For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34709 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Order Code RL34709 Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by Employment Changes Due to Military Base Closures October 16, 2008 Oscar Gonzales Analyst in Economic Development Policy Government and Finance Division Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by Employment Changes Due to Military Base Closures Summary Under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, military facilities were closed and realigned in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. A fifth BRAC round was authorized in late 2005 and must be completed by September 15, 2011. Under the BRAC process: (1) the Department of Defense (DOD) prepares a list of military bases to be realigned or closed; (2) an independent BRAC Commission reviews the list, makes changes and sends a revised list to the President; (3) the President approves and transmits the list to Congress; and (4) the BRAC recommendations are implemented, unless a joint resolution is passed in Congress disapproving the recommendations for closures and realignments. The 2005 BRAC round includes the closure or realignment of 837 facilities and involves an additional 160 facilities that will gain missions or resources, for a total of 997 changes nationwide. Most of these changes are on a smaller scale, each involving fewer than 300 direct job losses or gains, including military, civilian, and contractor jobs. Unlike previous rounds, the 2005 BRAC round is focused on creating the infrastructure needed to support a transformed, expeditionary armed force -- concentrated more on shifting forces and installation assets to promote the centralization of units in places from which they can be deployed rapidly. Thus, the 2005 BRAC round is characterized much more by realignment than closure. In 20 communities, an estimated increase of 170,000 workers is expected. Important policy issues before Congress include (1) the impact of military base closures and expansions on local employment; (2) the possible elimination of the of the BRAC Commission and the resulting impact on federal economic and community development programs -- such as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) -- that currently provide a preference for communities affected by BRAC; (3) the adequacy and flat level of funding for federal assistance programs while anticipating an 80% increase from $17 billion to $32 billion in construction costs; (4) housing for military staff amidst the mortgage crisis; (5) funding for communities experiencing growth through the defense access road program; (6) delays in environmental cleanup that may cause difficulties in the economic redevelopment of military facilities; and (7) redevelopment of military bases as refineries to promote economic growth. In the 110th Congress, Title I of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 6599) and Title I of the parallel Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5658), would allocate funding for BRAC- related activities for road construction, military facilities, and housing assistance. This report is intended to discuss the geographic impact of base closures and realignments; summarize federal economic assistance programs for communities and individuals affected by BRAC; and highlight issues for Congress. The report will be updated as events warrant. Contents Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Spatial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Employment Changes in Largest Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Employment Changes at the State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Net Employment Losses and Gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Inter- and Intra-State Employment Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Employment Changes as a Share of Total Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Federal Economic Development Assistance to State and Local Governments . . 10 Office of Economic Adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Type of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Economic Development Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Federal Assistance for Individual Workers Displaced by BRAC activities . . . . . 16 DOD Worker Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Department of Labor Job Training Program for Dislocated Workers . . . . . 16 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Formula Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 National Emergency Grants (NEGs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Impacts on Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Elimination of the BRAC Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Increase in BRAC Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Housing for Military Staff Displaced by BRAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Defense Access Road Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Environmental Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 BRAC Facility Redevelopment for Refineries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Appendix A. List of Federal Economic and Community Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Appendix B. Direct and Indirect Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 List of Figures Figure 1. Employment Losses and Gains at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 2. Employment Losses and Gains at the State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 3. EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 List of Tables Table 1. Major Military Facilities to be Closed or Realigned, Ranked by Total Direct and Indirect Employment Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 2. Rank of States by Total Direct and Indirect Job Losses and Gains Resulting from BRAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 3. Appropriations for Office of Economic Assistance FY2001-FY2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by Employment Changes Due to Military Base Closures Background On five occasions Congress has authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to realign or close military bases as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Under the BRAC process: (1) the Department of Defense prepares a list of military bases to be realigned or closed; (2) an independent BRAC Commission reviews the list, makes changes and sends a revised list to the President; (3) the President reviews the list and transmits the list without changes to Congress; and (4) the Secretary of Defense implements the approved recommendations unless a joint resolution of disapproval is passed by Congress. Following the actual base closings and realignments, DOD develops an environmental remediation plan to enable the conveyance of surplus federal land to other entities.1 Military facilities were closed and realigned in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 under a BRAC process.2 More than 350 installations have been closed in these four BRAC rounds. The objective of these BRAC rounds was to promote cost-savings and efficiency, eliminate redundancy, and adapt a Cold War military to a post-Soviet, post-Cold War world.3 The 2005 BRAC round, however, focused on creating the infrastructure needed to support a transformed, expeditionary armed force -- concentrated more on shifting 1 For a detailed examination of the BRAC process, see CRS Report RS22061, Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC Commission, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood, and CRS Report RS21822, Military Base Closures: DOD's 2005 Internal Selection Process, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood. For environmental remediation issues, see CRS Report RS21822, Military Base Closures: Roles and Costs of Environmental Cleanup, by David Bearden. A policy challenge for Congress related to environmental cleanup is how to promote an appropriate environmental review of military facilities within a reasonable time frame, since some facilities dating back to 1988 are still under environmental review and remediation. 2 Prior to the 1988 BRAC round, military installations were closed, or their missions were altered by order of the Secretary of Defense. 3 10 U.S.C. Section 2687 authorizes the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for (1) military installations at which at least 300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or (2) the realignment of any military installation where at least 300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed and where the closure or realignment is intended to reduce the work force by more than 1,000 or by more than 50% of the number of civilian personnel authorized to be employed at the installation. CRS-2 forces and installation assets to promote the centralization of units in places from which they can be deployed rapidly. Thus, the 2005 BRAC round is characterized much more by realignment than closure. This latest BRAC round includes the closure or realignment of 837 facilities and involves an additional 160 facilities that will gain missions or resources due to the proposed closures and realignments, for a total of 997 affected facilities nationwide. Most of these closures are on a small scale, each involving less than 300 direct employment losses or gains each, including military, civilian and contractor jobs. Twenty-two major military installations will be closed and 33 others will be realigned. According to GAO estimates, the 2005 BRAC round will entail relocating over 123,000 personnel.4 In addition to BRAC-related actions that must be completed by September 15, 2011 -- under the Global Defense Posture Realignment5 process -- DOD is planning to transfer about 70,000 military and civilian personnel to the United States by 2011.6 DOD also plans to increase the size of the Army by 74,000 and the Marines by 27,000. These transfers and increases will also have considerable economic development impacts. In 20 military facilities alone, these combined changes will result in the net growth of 173,000 military and civilian personnel, not including families and contractors.7 Spatial Analysis Methodology The Congressional Research Service (CRS) compiled a database with information on direct and indirect military, civilian and employment changes for nearly 1,000 military facilities nationwide to conduct an analysis of employment changes in communities throughout the country as a result of BRAC. Data was obtained from Appendix O of the BRAC 2005 report to the President.8 Additional 4 See U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO Observations on DOD Funding for Military Infrastructure and Road Improvements Surrounding Growth, GAO Report D08-602R, April 1, 2008, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08602r.pdf]. 5 The Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR) process refers to base realignments and closures at the international level and is a process similar to BRAC, but at the international level. Although GDPR is not directly related to BRAC, it will impact local communities in the United States seeking to adjust to increases in employment and population as a result of military realignment overseas. 6 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, GAO Report 08-665, June 2008, available at [http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/ abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-665]. 