the secretary of defense apologi, we have now given you authority to proceed with this build iing, proceed with that authority and the president's representation to the senate in the ratification of any new start agreement was that this facility would be under way and operational by 2021. this allows us to begin that proce process. the president currently has with nsa's inability to complete the project an expected five year delay and this would allow us to expedite that insureing we have a strong nuclear deterrent. yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california. >> thank you. this would allow the military to carry out the construction of the nuclear facility in new mexico. it limits any funds from being spent on an alternative plan

that does not include the cmrr. so first and foremost, this amendment disregards the budget control act restriction that led the administration to prioritize and accelerate the uranium production facility at oakridge, tennessee. delaying this project here for at least five years. the assist stand secretary of defense for global affairs testified to our house, strategic forces subcommittee on april 17th, that within the context of the nuclear weapons council, we looked at the program of modernization and the two construction projects and we made a very conscious decision within the context of the weapons council to prioritize the uranium facility at oakridge. with that decision came the

decision to defer cmrr for at least five years. so that we could focus on the uranium processing facility, which for dod was the higher priority. so this amendment would take scarce resources away from priorities for nuclear weapons including dod's priority on life extension programs. and even the gop controlled house energy and water appropriations subcommittee stated in its mark of fiscal year 2013 energy and water bill that a five year delay to construction of this project we're talking about would not adversely impact sustainment of the stockpile in the near term since alternatives are available. this five year deferral will not compromise nnsa's ability to maintain the stockpile and essential plutonium missions can be performed by our existing

complex. referring to this delay, nnsa administrator testified again to our house strategic forces subcommittee on april 17th, and he said, the good news by all of this, frankly, there are a number of options, a number of different paths we can proceed. we're not hampered by saying the nation has to have the capability right now to make 50 or 80 pits per year in order to take care of the stockpile. that's great news for this country because we are not forced into making rash decisions on significant investments in a very short period of time. so we have time to evaluate this area. assistant secretary of defense of strategic forces here-in added we need ability to support pits. exactly how many. how many we need in the future. what's the future pit requirement, how big cmr has to

be, how much plutonium it has to hold, those are all decisions that may in fact change at the completion of the upf when we once again resume consideration of the funding and design of cmrr. >> neither the house nor the senate appropriations committee funded cmrr and directed money left from cmrr in fiscal 2012 be used to clean out the work for the alternative plan. this provision proposes to apply a few hundred million dollars, at most, to a project that has been estimated to cost up to $6.5 billion. again, everybody talks about cuts, everybody talks about living within a budget. you are putting yourselves in a direction where you're upping for $6.5 billion.

>> would the gentle lady yield? are you arguing we not build it? the current position is to delay it for five years not eliminate it? >> the current position by the assistant secretary of defense said we can make decisions how we build it and how much we need it and big it has to be given more understanding and more information in the near term future versus starting down this path right now. >> are you opposing cmrr? >> i don't oppose cmrr, i'm just trying to live within the budget control that you passed! >> if you'd yield again. >> i'm sorry, but i'm out of my tim time. >> the gentle lady's time is expired. the chair recognizes mr. wilson, the gentleman from south carolina for five minutes. >> thank you. i yield to mike turner of ohio. >> thank you, mr. turner. the budget control act does not mention cmrr and does not have

any requirement whatsoever that this facility's funding be delayed. this provision we're going to vote on isn't even going to move any money. it is a companion provision to the first amendment we had. the first amendment said this facility is not being constructed because of failures of nsa, we're going to engage dod to get this done. the second amendment says, dod now get this done. this delay we're having is not an issue of funding again, the funding is there, the issue is one of nnsa's ability to perf m perform. the other issue i think keeps getting confused in the administration's talk is they keep saying there are alternatives. they have not identified any alternatives that would lessen the president's statements of that this facility is absolutely required and necessary and needs to be brought online as soon as possible for the protection of our nuclear weapons or nuclear deterrent. i believe what the president's

