You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The U.S. Constitution does not clearly specify how military bases should be managed. Article II, Section 2, appoints the President as the commander-in-chief, with the implied power to deploy, and redeploy, the armed forces as necessary for national defense. In common practice, this has included the authority to create and close military installations needed to accommodate and train personnel under the President's command. However, Article I, Section 8, charges Congress with the responsibility to raise armies, maintain a Navy, and regulate the militia. Through annual authorization and appropriation legislation, Congress legislates policy for managing DOD real property assets and funds the construction, maintenance, operation, and disposal of military infrastructure. Throughout most of American history, the President has exercised broad, relatively unchallenged authority for opening, closing, or realigning military installations. Congress largely deferred to the Executive branch primarily because the President, as commander-in-chief, is empowered with the responsibility of deploying military forces. Prompted by large-scale closures of World War II era infrastructure during the 1960s and 1970s, Congress enacted legislation in 1977 that effectively limited the Executive branch's ability to close or realign major military installations. The new statute, later codified as 10 U.S.C. 2687 (Section 612 of the Military Construction Authorization Act of 1978, P.L. 95-82 ), generally required DOD to conduct comprehensive and lengthy assessments of major basing decisions as part of a congressional report-and-wait process. These assessments could be challenged in court on environmental grounds or on questions related to their sufficiency, further lengthening delays. The new legislation effectively halted DOD's ability to close or realign domestic bases of significant size. In the decade that followed the passage of 10 U.S.C. 2687, congressional pressure grew to accommodate DOD basing priorities. By 1988, ongoing negotiations between the Secretary of Defense and the House and Senate Armed Service Committees led to new legislation ( P.L. 100-526 ) that authorized a limited number of base closures based on the oversight of an independent panel. Though later modified, the effort marked the beginning of the first Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which was intended to insulate base closings from considerations such as favoritism or other political interference. Widely considered a success, the 1988 BRAC legislation was taken up again and modified in succeeding BRAC rounds; first in 1991, 1993, and 1995; and again in 2005. The modern BRAC process refers to a temporary authority that amends the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-510 ), hereinafter referred to as the Base Closure Act , and features a framework of elements that entrusts an independent commission with certifying closure and realignment recommendations made by the Secretary of Defense. In general, the process has required the Secretary to submit a list of military installations recommended for closure or realignment to an independent, bipartisan BRAC commission. After analyzing the Secretary's recommendations, the commission may accept, reject, or modify the list. Upon completing its review, the commission forwards its final findings and recommendations to the President. Upon acceptance of commission's recommendations, the President then submits them to Congress. If the President does not submit the recommendations to Congress within the timeframe required under the Base Closure Act, the BRAC process is terminated. Upon receipt of the report from the President, Congress has the opportunity to disapprove of the recommendations in toto through the enactment of a joint resolution. The hallmarks of this framework include establishment of an independent commission whose members are appointed by the President, in consultation with congressional leadership (and the advice and consent of the Senate); reliance on objective and uniform criteria for evaluating basing recommendations; GAO review and certification of DOD data; deliberations that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review; requirement that the commission's final list of closure and realignment actions be accepted or rejected in its entirety; and presidential and congressional off-ramps that would terminate the BRAC process when certain conditions are not met. The timeline to complete an entire BRAC round has varied; however, the most recent one conducted in 2005 took approximately 10 years, from authorization to completion (end of the six-year BRAC implementation period). Key milestones of a typical BRAC timeline include DOD force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and analysis of options (up to four years); nomination and confirmation of BRAC commissioners; DOD submission of BRAC recommendations (and associated reports) to the commission; commission deliberations (typically four months); final report sent to the President for approval; 45-day deadline for Congress to reject recommendations in their entirety (Joint Resolution of Disapproval) or allow implementation to begin; DOD implementation (two years to begin; six years to complete); and DOD disposal of real property (indeterminate). BRAC is often characterized as a cost efficiency measure that enables DOD to more effectively manage its real property assets by allowing it to shed excess infrastructure, but historically, potential costs and savings have been a consideration that have ranked below military value. No BRAC round has established cost savings targets, floors, or ceilings. During BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to develop and report a set of objective selection criteria that would be used for identifying bases for closure and realignment. For the 2005 round, Congress amended the BRAC statute to require the Secretary to regard military value (defined below) as the primary consideration. Other factors, such as potential costs and savings, were explicitly categorized as lower priority. Because the amended legislative language reflected longstanding DOD policy, the 2005 BRAC criteria appear almost identical when compared with previous versions, with additional language added for emphasis or included for explanatory examples. The excerpt below indicates the 2005 BRAC selection criteria. Emphasized text (in italics) represents new language not included as part of the 1995 criteria. SEC. 2913. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR 2005 ROUND. (a) FINAL SELECTION CRITERIA.—The final criteria to be used by the Secretary in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under this part in 2005 shall be the military value and other criteria specified in subsections (b) and (c). (b) MILITARY VALUE CRITERIA.—The military value criteria are as follows: (1) The current and future mission capabilities and the impact on operational readiness of the total force of the Department of Defense, including the impact on joint warfighting, training, and readiness. (2) The availability and condition of land, facilities, and associated airspace (including training areas suitable for maneuver by ground, naval, or air forces throughout a diversity of climate and terrain areas and staging areas for the use of the Armed Forces in homeland defense missions) at both existing and potential receiving locations. (3) The ability to accommodate contingency, mobilization, surge, and future total force requirements at both existing and potential receiving locations to support operations and training. (4) The cost of operations and the manpower implications. (c). OTHER CRITERIA.—The other criteria that the Secretary shall use in making recommendations for the closure or realignment of military installations inside the United States under this part in 2005 are as follows: (1) The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the closure or realignment, for the savings to exceed the costs. (2) The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of military installations. (3) The ability of the infrastructure of both the existing and potential receiving communities to support forces, missions, and personnel. (4) The environmental impact , including the impact of costs related to potential environ mental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities. The transfer and disposal of DOD real property made available following the implementation of a BRAC round is a complex process that may extend for years beyond the initial six-year implementation window. Disposal may be delayed or otherwise affected by the participation of local and state communities and the degree to which environmental remediation by federal authorities is necessary. The graph below shows the total acreage from previous BRAC rounds yet to be disposed. The Base Closure Act authorizes a variety of conveyance mechanisms not otherwise available for the transfer and disposal of federal property, a process typically performed by the General Services Administration (GSA). Under a BRAC, conveyance authority is delegated from GSA, through the Secretary of Defense to the various military departments, which receive special approval to supersede GSA regulations with BRAC specific regulations. The primary difference between the routine disposal of federal property and real property conveyed under a BRAC is the role of local communities. Under normal (non-BRAC) circumstances, the General Services Administration (GSA) is directly responsible for disposing of any surplus federal real property, which includes defense property. A military department in possession would, for example, declare property as excess to its needs and turn over the administration of a site to the GSA. The GSA would then follow a number of consecutive steps for disposal of federal property laid out in statute. It would first offer the excess property to other federal agencies. If none expressed an interest, the excess property would be declared surplus . The GSA would then offer the surplus property to state or local governments and non-profits that might use it for a public benefit ( public benefit conveyance) , such as a homeless shelter or medical center. Finally, if the property has neither been transferred nor conveyed in the previous steps, the surplus property would be offered for sale to the public. Under a BRAC, local communities can significantly affect the BRAC property transfer and disposal decisions, which are managed by the Secretary of the responsible military department. Once approved for closure, communities around an installation typically organize a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) for the purpose of creating and executing a redevelopment plan for the property. While the plan is not binding on DOD, the Department has been statutorily directed to give the plan considerable weight. DOD makes economic development grants and technical support available through its Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) to assist LRAs with the process. In recent