7 Ibid. 8 BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to (continued...) CRS-3 information was obtained from the head of the BRAC commission, former Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Anthony J. Principi. A second database was developed using a Geographic Information System (GIS) for analytical purposes to estimate and visualize information at multiple geographic levels. This database includes information on employment changes for (1) individual facilities; (2) metropolitan statistical areas; (3) counties; and (4) states. For each of these geographic levels, information on employment gains and losses is available for six different variables: direct military, civilian, and contractor losses or gains (3 variables); total direct employment changes; indirect employment changes using an employment multiplier9 developed by the BRAC commission; and total direct and indirect employment changes. In addition, reports from government agencies such as GAO and DOD were compiled to review economic development issues. The results of the compilation of this information are presented below. Employment Changes in Largest Facilities In general, DOD data show that a total of 21 major military facilities will be closed and 30 other facilities will be realigned as part of the 2005 BRAC process. Table 1 includes a list of major military installations that will be closed or realigned, based on final recommendations from the 2005 BRAC Commission.10 The table ranks the military facilities by the number of direct and indirect employment losses and gains for military, civilian and contractor staff. Two of the largest facilities affected by job losses are Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the District of Columbia. An estimated 5,200 jobs in Fort Monmouth will be transferred to other facilities and a total of 9,700 jobs will be lost directly or indirectly at this New Jersey facility, according to estimates developed by the BRAC Commission.11 Most of these employment losses in Fort Monmouth will be civilian jobs, with more than 4,600 civilian job losses, but a large majority of these positions will be transferred to other facilities. Specifically, nine other military facilities would gain jobs transferred from Fort Monmouth. Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland will gain several thousand positions as a result of transfers from Fort Monmouth, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, will gain 421 jobs. Once the overall job transfers in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York are accounted for, the net employment change is estimated to be a total reduction of 589 positions. 8 (...continued) the President, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005. 9 Multiplier effects, which measure the rate at which a direct effect (e.g., base job losses) creates indirect effects such as additional jobs, are important elements in estimating the impacts of a base closing. If, for example, one assumes that a base job has a large indirect employment multiplier (e.g., 2.5-3.0), then for each direct base job lost, indirectly related jobs in some defined geographic area are also predicted to be lost as a result. Similarly, an income multiplier allows one to estimate total income generated by a military base. 10 BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005. 11 Ibid. CRS-4 Table 1. Major Military Facilities to be Closed or Realigned, Ranked by Total Direct and Indirect Employment Changes Net Job Changes Direct Indirect Total Facility State Employment Employment Employment Military Civilian Contractor Changes Changes Changes Facilities with Net Job Losses 1. Fort Monmouth NJ -620 -4,652 0 -5,272 -4,464 -9,736 2. Walter Reed Medical Center DC -2,668 -2,373 -622 -5,663 -3,869 -9,532 3. Fort Monroe VA -1,393 -1,948 -223 -3,564 -4,418 -7,982 4. Pope Air Force Base NC -4,792 812 -132 -4,112 -3,472 -7,584 5. Naval Air Station Brunswick ME -2,880 -395 0 -3,275 -3,808 -7,083 6. Fort McPherson GA -2,260 -1,881 0 -4,141 -2,705 -6,846 7. Brooks City Base TX -1,297 -1,268 -358 -2,923 -2,799 -5,722 8. Lackland Air Force Base TX -2,168 -416 -116 -2,700 -2,282 -4,982 9. Cannon Air Force Base NM -2,388 -381 0 -2,769 -2,002 -4,771 10. Naval Station Great Lakes IL -2,059 -68 -10 -2,137 -2,560 -4,697 11. Naval Station Ingleside TX -1,726 -254 -57 -2,037 -2,558 -4,595 12. Sheppard Air Force Base TX -2,464 -156 0 -2,620 -1,740 -4,360 13. Naval Base Ventura County CA -221 -1,421 -375 -2,017 -1,523 -3,540 14. Naval Support New Orleans LA -1,270 -603 -62 -1,935 -1,325 -3,260 15. Naval Center San Diego CA -1,596 -33 -1 -1,630 -1,469 -3,099 Facilities with Net Job Gains 1. Fort Belvoir VA 4,162 6,375 2,058 12,595 8,726 21,322 2. Fort Bliss TX 11,354 147 - 11,501 8,884 20,385 3. Fort Sam Houston TX 7,625 1,622 92 9,339 8,354 17,693 4. Fort Benning GA 9,274 621 - 9,895 4,034 13,929 5. Fort Lee VA 6,139 1,149 56 7,344 4,419 11,763 6. Fort Meade MD 682 2,915 1,764 5,361 4,870 10,231 7. Fort Carson CO 4,178 199 - 4,377 3,309 7,686 8. Fort Bragg NC 3,425 238 - 3,663 2,509 6,172 9. Fort Sill OK 3,445 105 -3 3,547 2,110 5,657 10. Marine Corps Base Quantico VA 446 1,357 1,210 3,013 2,109 5,122 11. Bethesda Naval Medical Center MD 1,418 674 737 2,829 2,049 4,878 12. Naval Station China Lake CA 176 1,645 493 2,314 2,485 4,799 13. Little Rock Air Force Base AK 2,576 176 - 2,752 1,993 4,745 14. Fort Riley KS 2,415 334 - 2,749 1,737 4,486 15. Eglin Air Force Base FL 2,201 147 - 2,348 4,279 Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 report. Notes: Owing to space limitations only the top 30 military facilities -- ranked by employment losses or gains -- are listed. A complete database and list of military facilities is available from the author. The realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center will result in a net reduction of 9,500 jobs in this facility in the District of Columbia. Many of these jobs, however, will be transferred to nearby Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland, 5.5 miles away. The Bethesda facility will gain 2,800 jobs as a result of these transfers. In addition, personnel from Walter Reed will be transferred to a community hospital that will be built at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which will result in a gain of 3,800 jobs in Fort Belvoir. An additional four military sites in Maryland and Virginia will gain medical personnel as a result of staff transferred CRS-5 from Walter Reed Army Medical Center. After accounting for job transfers, a total of 3,000 jobs in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area will be loss instead of the original 9,500. Other major facilities that will be realigned include Fort Monroe in Virginia, with total direct and indirect job losses of 7,900. Each of the following facilities will lose more than 5,000 jobs: Pope Air Force base in North Carolina; the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine; and Fort McPherson in Texas. Although considerable job losses will occur in certain facilities, other military installations will have an increase in military and civilian personnel. For example, the following military facilities will gain more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, based on estimates developed by the BRAC Commission: Fort Belvoir in Virginia will gain an estimated 21,000 jobs; Fort Bliss and Fort Sam Houston in Texas will see an increase of 20,000 and 17,600, respectively; Fort Benning in Georgia is forecast to gain nearly 14,000 jobs; Fort Lee in Virginia is scheduled to gain an estimated 11,700 jobs; and Fort Meade in Maryland will gain more than 10,000 jobs. Communities that gain employment will see a need for access roads, schools, affordable housing, business facilities, and infrastructure to accommodate the increase in military and civilian personnel and their families. Some of these military facilities will also be affected by the relocation of U.S. military and civilian personnel stationed abroad who are scheduled to move to the United States. This will have an additional impact over the economic development of these areas.12 Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas In addition to an analysis of individual facilities, it is useful to understand the impact of base realignments and closures at the metropolitan level. As has been discussed, some facilities will experience considerable job losses, but many of these employees will be transferred to nearby facilities within the same metropolitan area. Figure 1 shows the location of military facilities -- at the Metropolitan Statistical (MSA) level -- affected by employment changes related to BRAC. As shown in the map, MSAs vary in size, with a greater geographic area in the West, in states such as California, and relatively smaller sizes in the East. The MSA-level map helps to illustrate that although some cities such as Boulder, Colorado will see decreased employment as a result of base realignments, other nearby jurisdictions -- such as Colorado Springs -- will gain jobs and help offset the changes. In states such as Colorado, facilities that will lose employment are adjacent to metropolitan areas that will gain jobs. 12 Additional information on the relocation of overseas military and civilian personnel, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, GAO Report 08-665, June 2008. CRS-6 Figure 1. Employment Losses and Gains at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Level Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report. CRS-7 In particular, the metropolitan areas that are projected to experience the greatest decrease in employment, shown in Figure 1, include the following: Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA; Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA; Portland-South Portland-Biddeford ME; Corpus Christi, TX; St. Louis, MO-IL; Clovis, NM; Wichita Falls, TX; Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA; and Charleston-North Charleston, SC. The following MSAs, which are projected to experience an increase in employment, with more than 4,000 new jobs, include Jacksonville, FL; El Paso, TX; Columbus, GA-AL; Baltimore-Towson, MD; Richmond, VA; Colorado Springs, CO; Lawton, OK; San Antonio, TX; Bakersfield, CA; Manhattan, KS. A complete list of changes at the Metropolitan and Micropolitan13 level is available in Appendix B "Direct and Indirect Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas." Employment Changes at the State Level Net Employment Losses and Gains. At a state level, a geographic analysis shows that absolute job losses will be greatest in states such as Virginia, the District of Columbia, Missouri, New Jersey, Maine and Illinois (ranked by greatest number of total direct and indirect job losses). Table 2 presents the direct and indirect employment gains and losses, ranked by state job losses, and based on data compiled by the BRAC Commission. The table shows that Virginia will reassign an estimated 40,000 jobs, which represents 3% of the total employment in the affected metropolitan areas in the state. Virginia is followed by the District of Columbia, which will see a reduction of nearly 14,000 jobs, which represents a 0.5% decrease of jobs in the city. Alternatively, states such as Texas, Maryland and Florida are expected to gain 14,000, 16,000 and 28,000 jobs, respectively. Table 2. Rank of States by Total Direct and Indirect Job Losses and Gains Resulting from BRAC Percent of Direct Job Gains or Losses Sub-total Total State and Rank by MSA Gains Total Employment Employment and Losses Military Civilian Contractor Direct Indirect Lost and Losses Rank United States 8,687 -15,874 -833 -8,023 -13,613 -21,322 1 Virginia -5,570 -10,838 -2,362 -18,770 -20,940 -39,509 -3.00% 6 2 D.C. -3,314 -3,145 -948 -7,407 -5,873 -13,272 -0.50% 17 3 Missouri -1,187 -2,492 -296 -3,978 -3,129 -7,107 -0.20% 25 4 New Jersey 104 -3,783 0 -3,679 -3,216 -6,895 -0.40% 21 5 Maine -2,880 -94 0 -2,974 -3,587 -6,561 -0.80% 14 6 Illinois -2,074 -832 76 -2,830 -3,092 -5,922 -2.30% 7 7 New Mexico -2,414 -217 1 -2,630 -1,836 -4,466 -2.04% 8 8 Alaska -2,145 -301 -41 -2,487 -1,900 -4,387 -6.10% 2 9 Pennsylvania -1,530 -990 -14 -2,534 -1,757 -4,291 0.00% 29 13 A Micropolitan area has less than 10,000 inhabitants; a complete definition is available at [http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html]. CRS-8 Percent of Direct Job Gains or Losses Sub-total Total State and Rank by MSA Gains Total Employment Employment and Losses Military Civilian Contractor Direct Indirect Lost and Losses Rank 10 Kentucky -5,290 1,667 326 -3,297 -394 -3,691 -4.90% 3 11 California -812 -1,387 0 -2,199 -1,353 -3,552 0.20% 37 12 Mississippi -1,256 -429 -58 -1,743 -1,493 -3,236 -4.20% 4 13 North Dakota -1,434 -70 0 -1,504 -1,299 -2,803 -4.20% 5 14 Louisiana -689 -549 -107 -1,345 -947 -2,292 -0.20% 26 15 Hawaii -313 -357 0 -670 -788 -1,458 -0.70% 16 16 Idaho -669 -98 0 -767 -557 -1,324 -8.00% 1 17 Oregon -46 -625 0 -671 -645 -1,316 -1.40% 10 18 Massachusetts -94 -672 0 -766 -501 -1,267 -0.50% 18 19 Wisconsin -444 -278 22 -700 -451 -1,151 -1.60% 9 20 Arizona -203 -387 1 -589 -433 -1,022 -0.50% 19 21 Washington -462 -74 -7 -543 -450 -993 0.80% 46 22 Utah 262 -930 212 -456 -346 -802 -0.30% 23 23 North Carolina -955 951 -141 -145 -647 -792 0.20% 38 24 Nebraska -145 -232 -19 -396 -282 -678 -0.40% 22 25 Connecticut -131 -235 0 -366 -311 -677 -0.20% 27 26 Minnesota -138 -124 0 -262 -157 -419 0.00% 30 27 Puerto Rico -113 -48 0 -161 -124 -285 0.00% 31 28 Guam -64 -31 0 -95 -79 -174 -0.30% 24 29 West Virginia -105 0 0 -105 -52 -157 -0.50% 20 30 N. Hampshire -39 -5 0 -44 -29 -73 0.00% 32 31 South Carolina 1,487 -728 -425 334 -403 -69 2.10% 49 32 Wyoming -42 0 0 -42 -20 -62 -1.00% 11 33 Vermont 1 51 0 52 38 90 0.10% 33 34 South Dakota 28 27 32 87 63 150 0.10% 34 35 Montana -23 114 0 91 70 161 0.30% 40 36 Iowa -193 247 0 54 207 261 0.40% 41 37 Delaware 105 126 0 231 241 472 0.60% 44 38 Michigan -117 730 -76 537 423 960 -0.20% 28 39 New York 71 514 -6 579 445 1,024 0.70% 45 40 Tennessee 207 314 3 524 516 1,040 0.20% 39 41 Indiana -38 813 -314 461 639 1,100 -0.97% 13 42 Rhode Island 675 229 -89 815 952 1,767 0.10% 35 43 Alabama -1,370 1,405 1,050 1,085 893 1,978 0.40% 42 44 Nevada 1,029 75 248 1,352 1,004 2,356 0.50% 43 45 Ohio 291 1,347 -39 1,599 1,485 3,084 -0.80% 15 46 Arkansas 2,478 173 0 2,651 1,906 4,557 1.00% 47 47 Georgia 5,890 -2,254 695 4,331 886 5,217 1.22% 48 48 Oklahoma 3,436 -45 -3 3,388 2,010 5,398 8.10% 53 49 Kansas 3,305 306 -159 3,452 2,535 5,987 5.10% 51 50 Colorado 4,168 -687 -64 3,417 2,717 6,134 2.10% 50 51 Texas 9,718 -919 -644 8,155 5,588 13,848 -1.00% 12 52 Maryland -1,180 7,773 2,307 8,900 6,937 15,837 0.10% 36 53 Florida 12,911 1,120 6 14,037 13,923 27,960 5.70% 52 Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report. Note: For the purposes of this table, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam are included. CRS-9 Inter- and Intra-State Employment Changes. Although Virginia and the District of Columbia will experience losses, nearby states such as Maryland will benefit from considerable increases in employment. For example, Fort Meade in Maryland will receive an influx of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs as a result of the BRAC process. While Walter Reed Medical Center in the District of Columbia will close many of its facilities and experience a direct and indirect loss of 9,500 jobs, the National Naval Medical Center Bethesda will have a total direct and indirect gain of 4,900 jobs, which would result in a net loss of 4,600 jobs in the Washington Metropolitan region. In addition to interstate job changes, there will be considerable intra-state gains. In the case of Virginia, for example, Fort Belvoir will gain 21,000 jobs and Fort Lee will gain an estimated 12,000 jobs. This direct and indirect net increase in jobs will help to offset the closure of Fort Monroe, located in Virginia. However, Virginia will still lose almost 40,000 jobs as shown in Table 1. Employment Changes as a Share of Total Employment. The last column of Table 2 also presents a ranking of states by the share of jobs lost in metropolitan statistical areas. Total job losses as a share of total employment will be primarily focused in rural areas. Some communities in Idaho will lose an estimated 8% of jobs. In particular, the Mountain Home, Micropolitan Statistical Area in Idaho will be one of the most affected regions in the nation, with a loss of nearly 1,200 jobs out of the total 14,000 jobs in the area. Another state that would have experienced considerable job losses as a share of total employment -- had it not been removed from the list of bases to be closed -- was Alaska. The Fairbanks MSA, and Yukon-Anchorage MSA, were expected to see employment losses of more than 6%. In these areas, however, the BRAC Commission and the Department of Defense decided not to close several military bases. This will result in job losses that are not as considerable as those envisioned in the original BRAC Commission report. In addition to Idaho and Alaska, states such as Kentucky (ranked third in job losses by employment share), Mississippi (4th), and North Dakota (5th) will also experience considerable job losses as a share of total employment. In Kentucky, the Elizabethtown Metropolitan Statistical Area will experience direct and indirect job losses of 2,500 workers. In Mississippi, the Pascagoula, Metropolitan Statistical Area will see job losses of 1,800 workers. The Gulfport-Biloxi area will be affected by the realignment of Keesler Air Force Base. The closure of the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota will result in direct and indirect job losses of 2,800 jobs. Figure 2 shows employment losses and gains as a result of BRAC aggregated at the state level. States such as Alaska, Hawaii and Louisiana will suffer considerable net job losses. CRS-10 Figure 2. Employment Losses and Gains at the State Level Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report. In terms of job gains, the states of Florida, Maryland, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and Georgia (ranked by greatest gain in employment) will benefit from the transfer of military employees and facilities. Eglin Air Force Base in Florida will gain an estimated 4,200 jobs as a result of the development of the Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site. In addition, the Army's 7th Special Forces Airborne Group will relocate to Eglin from Fort Bragg. Federal Economic Development Assistance to State and Local Governments The federal government provides aid to local communities affected by military base closures and realignments. Federal economic assistance covers a wide range of activities and agencies, including, but not limited to ! planning and economic adjustment assistance provided by the Office of Economic Adjustment of Department of Defense (DOD); ! the Economic Development Administration (Department of Commerce); ! the Rural Development Administration (Department of Agriculture); CRS-11 ! environmental cleanup at military bases (DOD, EPA and other agencies); ! disposal of surplus federal properties (DOD); ! the Federal Airport Improvement Program (DOD and Department of Transportation); ! Community Development Block Grants (Department of Housing and Urban Development); and ! Community Service Grants (Department of Health and Human Services). Although only some federal economic assistance programs provide a preference for BRAC activities, communities affected by BRAC changes can access other economic development funds available through their state and local governments. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that total federal aid to states and local communities was $444 billion in FY2008, and will be $467 billion in FY2009.14 Federal funds can be used by states and local communities to offset certain economic losses, including the closure of military bases. According to OMB, state and local governments have a constitutional responsibility to promote economic development, and the federal government has played an important role in providing economic development assistance: The Federal Government provides grants, loans, and tax subsidies to State and local governments. Federal grants help State and local governments finance programs covering most areas of domestic public spending, including income support, infrastructure, education, and social services.15 Funds specifically targeted for community and regional development are estimated to be $17.1 billion in 2009.16 Several of these economic assistance and development programs, such as those funded by DOD through the Office of Economic Adjustment, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) in the Department of Commerce and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, give priority to BRAC related projects because legislation specifically authorizes funding for BRAC activities. These entities and programs are discussed in more detail below. Office of Economic Adjustment Overview. The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is the primary 14 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2009, February 2008, p. 107. About half of the $476 billion in federal funds to state and local governments is used to cover Medicaid payments under the Department of Health and Human Services. Report available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/ apers/crosscutting.pdf]. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. CRS-12 source of federal assistance in the Department of Defense to assist communities affected by employment losses and gains as a result of BRAC.17 The OEA also serves as a coordinating agency to channel economic assistance for communities affected by BRAC. Since 1988, the OEA has provided a total of $280 million in funding for previous BRAC rounds, primarily to help communities prepare strategies for local development efforts. Type of Assistance. The Office of Economic Adjustment has provided assistance for communities, regions and states to develop and implement plans to alleviate serious economic impacts that result from defense program changes, including ! base closings, expansions, and openings; ! contract changes affecting firms; and ! personnel reductions or increases at military facilities. The OEA has also maintained close working relationships with other federal agencies that have programs that can be utilized to assist communities adversely affected by defense cutbacks or realignments. By design, the OEA plays a facilitating role in the economic adjustment process. The affected community, however, must exercise the principal role in initiating and carrying out the adjustment and conversion plan. Funding. Currently, the OEA operates with a staff of 45 civilian and 3 military personnel. Funding for the office has been provided in the Defense Appropriations bill under the general operations and maintenance account. In previous budget estimates, the OEA has indicated that most communities affected by a BRAC round receive assistance averaging $400,000 to $500,000 a year for three to five years depending on individual circumstances. In addition, there have been a number of congressional adjustments for specific sites over the years, in amounts as high as $10,000,000 in a single year.18 Table 3 lists the amounts appropriated for fiscal years 2001-2008. 