vimarsana.com

Thanks, everyone, for making the time to come over here in this first day of congress being back in town, which i assume is a busy time for everyone. First, im just going to introduce our guests and then explain to everybody a little bit. If youre here by accident and you dont know what brack is to my left is the assistant secretary of defense for energy and installations of environment at d. O. D. He also served as a professional staff member at the House Armed Services committee. A brac round involves establishing a cry tie criteria evaluation of possibly closures. Th the first round of brac took place in 1988 followed by three consecutive rounds in 1991, 1993 and 1995. The fifth round take place in 2005. 12 years later, a new round of brac is part of the political discussion. The need is paced on estimates that we currently have over 20 of excess infrastructure. To talk about why we need a brac n now, the secretary is going to be able to inform us on that. I appreciate it. Thank you so much. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk here at heritage on this important topic. For those of us who watch the goings on of congress from day to day, we know that the congress is about to consider the fy 19 authorizations act on the senate flor. Its really important to be able to talk to you all to take questions and talk about why we believe that the department is in a good place right now and a good place to request permission and authorization and to carry it out with the intent of congress. A couple quick hits from my background on brac. I worked when i was in the air force on the committee and ultimately now serving in a new capacity. Ive been in the job for three weeks. Two of those weeks ive been traveling. If i start to nod off, its because im still on guam time. If you really look at it, brac has been a great process for the department of defense to really take a look at itself, to stand back and say, okay, where do we need to go with military value, where do we need to look, what is happening in the world of weapons systems, emerging technologies, and how can we best station our forces to take advantage. If you look back on it, congress has also shared this position and provided an authorization for five previous round. For those folks who i hearsay theres no way congress is going to authorize a brac, my response is theyve done it plenty of times before. If you look at also what what the authorization provides g again, we need to step back a little bit. People think sometimes your commission is in law or it is a Standing Authority. The only Standing Authority that the commander in chief has right now is to Close Military installations. Standing in the way of that is section 20. 1867 which provides a somewhat own ow onerus. The value of that particular piece of legislations if you look at the actual law, theres only about 20 pages that talk about how the secretary will duct 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. Also, an opportunity for funding from the department of defense to assist in the transition. If you look at it, standing back from what the department is trying to do, brac really does provide note just just a fair a transparent process, but also a great deal of ability for the department of defense to assist those communities impacted by brac. A community faced with a reduction of forces or a community faced with the potential of their installation being closed, they much more would prefer to do it under the brac process. You go no further than ask the folks surrounding the station, theyre still trying to figure out what to do with that parcel. That base was closed by the navy and theyre still struggling how best to use that property. The department has asked for an authorization to conduct a brac for the last five years. In the past, the request was based on the justification that there might be efficiency to be gained. Brac offered us an opportunity to see where me might have excess capacity to close or reduce bases. No doubt thats a noble cause. Even in our administration, that is one of the goals. The more important thing for us is the fact that were undergoing a process in the department for the review and update of the National Defense strategy. Were also looking at an era of new technologies, new methods of warfare. That really for us need an updating basing strategy to meet an emerging and new National Defense strategy. In order to optimize their effectiveness, you back to secretary mattiss three priorities. He wants to address readiness concerns immediately, he wants to increase military capabiliti capabilities. It allows us to consider where we might want to add capabilities. Most of all, it allows us quickly and effectively to enhance the lethality of our sources. Ill go ahead and stop there. But i just want to make it clear that for us its not just a matter of finding efficiencies. Its a matter of improving military value. Thats why we continue to push hard. We support the senates attempt to try to get a brac authorization inserted. Thank you. I recall in 1993 after i was leaving the first bush administration. I received a call from senator thurmond. Charleston Naval Shipyard was on the close your list. I should have learned my lesson then. If someone asks you to chair a brac, you just say no and move on. But i didnt. If a brac is authorized in 19 to take place in 2021, that will be 16 years since the last brac round. Think about the reductions that have taken place, combat air wings, gbrigades. At the same time theres really a brac ongoing. Its a brac under the radar screen. D. O. D. Is limited in what they can do in terms of closing military basis. Theyre forced because of jujt constrai dollars that could be better expended advancing our defense establishment and our National Security concerns. Would could make the argument then indeed we need to have a bracket. Of course the men and women we charge with leading our defense establishment have been pleading for brac over several administrations. 2005 was unlike any other brac in my view. 