statements are on the importance of this building and importance of this facility. now that we've given dod the authority to do it, we need to tell dod to do it and that's what this amendment does. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from guam. >> i wish to yield my time to the gentle lady from california, miss sanchez. >> i think they gentle lady from guam. >> i'll end by saying both the senate and house appropriations committees supported this five years delay to the facility. they're in agreement nnsa can't afford to build cmrr right now and in agreement an alternative to maintaining pit manufacturing and pit sustainment exists. the gop controlled house energy and water appropriations subcommittee stated in its mark for fiscal year 2013 energy and wat water, by not fully considering all the available options,

millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent for work which will not be needed until a much later date. and i yield back the time to the young lady from guam. and i ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. no further discussion on the amendment. the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner. so many in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i'd like a recorded vote on that. >> there's sufficient support for a roll call vote. a roll call vote is ordered. we'll call the roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any amendments to the subcommittee's mark? >> i have an amendment at the desk? >> will the clerk please pass

out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his aamendment. >> nu. this amendment offers base and closure rounds and clearly states nothing in this act will be construed to authorize an additional brack round and no funds pursuant to the

appropriations contained in the act may be used to propose planned for and execute an additional brack round. this is based on a february 2012 letter where i joined 41 fellow members of congress signing a bipartisan letter to the president expressing our concerns about the administration's announcement about the intent to request two new brack rounds. this letter was signed by six of our subcommittee chairman and 18 members of our committee. the reason behind this is simply this. in 2005, the brack went forward with the idea there would be cost savings. unfortunately, those cost savings ended up being less than what was estimated and the actual cost of the break itself was $36 billion and taxpayers will not realize a penny of savings until 2018, at the earliest. we've already seen where congress has been fund iing facilities for our army and

marine corps to make sure that capability is there. i'm concerned proposed new rounds of brack, as we have seen historically, would actually require additional expenses at a time of military spending reduction. you will be laying more costs at a time we're reducing budgets in addition to looming sequestration. more brack rounds will cost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. if you look at the commission's estimated net recurring savings, they were estimated to be $4.2 billion per year, based on the 2005 report and a 20 year net present value savings by 2025 of $36 billion. the go's recent analysis shows annual recurring savings are now only about $3.8 billion, a decrease of 9.5% while the 20 year net present value savings are now about $9.9 billion. a net decrease of 73%.

as such, dod doesn't recoup its up front costs until 2018. clearly, we see from that that the implementation of the 2005 brack round took six years to complete and will take until 2018 to accrue any savings. this is at a time where strategically, we are drawing down after ten years of combat in the middle east and shifting our focus to balance the middle east threat with emerging security interest and presence of forces in the asia pacific. i think with that dynamic environment that we're in, with looking at how we need to properly resource our military, additional rounds of brack at this time cannot be justified, especially on top of the cost savings already being put in place. and we see no prospect of any short term cost savings from brack. so with that, mr. chairman, i yield back and ask my colleagues

to support this that clearly states we will not be conducting rounds of brack any time in the near future, especially based on the coasts associated with the additional rounds of brack. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington ranked member smith for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will oppose this amendment. i understand brack is not popular. it's not popular because it costs us and depend iing where your district is and what basis you have, there is a risk it will cost you jobs an cost your district money. i would point out several very important facts. first of all, we are having substantial changes as the gentleman acknowledged in his opening remarks in our forestructure and defense and national security needs. those substantial changes are quite likely to put us in a position where we would have a different based structure, the dod would like the flexibility to change that base structure to meet those dramatic changes.