17 For more information, see [http://www.oea.gov]. 18 For example, in the latest defense appropriations act, Congress authorized additional construction funds for facilities affected by BRAC. See section on "Developments in the 110th Congress." CRS-13 Table 3. Appropriations for Office of Economic Assistance FY2001-FY2008 (in millions of $) FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 Appropriated 56.8 46.6 49.6 60.2 88.8 161.6 141.4 168.7 Source: Successive OEA budget estimates FY2001-FY2008, available at [http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2009/fy2009_o1.pdf] under Operation and Maintenance Programs. Economic Development Administration Overview. The Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965 P.L. 89-136 (42 U.S.C. § 3121, 79 Stat 552), extended through 2004, authorizes economic adjustment grants to help eligible communities respond to sudden changes in economic conditions, including those resulting from natural disasters, changing trade patterns and military base closures. Type of Assistance. The Economic Development Administration (EDA), has provided grants in excess of $640 million since the first BRAC round in 1988, and administered $274 million of DOD funds and $8 million from the Department of Energy, for defense adjustment projects involving closed military bases. EDA grants are competitive and are made on a cost-share basis with local governments, redevelopment agencies, and private or non-profit organizations. The grants include monies for planning and technical assistance, infrastructure improvement, and revolving loan funds for private business development. Funding. PWEDA's 2004 legislation (P.L. 108-373) authorizes the following amounts for economic development assistance programs: $400 million in FY2004; $425 million in FY2005; $450 million in FY2006; $475 million in FY2007; and $500 million in FY2008. The statute also authorizes $33.4 million in FY2004 and such sums as are necessary thereafter for salaries and expenses. A minimum funding level of $27 million was established in the 2004 amendment for the planning program. Appropriations for EDA have declined as shown in Figure 3, with total funding falling below $300 million in recent years. For FY2009, the Administration budget request included $40 million for economic adjustment assistance, $2.3 million less than appropriated in FY2008, and a total of $132.8 million for EDA assistance, which is significantly less than the FY2008 enacted amount of $279.9 million. On June 23, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $232.8 million in funding for EDA activities ($200 million) and salaries and expenses ($32.8 million).19 This is $100 million more 19 CRS Report RL34540, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies: FY2009 (continued...) CRS-14 than requested by the Administration, but $47 million less than appropriated in FY2008. In June 2008, the House Appropriations Committee also took action on the appropriations measure. The Committee approved draft bill recommends an appropriation of $282.8 million for EDA.20 Figure 3. EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008 EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008 Millions of Dollars 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 FY 93 FY 94 FY 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99 FY 00 FY 01 FY 02 FY 03 FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 08 9 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 1 FY Source: EDA annual appropriations, OMB Budget of the United States for FY2009. Community Development Block Grants Overview. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was first authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93-393, as amended (42 USC 5301). It is one of the largest and longest-standing federal block grants in existence. Billions of dollars in federal assistance to state and local governments have been allocated through CDBG.21 Type of Assistance. The program allows states and eligible local government grantees to fund 25 eligible activities related to housing, community development, neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and the provision of public services. One of the eligible activities is related to "the proposed or actual establishment, realignment, or closure of a military 19 (...continued) Appropriations, coordinated by William Krouse and Edward Murphy. 20 Ibid. 21 CRS Report RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2009 Appropriations, by Maggie McCarthy et al. CRS-15 installation."22 Funding. Excluding mandatory grants to state and local governments, the CDBG program's $3.6 billion regular appropriation for FY2008 makes it one of the largest sources of grant assistance to state and local governments. In addition to its regular appropriations, Congress has used the program to provide federal supplemental assistance to state and communities in their disaster recovery efforts. This has included $3.483 billion in supplemental funding for September 11, 2001 recovery efforts in New York City, and $19.7 billion in supplemental assistance to the five states (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) affected by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005.23 Other Assistance Department of Defense. In addition to activities funded by the Office of Economic Assistance, the Department of Defense has responsibility for environmental reviews, land transfers and improvements in military facilities. These DOD programs include ! DOD responsibility and funding for environmental review and cleanup at closing military facilities, which may support local jobs after a base is designated for closure but before federal land is actually transferred. ! Below market value transfer of land from closed military bases under the DOD's authority to make public benefit transfers and economic development conveyances. ! The transfer of military airports to civilian use under the Federal Airport Improvement Program of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Other Agencies. There are a number of other federal agencies and activities that may help communities adversely affected by base closures and realignments. For example, the federal government has established programs to promote economic development in rural communities with populations of less than 50,000, administered by the Rural Development Administration of the Department of Agriculture. Such assistance includes community facilities loans, rural business enterprise grants, business and industrial guaranteed loans, and intermediary relending programs. Appendix A includes a list of these programs, including information on FY2008 funding, eligible entities and method for distribution of funds. Federal 22 See 42 USC 5305 and 42 USC 5307 (b) (6). 23 See CRS Report RL33330, Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery, by Eugene Boyd and Oscar Gonzales. CRS-16 assistance and economic development programs are available within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Assistance for Individual Workers Displaced by BRAC activities DOD Worker Assistance Programs DOD has the authority to provide numerous incentives and transition benefits to departing military personnel. These include early retirement incentives, temporary continuation of medical care benefits, pre-separation counseling for separating service members, employment counseling and placement assistance, relocation assistance, and special education benefits. In addition, the Pentagon is also authorized to provide special benefits and incentives to civilian personnel displaced by a defense drawdown. These include ! advance notification of a reduction in force; ! pre-separation counseling; ! a hiring preference system with federal agencies to re-employ qualified displaced DOD employees; ! financial incentives to encourage early retirement of eligible employees; and ! continued health insurance coverage for up to 18 months following involuntary separation.24 Department of Labor Job Training Program for Dislocated Workers Overview. The Workforce Investment Act of 199825 (WIA) provides assistance specifically for dislocated workers. Dislocated workers are generally characterized as workers with an established work history who have lost their jobs as a result of structural changes in the economy -- including employment loss as a result of military base closures -- and who are not likely to find new jobs in their former industries or occupations. Formula Grants. Of the funds appropriated for the dislocated worker program for FY2008, approximately 88% are for formula grants to states and 12% are for a national reserve, which primarily funds National Emergency Grants 24 For more information, see DOD's webpage on assistance for civilian employees at [http://www.cpms.osd.mil/bractransition]. 25 P.L. 105-220, 29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq. CRS-17 (NEGs), discussed below.26 The governor can reserve not more than 15% of the state's formula grant for state level activities, and not more than 25% for "rapid response" activities. At least 60% must be allocated to local workforce investment boards (WIBs) by a formula prescribed by the governor. Rapid response activities are provided by specialists in the state's dislocated worker unit27 in the state's workforce agency as soon as possible after learning of a projected permanent closure or mass layoff. Activities include establishing onsite contact with employers and employee representatives, providing information and access to available employment and training activities, and providing assistance to the local community in developing a coordinated response and in obtaining access to state economic development assistance. In addition to rapid response activities, there are three levels of services available to dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. To be eligible to receive intensive services, such as comprehensive assessments and development of individual employment plans, an individual must first receive at least one core service, such as job search assistance, and have been unable to either obtain employment or retain employment that allows for self-sufficiency. To be eligible to receive training services, such as occupational skills training and on-the-job training, an individual must have received at least one intensive service, and must have been unable to obtain or retain employment. National Emergency Grants (NEGs). NEGs, which are funded through the dislocated worker appropriation allotted to the national reserve, provide supplemental dislocated worker funds to state workforce agencies and local WIBs in order to meet the needs of dislocated workers and communities affected by significant dislocation events that cannot be met with the formula allotments. In its May 24, 2005 Training and Guidance Letter,28 DOL announced the availability of NEG funds to initiate planning for workers expected to be effected by base closings or realignments, and to supplement WIA formula funds for implementing a plan to provide employment-related services for workers. As of February 27, 2008, DOL has awarded nearly $55 million in planning and implementation grants to 38 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.29 26 The statute at 29 U.S.C. 2862 [or WIA Section 132] species that of the funds appropriated for the dislocated worker program, 80% are for formula grants to states and 20% are for a national reserve; the statutory language, however, is overridden by the appropriations bills which specify the amounts allotted to the formula grants and to the national reserve. 