A bill to reassert the proper role of Congress in closing or realigning military installations.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 6, 2012
Revises provisions concerning a required congressional notification and waiting period prior to the closure or realignment of a military installation by the Department of Defense (DOD) to instead prohibit, absent specific legislative authorization, any realignment involving a reduction of the lesser of: (1) 100 or more combined military and civilian personnel, or (2) 50% of the highest number of such personnel assigned to that installation during any of the previous four years. Allows only the Secretary of Defense (under current law, either such Secretary or the Secretary of the military department concerned) to provide such notification, and to include a description of the alternatives considered, an estimate of the number of military, civilian, and contractor personnel affected, and a plan to provide support for affected communities.
Excepts from such requirements the relocation of personnel or functions required to support the deployment of members of the Armed Forces, as long as such personnel and functions are returned to the installation after the deployment.
Includes as a military installation, for purposes of such requirements: (1) any public land under Bureau of Land Management control that is withdrawn and reserved for military training and testing, and (2) any leased space in which more than 300 combined military and civilian personnel are housed.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.3663 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.3663 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.3663 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.3663 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.