeveloped san diego or redeveloped newport or whatever it might be. I take a different perspective. From my understanding, the reason why the department in the past set aside if im a cost because you did not know, you have to anticipate what the proposed use might be and i would get into whole discussion of community. Also i think there really wasnt enough Environmental Data available in the previous rounds of brac. Department of defense has been a committed job over the last ten years investigating what they have on the military bases. Look at it from the proposed legislation is, at least accounting study and a preliminary analysis and determine what you have, and to make some rough order of magnitude of what you might have to clean up in this cause. But i agree it would definitely disadvantage the sites that are clean, the bases that are clean. It would definitely advantage the sites that have a lot of cleanup. So i think the department, we still work to do into what degree we would incorporate that into the colbert announces or as a final element in assessing the recommendation. And now one last question. I would almost done . Travis with the washington examiner. I think chairman thornberry has talked a bit about the upfront costs, which he suggested puts people in this im gettable vote category. Im wondering if you see his opposition as being a key if not the key hurdle and what you think theres any possibility of some type of a political compromise between chairman thornberry and, say, chairman mccain and the democrats on the Armed Services . I think there is room for compromise. As lucian indicated the idea of capping the upfront costs of alleys scaling it in in some way that congress can control, so maybe they can set a cap and if the department came back and made a compelling case that actually you gave us 10 billion of the upfront cost, we can spread it out and is going to pay off in the long run, we can do a lot more useful stuff, then congress can revisit the number in the future round. The idea of setting some kind of ability for congress to some measure of control over how much they are putting in in terms of upfront costs and ongoing costs, i think that is the basic grants for compromise on that issue. It could be very limiting depending on how its written, how heart of a cap thats made. With that, thank you so much, i appreciate you guys coming over and speaking to us about brac. I think we have finished up. All right . No . Anyway, thank you so much for coming over and please join me in a round of applause for our panelists. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] were live this morning as the Bipartisan Policy Center is holding a conference on evolution of terrorism from 9 11 to isis. Also, a look at Counter Terrorist strategy, former 9 11 Commission Chair tom cain and vicechair this morning. Should start in a moment. Live coverage of cspan2. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversations] [inaudib [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] good morning