27 For a list of state rapid response unit coordinators, see [http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/ rapid_coord.cfm]. 28 For more information, see [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL16-03_Ch2.pdf] 29 Source: Information provided by DOL on NEG funding from FY2003 though FY2007 and from [http://www.doleta.gov/neg/BRAC_awards.cfm] updated February 27, 2008. In addition to these grants, DOL also announced on March 26, 2008, a $5 million dislocated worker demonstration grant to assist Geogia in addressing the civilian impacts of base realignment and closure transition, see [http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/ new_releases/2008-03-26.cfm]. CRS-18 Other Assistance In addition to these federal programs designed to provide transition assistance to displaced workers, a variety of other programs might also provide assistance to those affected by base closure. These include the following: ! Post-secondary education and training assistance for students under Title IV of the Higher Education Act30; and vocational education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act,31 ! Benefits related to past employment: Unemployment Compensation32 and temporary health insurance continuation,33 and ! Benefits related to financial need: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,34 Food Stamps, subsidized school meals,35 Medicaid36 and housing assistance furnished by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.37 Issues for Congress Important policy issues before Congress related to employment changes and economic development as a result of BRAC-related activities include (1) the impact of military base closures and expansions on local employment; (2) the possible elimination of the BRAC Commission and the resulting impact on federal economic and community development programs that currently provide a preference for communities affected by BRAC; (3) the flat level of funding for federal assistance programs while anticipating an 80% increase from $17 billion 30 See CRS Report RL34654, The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, by David P. Smole, Blake Alan Naughton, Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and Rebecca R. Skinner. 31 See CRS Report RL31747, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998: Background and Implementation, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling. 32 See CRS Report RS22440, Unemployment Compensation (Insurance) and Military Service, by Julie M. Whittaker. 33 See CRS Report RL30626, Health Insurance Continuation Coverage Under COBRA, by Heidi G. Yacker. 34 See CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on Financing and Requirements for State Programs, by Gene Falk. 35 See [http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns] for information on food stamps and subsided meals. 36 See CRS Report RL33202, Medicaid: A Primer, by Elicia Herz. 37 See CRS Report RL34591, Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy, by Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce Foote, and Meredith Peterson. CRS-19 to $32 billion in BRAC construction costs; (4) housing for military staff displaced by BRAC, amidst the mortgage crisis; (5) funding for communities experiencing growth through the defense access road program; (6) delays in environmental cleanup that may cause difficulties in the economic redevelopment of military facilities; and (7) redevelopment of military bases as refineries to promote economic growth. These issues are discussed in more detail below.38 Impacts on Communities One of the most important issues for Congress is the impact of base closures and expansions on local communities. Recent experience with the base closure and reuse process has shown that the major problems facing communities include the reconciling of competing demands for the assets, sometimes unrealistic federal appraisals of base assets, local funding constraints, the lack of short term interim leases from the federal government, facilities that are not in compliance with local codes, land use constraints, conservation issues, and excessive levels of environmental contamination. The economic vulnerability of these communities and states to such job losses will depend upon the rate at which jobs are eliminated at closed or realigned facilities, the success of displaced workers in finding new jobs in the area, and the success of each state and community in generating new job opportunities at closed military facilities, and elsewhere within the community or state economy. The issue of timing in base conversion, realignment and closure is also important for communities. All parties are generally interested in moving the base conversion process along as fast as possible. While the public interest generally may be served by moving as quickly as practicable, some of the necessary steps, such as the environmental impact assessment and any necessary cleanup, often require more time. Delay can also be caused by difficulties in getting local governments to work cooperatively within redevelopment programs. An earlier analysis conducted by CRS of the previous four BRAC rounds -- based on statistics compiled by the Department of Defense -- found that military base closures had limited impact on levels of unemployment in local 38 Two bills are the primary vehicles for providing funds for BRAC-related activities in the 110th Congress. Title I of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 6599) and Title I of the parallel Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5658) allocate funding for projects associated with BRAC. Under the Department of Defense, appropriations and authorizations bills mirror each other. Each Title and sub-section in one bill is required to mirror the other. For example, Title I in H.R. 6599 (Appropriations) is the same as Title I in H.R. 5658 (Authorization). The same holds for the Senate versions of the bills (S. 3301 and S. 3001). Funds may be used for a range of purposes related to the BRAC process, including construction of roads and military facilities, and housing assistance for military personnel forced to transfer as a result of BRAC and unable to sell their homes. H.R. 6599 passed in the House on August 1, 2008. H.R. 5658 was passed by the House on May 22, 2008. CRS-20 communities.39 The effects at the state level were also relatively small. Of the states that experienced military and civilian job losses directly and indirectly resulting from BRAC actions for the previous four BRAC rounds, all experienced estimated losses amounting to 0.4% or less of total jobs in each state. For the 2005 BRAC round, states are estimated to experience job losses of less than 0.3%; many communities will experience considerable increases in employment.40 Elimination of the BRAC Commission The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 (H.R. 5658) includes a section that would repeal the BRAC Commission. Under Section 2711, Subtitle B, Title XXVII, the BRAC commission process would be eliminated for future base closures. The law would require the "Repeal of commission approach for development of recommendations in any future round of base closures and realignments."41 Before the development of the BRAC Commission process, prior to 1988, very few military bases were closed. If the BRAC Commission is eliminated, Congress may opt to consider an alternative to the Commission and possible impacts on economic and community development programs that provide a preference for communities affected by changes in employment as a result of BRAC. There may be important tradeoffs and impacts on regional economic development if Congress, instead of the DOD, assumes decision-making power over military base closures. Increase in BRAC Construction Costs In 2005, DOD originally estimated that construction costs related to BRAC would total $17.9 billion from 2006 to 2011. However, the FY2009 request had increased from the original 2005 estimate by nearly 80% to $32.0 billion. The considerable increase in construction costs has made the 2005 BRAC round one of the most expensive of the five BRAC rounds implemented.42 Although BRAC 39 See CRS Report 96-562, Military Base Closures Since 1988: Status and Employment Changes at the Community and State Level, by George H. Siehl and Edward Knight. 40 BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005. See Appendix O. 41 See Section 2711, Subtitle B, Title XXVII of H.R. 5658. 42 Some analysts have questioned the issue of BRAC-related cost-savings. A report by GAO concluded that cost savings were not on the level expected by the BRAC Commission in its plan. According to GAO: "Since the BRAC Commission issued its cost and savings estimates in 2005, DOD will spend more, save less, and take longer than expected to recoup up-front costs to implement two recommendations intended to improve DOD's logistics systems. Over the 2006 -- 2011 BRAC time frame to implement these recommendations, GAO's analysis of DLA's data indicates that estimated net savings will be reduced by more than $1.8 billion compared to the BRAC Commission's estimate, with a net cost of about $222 million to DOD. [...] GAO's analysis further shows that the projected net annual recurring savings after 2011 have been reduced from nearly $360 million to almost $167 million, and that the savings over 20 years are expected to be $1.4 billion rather than $4.8 billion as estimated by the Commission." See GAO Report GAO-08-159, Military Base (continued...) CRS-21 appropriations requests for the 2005 round had been fully funded by Congress, the Senate's recommendation for FY2009 would reduce appropriations by 1% of the President's request.43 A policy issue for Congress is consideration of the adequacy of funding for federal assistance programs amidst an increase in costs for internal BRAC-related construction inside and around military facilities. While cost estimates for BRAC construction have increased from $17 billion in 2005 to $32 billion in 2009, funding for federal assistance programs to communities has remained flat. An important question for Congress is how or whether to aid communities that will experience an influx of hundreds of thousands of staff by the statutory deadline of September 2011. Although the expected increase in construction may lead to economic growth in selected communities, state and local governments may have to fund projects related to economic development. What is the role of the federal, state and local governments in supporting communities affected by employment increases or losses and what is the appropriate level of funding required to adjust to growth in employment, housing, traffic demand, and military construction? Housing for Military Staff Displaced by BRAC The DOD Housing Improvement Fund supports military housing privatization and the program predates the 1988 BRAC process. The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a sub-component of this program, and may provide economic assistance to military personnel affected by a relocation as a result of BRAC activities. In particular, funding is available for staff who are unable to sell their homes. Because of the turmoil in the housing markets, an increase in requests for this type of assistance may be expected. In addition, the downturn in the national economy, tightening of credit markets, and uncertainty in the financial sector may have an important economic development impact over housing prices and stock. State and local governments may seek federal DOD resources to offset decreases in revenue as a result of the economic downturn. Defense Access Road Program The Defense Access Road Program (DAR) allows DOD to pay for public highway improvements required as a result of sudden or unusual defense-generated traffic impacts such as BRAC-related activities. Although DOD does not fund highways outside military bases, access roads to military installations may be funded under this program and some communities have already benefitted. For example, $36 million from DAR will fund the design and (...continued) Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve, December 11, 2007. Also see GAO Report GAO-08-315, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC Recommendations, March 5, 2008. For both reports, see [http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/brac.html]. 