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 instructions on it. Secretary rumsfeld made it very clear this was not primarily about cost savings, this was about military transformation. Unlike other previous brac rounds, we were asked to evaluate recommendations at a time of ongoing conflicts in southwest asia. A stable or increasing fore structure where in the past it was declining. And the projected deep redeployment of 70,000 troops and their families of from asia and europe. Thats the context upon which the 2005 brac took place. A number of things went well. I was blessed to have a commission of three retired four star flag officers, army, navy and air force, two former cabinet officials, a former assistant secretary of defense who also served as assistant secretary of energy. Really an expert in Nuclear Power matters and a former 2 star retired general. Indeed the commission had some people of experience, es spoeshl the fl especially the flag officers. We also had an incredible staff who served on previous brac rounds. And of course i think, it was an open, transparent process. You never take politics out of it, you never take lobbying completely out of it but we opened as west we coulbest we c. Having to produce a report to be submitted to congress. A number of things went wrong. When we were nominates by president bush, one senator wanted to kill brac so he put a hold on all of our nom naginati. After we received this information from d. O. D. , they te determines, oh my kogosh, this classifie classified. We only had a month to act on these recommendations. Cost issues. I mean, you know, the quantitative analysis that is done toe determine cost and savings is pace e based on the base realignment actions. The g. A. Found it was a reasonable calculator to determine what the cost and savings were as you prepare these for closure. The problem was they underestimated the requirements. They underestimated the Information Technology requirements that cost significant amounts of money. And very importantly they underestimated or over estimated the personnel cost savings but saying if you close a military base and you move 5,000 people, you have 5,000 troops cost savings. But there is no reduction in force structure. Those people would just be moved. T those are some of the things that went wrong that im hopeful when the next brac rounds come can i borrow your pen . Sure. Ill conclude there. Were very happy to have lucian over. Services committee, ill be happy to answer the questions that you have. Im going to talk a little bit about the environment for brac on the hill, both big picture and in the Current Situation. Im going to start by the big picture and know what is the logic of brac, why brac would ever work and why it might work again. I want to start actually with what i think is the key point, which is that brac is not popular, its not Something Congress likes to do. So the key element is that there has to be a champion. There has to be someone in congress highly respected who is 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 the position you need to be in to serve as a champion. And in the past, various folks have served that role, the last 2005 round it was senator warner who served that role. And what is interesting and notable and i think very significant this year is that we have a champion who is moving forward in senator mccain and senator reid, the two together, to serve as a champion. Thats a really critical event and i should recognize, congressman smith has been there for some time as a Ranking Member and has been pushing the issue and has been incredibly helpful and moved the process forward, but as a Ranking Member, he hasnt been in a position to push it through. And that is a key element that is falling into place this year. The previous backgrounds are operated on is that they start at the level of theory. So the authority is granted. When there are no specific winners and losers, the authority has been granted, when in theory, everyone could be either a winner or loser. Now, in reality, a lot of members of congress either know or believe that they have a target on their back when it comes to brac and 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 happened to work for one member of congress during my stint on the hill, norm dix, who gained substantially out of brac. And to the secretarys point about stealth brac, the one facility that didnt benefit from brac and lost a lot of work in the district, just because the navy got smaller, so the shipyard got smaller, they never benefited from brac because there was no brac action that led to the navy getting smaller, it was a decline in the number of ships. They lost half their personnel and didnt receive the economic assistance as a result of a 50 decrease in their scope. Because that was not under brac. But under brac his district was a big gainer in terms of fort lewis base and other facilities in washington state. So there are winners in brac. In many cases, the folks who are likely to win know who they are. But one of the key formulas has been that the brac authority has granted before the winners and losers have been identified. Then when the recommendations come back from the commission, its an up or down vote and the vote is to disapprove. Youre trying to stop something that is in process rather than affirmatively voting to close someone elses base. Youre just voting to keep the process going. Generally speaking, the political winners in the process have been able to just say, the process worked its will, its not that we are greedy and trying to disadvantage our colleagues, but this is the process. All we are doing is trying to support what is underway. Ill circle back to that point when i get to where we are with todays Current Situation in congress. Congress is struggling to cope with brac. A number of objections have been raised, the upfront cost during a time when the department of defense was hit with a very sudden spending reduction in 2013 as a result of sequestration and the budget control act. One of the big concerns is rights now the first years in e questions trags is when the budget was lowest and the lowest cut. Thats when there would have been increased costs as a result of doing the background if they had done it at that time when the department started requesting it at that point. And so the idea that funding is the shortest now, but you need to get money today to start closing the bases, which we dont want you to do anyway. That was not a political winner at that time. So upfront costs has always been a concern. Obviously, the concern of Economic Impacts in the communities and job loss has been a huge concern for members of congress. As i mentioned, thats tempered by the fact theres only a relatively small number of folks whose bases get closed. Theres a small number of losers from that concern being acute. There has been traditionally a concern, in fact, brac originated out of w politicization. Brac folks have found a way to detect politicization whether it is there or