How BRAC Works
The Department of Defense released a list of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) recommendations on May 13, 2005 that included 33 major base closures, 29 major base "realignments" -- meaning a large reduction in personnel levels, and 49 bases for major gains in personnel.

Major base closures are bases with an infrastructure value of more than $100 million. Major realignments are bases losing 400 or more personnel, and major gains are bases receiving 400 or more new personnel.

In addition to the major base changes, Pentagon officials also recommended the closure or realignment of 775 smaller facilities.

To come up with all of its recommendations, Defense Department officials must follow specific criteria outlined in the law approving the base closing process. The top factor in the decision-making process is the military value of an installation and how the installation helps in bolstering the national defense. Other criteria include cost savings, local economic impact and environmental effects.

Once the department releases its list of recommendations, the independent BRAC Commission takes the lead in the base closure process.

The nine-member, 2005 BRAC Commission, an independent bipartisan group appointed by President Bush and approved by the Senate, can alter the Defense Department's list. The votes of five commissioners are needed to remove a base from the closure list; seven votes are required to add a base.

During its consideration process, the commission holds public hearings, which give local politicians and citizens an opportunity to describe how they would be affected by base closures and to make their best case to remove the facility from the final BRAC list.

On Sept. 8, 2005, the BRAC Commission will send its final recommendations to the White House. President Bush must approve or disapprove of the commission's recommendations as a whole. He may not make changes.

If he approves the commission's recommendations, they go to Congress. If he rejects the list, the commission must decide whether to make revisions and send the modified list back to the president. If the president disapproves the recommendations a second time, the BRAC process ends and no action on base closures is taken.

If President Bush signs off on the list, the recommendations become law within 45 days unless Congress passes a joint resolution of disapproval. If Congress disapproves the recommendations, no action is taken.

BRAC Timeline

• March 2005 -- President Bush appointed the current BRAC Commission members and sent their names to the Senate, where they were approved.
  
  
• May 13, 2005 -- The Department of Defense released its list of base realignment and closure recommendations.
  
  
• June through August 2005 -- The nine-member BRAC Commission holds regional hearings around the country. The commission considers modifications to the original Defense Department recommendations.
  
  
• Sept. 8, 2005 -- The commission must send its recommendations to the White House.
  
  
• Sept. 23, 2005 -- The president must approve or disapprove the commission's recommendations. If he approves them, they go to Congress and become law in 45 days unless Congress enacts a "joint resolution of disapproval." If the president disapproves the list, it goes back to the commission for revision.

In case of initial disapproval by the president:

• Oct. 20, 2005 -- If the president rejects the BRAC Commission's initial recommendations the commission has until this date to make modifications and resubmit them to the White House.
  
  
• Nov. 7, 2005 -- The president must approve the revised list and submit it to Congress, or the BRAC process ends. If the president approves the revised list and sends it to Congress, it becomes law after 45 days unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval.

The BRAC Cycle
The 2005 work marks the fifth round of base closures under a method first outlined in the Base Realignment and Closure Act passed by Congress in 1988.

BRAC was envisioned as a way of allowing the executive branch to cut through many of the political obstacles to closing bases, while still giving Congress a role in the process. Only one major revision has been made to the process -- starting in 1990 the secretary of defense had to provide a nonbinding list of recommendations for the commission to start its work.

Previous BRAC rounds occurred in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995.

After 1995, the target date for the next BRAC round was 2001, but the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that year kept some in the House of Representatives from voting to consider closing bases, so action was delayed.

When the Bush administration took office in January 2001, the Defense Department began a series of studies aimed at reviewing the capabilities and needs of U.S. Armed Forces and facilities. Among the studies were the Quadrennial Defense Review, an overall report which is submitted to Congress every four years, and the Efficient Facilities Initiative, a study the Pentagon said was aimed at improving fighting capability and saving money. Both reports were used to assess possible base realignment and closures. The EFI, in particular, was designed as a first step in instituting a new round of base closures.

"A quality force deserves quality facilities," then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton told Congress in early September 2001. "That's why I believe it's essential that we provide the resources that are necessary to stop and reverse the deterioration at our posts, our camps, our bases and our stations. One way that the Congress can directly help is to support DOD's Efficient Facilities Initiative, to dispose of excess bases and facilities."

In its annual report to Congress, the Defense Department said the 2001 EFI was designed to authorize "(1) an additional round of base closures and realignments, (2) significant improvements to the existing base closure process, and (3) a set of tools for the efficient operation of enduring military installations."

The department estimated that the United States had "between 20 and 25 percent more base capacity than needed for its forces."

After Sept. 11, the Senate narrowly passed a new base closure authorization, but the measure failed in the House as members found it hard to consider closing bases during a time of national crisis.

The original 2001 Senate authorization bill was supported by the Defense Department and would have launched a new base closure round in 2003. In a compromise deal reached in December 2001, the House and Senate passed a new base closure authorization bill but delayed its implementation until 2005, jumping over election years in 2002 and 2004. The bill passed by wide margins in both houses.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other critics of Congress' action said the delay was based on political concerns and would be costly for the nation.

"What that means, very simply, is that the United States will continue to have something like 20 percent to 25 percent more bases than we need," he said at the time, according to media reports. "Given the war on terror, we will be doing something even more egregious, and that is we will be providing force protection on bases that we do not need."

But some lawmakers, even those who supported the bill, countered that legitimate local economic considerations were also a factor.

"The problem goes beyond just the economic loss suffered from base realignment and closure," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore. "Those areas that are abandoned by the military often cannot be easily converted to other productive uses."

-- Compiled by Jason Manning for the Online NewsHour