43 See CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veteran's Affairs and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, July 2008. CRS-22 construction of installation entrances in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Projects are eligible for funding if they are related to military activities such as BRAC actions, if a defense action will result in a doubling of traffic, or if a new road is needed to accommodate special military vehicles. Given the projected decline in state and local government coffers due to decreased economic activity at the national level, federal assistance for road construction could become an increasingly important component of economic development. Environmental Cleanup The amount of funds and time required to complete the environmental review and cleanup of closed military bases will depend on the type and extent of contamination present on those properties, and the actions that will be necessary to make the land safe for civilian reuse. Cleanup can take many years, as the continuing cleanup of certain bases closed between 1988 and 1995 demonstrates. As in prior rounds, availability of funding and capabilities of cleanup technologies could limit the degree of cleanup on bases closed in the 2005 round, making certain land uses infeasible and posing challenges to economic redevelopment. In deliberations over the 2005 round, some Members of Congress and the BRAC Commission expressed concern that DOD's estimates could be undervalued because they do not reflect all possible land uses and the corresponding degree of cleanup that may be necessary to redevelop these bases. A policy issue for Congress is related to the timing of base closures, particularly in relation to environmental contamination and cleanup of military facilities. Environmental contamination of military bases poses special problems that affect the types and timing of reuse activities, and has consumed about one-fourth of the money appropriated for base closures since 1988. Congress continues to address this problem legislatively, but additional concerns and responses seem likely in the future. BRAC Facility Redevelopment for Refineries Subtitle C, Section 2722 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, H.R. 5658, requires that the Secretary of Defense will prepare and submit a report by October 1, 2009 evaluating the feasibility of using military installations selected for closure under BRAC as locations for the construction of petroleum or natural gas refineries or nuclear power plants. The conversion of military facilities into refineries may have important economic development impacts on local communities where these installations are located. Concluding Observations The Base Realignment and Closure process has affected communities nationwide since 1988. Congressional districts have been affected economically by defense spending cuts and the employment losses and gains from the four previous BRAC rounds. In general, the 2005 BRAC round is more focused on CRS-23 realignment instead of base closures. With an expected shift of nearly 200,000 military and civilian staff nationwide, there will be increasing demand for economic assistance to plan for BRAC-related growth in communities. Communities that gain jobs will have to plan for population and economic growth that may result in greater demand for housing, infrastructure, services and increases in traffic, with 173,000 military and civilian staff expected to arrive in the top 20 military facilities gaining employment. In addition, the balance between Congress, DOD, and the executive branch in deciding what bases to close will continue to be an important issue. Members of Congress are interested in the impact of military base closures on their local districts, and the economic impact of employment declines and gains. BRAC, however, is a process more focused on national security requirements and less on economic development. Observers note that if federal economic assistance programs do not meet redevelopment needs, local communities may face the unanticipated responsibility of funding efforts to adjust to increases and declines in military facilities at the state and local levels. With respect to employment changes at the regional level, the closure and realignment of facilities will result in the direct and indirect transfer of military, civilian and contractor jobs throughout the nation. Some communities will experience an increase in employment whereas others will see a decrease in military jobs; the impact will vary depending on the individual characteristics of the affected areas. A major factor that will affect economic impact is the total share of jobs lost or gained as a share of total employment at the metropolitan or micropolitan level. Rural communities that tend to be smaller and have a less diversified economic base, may experience a greater impact than large urban centers with a diverse economy. Communities that gain jobs will have to plan for population growth that may result in greater demand for housing, infrastructure, services and increases in traffic. Communities that lose jobs may have to focus on economic and community development programs such as CDBG and EDA that can help to offset the impact of decreases in employment.44 44 See Peter L. Sternberg and Thomas D. Rowley, "A comparison of military base closures in metro and non-metro counties," Government Finance Review, October 1993. CRS-24 Appendix A. List of Federal Economic and Community Development Programs Program Name, Description FY2008 Eligible Entities Formula or Distribution Method Funding Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development 50 states, Puerto Rico, Formula-based block grants. Block Grants metropolitan-based Funds are distributed to state and local Formula-based block grants entitlement governments based on the higher yield allocated to states and local communities from one of two needs-based formulas. governments in support of (metropolitan cities (1) 30% of funds are allocated to states neighborhood revitalization, with populations of for distribution to communities that do economic development, and 50,000 or more and not receive a direct allocation. States housing activities. urban counties). In receive funds based on one of two Communities may use block FY2005, there were formulas: grants to support 23 1,032 entitlement -- Formula A allocates funds based on categories of eligible communities. $7 each state's share of population, poverty, activities. 70% of funds must million is set aside for and overcrowded housing; be used on eligible activities insular areas -- Formula B allocates funds based on and projects that principally including Guam, each state's share of poverty, housing benefit low- or moderate- American Samoa, and built before 1939, and population. income persons. Includes the Virgin Islands. (2) 70% of funds are allocated to BRAC preference. entitlement communities based on one of two formulas: FY2008 enacted: $3.866 -- Formula A allocates funds based on billion each entitlement community's share of population, poverty, and housing built before 1939 (age of housing); -- Formula B allocates funds based on each entitlement community's share of poverty, overcrowded housing, and the lag in population growth. CDBG set-asides Project grants. Neighborhood Initiative Congressionally Congress allocates funds to a diverse selected community group of recipients. Program was FY2008 enacted: $26 development originally targeted to community million corporations. development corporations involved in neighborhood revitalization. Economic Dev. Initiative No specific criteria Congress grants funds to a diverse establishing eligibility groups of recipients including FY2008 enacted: $180 for funding. universities, community colleges, million nonprofit entities, local governments. Funds are used to support a variety of activities including recreation, literacy, historic preservation, job training, feasibility studies, public services. No specific list of eligible activities. CRS-25 Program Name, Description FY2008 Eligible Entities Formula or Distribution Method Funding National Community Local Initiative Project grants. Development Initiative Support Corporation Federal funds are used in coordination (Living Cities) Program and the Enterprise with investments from foundations and supports local community Foundation (national corporations in support of redevelopment development corporations nonprofit efforts in distressed urban involved in neighborhood intermediaries). The neighborhoods. Working through two revitalization. two nonprofit national intermediaries, the Local intermediaries support Initiative Support Corporation and the FY2008 enacted: $35 million neighborhood Enterprise Foundation, local community revitalization efforts development corporations receive of local community technical and financial assistance in development support of their revitalization efforts. corporations. More More than $250 million in private sector than 300 community funds from 14 participating corporate development and foundation entities have been used in corporations in 23 the program since its inception in 1991. selected cities have been involved in the program. Brownfields Econ. Dev. State and local Project grants. Initiative (BEDI) Funds are governments are BEDI funds must be used in coordination use to reclaim contaminated direct recipients of with CDBG Sec. 108 loan guarantees. sites for adaptive reuse. funds. Subgrantees or These grants and the accompanying Sec. beneficiaries may 108 loan guarantees must be consistent FY2008 enacted: $10 million include businesses or with a community's CDBG plan and nonprofits involved in must meet the same income targeting job creation activities. requirements as the CDBG program. In 2004, HUD selected 17 communities to receive $24.6 million in BEDI grants and $119 million in loan guarantees. Rural Housing and Econ. Local rural nonprofits, Project grants. Dev. Grants community Applications are evaluated and rated Grants are awarded for two development based on five rating factors: categories of corporations, state (1) capacity of the applicant and relevant activities: housing finance organizational experience (1) capacity building; and (2) agencies, state (25 points); support for innovative community and (2) need and extent of the problem housing and economic economic agencies, (25 points); development activities. and federally (3) soundness of approach (25 points); Grants are limited to recognized Indian (4) leveraging resources (10 points); and $150,000 under the first tribes. (5) achieving program results and category, and $400,000 under evaluation (15 points). the second category. Grants are awarded to applicants securing the highest scores. FY2008 enacted: $17 