not. Its an issue of whether the military value has been so profound, that the recommendations need to be based on military value. But that gets a little complicated as the secretary indicated when you have to crunch the numbers to determine, can we turn this into a number . It is a tricky thing to do. And then that is concerning to a lot of members of congress to the capacity loss. Once you fear going to that, you will never get it back. The history of the Department Says that the department has acquired land from time to time over its course. Theres nothing that says as a first principle that once you give something up youll never get it back, but thats generally the theory congress operated on. So even where theres been a fairly obvious mismatch between fore structure and base structure, Congress Said, well, but thats only today. What about ten years or twenty years from now, doing a brac is a decision we cant come back from if we determine that our needs have changed and weve got to move forward. And as he 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, the key fact, the most overriding fact is that we now have a champion effect, now three champions, three out of four 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 definite definitely possible for a brac vote to pass. There was a vote on the house side. I dont think it was a terribly perfect predictor as to where the votes are in the house, but there was an amendment to the house version of the Defense Authorization bill on an amendment that was to strike a section in the bill that has been there for a number of years that says nothing in this bill should be authorized of brac. That was really, i guess, protective language because there is other language in the bill because of prior backgrounds, some still being executed. But that talks about authorizing brac activities and just wants to make it clear for targeting. Thats the old background. As lucien indicated, brac legislation is over 200 pages long. So i think its a bit of a stretch that anything in the bill would be interpreted to authorize a brac, but the language was there nonetheless. I mentioned that because voting against that, im striking that language, it may not mean someone is opposed to brac. I think it was relatively easy for a member to say, this language is pretty harmless, why do we need to strike it out . But the vote was 145 to 248, it was pretty balanced between republican and democrat. So there was support in both parties for striking that language. And obviously a significant amount of resistance for striking it. The one thing i would say as a longtime staffer is unlike in the senate where each vote is its own struggle to get one vote, votes in the house tend to come in blocks. They dont come one by one, they come in tens and twenties. Because likeminded members tend to vote together and you have regional groupings that vote together. So generally if you turn a vote in the house, you have not turned one vote but you turn 10 to 15 votes sometimes as many as 20 to 30 depending on the size of the bloc youre voting with. You need 218 and that is only twoandahalf blocks away from becoming a yes in the house. Thats really not that far. If you can address some of the current concerns that congress has had. So i think its not necessarily that far away in the house. With the leadership in the senate coming along board, and i should say, historically, its always been the senate to make the lead on brac. I dont think that is likely to change. But there is real hope this year that they might be able to get there. The other point worth making is that the hill, i cant remember if it was last year or the year before, authorized the apartment to do the excess capacity and analysis that has now become one of the major justifications or bases for brac showing theres 22 infrastructure. So that also was a bit of a weakening in the resistance in congress to the idea of a brac. One interesting thing about that is that of that 22 , almost none of it is department of navy. The navy really essentially took a knee on brac and said, we think we probably have done enough and not withstanding there was some recommendations in prior rounds that never were executed or turned down by the commission where you might have thought the navy would think to go again. But the navy is very good at detecting clear messages, and i think they saw that handwriting on the wall. So really, the excess capacity is in the army and the air force. Im not sure what political dynamic that may have. The free members who recommend installations to feel more favorable to brac and may make them feel like its hard to know the political dynamics of that and make it less compelling because theres less opportunity to gain. Theres not as many winners as identifying excess capacity. The one thing ill say is that brac is really the cure for the overriding concern about the politicization. And to some extent the cure was to overcome the disease. The people felt like the brac process itself had become problematic. So both congressman smiths verse that he introduced and has done for years, and now in the draft to senators mccain and reid have released for discussion, they have tried to address this idea that the cure needs to be the cure again and not the disease. And so fundamental questions that the hill is likely to work on is the question of there needs to be an independent ash or the on this pro arbitor on this process to validate the analysis and letting congress itself make the final call about whether they think the round is correct or not. One of the issues about that as i mentioned earlier, previously they have always had the initial vote when there were no winners or losers and it was defending that position later on. And then the senates formulation essentially you would know who the winners and losers were when congress is being asked to vote for it. Now, as i mentioned, theres a relatively small number of losers so that could certainly work. But in the past, the theory has been when you know whose basis youre targeting with your vote, and that may be your friend or colleague or ally on other issues, it makes it harder, even for those who are not effective to vote for it. And ill stop there and move on to the question. Thank you, senator. One of the things that andrew brought up that lucien can address is the capacity analysis done in march of 2016. The document has served in all the arguments on quantifying the excess capacity. The secretary nemeyer, talk about what it does say and what it doesnt say and what