Military seeks extra funding to cover shortages for base closures

Senior military officials are pressuring lawmakers to add billions of dollars to a long-term continuing resolution to cover necessary base-closure costs and pay for military construction and quality of life projects in fiscal 2007, warning that failure to do so would have dire consequences for the services.

In particular, officials said a CR without added funds would create a $4 billion funding shortfall for a spate of base closures and realignments approved by the White House in 2005. The military must complete all personnel and equipment moves mandated during that base-closure round by September 2011, a tight deadline even without these budget constraints.

Army, Navy and Marine Corps leaders sent two strongly worded letters to House and Senate leaders and key members of the Armed Services and Appropriations committees late last month, after it became apparent that Congress would not pass most of the fiscal 2007 spending bills and instead hold funding for military construction at fiscal 2006 levels for the rest of the current fiscal year under a CR.

"Military construction and quality of life initiatives constitute large, crucial portions of [the Army's national-security] plan," Army Secretary Francis Harvey and Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker wrote congressional leaders on Dec. 18. "Yet, the limitations imposed by the continuing resolution (CR) are already causing our plan to fray, and it is likely to unravel completely should we go through the entire fiscal year under a CR."

Schoomaker and Harvey warned that efforts to shut down and realign bases are "quickly coming apart at the seams," with the Army limited to spending less than one-quarter of the amount needed to keep base realignment and closure moves on schedule.

Navy Secretary Donald Winter, Chief Naval Officer Michael Mullen and Marine Corps Commandant James Conway warned of similar consequences in a letter delivered to Capitol Hill Dec. 22.

"The CR could stymie our efforts to construct facilities and move equipment and people to receiver locations, and impede our ability to harvest savings and organizational efficiencies already accounted for in the budget," they wrote.

Lawmakers have not yet determined whether to add money or otherwise alter the continuing resolution to pay for base closures, although Democratic leaders have indicated they would consider limited spending increases in certain areas.

But several House and Senate members -- including those who would gain personnel and military missions at their local bases -- would support fully funding BRAC at the $5.8 billion level requested by President Bush and authorized in the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill, which Bush signed into law, several congressional aides said.

Many communities affected by base closures already are writing their lawmakers to press the issue.

"Everybody was very concerned there wasn't enough money to get [BRAC] done by [2]011 before this," said Paul Hirsch, president of Madison Government Affairs, which does base-closure consulting work, and a senior staffer on the 1991 base-closure commission. "Now everybody is going to be behind the power curve and both losing and gaining communities will be adversely impacted."

But the losers in the 2005 BRAC round, who comprise a formidable force of their own, could just as likely back decreased funding in the hopes of buying their communities time and the economic benefits from prolonged military spending.

"It's a ying and a yang," a BRAC lobbyist said. "I think they're going to have a hard row to hoe to get more funding for BRAC" in the CR.

But the Defense Department does not have to rely solely on Congress for adequate funding of base closures this year. Defense officials could opt to reprogram money, or add money to base-closure accounts in the fiscal 2007 supplemental spending bill due to Capitol Hill in the next several weeks.

"The secretary of Defense has wide latitude to reprogram funds, which he may decide to do given the statutory requirement placed upon him," said Daniel Else, a defense analyst at the Congressional Research Service.

By choosing not to pass fiscal 2007 military construction funding, Congress also would shortchange Army efforts to create a more modular and easily deployable force by $400 million -- a move that could affect operations abroad, officials said.

"Our force rotation plan to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as our overall readiness posture, relies on completing these conversions to the Army modular force on time," Harvey and Schoomaker wrote. "We have recruited and retained the soldiers, purchased individual protection equipment, and established a training plan, but now we are faced with the real possibility of not having facilities ready for training, maintenance, communications and command activities."