BRAC rounds, Congress has authorized a special transfer authority that has permitted DOD to transfer title to property at less than fair market value, or even at no cost, if the LRA agrees to certain conditions designed to create employment at the former defense facility. This has been referred to as an Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). DOD has asserted that savings generated from BRAC are generally the result of avoiding the cost of retaining and operating unneeded infrastructure, with upfront costs eventually offset by annual savings. Between FY2012 and FY2018, the Department consistently argued for a new BRAC, asserting that "absent another BRAC round, the Department will continue to operate some of its installations sub-optimally as other efficiency measures, changing force structure, and technology reduce the number of missions and personnel." Emphasizing the potential cost savings, DOD has suggested a new "efficiency-focused BRAC" could save the Department billions of dollars annually: "Savings from BRAC rounds are real and substantial. The last five BRAC rounds are collectively saving the Department $12B annually. A new efficiency-focused BRAC could save the Department an additional ~$2B annually (based on the '93/'95 rounds)." In its ongoing series of BRAC-related reports, the GAO has noted the unreliability of DOD cost savings estimates. In 2013, GAO concluded that, though the Department had achieved annual recurring savings as the result of the 2005 round, visibility into the outcome has been limited due to missing and inconsistent recordkeeping. Similar studies have raised questions about the data DOD has used to predict and monitor BRAC effectiveness, long-term savings, and outcomes. For example "... the services did not develop baseline operating costs before implementing the BRAC recommendations, which would have enabled it to determine whether savings were achieved." "... We found that DOD's process for providing the BRAC commission with cost and savings estimates was hindered by underestimating recommendation-specific requirements and that DOD did not fully anticipate information technology requirements for many of the recommendations." "The department cannot provide documentation to show to what extent it reduced plant replacement value or vacated leased space as it reported in May 2005 that it was intended to do.... In addition, DOD bundled multiple closures ... thus limiting visibility into the estimated costs and savings for individual closures and realignments." "... DOD has not reported to Congress how the cleanup of emerging contaminants, especially certain perfluorinated compounds, at installations closed under BRAC will significantly increase the estimated (BRAC) cleanup costs." "... We found that OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) did not have a fully developed method for accurately collecting information on costs, savings, and efficiencies achieved specifically from joint basing, and that OSD had not developed a plan to guide joint bases in achieving cost savings and efficiencies...." "... DOD has not committed to take action on some of our recommendations related to implementing any future BRAC rounds, such as improving DOD's ability to estimate potential liabilities, and savings to achieve desired outcomes." In its final report to the President, the 2005 BRAC commission noted DOD's initial estimate of savings had been "vastly overestimated," and suggested that the Department had claimed savings that were "not truly savings in the commonly understood sense of the term." Reflecting on the quality of cost estimates and savings associated with 2005 BRAC round, Anthony Principi, Chairman of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, has suggested opportunities exist for the DOD to improve its analysis by adopting more consistent accounting practices and inclusive metrics: To start, DoD has to do a better job estimating the true cost of any closure or realignment.... Second, the cost of base realignment actions (COBRA) accounting procedure, used by DoD as a basis of comparison among scenarios, should include cost estimates for environmental restoration not just "clean to current use" standards. In addition, COBRA or some other cost evaluation process should also include transportation and infrastructure costs and burden sharing with the federal government.... In addition to refining DOD accounting metrics, some observers have suggested congressional visibility into BRAC cost and long-term effectiveness could be improved by amending the process to require the Department to disclose how closure and realignment recommendations meet expected cost saving and reduced infrastructure targets. A BRAC process is the chief means by which DOD disposes of excess infrastructure. Each year between 2013 and 2017, the Department requested a new BRAC round as a means of realizing greater efficiency and reducing excess infrastructure. It has also attempted to allay concerns related to the 2005 BRAC experience - marked by unexpectedly high costs and complexity - by emphasizing cost savings and efficiencies rather than force transformation. In April 2016, DOD submitted to the House Armed Services Committee an I nfrastructure C apacity R eport (interim version) that assessed 22% of the Department's base infrastructure excess to its needs. The methodology used in the report—required by Section 2815 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2016 (P.L. 114-92)—remained consistent with excess capacity reports submitted prior to the 1998 and 2005 BRAC rounds round. The Department stated its purpose for obtaining "a sense of excess and whether excess remains after various changes, such as (prior) BRAC or force structure reductions." A final infrastructure capacity report, submitted to Congress in October 2017, modified the original excess capacity estimate to 19%. The Department concluded its infrastructure capacity analysis by arguing it had established sufficient justification for a new BRAC round, a process that would allow it to more effectively dispose of excess infrastructure and manage remaining real property assets. The Department believes we have addressed all congressional concerns.... The time to authorize another BRAC round is now. The BRAC process requires considerable time to analyze and develop recommendations, have those recommendations reviewed by the independent BRAC Commission, and then implemented over a six-year period of time. The longer authorization is delayed, the longer the Department will be forced to expend valuable resources on unnecessary facilities instead of weapons systems, readiness, and other national security priorities. Critics of the Department's methodology for estimating excess infrastructure have asserted it includes unreasonable research assumptions and metrics, undermining the basis for DOD's conclusion. For example, observers have cited the report's reliance on Cold War baseline values to establish excess capacity, inconsistent application of existing metrics for measuring capacity shortfalls, and overly broad categorization schemes. Some observers have also cited longstanding data management challenges that continue to affect the Department's ability to measure current excess facility inventory and utilization rates. Others have noted the dearth of data that support DOD claims related to BRAC effectiveness and the disposal of excess property. During a news briefing on the FY2019 defense budget, Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) David L. Norquist noted that the Department had declined to propose a BRAC round that year, stating that it would work instead to focus on internal reforms while preparing for a financial audit. And so, I think we're looking at doing two things, going forward. One is, working with Congress to find common areas where we can make reforms and changes that don't create the same types of obstacles. The other is that we are undergoing a financial-statement audit that includes a look at property, and assets and investments and improving the accuracy of the data behind it. And as a view of being able to take advantage of the data coming out of that process, to help us make better decision-making on real property. But, yes, you are correct, there is not (a) request for another BRAC round in this budget. In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, Lucian Niemeyer, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment, indicated DOD would be working in FY2019 to improve its excess infrastructure accounting processes and demolish unneeded infrastructure: In lieu of another request for legislation in FY 2019 to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we will review our facilities, to include facility usage optimization review to ensure we have a better accounting of excess infrastructure. We also have proposed for FY 2019 increased efforts to demolish unneeded or obsolete facilities over the course of this year. The 2005 BRAC round was unique among all previous rounds due to its relative size, scope and complexity. (See Figure 2 for comparison of major and minor BRAC actions between rounds.) Colloquially called "the mother of all BRACs," the objectives of the 2005 round were primarily about transforming military infrastructure; however, unanticipated expenses have played a role in shaping subsequent congressional views of the BRAC process and, according to many observers, dampened support for consideration of a new round. Savings estimates submitted during the 2005 round were overvalued by as much as 67%, according to GAO analysis, with one-time implementation costs rising from $21 to $35.1 billion. GAO found that the $14.1 billion increase was due primarily to the rising cost of new construction associated with subsidiary projects not included in the original BRAC implementation plan. Referring to the implementation of the 2005 round, Assistant Secretary Niemeyer, noted, "BRAC legislation effectively limited the ability of Congress to oversee BRAC implementation costs and the Department made deliberate decisions to use BRAC implementation as a recapitalization tool, expanding facility requirements and associated costs." To address congressional concerns about spiraling costs in new BRAC rounds, DOD has periodically proposed legislative language that would constrain the Secretary's ability to recommend BRAC actions that would not yield savings within 20 years and to emphasize recommendations that would yield net savings within five years. Each year, Congress appropriates funding for the Department of Defense Base Closure Account, part of the Military Construction Defense-Wide appropriation. With no BRAC round authorized or underway, the primary purpose of continuing BRAC appropriations is to fund the environmental cleanup and caretaker functions at bases that were closed under prior rounds (see Figure 3 ). In FY2020, the Trump Administration has requested $278.5 million for BRAC continuing environmental and caretaker costs, with $158.3 million provided for the Navy (57%), $66.1 million for the Army (24%), and $54 million for the Air Force (19%). The total request represents a $63 million decrease (19%) from FY2019 enacted levels ($342 million). In FY2018, Congress urged DOD to accelerate environmental remediation at BRAC sites. In report language, appropriators stated that additional funds were provided to speed environmental remediation at installations closed under previous rounds. Accelerated cleanup.