are the limitations . Theres been a concern in congress for many years, what are you really using as the analysis to justify your request for an authorization . When i was on the Committee Staff working for senator warner and mccain, we asked the questions. And the questions were at a time when were looking at a growing rift or growing distinction or difference between the threats we face as a nation, we have gradually addressed the threats and the forces we are providing on behalf of our nation to meet that strategy, theres a concern there that we are kind november not taking into account the full range of threats or really using the brac request as the underpinning of the strategy. For a few Years Congress said, can you provide justification on why you think you have excess capacity . And really its difficult for the department to do that without actually conducting the brac grounds. So what congress has been asking about the analysis before we give the authorization. And the response from congress has been from the authorization to do the analysis. So we have an offramp. People dont realize the law does provide that after the first year of analysis, looking at the Defense Strategy and what we have for threats around the world, ive done the analysis and dont believe its worth the expanse to find the savings or we need to continue. Then he certifies to congress that does not believe that brac should go forward and that stops. Its always in the law and still exists in the proposal. So what congress is trying to do is get a better understanding for where the department feels it is at. And it is hard for the department to do the analysis without creating hysteria out there as far as what theyre looking at as far as basis. There has been no analysis until we get the authorization and there will be no analysis accomplished until we do get the authorization. The idea and the notion that there is a list of the closures running around the department of defense is false. With the alleged request in 2015s authorization act to give us something, the department undertook something to grapple with, how do we do this without starting a brac analysis . They came up with the idea to take a look at the ratio of forces existing in 1989, or 88. Look at the ratio of forces of the infrastructure we had then and apply it to the current fore structure. The original analysis was done looking at what then the department of defense in 2016 felt like the infrastructure would be in 2019. Although Congress Asked for it to be applied to a fore structure that existed in 2012. The department sent over the first report to congress in april 2016 that show ed 22 excess. Based on the ratio of analysis, looking at it objectively, and ultimately this is what secretary mattis did. Im looking at 1988, was that the right ratio of the infrastructure and has that now become how we apply this forward . Thats some of the concerns he raised in the testimony about the capacity analysis and whether we have 22 to 25 , 28 in the air force. I know there are concerns that still exist about that. Still, we try to do the best we could. The department tried to do the best we could with the authorities we had and to come up with what we felt was the best guess. And thats ultimately what you saw delivered to congress. First in april of 2016, now congress is asking us to update that report and to accurately reflect what they asked for, which is an fy12. We are in the process of working that back to congress. One of the things that gets brought up multiple times since the 2005 round was uniquely transformational. There was the emphasis of jointness. And one question that i personally have is that if brac is the adequate evevenue to do s transformation. And i think the secretary could be able to comment on it if it was the appropriate venue to do those transformations and to introduce jointness. And a lot of the insert to that starts with what instruments does d. O. D. Have. Would you mind commenting on that, secretary . The transformation is not synonymous with jointness or colocation. If you look at the 2005 round, many of the recommendation we received were within each service. There wasnt that much crossservice integration, if you will. There was some, but clearly that wasnt overriding. So i think it is an opportunity for the secretary of defense to move the ball down the field with in terms of true transformation of our armed forces to get 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 raised to be one of the military value criteria is really up to the congress. It is not a military value criteria. It wasnt in 2005. Important, yes, but again, as i indicated, it was a clear charge to the commission that the secretary rumsfeld was really more concerned about this transformation of our military and how it was structured. And Going Forward, i think its going to be an important factor, but i also think the cost savings is going to be equally important if not more important. So i have been wrestling with the product of transformation. I think thats where the administration was trying to get with the round, but it is a great way to separate the administrations. Im not sure how you can do one without the other. Every brac opportunity or authorization looks at better ways to do things. You call that transformational, so be it. What i really am much more concerned with is how to enhance lethality. In the United States we may not be ideally placed to get to readiness every day. It is really difficult to send the military forces somewhere 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 can be more effective, more efficient and a wider array of full Spectrum Training close to where they actually live and where their families are. If you call that transformational, okay, fine, then well have a bit of transformation. I look at that as just increasing readiness and lethality, where we position weapon systems to have the best access for the ideal ranges for the weapon system, im not sure that is transformational. I would just call that being ready to make sure were ready to go when the time comes. So i think what that round and this round is going to be, what were looking at is a round that will allow us to take astrategy. Coming out of the clear national strategy, well have a clear indication of what the strategy needs to be and applying the military value to the stationing of forces. And i think really to me that is what we should be focusing on. Go ahead. Let me jump in on this, this could be the key point on this, because i was always concerned with