million CRS-26 Program Name, Description FY2008 Eligible Entities Formula or Distribution Method Funding CDBG Sec. 108 Loan CDBG entitlement Loan guarantees. Guarantees communities and Open application process. Applications Allow states and CDBG states on behalf of are reviewed by HUD to determine entitlement communities to nonentitlement compliance with national objectives of borrow up to five times their communities are the CDBG program and feasibility of the annual CDBG allocations to direct recipients of project. Among the factors used to assess finance eligible large-scale funds. Subgrantees or loan risk are the following: economic development beneficiaries may (1) the length of the proposed repayment projects. include nonprofits and period; for-profit entities (2) the ratio of expected annual debt FY2008 enacted: $5 million involved in job service requirements to the expected creation activities. annual grant amount awarded to the state or entitlement community; (3) the likelihood that the public entity or state will continue to receive CDBG assistance during the proposed repayment period; (4) the public entity's ability to furnish adequate financial security; and (5) the amount of program income the proposed activities are reasonably expected to contribute to repayment of the guaranteed loan. Department of Commerce Economic Development Economic Competitive grants. Administration (EDA) Development Districts Generally, EDA administers a number of Agency administers several (EDD) are multi- competitive project grants. Grants may economic development county organizations not exceed 50% of the cost of the programs, including public established to project. Projects meeting certain works grants for upgrading promote economic specified criteria and for areas infrastructure, planning, and development and job characterized as severely depressed may trade adjustment assistance. creation. EDA be eligible for additional funding not to Eligible projects must:(1) provides assistance to exceed 30% of the cost of the project. improve the opportunities for 327 EDDs. The areas Projects must be located in economically business creation or designated as EDDs distressed areas including those expansion; (2) assist in the must meet one of experiencing high unemployment or low creation of additional three criteria: (1) low incomes. Priority is given to projects: permanent private-sector per capita income; (2) (1) in areas with persistently high rates jobs; or (3) benefit low- unemployment higher of poverty; income persons including than the national (2) involving previously unserved those who are unemployed or average; (3) sudden distressed areas and applicants; underemployed. Includes economic dislocation (3) involving innovative partnerships and BRAC preference. or persistent and long- private investment leveraging; term economic (4) that support sub-state regional FY2008 enacted: $280 distress. Funds may networks and collaborations; and (5) in million also be awarded to areas undergoing significant economic states, cities, and downturns and dislocations. other political subdivisions and other organizations. CRS-27 Program Name, Description FY2008 Eligible Entities Formula or Distribution Method Funding Department of Agriculture Rural Business A rural area is defined Competitive grants. Opportunity Grants as a city, town, or Grant selection criteria include the extent Grants to public bodies, unincorporated area to which: nonprofit organizations, that has a population (1) economic activity generated by the Indian tribes, and of 50,000 or less and project is sustainable; is not an urbanized cooperatives for training and (2) the project leverages funds from assistance to rural area immediately other sources; businesses, economic adjacent to a city, (3) the project will induce additional town, or planning for rural areas, and economic benefits; training for rural unincorporated area (4) the targeted community has entrepreneurs. that has a population experienced long-term population or job in excess of 50,000 loss; FY2008 enacted: $15 million persons. (5) the proposed project will serve a community that may be experiencing economic trauma due to natural disaster, base closure, or exodus or downsizing by a major employer; (6) the project would be located in a community that may be characterized as chronically poor. Department of Health and Human Services Community Services Block 50 states, Puerto Rico, Formula block grants. Grants Indian tribes, and the HHS is required under the CSBG Act to Provide assistance to states territories of Guam, reserve 1.5% of appropriated funds for and local communities, American Samoa, the training and technical assistance and working through a network Virgin Islands, and other administrative activities, of which of community action the Northern Mariana half of this set-aside must be provided to agencies and other Islands. state or local entities. Also, half of 1% of neighborhood-based funding is reserved for outlying organizations for the territories (Guam, American Samoa, the reduction of poverty, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana revitalization of low-income Islands). Block grants are allotted to communities, and the states and Puerto Rico based on the empowerment of low-income relative amount received in each state, in families and individuals in FY1981, under a section of the former rural and urban areas. Economic Opportunity Act. HHS may allow Indian tribes to receive their FY2008 enacted: $665 allotments directly, rather than through million the state. States are required to pass through at least 90% of their federal block grant allotments to "eligible entities." There are more than 1,000 eligible entities around the country, of which approximately 80% are private nonprofit organizations and about 20% are public agencies. CRS-28 Program Name, Description FY2008 Eligible Entities Formula or Distribution Method Funding Community Economic Nonprofit community Competitive discretionary grants. Development development Funds are awarded at the Secretary's The purpose of the corporations including discretion. This program is one of the Community Economic charitable, faith- related activities authorized by the Development discretionary based, Indian, and CSBG Act. The program supports local grant program is to promote Alaskan Native community development corporations' and support projects that organizations. National Youth Sports Program, and address economic efforts to generate employment and self-sufficiency for business development opportunities for low-income persons and low-income residents. Projects must: (1) distressed communities by directly benefit persons living at or awarding funds to below the poverty level and (2) be community development capable of being completed within 12 to corporations (CDCs) to 60 months of the date the grant was create employment and awarded. Preference is given to projects business development that document public/private partnership opportunities. Each year including the leveraging of cash and in- approximately 40-45 grants kind contributions. Preference is also are awarded with a maximum given to projects located in areas grant award level of characterized by poverty and other $700,000. indicators of socioeconomic distress, such as a Temporary Assistance to FY2008 enacted: $33 million Needy Families (TANF) assistance rate of at least 20%, designation as an Empowerment Zone or Enterprise Community (EZ/EC), high levels of unemployment, high levels of incidences of violence, gang activity, crime, drug use, and low-income noncustodial parents of children receiving TANF. Job Opportunities for Nonprofit, tax-exempt Competitive discretionary grants. Low-Income Individuals organizations This program is a set-aside within the (JOLI) including faith-based Community Economic Development and community Program. The program provides grants FY2008 enacted: $5 development to community based, nonprofit million corporations and organizations to demonstrate and charitable evaluate ways of creating new organizations. employment opportunities with private employers for individuals receiving TANF and other low-income individuals whose family income level does not exceed 100% of the poverty guidelines. Projects to help with this effort include self-employment and micro-enterprises, new businesses, expansion of existing businesses, or creating new jobs or employment opportunities. CRS-29 Program Name, Description FY2008 Eligible Entities Formula or Distribution Method Funding Rural Community Tax-exempt nonprofit Competitive discretionary grant. Facilities organizations, states, This program is one of the related and local activities under the community economic FY2008 enacted: $8 governments. development component of the CSBG. million Grants are provided to nonprofit organizations that train and offer technical assistance on water and waste water facilities management and home repair to low-income families, and that develop low-income rental housing units in rural communities. Approximately 8 water and wastewater projects are funded annually. Source: Compiled by CRS from the Budget Appendix. Notes: Not all federal economic assistance programs listed in the table have a preference for communities affected by BRACA. A program identified in italics is a component of the program preceding it in roman type. CRS-30 Appendix B. Direct and Indirect Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA Military Civilian Contractor Indirect Total Job % of MSA (MSA) Employment Emp Chg Job Chg Job Chg Chg Jobs Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian, 80,981 -10 0 0 -5 -15 0.00% PR Akron, OH 398,976 11 0 0 4 15 0.00% Alamogordo, NM 27,515 -17 0 0 -11 -28 -0.10% Albany, GA 79,160 -1 -5 0 -5 -11 0.00% Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 529,819 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Albemarle, NC 26,102 -34 5 0 -14 -43 -0.20% Albuquerque, NM 454,397 -9 164 1 177 333 0.10% Allentown -Easton, PA-NJ 396,091 8 0 0 3 11 0.00% Altus, OK 16,463 -16 0 0 -10 -26 -0.20% Anniston-Oxford, AL 60,648 0 55 0 41 96 0.10% Asheville, NC 217,211 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Athens-Clarke County, GA 96,829 -393 -108 -16 -318 -835 -0.90% Atlanta -Marietta, GA 2,777,548 -4,037 -2,665 -70 -4,293 -11,065 -0.40% Atlantic City, NJ 175,797 32 86 0 88 206 0.10% Bakersfield, CA 325,440 162 1,645 493 2,474 4,774 1.50% Baltimore-Towson, MD 1,568,140 -2,790 7,096 1,904 5,236 11,446 0.80% Bangor, ME 92,291 0 1 0 4 5 0.00% Barnstable Town, MA 137,499 -62 -443 0 -365 -870 -0.60% Barre, VT 43,696 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Baton Rouge, LA 411,691 -165 0 0 -79 -244 0.00% Battle Creek, MI 74,652 -6 -155 0 -116 -277 -0.40% Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 193,048 -11 0 0 -6 -17 0.00% Birmingham-Hoover, AL 622,605 -174 -159 0 -204 -537 -0.10% Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA 49,836 -20 -2 0 -11 -33 -0.10% Boise City-Nampa, ID 314,811 -22 -62 0 -73 -157 0.00% Bremerton-Silverdale, WA 119,170 0 65 0 61 126 0.10% Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, 578,009 -13 -4 0 -9 -26 0.00% CT Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY 643,318 -26 -6 -6 -14 -52 0.00% Burlington-South Burlington, VT 145,790 1 51 0 38 90 0.10% Cape Girardeau, MO-IL 59,473 -7 0 0 -1 -8 0.00% Carbondale, IL 38,275 -32 0 0 -17 -49 -0.10% Cedar Rapids, IA 162,044 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Chambersburg, PA 65,783 -36 202 0 124 290 0.50% Charleston-North Charleston, SC 331,580 -131 -1,003 -425 -1,704 -3,263 -0.90% Charlotte, NC-SC 936,991 