BENS ON BASE CLOSURE

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

The following position paper on base closure comes to us from Business 
Executives for National Security (BENS), a national non-partisan 
organization of business and professional leaders dedicated to the idea 
that national security is everyone's business.

 NEEDED: A FAIR AND EFFECTIVE PROCESS FOR CLOSING MILITARY BASES 

 The Pentagon is caught between a rock and a hard place. New 
military demands, ranging from peacekeeping operations to force 
recapitalization, emerge daily. Yet, new funds to meet new jobs will 
not arise, as the balanced budget agreement places tight restraints on 
future defense budgets. Faced with this difficult environment, 
Secretary of Defense Cohen has no choice but to do more with less. In 
other words, DoD must wring savings out of its existing budget, through 
streamlining, new business practices, and elimination of excess 
facilities through the base closure process. 

 Closing bases has always made good business sense, but, in 
today's budget environment, smart business is an economic necessity. 
Without an effective process for closing excess bases, DoD will be 
unable to meet today's pressing budgetary challenges. 

 Base closures must be more than simply good business. An 
effective base closure process must also be fair. Congress has rightly 
argued that the BRAC process must remain outside of politics. Indeed, 
concerns over fairness rank high in the case against additional base 
closures. Overall, three legitimate questions have emerged: 

 Where is the base closure process going? Is the process fair? 
Can base closings really save money? Each of these concerns must be 
resolved before a renewed BRAC process goes forward. We must ensure 
that impacted communities are treated fairly, and that closures help 
steer DoD's base structure toward a model needed to support a 21st 
century military. 

 These objectives are within our reach, and require only modest 
adjustments to the existing process. Business Executives for National 
Security recommends the following changes to our current military base 
closure process:

1) Create a base structure planning document that describes the types 
of facilities needed to support our military objectives over the next 
decade. Past BRAC rounds have occurred without the benefit of strategic 
guidance. They have simply cut bases without attempting to shape an 
appropriate base structure for the future. Blindly cutting bases to 
save money makes little sense. BRAC's purpose is to rationalize our 
military base structure, not to eliminate it. Before another round 
commences, key questions should be answered. What type of support 
structure does DoD need? Will existing base structure support the needs 
of the 21st Century military? 

 Congress should require the DoD to provide the BRAC with a 
vision of its expected infrastructure endstate. In other words, what 
type of base structure is needed to support the military forces we 
expect to maintain over the next 15-20 years? This document can help 
provide an additional blueprint to help steer the BRAC process. DoD's 
analysis should include a detailed examination of the types of 
facilities (e.g., military depots, laboratories, training facilities, 
and test and evaluation centers) required for future contingencies. DoD 
must shape, not just subtract, base structure.

2) Place Restrictions on the use of Privatization-in-Place as a means 
to avoid facility closures. For the most part, the BRAC process has 
remained relatively free of partisan politics. Unfortunately, this 
changed in 1995 when the Administration modified the BRAC's 
recommendations in two cases: Kelly AFB in San Antonio, TX, and 
McClellan AFB in Sacramento, CA. President Clinton ignored 
recommendations to close these facilities in two vote-rich states; the 
facilities have instead been "privatized-in-place." (Under this option, 
a facility remains open but is transferred to private sector control.) 

 The original BRAC process was designed to prevent actions such 
as the 1995 "privatization-in-place" decision. The BRAC law forced the 
President and Congress to accept an "all or nothing" package of base 
closures; they could not tamper with individual BRAC decisions. By 
providing special treatment for two locations, privatization in place 
destroys the entire integrity of the base closure process. A new BRAC 
process cannot move forward without strong safeguards to prevent 
meddling with Commission recommendations. Congress should consider 
adding a provision to the existing BRAC law that prevents either the 
Congress or the President from recommending privatization-in-place for 
any facility slated for closure or realignment via the BRAC process. 
This proposal will not restrict our flexibility to privatize 
facilities. Privatization-in-place can still occur via BRAC 
recommendations (as at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Louisville, 
KY) or outside of the BRAC process (as at Newark Air Force Base in 
Ohio). Privatization-in-place should not be used as way to avoid tough 
decisions about closing bases. The role of the base closing process is 
simple: to close bases. Other decisions related to privatization should 
occur outside of this process. 

3) Require an annual statement from the Secretary of Defense detailing 
savings accrued from base closures 

 A final concern with the process of closing military bases is 
that the expected savings have not materialized. This shortfall does 
not stem from problems with base closure, but is instead attributable 
to optimistic projections and poor accounting. Base closures do save 
money, and lots of it. In fact, DoD expects base closures to yield 
roughly $56.7 billion in savings over the next twenty years. So, what's 
the problem? Base closings require up-front investment, and these costs 
have been higher than expected. But, just like investing in a home 
mortgage rather than continuing to rent, DoD must pay now to save 
later. The real dilemma concerns accounting: how can we be certain that 
money is saved? 

 Some observers have demanded that DoD fully account for all 
savings generated by base closures so that funds can be specifically 
targeted for force modernization. Unfortunately, such detailed tracking 
of savings is not yet possible using existing DoD accounting tools. 
However, Congress could enhance transparency by requiring an annual 
report from the Secretary of Defense that details approximate savings 
from base closures and the alternative uses of these saved dollars. 
While such an approach falls short of a detailed line-by-line 
accounting, it does help ensure that savings are tracked and used for 
other defense investments. 

 Closing military bases causes economic hardship for many 
communities and workers. This process is not easy. But, it should be 
fair. The changes we recommend will help ensure that the BRAC process 
meets the test of fairness. They should also ensure that BRAC achieves 
its primary goal: streamlining our defense structure to enhance U.S. 
national security.