the obama administers saying it is all about savings, savings, savings. The nature of the legal restrictions on moving people and on moving and closing facilities mean that it is a department that is very littled in what its able to do aside from outright closures or reductions in force, in terms of optimizing its use of its assets. Its base infrastructure. So the department is not typically thought of based on its assets. In a lot of cases, it boils down to cost. So this idea of whether the next brac would be to optimize our strategic posture or the savings drill is just, those are two essentially fundamental different exercises. Not up related. They are, im a military guy and am responding to my secretary of defense that says were going to save money in the next brac, were going to save money, too. And you can save money. Optimizing theres a cost savings opportunity there to be had, but its a very different going in point for posturing versus saying we have a budget cut and were going to go find some savings. One of the questions i have is you Start Talking about the costs and Economic Impacts and the political process and how that becomes with politics and the capacity they hold, how much of those concerns are real concerns that need to be addressed for changes in the brac process and how much are those simply excuses to avoid a painful process . Well, i think they are all real at some level. I would say none of them as illegitimate as a concern at all. I would say of all of them, the upfront cost, it is actually true theres an upfront cost. It is also, i think, in some ways the weakest reason to oppose brac because if your answer is, i cant vote for brac, then youre ungettable. Your vote is unattainable because theres always an upfront cost involved. If thats your objection, theres no way to get to yes. So its the most problematic of the reasons for me for that reason. There are economic implications. Lucien has pointed out very correctly the best way to address those is through a brac. The brac authority gives you the ability to work with communities and reduce or minimize or reverse the job loss by utilizing the land base, the facility through some other means. I get the wonderful opportunity every year to go out to monterey and go to Postgraduate School for work we do there and seeing the development that has happened up and around this to take some time. But its been a real success story. That would not have been possible if we didnt have brac authority. But its a decision by the department to close without any assistance to the community. So thats the job and economic piece, you can turn that around to get on board with brac because they stand to gain from having that authority where brac started. Its a little bit in the eye of the beholder. Theres politicization in the 2005 round but some feel thats the case. There was a lot of outrage in 1997 when the Clinton Administration said we were going to privatetize in place some of the facilities on the brac ground if. History has somewhat worn out the decision because theres still work going on in san antonio that suggests that the economic rationale for staying there may have made sense. But i think that is really the tricky one. How do you deal with that . How do peel feel comfortable that the aspect of the politicization has been addressed . They are doable, but the number of votes you need to make people feel they can support that new process. Let me followup on that a little bit. For a few, i actually was part of the resistance in congress to authorize another brac. There are a couple things here that we were paying attention to very much in the committee when the department was coming over for the brac request. First of all, they were saying were cutting forces, therefore we have excess in infrastructure and we need to cut infrastructure. Not everybody in the committee felt like cutting forces was the right thing to do. And it was the force of cutting the budget and not military strategy. A loot of folks felt like the strategy was nowhere concerned with the threat of the nation. So there was a feeling if we felt like we were heading the wrong direction before structure reductions, theres no way we would allow the department to reduce infrastructure. So definitely was a concern on Strategy Resources and threats mismatched that kind of fueled some of the initial reaction to authorizing a brac. There also was a concern that we need to change the law and update it and there was no way mccain was going to allow in a 14 billion cost overrun in 2005. And theres a lot of reasons for that, but bottom line thats an Aircraft Carrier there. So my charge was if were going to look at the authorization for another round, we have to update the law, not change it fundamentally, but update it to put more cost controls, Greater Transparency and a little bit more accountability into the process. And so that never came over from the department of defense. And that really was a huge Sticking Point that we asked for improvements to the actual law and those were not provided. Now, you do have congress in the brac authorization that does contain some of the cost controls. Still working with my colleagues in the department, to a degree of what those could be carried out, thats something well need to take a look at moving forward to see what gets those mayor concerns kept us from entertaining the idea and something to look at. The law does need to be updated to allow for a more effective round and more efficient round without seeing the cost balloon up. I would add that i think we need to keep in mind that many of the costs associated with my brac ground in 2005 came after implementation. Just one example, the National Geospatial Agency Facility was budgeted at 1. 1 billion and the final cost of that was 2. 