—The agreement includes additional funding to accelerate environmental remediation at installations closed during previous Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) rounds. Priority should be given to those sites with newly identified radiological cleanup cost. There are many factors hindering the cleanup of BRAC sites. However, strategic investments can lead to quicker clean-ups and faster turnover of DOD property to the local community. Therefore, the Department is directed to submit to the congressional defense committees a spend plan for the additional BRAC funds not later than 30 days after enactment of this Act. Congressional authorizers and appropriators have regularly inserted language into annual defense legislation that would disallow the use of funds for the purpose of a new BRAC round. In FY2019, for example, though DOD did not propose a BRAC, authorizers inserted language into the annual NDAA that prohibited a new round: SEC. 2703. Prohibition on Conducting Additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. A similar provision was included in the final FY2019 defense appropriations bill: SEC. 8122. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to propose, plan for, or execute a new or additional Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. In 2017, Members in both chambers proposed legislation that would have authorized a new round of base closures. Though no legislation for a full BRAC was enacted, a provision included the following year in the final FY2019 NDAA. Under the new scenario described by Section 2702 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( H.R. 5515 , P.L. 115-232 ), BRAC-like actions are authorized within the confines of a state based on the recommendation of the governor and support of local communities affected by the proposed actions. Unlike a traditional BRAC process, the new authorities would forgo the creation of an independent review panel. The Secretary of Defense is, instead, required to deliver a report of planned BRAC actions to congressional defense committees and, following a 90-day waiting period, begin implementation. For details, please refer to "In-State BRAC" in Appendix A of this report. The BRAC related legislative proposals above illustrate the flexibility Congress has for amending or adopting the template of past BRAC processes that DOD has called "the only fair, objective, and comprehensive process to achieve these goals (eliminating excess infrastructure)." Congress may consider whether future legislative proposals for base closures and realignments will adopt the lessons learned from previous rounds while retaining the basic framework, or fundamentally alter the process. No BRAC legislation has so far been proposed in the 116 th Congress. Additionally, the Department has asserted that it does not intend to use the new BRAC-like authorities authorized by Section 2702 of the FY2019 NDAA. To date, DOD has received no state requests under this authority. Appendix A. Legislative References BRAC Authorizing Legislation 1988 Round The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, enacted October 24, 1988 (P.L.100-526) 1991, 1993, 1995 Rounds National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, enacted November 5, 1990 (P.L. 107-107, Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Title XXIX) 2005 Round National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, ( P.L. 101-510 ; amended the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-510 ) 10 U.S.C. 2687, 10 U.S.C. 993 Summary In 1977, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 2687, the first statutory restriction on the President's ability to close or realign military installations. Amended over the years, the statute has retained its essential elements, establishing procedures the Secretary of Defense must follow before closing a military installation where a threshold number (currently 300) of civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or realigning an installation that involves a reduction by more than 50% (or 1,000) of civilian workers. A more recent statute, 10 U.S.C. 993, introduced additional reporting requirements that would restrict the Secretary's ability to realign installations if the plan would affect more than 1,000 assigned members of the Armed Forces. In-State BRAC Section 2702 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ( H.R. 5515 , P.L. 115-232 ) authorizes new in-state BRAC authorities. Text of the provision is included below in its entirety. SEC. 2702. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY TO REALIGN OR CLOSE CERTAIN MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. (a) Authorization.—Notwithstanding sections 993 or 2687 of title 10, United States Code, and subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may take such actions as may be necessary to carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation in a State during a fiscal year if— (1) the military installation is the subject of a notice which is described in subsection (b); and (2) the Secretary includes the military installation in the report submitted under paragraph (2) of subsection (c) with respect to the fiscal year. (b) Notice From Governor of State.—A notice described in this subsection is a notice received by the Secretary of Defense from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, the Mayor of the District of Columbia) in which the Governor recommends that the Secretary carry out the realignment or closure of a military installation located in the State, and which includes each of the following elements: (1) A specific description of the military installation, or a specific description of the relevant real and personal property. (2) Statements of support for the realignment or closure from units of local government in which the installation is located. (3) A detailed plan for the reuse or redevelopment of the real and personal property of the installation, together with a description of the local redevelopment authority which will be responsible for the implementation of the plan. (c) Response to Notice.— (1) Mandatory response to governor and congress.—Not later than 1 year after receiving a notice from the Governor of a State (or, in the case of the District of Columbia, from the Mayor of the District of Columbia), the Secretary of Defense shall submit a response to the notice to the Governor and the congressional defense committees indicating whether or not the Secretary accepts the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of the notice. (2) Acceptance of recommendation.—If the Secretary of Defense determines that it is in the interests of the United States to accept the recommendation for the realignment or closure of a military installation which is the subject of a notice received under subsection (b) and intends to carry out the realignment or closure of the installation pursuant to the authority of this section during a fiscal year, at the time the budget is submitted under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for the fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees which includes the following: (A) The identification of each military installation for which the Secretary intends to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to the authority of this section during the fiscal year, together with the reasons the Secretary of Defense believes that it is in the interest of the United States to accept the recommendation of the Governor of the State involved for the realignment or closure of the installation. (B) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a master plan describing the required scope of work, cost, and timing for all facility actions needed to carry out the realignment or closure, including the construction of new facilities and the repair or renovation of existing facilities. (C) For each military installation identified under subparagraph (A), a certification that, not later than the end of the fifth fiscal year after the completion of the realignment or closure, the savings resulting from the realignment or closure will exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure, together with an estimate of the annual recurring savings that would be achieved by the realignment or closure of the installation and the timeframe required for the financial savings to exceed the costs of carrying out the realignment or closure. (d) Limitations.— (1) Timing.—The Secretary may not initiate the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section until the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the date the Secretary submits the report under paragraph (2) of subsection (c). (2) Total costs.—Subject to appropriations, the aggregate cost to the government in carrying out the realignment or closure of military installations pursuant to the authority of this section for all fiscal years may not exceed $2,000,000,000. In determining the cost to the government for purposes of this section, there shall be included the costs of planning and design, military construction, operations and maintenance, environmental restoration, information technology, termination of public-private contracts, guarantees, and other factors contributing to the cost of carrying out the realignment or closure, as determined by the Secretary. (e) Process for Implementation.—The implementation of the realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of this section shall be carried out in accordance with section 2905 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (title XXIX of P.L. 101-510 ; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note) in the same manner as the implementation of a realignment or closure of a military installation pursuant to the authority of such Act. (f) State Defined.—In this section, the term ``State'' means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. (g) Termination of Authority.—The authority of the Secretary to carry out a realignment or closure pursuant to this section shall terminate at the end of fiscal year 2029. Appendix B. BRAC Acreage Disposal Status, By State

 

 Report 2:
Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to attend certain institutions of higher education (IHEs). In academic year (AY) 2016-2017, 6,760 institutions were classified as Title IV eligible IHEs. Of these IHEs eligible to participate in Title IV programs, approximately 29.4% were public institutions, 27.8% were private nonprofit institutions, and 42.9% were proprietary (or private, for-profit) institutions. It is estimated that $122.5 billion was made available to students through Title IV federal student aid in FY2017. To be able to receive Title IV assistance, students must attend an institution that is eligible to participate in the Title IV programs. IHEs must meet a variety of requirements to participate in the Title IV programs. First, an IHE must meet basic eligibility criteria, including offering at least one eligible program of education. In addition, an IHE must satisfy the program integrity triad, under which it must be legally authorized to provide a postsecondary education in the state in which it is located; accredited or preaccredited by an agency recognized by the Department of Education (ED) for such purposes, and certified by ED as eligible to participate in Title IV programs. The state authorization and accreditation components of the triad were developed independently to address the issues of quality assurance and consumer protection, and the federal government (ED specifically) generally relies on states and accrediting agencies to determine standards of educational program quality. The federal government's only direct role in determining Title IV eligibility is through the process of certification of eligibility and ensuring IHEs meet some additional Title IV requirements. Certification, as a component of the program integrity triad, focuses on an institution's fiscal responsibility and administrative capacity to administer Title IV funds. An IHE must fulfill a variety of other related requirements, including those that relate to institutional recruiting practices, student policies and procedures, and Title IV program administration. Finally, additional criteria may apply to an institution depending on its control or the type of educational programs it offers. For instance, proprietary institutions must derive at least 10% of their revenues from non-Title IV funds (also known as the 90/10 rule). Failure to fulfill some of these requirements does not necessarily end an IHE's participation in the Title IV programs, but may lead to additional oversight from ED and/or restrictions placed an IHE's Title IV participation. This report provides a general overview of HEA provisions that affect a postsecondary institution's eligibility for participation in Title IV student aid programs. It first describes general eligibility criteria at both the institutional and programmatic level and then, in more detail, the program integrity triad. Next, it discusses several issues that are closely related to institutional eligibility: Program Participation Agreements, campus safety policies and crime reporting required under the Clery Act, the return of Title IV funds, and distance education. To be eligible to participate in HEA Title IV student aid programs, institutions must meet several criteria. These criteria include requirements related to programs offered by the institutions, student enrollment, institutional operations, and the length of academic programs. This section discusses the definition of an eligible IHE for the purposes of Title IV participation and program eligibility requirements. The HEA contains two definitions of institutions of higher education. Section 101 provides a general definition of IHE that applies to institutional eligibility for participation in HEA programs other than Title IV programs. The Section 102 definition of IHE is used only to determine institutional eligibility to participate in HEA Title IV programs. Section 101 of the HEA provides a general definition of IHE. This definition applies to institutional participation in non-Title IV HEA programs. Section 101 IHEs can be public or private nonprofit educational institutions. Section 101 specifies criteria both public and private nonprofit educational institutions must meet to be considered IHEs. Neither the HEA nor regulations specifically define a public institution of higher education. However, in general, public institutions can be described as those whose educational programs are operated by states or other government entities and are primarily supported by public funds. Regulations define a nonprofit IHE as one that (1) is owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation or association, with no part of the corporation's or association's net earnings benefiting a private shareholder or individual, (2) is determined by the Internal Revenue Service to be a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), and (3) is legally authorized to operate as a nonprofit organization by each state in which it is physically located. To be considered a Section 101 IHE, public and private nonprofit educational institutions must admit as regular students only individuals with a high school diploma or its equivalent, individuals beyond the age of compulsory school attendance, or individuals who are dually or concurrently enrolled in both the institution and in a secondary school; be legally authorized to provide a postsecondary education within the state in which they are located; offer a bachelor's degree, provide a program of at least two-years that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree, award a degree that is accepted for admission to a graduate or professional program, or provide a training program of at least a one-year that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation; and be accredited or preaccredited by an accrediting agency recognized by ED to grant accreditation or preaccreditation status Section 102 of the HEA defines IHE only for the purposes of Title IV participation. The Section 102 definition includes all institutions included in the Section 101 definition (i.e., public and private nonprofit IHEs) and also includes proprietary institutions, postsecondary vocational institutions, and foreign institutions that have been approved by ED. Section 102 specifies that proprietary and postsecondary vocational institutions must meet many of the same Section 101 requirements that are applicable to public and private nonprofit institutions. In addition, Section 102 specifies other criteria that all types of educational institutions must meet to be considered Title IV eligible IHEs. HEA Section 102 specifies that a proprietary IHEs is an institution that is neither a public nor a private nonprofit institution. In addition to the basic Title IV eligibility criteria that all IHEs must meet (e.g., state authorization, accreditation by an ED-recognized accrediting agency), proprietary IHEs must meet additional criteria to be considered Title IV eligible. Specifically, a proprietary IHE must (1) provide an eligible program of training "to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation" or (2) provide a program leading to a baccalaureate degree in liberal arts that has been continuously accredited by a regional accrediting agency since October 1, 2007, and have provided the program continuously since January 1, 2009. Additionally, it must have been legally authorized to provide (and have continuously been providing) the same or a substantially similar educational program for at least two consecutive years. HEA Section 102 defines a postsecondary vocational institution as a public or private nonprofit institution that provides an eligible program of training "to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation," and has been legally authorized to provide (and has continuously been providing) the same or a substantially similar educational program for at least two consecutive years. It is possible for a public or private nonprofit IHE that offers a degree program (e.g., an associate's or bachelor's degree) to also qualify as a postsecondary vocational institution by offering programs that are less than one academic year and that lead to a nondegree recognized credential such as a certificate. Institutional participation in Title IV student aid programs allows students from the United States to borrow through the federal Direct Loan program to attend postsecondary institutions located outside of the United States. In general, a foreign institution is eligible to participate in the Direct Loan program if it is comparable to an eligible IHE (as defined in HEA Section 101) within the United States, is a public or private nonprofit institution, and has been approved by ED. Foreign graduate medical schools, veterinary schools, and nursing schools are also eligible to participate in Title IV student aid programs, but must meet additional requirements. Freestanding foreign graduate medical schools, veterinary schools, and nursing schools may be proprietary institutions. Additional requirements for foreign institutions to participate in Title IV student aid programs are beyond the scope of this report and, generally, will not be discussed hereinafter. The definitions of proprietary institutions and postsecondary vocational institutions contained in Section 102 have several overlapping components with the Section 101 definition of IHE. For instance, both proprietary and postsecondary vocational institutions must (1) admit as regular students only those individuals with a high school diploma or its equivalent, individuals beyond the age of compulsory school attendance, or individuals who are dually or concurrently enrolled in both the institution and in a secondary school; (2) be legally authorized to provide a postsecondary education by the state in which they are located; and (3) be accredited or preaccredited by an accrediting agency recognized by ED to grant such statuses. In addition, all types of institutions (including public and private nonprofit institutions) must meet requirements related to the course of study offered at the institution and student enrollment to be considered Title IV eligible under Section 102. In general, any type of institution is considered ineligible to participate in Title IV programs if more than 25% of its enrolled students are incarcerated, or if more than 50% of the its enrolled students do not have a secondary school diploma or equivalent and the institution does not provide a two-year associate's degree or a four-year bachelor's degree. Also, in general, an institution is ineligible if more than 50% of the courses offered are correspondence courses or if 50% or more of its students are enrolled in correspondence courses. These "50% rules" are discussed in more detail in the distance education section of this report. Finally, an institution is considered ineligible to participate in Title IV programs if the institution has filed for bankruptcy or the institution (or its owner or chief executive officer) has been convicted of or pled no contest or guilty to a crime involving the use of Title IV funds. While the above-described criteria generally apply to most types of Section 102 institutions, specific criteria apply to individual types of Section 102 institutions. The following sections provide information on Title IV eligibility criteria that apply to those additional types of IHEs not specified in Section 101, but specified in Section 102: proprietary IHEs, postsecondary vocational institutions, and foreign institutions. Hereinafter, unless otherwise noted, the term "institution of high education (IHE)" only refers to Section 102 institutions. To qualify as an eligible institution for Title IV participation, an institution must offer at least one eligible program, but