this amendment completely ties their hands and stops theirability to do that and goes so far as to say they can't plan for it much less implement it, can't look at our base structure, a significant chunk of our budget, they can't look at it and think about what would look better, can't spend any money whatsoever. it would be one thing if this amendment said no brack this year. fine. this amendment goes further and says that i can't plan for it. why we would want to tie the hands of the dod to provide for the best base structure to provide for security is beyond me. not beyond me. it comes back to my first comment, we just want to protect our stuff. >> would the gentleman yield? >> no. i'll be done in just a second. i understand that's what's driving this. keep in mind not the fact we have the substantial changes in our national security posture, my opening remarks about the fact our budget is 38% out of whack, dod is 20% of that

budget. i would prefer us to do an intelligent basing plan than have to cut needed programs or have to go into personal elco personal -- personnel costs. to save money in this area is a better place to go. i want to point out the brack process has had five rounds. the first four rounds fairly quickly wound up saving a fair amount of money. there were a few years they didn't. if you look at the statistics, i apologize, i don't have them in front of me. got to the point fairly quickly the year-over-year savings were working. and i will say the fifth round was not good, not successful. and if you just look at that, it shows it did not save money. it's important to understand why the fifth year of brack did not work out. because the original bases that were going to be closed could have saved a lot of money.

politics dove into it. i forget the percentage but a very very high percentage of the proposed closures were actually reversed and not done, dragging out the process and making it completely opposite what it was intended to be. if you do brack poorly, it's not a good idea. i'm all in favor of different amendments to try to look what happened in that fifth round of brack and insure it doesn't happen again. to simply have allowed the very same politics that don't want another brack or the very same politics that messed up the fifth brack and caused it to be more costly and use that as a reason not do brack is clever, i'll grant you that, but also more than a little ironic. we have to give the dod some flexibility to plan their basing. i know we will not do it this year. that's perfectly fine. please, let's not have the part of this that says they can't plan for it and think about what

a proper basing structure would be. rest assured, once we do this, we'll all have the opportunity to fight about it. it isn't giving the dod the ability to shut down bases without congressional approval. we will have our say and opportunity. to simply cut off the debate and say the dod can't do this and we can't think about it, i think, is irresponsible in light of our national security needs and in light of our budget pressures. yes, now i will yield to the gentleman. >> thank you. i want to ask the gentleman. in looking at all the brack rounds, is it not true that in all the brack rounds, there was a 60 amount of times where any savings was accrued, even in the shortest term years before savings were accrued. >> i wish i had a handy-dandy chart to play this out. the first, i believe, i could be wrong about this, somewhere the four or five range before savings began to be realized. then it stacked up fairly quickly and continues for a very long period of time and actually saved a substantial amount of

money. >> in that light with $487 billion in reductions plus sequestration looming, is this the time to try to lay that additional cost on top of what is already going to be a very very challenged military structure. >> long term versus short term. it will save us money in the long term. i think we've got to be thinking long term in this committee. i'm out of time. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, for five minutes. >> thank you. shortly after i came to congress, we had a brack round and one of my bases was closed. this base, port richie had been in operation, i think, since before the civil war. it had a very large housing complex there, several hundred houses. it's quite remote and no nearby place for families to live so many of the families lived on

the base. their kids played there. before driers, they hung their clothes out on lines and they had picnics there and then we closed the base. then we had to have a very large expensive cleanup because there had been some firing ranges there in some times past. let me emphasize our families had lived there for 100 years, their kids had played there. it was good enough for them to live on and play on but it wasn't good enough to give away. we spent a number of millions of dollars before we could give it away. one of the reasons that we don't see savings from brack rounds is because of the enormous cleanup costs. i think that if it's good enough for our military people to live there for their kids to play there, it ought to be good enough to give away. if the local community doesn't

want it, i would simply lock the gate and plant some trees and come back in 100 years and harvest them. i would like to spend no money cleaning up bases been good enoh for our military families to live on, and if we did that, we'd then have some very early savings in closing these bases. if, in fact, our military has excess infrastructure, and we refuse to let them divest themselves to this through a background, then what we are doing is assuring that there will not be enough money for personnel, for readiness, for procurement, but i'm not sure we'll know whether we have excess infrastructure until we know if we need the military and do we really need the military in 100 countries around the world? so i would hope that we would have a stud any which we would be involved as a congress to determine the parameters for