5 billion. And you can go to mark center, you can go to the vast amount of construction, Major Military construction that took place after 2005, it was just as two m astronomical. A little gold plating went into it. But i think the mission implemented 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. The Naval Shipyard, we learned was the most Cost Effective productive shipyard in the navy. They could turn around a nuclear subject and refuel a nuclear sub faster than any shipyard in the navy. The data that went into the pentagon to justify that it was used by the pentagon was not the data we received. It was different. So i think that was one advantage of the commission itself. Thats not to say you cannot have a brac without a commission, you certainly can, but we also were detailed. I met with him and the comptroller several times to talk about the recommended closures and realignments. So i think some of these costs came out after the implementation in 2005. One last thing on congressional resistance, for my time on the committee and the entire 11 years i met with every Defense Community in the country. Since i left the committee in 2014, the last three years i have talked to just about every state in the country. And im not so sure theres not a growing realization that a brac provides more opportunities for basis than threats. If you talk to the defense communities, you see the majority of them, theres more and more communities and states willing to sign up and tell the delegations, yes, we want a brac. We have bases with high military value that are 60 to 70 utilized. They realize ultimately they are going to get potentially stronger from a background. So im thinking that you are starting to see a growing swell of support for what brac can do for the opportunity for those basis to feel that they have a significant contribution to National Security. That ultimately is what it should be about. Were looking at the country should embrace a process that allows us to put our forces at locations that ultimately will provide the most benefit and the most effective force available at the most efficient cost. So i have a feeling that the con gren depressional resistance, if they talk to their defense communities over the last few weeks to decide on where to vote for brac, im hoping they take the opportunity to talk to their generals. I mean, the national guard, those generals who took advantage of the brac process in 2005 got really well really fast because they were able to close redness centers underperforming in poor demographic areas, move over to e merging demographic areas, they were able to make themselves much stronger out of the brac grounds. Folks are listening to their tags and defense communities and states. I think youre starting to see folks say brac is the right time. We have been working for ten years on improving the military value and think we have a better product to provide for the department of defense. Therefore, bring it on, were ready for it. The department is not optimized to carefully craft and revise legislative proposals for this. I think the senator is, thats his skillset, and i think having a champion to do that work of improving the legislation, thats the key difference. Thank you. I wanted to ask one question to the panel before we open up to questions from the audience. Is there a better way to close facilities other than brac . Secretary of defense . Three weeks on the job, i take the hard questions and pass them over to the old guy. You would hope in the ideal world both civilian and uniform could make those decisions with congressional oversight. Theres some kind of format where you determined if there was significant deviation from the 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 it is increased authority, if you will. And again, you theres no limitations on the number of military personnel that can be moved. There are limitations with regard to personnel, but you can move combat brigades. You can move air wings. You can do all of that. And its happening. And its the people that bring communities to life, not the buildings, not empty buildings, not the chain link fence around the army installations. That doesnt serve the community very well. So, you know, i think the role of the secretary 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 its hard to move large numbers of military without also affecting a relatively significant number of civilian folks. They would have more flexibility to optimize infrastructure, to strategy, infrastructure for structure over time. It would be more reasonable for congress to say if youre going to closure, check with us first. There could be safeguards around that, but i do feel like the statute could be opened up and narrowed successfully over the years saying to reduce the size of actions that you can take without congressional approval, they could open that back up and you might not need a full background again for a very long time. I mean, obviously its been a while since the last one, but i would say we needed it for much of the time that we havent had it. And i think you can make it unnecessary to have brac authority over longer periods of time with the law to give the department more flexibility to optimize. I think ideally, you want to go back to what our Founding Fathers wanted is the ability to open or close bases as he or she determines to be in the best interest of the National Defense. I would love to go back to those days. And just have congress at least be advised in making some type of cop sensent. Thats what the amendment by senator mccain tries to get back to to some extent. Well see what degree of politics plays in that process. Unfortunately, thats what has happened in the last 20 years. When the secretary of defense looks at the base closure, that does involve jobs and politics. But yes, if i had an opportunity to do it all over again, i would like to go back to the discretion of the secretary of defense advising the president of the United States to say, look, we dont need this base anymore. Its time to close it and save the dollars. One aspect of the mccain Reid Amendment dealing with the vote as lucien indicated, or andrew in 2005, it took a vote of disapproval. Now according to the amendment if im correct, it requires an approval. Is that going to inject more politics in it . Is that going to stop, can any senator put a hold on the provision of law . That establishes brac. So that one aspect of concern shows how it could play out. Not to mention the senate has an empty calendar with nothing else to consider. With that well open up questions from the audience. Please ask your question in the form of a question. I believe we have a microphone. And please identify yourself. If you want to direct a question to anyone, also, say so. Andrew . Im from bloomberg. Do you think brac will become the Sticking Point for the senate and Going Forward to congress if the senate is successful in passing the mccain amendment . Do you think it will be the Sticking Point . Ill take a first crack at it. I guess my quick answer would be no. Its certainly true historically it has played that role in the past. The former chairman bob stump got up at one point ready to bail out on the mda altogether as a as a result of brac and ultimately they reached an agreement, but