7 23 0 30 60 0.00% Cheyenne, WY 55,849 -23 0 0 -10 -33 -0.10% Clarksville, TN-KY 128,456 -360 9 0 -253 -604 -0.50% Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 1,301,423 -24 293 0 256 525 0.00% Clovis, NM 23,348 -2,388 -381 0 -2,002 -4,771 -20.40% Colorado Springs, CO 349,783 4,148 190 36 3,285 7,659 2.20% Columbia, SC 418,871 853 188 0 674 1,715 0.40% Columbus, GA-AL 163,565 9,212 618 0 3,997 13,827 8.40% Columbus, MS 34,053 100 3 0 67 170 0.50% Columbus, NE 22,545 -31 0 0 -16 -47 -0.20% Columbus, OH 1,122,033 -43 1,412 -59 1,252 2,562 0.30% CRS-31 Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA Military Civilian Contractor Indirect Total Job % of MSA (MSA) Employment Emp Chg Job Chg Job Chg Chg Jobs Corpus Christi, TX 221,376 -2,652 -435 -67 -3,872 -7,026 -3.20% Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, 229,053 154 -1,595 0 -1,363 -2,804 -1.10% IA-IL Dayton, OH 512,393 492 -100 20 355 767 0.20% Del Rio, TX 21,096 98 80 0 133 311 1.50% Denver-Aurora, CO 1,545,580 20 -877 -100 -568 -1,525 -0.10% Des Moines, IA 362,215 -193 82 0 -2 -113 -0.10% District of Columbia, DC 2,771,791 -3,314 -3,145 -348 -5,873 -13,272 -0.05% Dover, DE 74,718 112 128 0 244 484 0.60% Dubuque, IA 62,005 -19 -5 0 -7 -31 0.00% Duluth, MN-WI 157,359 -8 0 0 -2 -10 0.00% El Dorado, AR 29,093 -24 0 0 -12 -36 -0.10% El Paso, TX 328,741 11,248 147 0 8,803 20,198 6.10% Elizabethtown, KY 65,926 -4,833 1,925 326 94 -2,488 -4.00% Elmira, NY 50,494 -7 0 0 -6 -13 0.00% Enid, OK 34,406 89 6 0 90 185 0.50% Enterprise-Ozark, AL 48,094 -27 -103 0 -129 -259 -0.50% Evansville, IN-KY 212,719 -7 0 0 -1 -8 0.00% Fairbanks, AK 54,469 -691 -26 0 -574 -1,291 -2.40% Fairmont, WV 26,404 -88 0 0 -47 -135 -0.50% Fallon, NV 15,858 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Fargo, ND-MN 129,893 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Faribault-Northfield, MN 30,123 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Fayetteville, NC 195,370 -1,367 1,050 -132 -963 -1,412 -0.60% Fort Leonard Wood, MO 25,515 -110 23 0 -15 -102 -0.40% Fort Smith, AR-OK 152,388 42 92 0 96 230 0.10% Fort Walton Beach, FL 120,139 2,153 141 0 1,888 4,182 3.40% Fort Wayne, IN 256,503 34 199 0 168 401 0.20% Fresno, CA 427,912 52 245 0 303 600 0.10% Glens Falls, NY 64,173 -7 0 0 -1 -8 0.00% Goldsboro, NC 60,040 345 17 0 310 672 1.10% Grand Forks, ND-MN 66,242 -1,434 -70 0 -1,299 -2,803 -4.20% Grand Island, NE 45,763 -31 0 0 -16 -47 -0.10% Great Falls, MT 49,197 -23 114 0 70 161 0.30% Gulfport-Biloxi, MS 151,445 -444 -207 0 -558 -1,209 -0.80% Hanford-Corcoran, CA 53,641 44 35 0 142 221 0.40% Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA 384,888 0 -26 0 -22 -48 0.00% Hartford-West Hartford-East 760,935 -58 -111 0 -127 -296 0.00% Hartford, CT Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC 93,051 0 12 0 10 22 0.00% Honolulu, HI 573,389 -195 -357 0 -688 -1,240 -0.10% Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, 2,898,160 -16 -48 0 -43 -107 0.00% TX Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY- 139,908 -1 0 0 0 -1 0.00% OH Huntsville, AL 225,625 -986 1,586 1,055 1,270 2,925 1.20% Indianapolis, IN 1,037,290 -24 1,214 -3 1,088 2,275 0.20% Jackson, MS 307,475 0 27 0 25 52 0.00% Jacksonville, FL 727,765 11,057 1,750 12 13,569 26,388 3.60% Jacksonville, NC 91,677 -182 -1 -9 -104 -296 -0.40% Johnstown, PA 74,442 -86 0 0 -72 -158 -0.20% CRS-32 Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA Military Civilian Contractor Indirect Total Job % of MSA (MSA) Employment Emp Chg Job Chg Job Chg Chg Jobs Kansas City, MO-KS 1,225,451 195 8 0 130 333 0.00% Kansas City, MO-KS 1,225,451 -279 -820 -146 -1,119 -2,367 -0.10% Kapaa, HI 37,731 -118 0 0 -100 -218 -0.60% Kearney, NE 35,434 -8 0 0 -4 -12 0.00% Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX 186,916 -73 -118 0 -163 -354 -0.20% Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA 161,187 -30 -2 0 -6 -38 0.00% Knoxville, TN 402,476 18 186 0 323 527 0.10% La Crosse, WI-MN 89,588 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Lafayette, IN 112,699 -21 0 0 -11 -32 0.00% Lansing-East Lansing, MI 281,040 -25 0 0 -11 -36 0.00% Las Cruces, NM 79,256 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 760,624 1,029 75 248 1,004 2,356 0.50% Lawton, OK 63,978 3,445 105 -3 2,110 5,657 8.90% Lebanon, NH-VT 115,211 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Lewisburg, PA 22,716 -9 -2 0 -5 -16 -0.10% Lexington Park, MD 53,347 5 -135 -199 -425 -754 -1.40% Lexington-Fayette, KY 296,523 -14 -40 0 -28 -82 0.00% Lincoln, NE 198,773 -7 0 0 -3 -10 0.00% Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR 394,114 2,490 85 0 1,835 4,410 1.10% Louisville, KY-IN 728,101 -36 -225 0 -182 -443 -0.10% Lubbock, TX 156,975 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Lufkin, TX 45,773 -10 0 0 -5 -15 0.00% Madison, WI 401,730 -89 41 22 21 -5 0.00% Manhattan, KS 72,434 2,415 334 0 1,737 4,486 6.20% Mansfield, OH 73,323 -84 -83 0 -133 -300 -0.40% Marquette, MI 34,562 -7 0 0 -1 -8 0.00% Marshall, TX 29,682 -15 -1 0 -8 -24 -0.10% Maysville, KY 16,643 -16 -2 0 -9 -27 -0.20% McAlester, OK 21,197 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Medford, OR 106,355 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Memphis, TN-MS-AR 758,153 230 151 3 222 606 0.10% Meridian, MS 54,548 -42 -134 -1 -181 -358 -0.70% Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, 986,431 -66 -370 0 -335 -771 -0.10% WI Minneapolis-St. Paul- 2,127,894 -130 -124 0 -155 -409 0.00% Bloomington, MN-WI Mobile, AL 213,966 -26 -1 0 -10 -37 0.00% Modesto, CA 217,388 0 -4 -85 -16 -105 0.00% Montgomery, AL 207,595 -133 28 -5 -64 -174 -0.10% Mountain Home, ID 14,441 -640 -36 0 -482 -1,158 -8.00% Muskogee, OK 40,416 -14 -2 0 -8 -24 -0.10% Nashville-Davidson -- 919,365 -11 -21 0 -23 -55 0.00% Murfreesboro, TN New Bern, NC 66,366 283 -143 0 96 236 0.30% New Haven-Milford, CT 472,774 -14 -7 0 -11 -32 0.00% New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, 763,801 -527 -607 -107 -917 -2,158 -0.20% LA Norwich-New London, CT 168,620 -46 -113 0 -164 -323 -0.20% Oak Harbor, WA 35,843 0 194 0 171 365 1.00% Ogden-Clearfield, UT 332,721 278 -423 212 35 102 -0.20% Oklahoma City, OK 703,918 -21 -204 0 -190 -415 0.00% CRS-33 Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA Military Civilian Contractor Indirect Total Job % of MSA (MSA) Employment Emp Chg Job Chg Job Chg Chg Jobs Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA 538,121 -68 -232 -19 -243 -562 -0.10% Orlando, FL 1,082,297 -13 -214 0 -164 -391 0.00% Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, 420,712 -221 -1,421 -375 -1,523 -3,540 -0.90% CA Paducah, KY-IL 61,551 -31 0 0 -16 -47 -0.10% Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL 86,688 -34 -12 0 -45 -91 -0.20% Parsons, KS 15,144 0 -8 -159 -108 -275 -1.80% Pascagoula, MS 68,520 -844 -112 -7 -797 -1,760 -2.60% Pendleton-Hermiston, OR 44,887 -1 -348 0 -253 -602 -1.30% Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL 210,512 -392 -699 -6 -1,581 -2,678 -1.10% Peru, IN 14,974 -7 0 0 -1 -8 -0.10% Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 1,971,119 -143 -224 0 -266 -633 0.00% Picayune, MS 16,286 0 -4 -50 -35 -89 -0.50% Pine Bluff, AR 49,184 -30 -4 0 -13 -47 -0.10% Pittsburgh, PA 1,403,312 -286 -237 0 -313 -836 0.00% Pocatello, ID 47,266 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Portland-South Portland- 331,655 -2,880 -395 0 -3,808 -7,083 -2.10% Biddeford ME Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, 1,232,839 -38 -277 0 -390 -705 -0.10% OR-WA Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, 1,232,839 -29 -16 0 -27 -72 0.00% OR-WA Poughkeepsie-Newburgh- 312,628 218 37 0 153 408 0.10% Middletown, NY Providence-New Bedford-Fall 864,734 675 229 -89 952 1,767 0.10% River, RI-MA Reading, PA 213,550 -18 0 0 -6 -24 0.00% Richmond, VA 715,302 6,119 844 56 4,173 11,192 1.50% Riverside-San Bernardino- 1,479,524 -211 -486 51 -602 -1,248 -0.10% Ontario, CA Rome, GA 50,944 -9 0 0 -3 -12 0.00% Rutland, VT 38,502 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Salinas, CA 235,299 -131 -150 0 -279 -560 -0.20% Salt Lake City, UT 701,532 -16 -507 0 -381 -904 -0.10% San Antonio, TX 1,009,217 3,483 -220 -450 2,541 5,459 0.50% San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, 1,806,321 -324 -916 -59 -1,505 -2,804 -0.20% CA San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 1,187,969 -20 -5 0 -7 -32 0.00% CA San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR 850,261 -103 -48 0 -119 -270 0.00% Santa Barbara-Santa Maria- 254,600 44 101 0 110 255 0.10% Goleta, CA Savannah, GA 174,403 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Scranton -- Wilkes-Barre, PA 306,854 -45 61 0 29 45 0.10% Shreveport-Bossier City, LA 211,384 3 58 0 49 110 0.00% Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ 51,749 0 -168 1 -119 -286 -0.50% Sioux City, IA-NE-SD 93,206 26 170 0 218 414 0.50% Sioux Falls, SD 149,410 28 27 32 63 150 0.10% Spokane, WA 249,887 -64 -172 0 -182 -418 -0.10% Springfield, IL 139,247 -18 -121 0 -100 -239 -0.20% Springfield, MA 374,117 114 212 0 388 714 0.20% Springfield, OH 67,753 -56 -215 0 -281 -552 -0.80% CRS-34 Metropolitan Statistical Area MSA Military Civilian Contractor Indirect Total Job % of MSA (MSA) Employment Emp Chg Job Chg Job Chg Chg Jobs St. Joseph, MO-KS 68,849 5 9 0 46 60 0.10% St. Louis, MO-IL 1,668,793 -87 969 86 1,004 1,972 0.10% St. Louis, MO-IL 1,668,793 -799 -1,762 -150 -2,084 -4,795 -0.20% Stockton, CA 269,709 0 -31 0 -20 -51 0.00% Sumter, SC 54,168 765 75 0 617 1,457 2.60% Susanville, CA 14,296 0 0 0 0 0 0.00% Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, 1,485,074 140 83 0 194 417 0.00% FL Terre Haute, IN 89,765 -13 -137 -280 -311 -741 -0.80% Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR 67,895 -2 -275 -129 -251 -657 -0.90% Toledo, OH 403,161 4 41 0 36 81 0.00% Topeka, KS 144,675 53 194 0 488 735 0.60% Trenton-Ewing, NJ 249,721 -11 -1 0 -3 -15 0.00% Troy, AL 15,306 -15 0 0 -8 -23 -0.20% Tucson, AZ 448,946 -60 0 0 -52 -112 0.00% Tulsa, OK 533,659 -17 50 0 34 67 0.00% Tuscaloosa, AL 104,345 -7 0 0 -2 -9 0.00% Tuskegee, AL 8,256 -2 -1 0 -1 -4 0.00% Utica-Rome, NY 158,421 1 561 0 398 960 0.60% Valdosta, GA 65,992 1,211 -77 0 1,141 2,275 3.50% Vicksburg, MS 29,916 -26 -2 0 -14 -42 -0.10% Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport 978,888 -10,275 -3,245 -8 -15,366 -28,894 -2.90% News, VA-NC Warner Robins, GA 65,130 -93 -17 781 367 1,038 1.60% Warrensburg, MO 28,670 3 58 0 44 105 0.40% Watertown-Fort Drum, NY 62,390 -9 0 0 -5 -14 0.00% Wheeling, WV-OH 80,664 -16 0 0 -5 -21 0.00% Wichita Falls, TX 93,033 -2,464 -156 0 -1,740 -4,360 -4.70% Wichita, KS 364,878 642 -222 0 288 708 0.10% Williamsport, PA 67,466 -25 -4 0 -16 -45 -0.10% Yuba City, CA 68,256 -8 -171 0 -131 -310 -0.50% Yuma, AZ 76,606 0 5 0 4 9 0.00% Source: BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005. See Appendix O. Definitions for table: MSA refers to Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Bureau of the Census. MSA Employment refers to total employment within the MSA. Military Job Chg refers to direct military employment changes within the MSA related to BRAC. Civilian Job Chg refers to direct civilian employment changes within the MSA related to BRAC. Contractor refers to direct contractor employment changes within the MSA related to BRAC. Indirect Job Chg refers to indirect job changes in the MSA related to BRAC. The percent of employment changes as a share of total employment within the MSA is referred to as "% of MSA Jobs." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For other versions of this document, see http://wikileaks.org/wiki/CRS-RL34709