overall institutional eligibility does not necessarily extend to all programs offered by the institution. Not all of an institution's programs must meet program eligibility requirements for an IHE to participate in Title IV, but, in general, students enrolled solely in ineligible programs cannot receive Title IV student aid. To be Title IV eligible, a program must lead to a degree (e.g., an associate's or bachelor's degree) or certificate or prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Before awarding Title IV aid to students, an IHE must determine that the program in which a student is participating is Title IV eligible, ensure that the program is included in its accreditation notice, and ensure that the the IHE is authorized by the appropriate state to offer the program. In addition to the general criteria for all types of institutions, a program must meet specific eligibility requirements depending on whether the institution at which it is offered is a public or private nonprofit IHE, a proprietary IHE, or a postsecondary vocational IHE. At a public or private nonprofit IHE, the following types of programs are Title IV eligible: (1) programs that lead to an associate's, bachelor's, professional, or graduate degree; (2) transfer programs that are at least two academic years in length and for which the institution does not award a credential but that are acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree; (3) programs that lead to a certificate or other recognized nondegree credential, that prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation, and that are at least one academic year in length; (4) certificate or diploma training programs that are less than one year in length, if the institution also meets the definition of a postsecondary vocational institution; and (5) programs consisting of courses required for elementary or secondary teacher certification in the state in which the student intends to teach. For all of these, an academic year must also require an undergraduate course of study to contain an amount of instructional time in which a full-time student is expected to complete at least 24 semester or trimester credit hours, 36 quarter credit hours, or 900 clock hours. In general, eligible programs at proprietary and postsecondary vocational institutions must meet a specified number of weeks of instruction and must provide training that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation (described below). At proprietary and postsecondary vocational institutions, the following types of programs are Title IV eligible: undergraduate programs that provide at least 600 clock hours, 16 semester or trimester hours, or 24 quarter hours of instruction offered over a minimum of at least 15 weeks ; such programs may admit, as regular students, individuals who have not completed the equivalent of an associate's degree; programs that provide at least 300 clock hours, 8 semester hours, or 12 quarter hours of instruction offered over a minimum of 10 weeks; such programs must be graduate or professional programs or must admit as regular students only individuals who have completed the equivalent of an associate's degree; short-term programs that provide between 300 and 600 clock hours of instruction over a minimum of 10 weeks ; such programs must have been in existence for at least one year, have verified completion and placement rates of at least 70%, may not last more than 50% longer than the minimum training period required by the state or federal agency for the occupation for which the program is being offered, and must admit as regular students some individuals who have not completed the equivalent of an associate's degree; and programs offered by accredited proprietary IHEs that lead to a bachelor's degree in liberal arts; the school must have been continuously accredited by an ED-recognized accrediting agency since at least October 1, 2007 and must have provided the program continuously since January 1, 2009. Most nondegree programs offered by public and private nonprofit IHEs must prepare students for "gainful employment in a recognized occupation." Gainful employment requirements also apply to almost all programs offered by proprietary and postsecondary vocational institutions, regardless of whether they lead to a degree. In response to concerns about the quality of programs that prepare students for gainful employment and the level of student debt assumed by individuals who attend these programs, ED issued final rules on gainful employment on October 31, 2014. The regulations require that educational programs subject to gainful employment requirements offered by IHEs meet minimum performance standards to be considered offering education that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. They also require IHEs to disclose specified information about each of its gainful employment programs to enrolled or prospective students. Finally, the gainful employment rules require IHEs to report information to ED necessary to calculate the debt-to-earnings ratios. Although the gainful employment regulations became effective July 1, 2015, various aspects of them have not yet been fully implemented or have been delayed in implementation. For example, ED delayed until July 1, 2019, some portions of the rule relating to certain disclosure requirements. Additionally, to enable ED to calculate whether an IHE's programs meet the minimum performance standards (discussed below), regulations specify that ED obtains data from the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, a memorandum of understanding relating to data sharing between ED and SSA lapsed in 2018. In August 2018, ED issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to rescind the gainful employment rules in their entirety. Based on HEA requirements relating to the implementation date for Title IV regulations, the earliest possible date the proposed rules could go into effect is July 1, 2020. The gainful employment regulations establish a framework within which educational programs offered by IHEs must meet minimum performance standards to be considered offering education that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Under the framework, ED annually calculates two debt-to-earnings (D/E) rates for each gainful employment program offered by an IHE, the discretionary income rate and the annual earnings rate. These rates measure a gainful employment program's completers' debt (their annual loan payments) as a percentage of their post-completion earnings. Using these measures, institutions will be determined to be "passing," "in the zone," or "failing." Thresholds for each category are as follows: Passing : Programs whose completers have annual loan payments less than or equal to 8% of annual earnings (the annual earnings rate) or less than or equal to 20% of discretionary income (the discretionary income rate). In the zone: Programs whose completers have annual loan payments greater than 8% but less than or equal to 12% of annual earnings or greater than 20% but less than or equal to 30% of discretionary income. Failing : Programs whose completers have annual loan payments greater than 12% of annual earnings and greater than 30% of discretionary income. Programs that are failing in two out of any three consecutive years or that are in the zone for four consecutive years will be ineligible for Title IV participation for three years. The gainful employment rules also contain several disclosure requirements. For any year in which ED notifies an IHE that a gainful employment program could become ineligible in the next year based on its debt-to-earnings ratios (i.e., one year of failure or three years in the zone), the IHE must provide a warning to current and prospective students that the program does not meet the gainful employment standards and that if the program does not meet the gainful employment standards in the future, students would not be able to receive Title IV aid. In addition, an IHE must disclose specified information about each of its gainful employment programs to enrolled and prospective students. Information to be disclosed includes the following: the primary occupation that the program prepares students to enter; whether the program satisfies applicable educational prerequisites for professional licensure or certification in each state within the institution's metropolitan statistical area (MSA); program length and number of clock or credit hours, or equivalent, in the program; the program's completion rates for full-time and less-than-full-time students and the program's withdrawal rates; Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) and Direct Loan program loan repayment rates for all students who entered repayment on Title IV loans and who enrolled in the program, for those who withdrew from the program, and for those who completed the program; the program tuition, fees, and additional costs incurred by a student who completes the program within the program's published length; the job placement rate for the program, if otherwise required by the institution's accrediting agency or state; the percentage of enrolled students who received Title IV or private loans for enrollment in the program; the median loan debt and mean or median earnings of students who completed the program, of students who withdrew from the program, and of both groups combined; the program cohort default rate; and the annual earnings rate for the program. Institutions must also certify that each of their gainful employment programs is included in the IHE's accreditation, meets any state or federal entity accreditation requirements, and meets any state licensing and certification requirements for the state in which the IHE is located. Title IV of the HEA sets forth three requirements to ensure program integrity in postsecondary education, known as the program integrity triad. The three requirements are state authorization, accreditation by an accrediting agency recognized by ED, and eligibility and certification by ED. This triad is intended to provide a balance in the Title IV eligibility requirements. The states' role is to provide consumer protection, the accrediting agencies' role is to provide quality assurance, and the federal government's role is to provide oversight of compliance to ensure administrative and fiscal integrity of Title IV programs at IHEs. The state role in the program integrity triad is to provide legal authority for an institution to operate a postsecondary educational program in the state in which it is physically located. There are two basic requirements for an IHE to be considered legally authorized by a state: 1. the state must authorize the IHE by name to operate postsecondary educational programs, and 2. the state must have in place a process to review and address complaints concerning IHEs, including enforcing applicable state law. An IHE can be authorized by name through a state charter, statute, constitutional provision, or other action by an appropriate state agency (e.g., authorization to conduct business or operate as a nonprofit organization). Additionally, an institution must