1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission

1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Name	1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Formed	1991
Jurisdiction	United States
Parent agency	United States Department of Defense
Headquarters	Arlington County, Virginia
Key personnel	Donald J. Atwood Jr.; Tommy F. Franks; LeRoy W. Homer Jr.

1991 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission was an independent federal commission established to evaluate and recommend closure and realignment of United States military installations, tasked with implementing statutory criteria from congressional Base Realignment and Closure Commission legislation and interfacing with executive branch entities such as the United States Department of Defense and the White House. The commission operated within a legal framework shaped by prior legislation like the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 and engaged with affected stakeholders including state governors, members of United States Congress, municipal governments, and defense contractors such as Lockheed Corporation and General Dynamics. Its 1991 recommendations initiated a wave of installations adjustments involving Fort Bragg, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, and March Air Reserve Base, among others, provoking debates in venues including the United States Supreme Court and state legislatures.

Background and Legislative Authority

The commission arose from pressure following the end of the Cold War and the Dissolution of the Soviet Union to reduce excess military infrastructure, drawing upon legislative precedents like the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 and the 1990 amendments signed during the administration of George H. W. Bush. Congressional actors including members of the United States House Armed Services Committee and the United States Senate Armed Services Committee sought an independent mechanism modeled on earlier commissions such as the 1988 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) to insulate base decisions from appropriations politics and oversight by figures like Senator Sam Nunn and Representative Les Aspin. The statutory criteria mandated consideration of military value, cost savings, environmental impact under laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, and effects on local economies represented by municipal officials from cities like San Diego and Tucson.

Commission Composition and Procedures

The commission was composed of nine members nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate, drawing often from backgrounds in defense policy, academia, and executive service including figures associated with institutions like RAND Corporation and Brookings Institution. Procedures required public hearings in communities impacted—such as Norfolk, Virginia, San Antonio, Texas, and Sacramento, California—and submission of a final report to the President and Congress within statutory deadlines, with involvement from executive entities including the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Logistics Agency. Decision rules emphasized evaluation against criteria set by statutes influenced by legislative leaders including Daniel Inouye and John McCain, and the process incorporated data from installations like Fort Hood and Naval Station Norfolk.

1991 Closure and Realignment Recommendations

The commission's 1991 round produced specific proposals to close, realign, or downsize dozens of installations across service components such as the United States Army, United States Navy, and United States Air Force, targeting sites including Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Kelly Air Force Base, and Lowry Air Force Base. Recommendations were justified with analyses referencing force structure changes after the Gulf War and anticipated savings tied to closure of depots like Tooele Army Depot and Savannah Port Terminal. The list prompted reactions from members of the United States House of Representatives and governors from states such as Florida and California, and engendered transition planning with federal agencies including the General Services Administration for property reuse and redevelopment initiatives involving local authorities like Los Angeles County and Jacksonville, Florida.

Implementation and Impact

Implementation involved coordination among the Department of Defense, Defense Contract Management Agency, and local redevelopment authorities to manage environmental remediation under statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and to transfer excess property through programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Economic impacts were concentrated in regions around bases like Riverside County, California and Jackson County, Mississippi, where civilian employment linked to contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman shifted. The closure process also affected training pipelines at facilities such as Fort Benning and airlift capacities associated with Tustin, California and altered force posture debates in policy forums including Congressional Budget Office briefings and Defense Science Board studies.

Controversies and Legal Challenges

The 1991 recommendations generated litigation and political controversies including challenges filed in federal courts invoking constitutional doctrines and administrative law precedents from cases argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and sought review in the United States Supreme Court. Stakeholders from municipalities like Jacksonville and labor organizations such as the American Federation of Government Employees contested aspects of the process, citing concerns over statutory compliance, voting procedures of the commission, and adequacy of environmental review under the Environmentalist Movement-linked advocacy. Congressional oversight hearings led by figures including Senator John Glenn examined transparency and whether proposed savings would materialize, while state governments explored legislative and litigation strategies to retain missions.

Legacy and Subsequent BRAC Rounds

The 1991 commission set precedents for subsequent BRAC rounds in 1993, 1995, 2005, and 2005-related debates, influencing statutory design and administrative practices used in later rounds overseen by commissions with membership models reflected in later administrations including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Lessons from 1991 informed improvements in economic adjustment programs administered by entities like the Economic Development Administration and guided reuse planning in partnerships with organizations such as the National Association of Development Organizations. The round's outcomes continue to be cited in policy analyses by think tanks including Center for Strategic and International Studies and Heritage Foundation when debating force posture, base infrastructure management, and defense budgeting in forums like Congressional Research Service reports.

Category:United States military installations