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 the