also comply with any applicable state approval or licensure requirements. The state agency responsible for the authorization of postsecondary institutions must also perform three additional functions: upon request, provide the Secretary with information about the process it uses to authorize institutions to operate within its borders; notify the Secretary if it has evidence to believe that an institution within its borders has committed fraud in the administration of Title IV programs; and notify the Secretary if it revokes an institution's authorization to operate. On December 19, 2016, ED issued final regulations related to state authorization for IHEs offering postsecondary distance or correspondence education (discussed later in this report). The regulations would require an IHE offering postsecondary distance or correspondence education to students residing in a state in which the IHE is not physically located to meet any requirements within the student's state of residence. Under the rules, an IHE may meet this requirement if it participates in a state authorization reciprocity agreement. These regulations were scheduled to become effective July 1, 2018. However, on July 3, 2018 (and effective June 29, 2018), the Secretary of Education (Secretary) issued a final rule delaying the implementation of these requirements until July 1, 2020. The second component of the program integrity triad is accreditation by an ED-recognized accrediting agency or association. In higher education, accreditation is intended to help ensure an acceptable level of quality within IHEs. For Title IV purposes, an institution must be accredited or preaccredited by an ED-recognized accrediting agency. Each accrediting agency must meet HEA-specified standards to be recognized by ED. From its inception, accreditation has been a voluntary process. It developed with the formation of associations that distinguished between IHEs that merited the designation of college or university from those that did not. Since then, accreditation has been used as a form of "external quality review ... to scrutinize colleges, universities and programs for quality assurance and quality improvement." In 1952, shortly after the passage of the Veterans' Readjustment Act of 1952 (the Korean GI Bill; P.L. 82-550), the federal government began formally recognizing accrediting agencies. This was done as one means to assess higher education quality and link it to determining which institutions would qualify to receive federal aid under the Korean GI Bill. Rather than creating a centralized authority to assess quality, the federal government chose to rely in part on the existing expertise of accrediting agencies. Today, ED's formal recognition of accrediting agencies is important, because an IHE's Title IV eligibility is conditioned upon accreditation from an ED-recognized accreditation organization. As part of the accreditation system's development, three types of accrediting agencies have emerged: Regional accrediting agencies. These operate in six regions of the United States, with each agency concentrating on a specific region. Generally, these accredit entire public and private nonprofit degree-granting IHEs. National accrediting agencies. These operate across the United States and also accredit entire institutions. There are two types of national accrediting agencies: faith-based agencies that accredit religiously affiliated or doctrinally based institutions, which are typically private nonprofit degree-granting institutions, and career-related agencies that typically accredit proprietary, career-based, degree- and nondegree-granting institutions. Specialized or programmatic accrediting agencies. These operate throughout the United States and accredit individual educational programs (e.g., law) and single-purpose institutions (e.g., freestanding medical schools). Specific educational programs are often accredited by a specialized accrediting agency, and the institution at which the program is offered is accredited by a regional or national accrediting organization. Generally, an institution must be accredited by an ED-recognized accrediting agency that has the authority to cover all of the institution's programs. Alternatively, a public or private nonprofit IHE may be preaccredited by an agency recognized by ED to grant such preaccreditation, and a public postsecondary vocational institution may be accredited by a state agency that ED determines is a reliable authority. Proprietary institutions must be accredited by an ED-recognized accrediting agency. The accreditation process begins with an institution or program requesting accreditation. Institutional accreditation is cyclical, with a cycle ranging from every few years up to 10 years. Initial accreditation does not guarantee subsequent renewal of the accredited status. Typically, an institution seeking accreditation will first perform a self-assessment to determine whether its operations and performance meet the basic standards required by the relevant accrediting agency. Next, an outside group of higher education peers (e.g., faculty and administrators) and members of the public conduct an on-site visit at the institution during which the team determines whether the accrediting organization's standards are being met. Based on the results of the self-assessment and site visit, the accrediting organization determines whether accreditation will be awarded, renewed, denied, or provisionally awarded to an institution. Educational programs within institutions can be accredited by programmatic accrediting agencies; however, a program is not required to be accredited by a programmatic accrediting agency for Title IV purposes. Rather, it only needs to be covered by the IHE's primary accrediting agency. Frequently, programmatic accrediting agencies review a specific program within an IHE that is accredited by a regional or national accrediting agency. An institution that has had its accreditation revoked or terminated for cause cannot be recertified as an IHE eligible to participate in Title IV programs for 24 months following the loss of accreditation, unless the accrediting agency rescinds the loss. The same rules apply if an institution voluntarily withdraws its accreditation. The Secretary can, however, continue the eligibility of a religious institution whose loss of accreditation, whether voluntary or not, is related to its religious mission and not to the HEA accreditation standards. If an institution's accrediting agency loses its recognition from ED, it has up to 18 months to obtain accreditation from another ED-recognized agency. Although the federal government does not set specific standards for institutional or programmatic accreditation, generally, it does require that institutions be accredited or preaccredited by a recognized accrediting organization to be eligible for Title IV participation. ED's primary role in accreditation is to recognize an accrediting agency as a "reliable authority regarding the quality of education or training offered" at IHEs through the processes and conditions set forth in the HEA and federal regulations. For ED recognition, Section 496 of the HEA specifically requires that an accrediting agency be a state, regional, or national agency that demonstrates the ability to operate as an accrediting agency within the relevant state or region or nationally. Additionally, agencies must meet one of the following criteria: IHE membership with the agency must be voluntary, and one of the primary purposes of the agency must be accreditation of the IHEs. The agency must be a state agency approved by the Secretary as an accrediting agency on or before October 1, 1991. The agency must either conduct accreditation through a voluntary membership of individuals in a profession, or it must have as its primary purpose the accreditation of programs within institutions that have already been accredited by another ED-recognized agency. Agencies that meet the first or third criterion listed above must also be administratively and financially separate and independent of any related trade association or membership organization. For an agency that meets the third criterion and that was ED-recognized on or before October 1, 1991, the Secretary may waive the requirement that the agency be administratively and financially independent of any related organization, but only if the agency can show that the existing relationship with the related organization has not compromised its independence in the accreditation process. All types of accrediting agencies must show that they consistently apply and enforce standards that ensure that the education programs, training, or courses of study offered by an IHE are of sufficient quality to meet the stated objectives for which the programs, training, or courses are offered. The standards used by the accrediting agencies must assess student achievement in relation to the institution's mission; this may include course completion, job placement rates, and passage rates of state licensing exams. Agencies must also consider curricula, faculty, facilities, fiscal and administrative capacity, student support services, and admissions practices. Accrediting agencies must also meet requirements that focus on the review of an institution's operating procedures, including reviewing an institution's policies and procedures for determining credit hours, the application of those policies and procedures to programs and coursework, and reviewing any newly established branch campuses. They must also perform regular on-site visits that focus on the quality of education and program effectiveness. The final component of the program integrity triad is eligibility and certification by ED. Here, ED is responsible for verifying an institution's legal authority to operate within a state and its accreditation status. ED also evaluates an institution's financial responsibility and administrative capability to administer Title IV student aid programs. An institution can be certified to participate in Title IV for up to six years before applying for recertification. ED determines an IHE's financial responsibility based on its ability to provide the services described in its official publications, to administer the Title IV programs in which it participates, and to meet all of its financial obligations. A public IHE is deemed financially responsible if its debts and liabilities are backed by the full faith and credit of the state or another government entity. A proprietary or private nonprofit IHE is financially responsible if it meets specific financial ratios (e.g., equity ratio) established by ED, has sufficient cash reserves to make any required refunds (including the return of Title IV funds), is meeting all of its financial obligations, and is current on its debt payments. Even if an institution meets the above requirements, ED does not consider it financially responsible if the IHE does not meet third-party financial audit requirements or if the IHE violated past performance requirements, such as failing to satisfactorily resolve any compliance issues identified in program reviews or