they came close to failure. It is not my sense that he is that opposed to brac and would walk away from the mda. I havent had a personal conversation with him or his staff director on this point, but i dont sense that his level of resistance is at that, if you will, bob stump threshhold of opposition. So i wouldnt see this as being a bill killer. Well, the way they have structured it, that was a decision by senator mccain and reid to hold the proposal back, not put it in the committee bill, and have it on the floor. Not to get us derailed, but there was another controversial provision on dont ask dont tell where they went a different route and put it in the bill in committee and it almost killed the bill because they couldnt get to the floor. But structuring it the way they have, look, it will either pass or fail as an amendment. If its got the votes to go as an amendment, it cant be a bill killer because it has substantial support. So the way they have structured this, i dont see it being a huge barrier in the senate. Next question. Thank you, my question is for secretary nemeyer. You mentioned one of the improvements that is needed for the brac law is the cost controls put in there, especially after the 2005 round. Im curious if you can comment on the mccain Reid Amendment as we were discussing and whether or not that contains the provisions that youre looking for. It does. It provides the overall cost of limitation. I think 5 billion if im right. So that is a good first step. Im not so sure now that im on the department side that i want to be catted by that. I was hoped they would trust me. As far as keeping the cost down. But theres also in the smith version, theres also the requirement for the department to develop more detailed estimates beyond that of cobra. I think there was the understanding that cobra as a modeling for doing certain scenario assessments was a necessary tool to be able to set aside certain scenarios and to pursue others. But at some point you have to move beyond cobra and do more engineering analysis on what the recommendation would cost. The smith amendment does provide for some of those requirements through the form of plans to be submitted along with the recommendation. Not sure what the department could implement as something we need to take a look at, but it really was, those are the types of things that hes trying to get congress to be able to put some type of control. The 2005 round unfortunately, Congress Said very minimal authorization for ability to do anything about the explosive growth of the brac request. That is something that the house and senate are wrestling with with different solutions. Thank you. Sandra irwin with nuclear defense. I wanted to ask secretary nemeyer about this whole idea that you want to optimize readiness and make that a big part of the analysis. Can you say who is involved in doing the analysis right now . Where does that stand . And when do you expect to have some actual recommendations on that . So we are not doing an analysis on this as far as brac analysis, we are looking at to what degree our current ranges can support the generation weapon systems. The discussions are happening every day in the military. To what degree we can support the president s Energy Policy by adjustments or range policies or access to ranges. So theres a lot of discussion is charging each of us to immediately address the readiness concerns that exist, not just in infrastructure but also in training and things like that. So theres a lot of analysis going on there. Now, how it would apply to a background, that connection has not been made because we dont have the authorization for a background yet. Thats one of the first things we want to do is to look how readiness the capabilities are addressed many the National Defense strategy. And then take that Defense Strategy and apply it to military value and then start looking at, okay, how does that apply to the infrastructure ranges. So we have not done any analysis looking at realignments or closures or anything to do with any type of system or base. We are strictly looking at what infrastructure we have now and how to best use what we have now to maximize readiness. Thats a good question. Thats definitely on top of my mind. Im not sure exactly when were going to see that. I think one thing i want to throw on the table, this is a readiness and the range issue is the opportunity potentially in a new brac ground to look at the ability to do more public and private partnership and cut down some of the upfront investment required on the governments end by having some private capital invested as well. And if you look at, if you look at the ranges, the training ranges, if you look at the dod labs and the tne infrastructure, these are Real National assets and they have value beyond just the military mission. And so we have an opportunity there to leverage and not just improve, not just make a onetime improvement to readiness, but the ongoing improvement by bringing in private capital that would get some access to these National Assets in return. I think theres a real opportunity there in this up round. So im hoping the language is flexible enough to make those opportunities viable. One of my concerns about the approach in the last administration is about savings, savings, savings is you couldnt maybe do more of the correct dwraif thi creative things. And it is operational costs, whether it is in services, building joint plants that served the grid in the community and the military base, there are a lot of ways that the military can save money and partner with the community to advance some of those services. And a better position is in the background. One of the underrated elements that is open to discuss is how fragile the brac process is for the sheer amount of offramps that you have throughout the process. And i think it was secretary nemeyer that started talking about that, after there is an actual study, if congress thinks that it is inadequate, it can start the process there. The secretary of defense can start the process. Once it is authorized, yes, congress can unauthorize the brac process. But the process i was talking about is once the brac ground is authorized, the defense has the ability and prerogative to say, now i have done the indepth analysis that you wanted me to do, i just dont know how far to go. In the same token, almost having it in 2005 is that it was not confirmed. If the commissions were not confirmed, you would stop the authorization to break ground as well. Those types of steps i was