{
  "id": "RL33148",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33148",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 311841,
      "date": "2006-01-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:17:15.711029",
      "title": "U.S. Military Overseas Basing: New Developments and Oversight Issues for Congress",
      "summary": "On August 16, 2004, President Bush announced a program of sweeping changes to the numbers\nand\nlocations of military basing facilities at overseas locations, now known as the Integrated Global\nPresence and Basing Strategy (IGPBS) or Global Posture Review. Roughly 70,000 personnel would\nreturn from overseas locations from Europe and Asia to bases in the continental United States\n(CONUS). Other overseas forces would be redistributed within current host nations such as\nGermany and South Korea, while new bases would be established in nations of Eastern Europe,\nCentral Asia, and Africa. In the Department of Defense's (DOD) view, these locations would be\nbetter able to respond to potential trouble spots. The second session of the 109th Congress could\nhave to consider approval of the DOD proposal, or review appropriations requests for construction\nof infrastructure, increased impact aid to local communities, and new acquisition programs for\nmobility and logistics capabilities (such as airlift). Finally, the Senate may have to consider\nratification of new or revised treaties. \n In August 2005, the congressionally mandated Commission on the Review of Overseas Military\nFacility Structure of the United States (also known as the \"Overseas Basing Commission\") formally\nreported its findings. It disagreed with the \"timing and synchronization\" of the DOD overseas\nre-basing initiative. It also saw the initiative as potentially at odds with stresses on the force from\noperations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly hampering recruiting and retention. The\nCommission questioned whether sufficient interagency coordination had occurred. It expressed\ndoubts that the military had enough airlift and sealift to make the strategy work, and noted that DOD\nhad likely underestimated the cost of all aspects associated with the moves (DOD budgeted $4\nbillion, the Commission estimated $20 billion). DOD disagreed with much of the Commission's\nanalysis. Meanwhile, some have voiced concern that the DOD plan would harm long-standing\nalliance relationships, while others questioned DOD's plans to accommodate the thousands of troops\nreturning to the U.S. Critics also argued that the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)\nround, which entered into force on November 9, 2005, and the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR),\nwhich is to be completed in early 2006, should have been finalized before completing the overseas\nbasing plan.\n Congress acted on some of its concerns with the re-basing plan in the FY2006 Defense\nAuthorization Act, tasking DOD with follow-on studies of overseas basing criteria and mobility\nrequirements. It also directs DOD to further examine the state and local impacts on installations\ngaining personnel from the re-basing implementation.\n Recent international diplomatic and security developments could further influence debate on\noverseas basing. Uzbekistan, one of the test cases for the new strategy, recently evicted U.S. forces\nfrom the base in that Central Asian nation. Some analysts argue this eviction was prompted by\nRussia and China, who have begun to express concern with U.S. expansion of influence in the\nregion. This report will be updated as necessary.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33148",
          "sha1": "a65b4342253446125236e89e007b285b2187c5fe",
          "filename": "files/20060126_RL33148_a65b4342253446125236e89e007b285b2187c5fe.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33148",
          "sha1": "cb821e020b9960dc3e0695511ad3d4117f999593",
          "filename": "files/20060126_RL33148_cb821e020b9960dc3e0695511ad3d4117f999593.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7930/",
      "id": "RL33148 2005-10-31",
      "date": "2005-10-31",
      "retrieved": "2005-12-21T16:49:45",
      "title": "U.S. Military Overseas Basing: New Developments and Oversight Issues for Congress",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20051031_RL33148_93257412d1722b90f720242d47c3d3861a9dca92.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20051031_RL33148_93257412d1722b90f720242d47c3d3861a9dca92.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Defense policy",
          "name": "Defense policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "American military bases",
          "name": "American military bases"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}