audits. Alternatively, if an institution does not meet the above standards of financial responsibility, ED may still consider it financially responsible or give it provisional certification, under which it may operate for a time, if it qualifies under an alternative standard. These alternative standards include submitting an irrevocable letter of credit to ED that is equal to at least 50% of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program funds that the IHE received during its most recently completed fiscal year, meeting specific monitoring requirements, or participating in the Title IV programs under provisional certification. Along with demonstrating financial responsibility, an institution must demonstrate its ability to properly administer the Title IV programs in which it participates and to provide the education it describes in public documents (e.g., marketing brochures). Administrative capability focuses on the processes, procedures, and personnel used in administering Title IV funds and indicators of student success. Administrative capability standards address numerous aspects of Title IV administration. For example, to administer Title IV programs an institution must use ED's electronic processes and develop a system to identify and resolve discrepancies in Title IV information received by various institutional offices. The IHE must also refer cases of Title IV student fraud or criminal misconduct to ED's Office of Inspector General for resolution, and it must provide all enrolled and prospective students financial aid counseling. Finally, the IHE must have an adequate internal system of checks and balances that includes dividing the functions of authorizing payments and disbursing funds between two separate offices. Institutions are required to have a capable staff member to administer Title IV programs and coordinate those programs with other aid received by students. This person must also have an adequate number of qualified staff to assist with aid administration. Before receiving Title IV funds, an IHE must certify that neither it nor its employees have been debarred or suspended by a federal agency; similar limitations apply to lenders, loan servicers, and third-party servicers. Relating to indicators of student success, an institution must have satisfactory academic progress (SAP) standards for students receiving Title IV funds. In general, IHEs must develop SAP standards that establish a minimum grade point average (or its equivalent) for students and a maximum time frame in which students must complete their educational programs. A student who fails to meet the SAP requirements becomes ineligible to receive Title IV funds. Also related to student success indicators, an institution that seeks to participate in Title IV programs for the first time may not have an undergraduate withdrawal rate for regular students that is greater than 33% during its most recently completed award year. An institution may be deemed administratively incapable if it has a high cohort default rate (CDR). In general, the CDR is the number of an IHE's federal loan recipients who enter repayment in a given fiscal year (the cohort fiscal year) and who default within a certain period of time after entering repayment (cohort default period; CDP), divided by the total number of borrowers who entered repayment in the cohort fiscal year. Since 2014, ED has used a three-year CDP in calculating an institution's CDR. An IHE will be found administratively incapable if one of the following conditions is met: 1. an institution's CDR is greater than 40% in one year for loans made under the FFEL and Direct Loans programs; 2. an institution's CDR is 30% or greater for each of the three most recent fiscal years for loans made under the FFEL and Direct Loans programs; or 3. an institution's CDR is 15% or greater in any single year for loans made under the Federal Perkins Loan Program. When an IHE is determined to be administratively incapable due to a high CDR, it may become ineligible to participate in the Direct Loan, Pell Grant, and/or Perkins Loan programs (but not other Title IV programs). ED may grant provisional certification for up to three years to an institution that would be deemed administratively capable except for its high cohort default rates. If an institution is seeking initial certification, ED can grant it up to one year of provisional certification. ED can also grant an institution provisional certification for up to three years if ED is determining the IHE's administrative capacity and financial responsibility for the first time, if the IHE has experienced a partial or total change in ownership, or if ED determines that the administrative or financial condition of the IHE may hinder its ability to meet its financial responsibilities. Additionally, if an accrediting agency loses its ED recognition, any institution that was accredited by that agency may continue to participate in Title IV programs for up to 18 months after ED's withdrawal of recognition. To ensure that an institution is conforming to eligibility requirements, ED can conduct program reviews. During a program review, ED evaluates an institution's compliance with Title IV requirements and identifies actions the IHE must take to correct any problem(s). Review priority is given to those institutions with high cohort default rates; IHEs with significant fluctuations in Pell Grant awards or Direct Loan volume that are not accounted for by changes in programs offered; IHEs that are reported to have deficiencies or financial aid problems by their state or accrediting agency; IHEs with high annual dropout rates; and IHEs determined by ED to pose a significant risk of failing to comply with the administrative capability or financial responsibility requirements. If, during a review, ED determines that an institution is not administratively capable or financially responsible or is violating Title IV program rules, ED may grant it provisional certification, take corrective actions, or impose sanctions. ED has the authority to impose a variety of sanctions and corrective actions on an institution that violates Title IV program rules, a Program Participation Agreement (discussed later in this report) or any other agreement made under the laws or regulations, or if it substantially misrepresents the nature of its educational programs, financial charges, or graduates' employability. Sanctions include fines, limitations, suspensions, emergency actions, and terminations. ED can also sanction third-party servicers performing tasks related to the institution's Title IV programs. ED may impose several types of sanctions on institutions for statutory and regulatory violations, including fines, limitations, and suspensions. ED can fine an institution up to $55,907 for each statutory or regulatory violation it commits, depending on the size of the IHE and the seriousness of the violation. Under a limitation, ED imposes specific conditions or restrictions on an institution related to its administration of Title IV funds. A limitation lasts for at least 12 months, and if an institution fails to abide by the limitation, ED may initiate a termination proceeding. Finally, under a suspension, an institution is not allowed to participate in Title IV programs for up to 60 days. Each of these sanctions may require an institution to take corrective actions as well, which may include repaying illegally used funds or making payments to eligible students from the IHE's own funds. ED can take emergency action to withhold Title IV funds from an institution if it receives reliable information that an IHE is violating applicable laws or regulations, agreements, or limitations. ED must determine that the institution is misusing federal funds, that immediate action is necessary to stop misuses, and that the potential losses outweigh the importance of using established procedures for limitation, suspension, or termination. An emergency action suspends an institution's participation in Title IV programs and prohibits it from disbursing such funds. Typically, the emergency action may not last more than 30 days. The final action ED can take is the termination of an institution's participation in Title IV programs. Generally, an institution that has had its participation terminated cannot reapply to be reinstated for at least 18 months. To request reinstatement, an institution must submit a fully completed application to ED and demonstrate that it has corrected the violation(s) for which its participation was terminated. ED may then approve, approve subject to limitations, or deny the institution's request. Several other requirements affect institutional eligibility for Title IV programs. Some of these requirements include institution Program Participation Agreements, which include provisions related to incentive compensation and campus crime reporting requirements; return of Title IV funds; and distance education. The failure to meet the requirements for any of these may result in the loss of Title IV eligibility or other sanctions. HEA Section 487 specifies that each institution wanting to participate in Title IV student aid programs is required to have a current Program Participation Agreement (PPA). A PPA is a document in which the institution agrees to comply with the laws, regulations, and policies applicable to the Title IV programs; it applies to an IHE's branch campuses and locations that meet Title IV requirements, as well as its main campus. It also lists all of the Title IV programs in which the IHE is eligible to participate, the date on which the PPA expires, and the date on which the IHE must reapply for participation. By signing a PPA, an institution agrees that it will act as a fiduciary responsible for properly administering Title IV funds, will not charge students a processing fee to determine a student's eligibility for such funds, and will establish and maintain administrative and fiscal procedures to ensure the proper administration of Title IV programs. The PPA reiterates many provisions required for institutional eligibility and ED certification discussed earlier in this report and contains several additional notable requirements that may affect an IHE's Title IV eligibility, which are described below. Along with the general participation requirements with which an institution must comply, a PPA may also contain institution-specific requirements. As part of their PPAs, domestic and foreign proprietary IHEs must agree to derive at least 10% of their revenue from non-Title IV funds (i.e., no more than 90% of their revenue can come from Title IV funds). This is known as the 90/10 rule. Examples of non-Title IV funds include private education loans and some military and veterans' benefits, such as benefits provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program. If an IHE violates the 90/10 rule in one year, it does not immediately lose its Title IV eligibility. Rather, it is placed on a provisional eligibility status for two years. If the IHE violates the 90/10 rule for two consecutive years, it loses its eligibility for at least two years. In a PPA, an IHE must agree it