34 U.S.C. § 12123 — Conversion of closed military installations into Federal prison facilities
submitted 32 years ago by Pub. L. 103-322 to r/title-34-CRIME-CONTROL-AND-LAW-ENFORCEMENT · 577 words · no verdicts yet
The Defense Department and Attorney General had to study closed military bases to see if any could become federal prisons. Before building a new prison, the Attorney General must consider using such bases and explain the decision to Congress. Rural bases whose closure would hurt the local economy get special consideration.
(a) Study of suitable bases. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General had to jointly study all military installations selected before September 13, 1994 to be closed under a base closure law, to evaluate whether any of them — or parts of them — were suitable for conversion into federal prison facilities. As part of the study, they had to identify which installations were most suitable.
(b) Suitability for conversion. In judging suitability, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General had to consider the estimated cost of converting the installation into a prison, plus any other factors they considered appropriate.
(c) Time for study. The study had to be finished within 180 days after September 13, 1994.
(d) Construction of federal prisons. (1) In deciding where to put a new federal prison, and consistent with the Justice Department's duty to find a use for closed-base land, the Attorney General must (A) consider whether using part of a closed or soon-to-close military installation is a cost-effective alternative to buying land or building new; (B) consider whether that use fits the installation's reutilization and redevelopment plan; and (C) give extra consideration to a rural installation whose closure would badly hurt the local economy's ability to recover. (2) For (1)(B), the Attorney General needs the local reuse authority's consent — a body recognized and funded by the Secretary of Defense — before planning a prison's design or construction there. (3) Before planning a federal prison's design or construction, the Attorney General must report to Congress explaining why that location was chosen. (4) If the Attorney General decides not to use any closed or soon-to-close installation for a prison, the report must explain why installations in that region — even ones consistent with a reutilization plan — weren't a cost-effective alternative to buying land or building new.
(e) "Base closure law" defined. This means (1) the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, and (2) title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act.
The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General shall jointly conduct a study of all military installations selected before September 13, 1994, to be closed pursuant to a base closure law for the purpose of evaluating the suitability of any of these installations, or portions of these installations, for conversion into Federal prison facilities. As part of the study, the Secretary and the Attorney General shall identify the military installations so evaluated that are most suitable for conversion into Federal prison facilities.
In evaluating the suitability of a military installation for conversion into a Federal prison facility, the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General shall consider the estimated cost to convert the installation into a prison facility and such other factors as the Secretary and the Attorney General consider to be appropriate.
The study required by subsection (a) shall be completed not later than the date that is 180 days after September 13, 1994.
In determining where to locate any new Federal prison facility, and in accordance with the Department of Justice’s duty to review and identify a use for any portion of an installation closed pursuant to title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100–526) and the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510), the Attorney General shall—
consider whether using any portion of a military installation closed or scheduled to be closed in the region pursuant to a base closure law provides a cost-effective alternative to the purchase of real property or construction of new prison facilities;
consider whether such use is consistent with a reutilization and redevelopment plan; and
give consideration to any installation located in a rural area the closure of which will have a substantial adverse impact on the economy of the local communities and on the ability of the communities to sustain an economic recovery from such closure.
With regard to paragraph (1)(B), consent must be obtained from the local re-use authority for the military installation, recognized and funded by the Secretary of Defense, before the Attorney General may proceed with plans for the design or construction of a prison at the installation.
Before proceeding with plans for the design or construction of a Federal prison, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report explaining the basis of the decision on where to locate the new prison facility.
If the Attorney General decides not to utilize any portion of a closed military installation or an installation scheduled to be closed for locating a prison, the report shall include an analysis of why installations in the region, the use of which as a prison would be consistent with a reutilization and redevelopment plan, does not provide a cost-effective alternative to the purchase of real property or construction of new prison facilities.
In this section, “base closure law” means—
the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note); and
title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100–526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
Source credit: (Pub. L. 103–322, title II, § 20413, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1829.)
- 1994Enacted · Pub. L. 103-322 · 108 Stat. 1829
A history note hasn’t been published yet. The record shows enactment by Pub. L. 103-322 on 1994-09-13.
all 0 arguments · sorted by: best
no arguments yet — make the first case