PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 31, 2007
BRAC Cost Overruns Protection Act of 2007 or BRAC COP Act of 2007 - Amends the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to direct the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees on the costs of implementing recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission that relate to military base closures and realignments that have not been fully implemented. Requires the Secretary to: (1) notify such committees if the Secretary determines that the current estimate of implementation costs for an individual major base closure or realignment is at least 25% greater than the baseline estimate for such closure or realignment; and (2) develop a business plan to reduce the costs of any individual substantially over-budget major base closure or realignment to a level less than 25% greater than its baseline estimate.
Directs the: (1) Secretary to submit to the President a recommendation regarding whether to continue implementation of a substantially over-budget major base closure or realignment; and (2) President to report to Congress regarding the implementation of such a closure or realignment.
Prohibits the Secretary from continuing or discontinuing the implementation of a substantially over-budget major closure or realignment recommended by the President if a joint resolution disapproving the President's recommendation is enacted.
People & committees
Rep. Holt, Rush [D-NJ-12] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3254 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3254 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3254 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3254 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.