will not provide any commission or incentive compensation to individuals based directly or indirectly on their success in enrolling students or the enrolled students' obtaining financial aid; however, some exceptions apply to this general rule. For instance, IHEs can provide incentive compensation to individuals for the recruitment of foreign students who are ineligible to receive Title IV funds or they can provide incentive compensation through a profit-sharing plan. The ban on incentive compensation only applies to the activities of securing enrollment (recruitment) and securing financial aid. Other activities are not banned, and ED draws a distinction between activities that involve directly working with individual students and policy-level determinations that affect recruitment and financial aid awards. For instance, an individual who is responsible for contacting potential student applicants or assisting students in filling out an enrollment application cannot receive incentive compensation, but an individual who conducts marketing activities, such as the broad dissemination of informational brochures or the collection of contact information, can receive incentive compensation. HEA Section 485(f), referred to as the Clery Act, requires domestic Title IV participating IHEs (1) to report to ED campus crime statistics and (2) establish and disseminate campus safety and security policies. Both the campus crime statistics and campus safety and security policies must be compiled and disseminated to current and prospective students and employees in an IHE's annual security report (ASR). Campus crime statistics required to be reported to ED and included in an ASR include data on the occurrence on campus of a range of offenses specified in statute, including murder, burglary, robbery, domestic violence, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. In addition to campus crime statistics, ASRs must include statements of campus safety and security policies regarding, for example, procedures and facilities for students and others to report criminal actions or other emergencies occurring on campus and an IHE's response to such reports; security and access to campus facilities; campus law enforcement, including the law enforcement authority of campus security personnel, and the working relationship between campus security personnel and state and local law enforcement; programs designed to inform students and employees about the prevention of crimes; and the possession, use, and sale of alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs; enforcement of state underage drinking laws; enforcement of federal and state drug laws; and any drug or alcohol abuse education programs required under the HEA. An ASR must also include statements of policies specifically relating to incidence of domestic and sexual violence. For example, an ASR must include statements of policy regarding programs to prevent such incidents; procedures a victim should follow if such an incident as occurred; procedures an IHE will follow once such an incident has been reported and procedures for institutional disciplinary actions in cases of alleged incidents (including a statement of the standard of evidence that will be used in any school proceeding arising from the incident report); and possible sanctions and protective measures that an IHE may impose following a final determination in an institutional proceeding regarding such incidences. The Clery Act prohibits the Secretary of Education from requiring IHEs to adopt particular policies, procedures, or practices; and prohibits retaliation against anyone exercising his or her rights or responsibilities under the act. HEA Section 484B specifies that when a Title IV aid recipient withdraws from an IHE before the end of the payment or enrollment period for which funds were disbursed, Title IV funds must be returned to ED according to a statutorily prescribed schedule. In general, when a student withdraws from an IHE, an IHE first determines the portion of Title IV aid considered to be "earned" by the student while enrolled and the portion considered to be "unearned." Unearned aid must be returned to ED. Up to the 60% point of a payment or enrollment period, unearned funds must be returned on a pro rata schedule. After the 60% point of a payment or enrollment period, the total amount of funds awarded is considered to have been earned by the student and no funds are required to be returned. Whether an IHE and/or the student is required to return the funds to ED depends on a variety of circumstances, including whether Title IV funds have been applied directly to a student's institutional charges. Unearned funds must be returned to their respective programs in a specified order, with loans being returned first, followed by Pell Grants, and then other Title IV aid. In some instances, a student may have earned more aid than has been disbursed, and the difference is disbursed to the student after the student withdraws. Generally, distance education and correspondence education refers to educational instruction with a separation in time, place, or both between the student and instructor. It is a way in which institutions can increase student access to postsecondary education by offering alternatives to traditional on-campus instruction. Recently, due to the greater availability of new technologies, there has been substantial growth in the amount and types of courses institutions offer. Section 103(7)(A) and (B) of the HEA and the accompanying regulations define distance education as instruction that uses "(1) the internet; (2) one-way and two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless communications devices; [or] ... (3) audio conferencing" to deliver instruction to students separated from the instructor. A course taught through a video cassette, DVD, or CD-ROM is considered a distance education course if one of the above-mentioned technologies is used to support student-instructor interaction. Regardless of the technology used, "regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor" must be ensured. Correspondence courses are expressly excluded from the definition of distance education. A correspondence course is one for which an institution provides instructional materials and exams for students who do not physically attend classes at the IHE, but does not include those courses that are delivered with "regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor" via one of the above-described technologies. In 1992, partially in response to cases of some correspondence institutions' fraudulent and abusive practices used to attract unqualified students to enroll in programs of poor or questionable quality, Congress incorporated provisions referred to as the "50% rules" into the HEA. The rules affected both the eligibility of institutions offering correspondence courses and their students' eligibility for Title IV aid. In general, under the rules, an institution is ineligible for Title IV aid if more than 50% of its courses are offered by correspondence, or if 50% or more of its students are enrolled in correspondence courses. As discussed earlier in this report, rules promulgated in 2016 would have required an IHE offering postsecondary distance or correspondence education in a state in which it is not physically located to meet any state authorization requirements within that state. Under the regulations, an IHE could meet this requirement if it participates in a state authorization reciprocity agreement. These regulations were scheduled to become effective July 1, 2018. However, on July 3, 2018 (and effective June 29, 2018), the Secretary of Education issued a final rule delaying the implementation of these requirements until July 1, 2020. The distinction between distance education and traditional instruction is also important for the purposes of Title IV program eligibility. Distance education programs provided by domestic IHEs are eligible for Title IV participation if they have been accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by ED to evaluate distance education programs. A program offered by a foreign IHE, in whole or in part, through distance education (including telecommunications) or correspondence is ineligible for Title IV participation.

Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Answer: Since 1977, statutory thresholds have effectively constrained the President's ability to close or realign major military installations in the United States. Congress has instead periodically granted temporary authorities—known as a Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)—that have established independent commissions for the review and approval of basing changes submitted by the Secretary of Defense. These unique and transient authorities last expired on April 16, 2006. There have been five rounds of base closures: 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. Though Congress has periodically adjusted the BRAC process to account for lessons learned, the modern framework has remained generally consistent with earlier rounds, and includes establishment of an independent commission; reliance on objective and uniform criteria; Government Accountability Office (GAO) review and certification of Department of Defense (DOD) data; deliberations designed to be transparent that include open hearings, solicitation of feedback, installation visits, and data available for public review; and requirement that the final list of closure and realignment recommendations be accepted or rejected in their entirety. Congress has defined BRAC selection criteria in statute, thus requiring the Secretary to prioritize military value over cost savings. Additionally, Congress has required the Secretary to align the Department's recommendations with a comprehensive 20-year force structure plan. The commission may modify, reject, or add recommendations during its review before forwarding a final list to the President. After receiving the Commission's list of recommendations, the President may either accept the report in its entirety or seek to modify it by indicating disapproval and returning it to the commission for further evaluation. If the President accepts the commission's recommendations, they are forwarded to Congress. BRAC implementation begins by default unless Congress rejects the recommendations in their entirety within 45 days by enacting a joint resolution. During the implementation phase, DOD is required to initiate closures and realignments within two years and complete all actions within six years. The BRAC process represents a legislative compromise between the executive and legislative branches wherein each shares power in managing the closure and realignment of military bases. The imposition of an independent, third-party mediator was intended to insulate base closings from political considerations by both branches that had complicated similar actions in the past. This report provides background on the development of BRAC, describes its major elements and milestones, and outlines issues frequently cited in the context of new rounds, such as potential savings.