referring to in legislation. Is there any other 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 grounds and the previous five brac grounds, Environmental Remediation was not considered one of the costs. There seems to been an indication in senator mccains amendment and some of the house language that Environmental Remediation would be included as a cost. In the past, this has had essentially two implications. The environmental costs have just skyrocketed. They are unknowable as secretary insipius said. Its a cost that goes up and you never know until you open up the ground. The environmental costs were not included in the previous grounds because it was considered a governmental responsibility. The government has to clean it up whether the base is open or closed so its not a unique cost to brac. And secondly, if you included, theres a tremendous biased to close the clean basis. Because you put one shipyard because to hunters point, you have blown the cap there. So should the Environmental Remediation costs be include maryland the process . Let me begin from 2005, apart from the four military criteria, you have the four economic criteria. One of those has to do with the Environmental Remediation. But the remediation is not to future uses like redevelopment to a residential community. Its cleanup to its current use, military use. So youre absolutely right. Its not for redevelopment, even to close the military base. And its going to be redeveloped as we talked about like there at the brac in many, many places. Those costs have to be born by the community or the developers that are going to come in and redevelop san diego or redevelop new port or whatever it might be. Im taking a different perspective from my understanding. The reason why the department in the past set aside environmental costs, you did not know, you would have to anticipate what they propose you might be to hold the discussion with the community. Also, i think there really wasnt enough Environmental Data available in the previous rounds of brac. The department of defense has done a tremendous job over the last ten years investigating what they have on their military bases. I think what you look at in the proposed legislation is, at least the accounting preliminary analysis determines what you have. And to make some magnitude of what you might have to clean up in those costs. But i agree, it could definitely disadvantage the sites and bases that are clean. And it would advantage the sites that are having a lot of clean up. So i think the department, we still have work to do under incorporating this into the analysis as a final element in assessing the recommendation. And now one last question. Travis trent here. We talked about the upfront costs that put people in the ungettable vote category. So im wondering if you see his opposition as being a key if not the key hurd. And whether you think theres any type of possibility in the political compromise between chairman thornberry and chairman mccain in the Armed Services. I think there is room for a compromise. You know, as lucien indicated, the idea of capping the upfront costs or at least scaling it in some way that congress can then control. So maybe they can set a cath and if the department came back to say you gave us 8 to 10 trillion in the long run, we can do more useful stuff and congress can revisit that number. But i think the idea of setting some kind of an ability for congress to have some measure of control over how much theyre putting in in terms of the upfront costs and ongoing costs, i think that is the basic grounds for compromise on that issue. I know it can be, it could be very limiting depending on how its written and how hard of a cap it has made, but its a ground for a reasonable compromise between the two sides on that issue. I didnt mean to imply that i think chairman thornberry is an ungettable vote, but he may not want to vote for this. Theres a big difference between not willing to vote and or the spe torpedoing the vote. It is just to make it something he can live with. Also a veteran of 11 National Defense authorizations conference, theres also the ability for him to give up on one thing in order to get something else. Im not sure if members of the big four ever come away without an unsavory position that they politically agree with for the sake of the bill or able to get a return on the compromise. With that, thank you so much. I really appreciate you guys coming over to speak to us about brac. I think we have sandwiches outside or no . Sorry. Thank you so much for coming over. And please join me in a round of applause for the panelists. [ applause ] Congress Returns from the august recess today with a busy month ahead. Current federal funding expires september 30th. So this week the house will work on a spending package containing the eight remaining Appropriations Bills for the next fiscal year. On wednesday it will take up the aid package for Hurricane Harvey relief. Also this week a congressional gold panel for former senator bob dole. And a bill urging the purchase of selfdriving cars. Live coverage from the house floor on cspan at 2 00 p. M. Eastern. The senates also back today taking up a judicial nomination for the district of columbia and possibly be getting work on Defense Department programs and policy for the next year. Watch the senate live on cspan2 starting at 3 00 eastern. On capitol hill later today, the House Rules Committee will mark up a measure on 2018 federal spending to keep the government operating past september 30th. There may also be discussions about Hurricane Harvey recovery funding. Live coverage of the rules committee starting at 4 00 p. M. Eastern. Join us live on cspan3 or online at cspan. Org. You can also listen live using the free cspan radio app. On wednesday the Senate Health committee starts two days of hearings on the individual insurance markets. State Insurance Commissioners will testify first on stabilizing Health Care Insurance premiums and well hear from state governors on thursday. Live coverage both days at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. Next from a recent netroots conference, they talk about the Economic Strategies to appeal to voters. Outreach, messaging and economic equality. Later panels on grassroots organizing and social movements. Well, welcome to the panel, everybody. Thank you for coming. Im mark bocan and cochair the Congressional Progressive Congress 75 members strong. The largest valuebased caucus in

© 2025 Vimarsana

vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.