this next rounds of base closings. i think this amendment is harmless. obviously, we cannot complete that study, this congress. so i have no problem with this amendment, but in addition to this amendment, i would hope that we would assure that no costs are spent cleaning up. again, my argument is, if it's good enough for the military to live on, shouldn't it be good enough to give away? we make the laws. don't tell me about the laws, we make the laws. if we made a silly law in the past, let's correct it now mr. chairman, let's have a study to determine the base parameters, are we bringing troops home? i would like to yield to whoever asked me to yield. >> we do have major environmental problem boss of

t because of firing ranges and -- >> but if it's good enough to live on -- >> all i'm pointing out is that it's not good enough for the people who live there and something we should have found sooner and should have cleaned up while people are living there. >> in general, much of this cleanup is like the cleanup on my base. living there for 100 years. there was no problem. they found one unexploded ordnance. one, after multimillions of dollars of cleanup. again, i think a basic argument is, it was good enough for our military -- they are not second-class citizens, thank you. we are not forcing hem to live in unsas place's. isn't it good enough to give away? i don't think that's an unreasonable argument and i yield back. >> recognizing mr. courtney for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to add my support for this amendment. having sat through the hearings at readiness after the proposal

for brack was put for forth by the administration, the fact is despite all of our efforts to illicit at least a hint of what the cost projections were going to be for another brack ground, what the savings would be, the fact of the matter we got absolutely nothing back from the pentagon, and the fact of the matter is that 2005 is the most recent brack ground. i don't think it's obsessive to say that the, really, dreadful data and outcome that occurred as a result of the 2005 brack ground is something that we shouldn't focus on. i mean, the fact of the matter is, that brack followed exactly the same non-political process that all prior brack grounds did, and to say that somehow the numbers of savings were thrown off because it was politicized, frankly, i think is very unfair to tony and the others who

chaired that commission, and in my opinion did an outstanding job of actually challenging the data submitted with the list of closings that they had to go through just like any other prior brack commission did. it was not political. the fact of the matter is, it's that the navy and the air force and others who had come forward with this list, the underlying facts that they presented to justify that list, once they were exposed through the hearing process, which brack calls for, it was totally non-political and it just simply fell apart. so we're now in a situation where gao is telling us that the cost of 2005 was triple what the pentagon projected when they came out with their initial proposal back then, that the savings won't be until 2018 outside of what we're dealing with right now, and i think, mr. whitman's proposal is totally justified in terms of the fact that we still have not been given any coherent explanation

about how a brack ground fits within the budget control act, with any reasonable horizon of savings, and the hearings that we held as a committee to try and illicit that information basically came up with zero. so this idea of another brack ground frankly requires a lot more study and also feedback to this committee, which i think has the responsibility in the wake of 2005 not to just issue the green light and allow another process to go forward when, again, i think the confidence level of many of us and certainly the public is very low based on experience that we just went through and, again, i just want to say that the folks who sat on that commission in 2005 were, again, shielded from the political forces. they did their job based on a very fact-based database analysis, and i frankly think they made the right decisions in that process, and the pentagon

if they want to come forward and make another brack ground request, they owe us far more of an explanation and adjustification than what they gave us over the last few months or so. again, i support mr. whitman's efforts and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i enjoyed listening to this discussion. it is an important discussion and in our mark we had opted to remain silent about brack but i think mr. whitman raises an excellent point and i'm glad the language is brought forward. we will always have discussions in brack about whether or not they're parochial interests. that's always on the cusp of that and you always talk about cleanup problems, but the reality is, as mr. courtney put out it wasn't colloquialism that rose the price of the last brack, not according to

testimony before the committee. the fact they were trying to do something additional. they were trying to modernize the force in the process of using brack. that's what really raised the cost up according to the testimony presented to us. but when i listened to the ranking member he said something that i absolutely agree with and i think it's the, the real essence of this debate. we are in the process now of having recommendations of substantial and dramatic changes in our force structure. if you agree with that, you ought to support a brack. but if you are like me and think that's the absolutely wrong direction for us to go, you need to fight against brack as much as you can fight against brac. in the 1940s, a number of companies got together. they pooled their money and they bought a 100 street car companies across the country. they immediately pulled off the street cars off. they put them together and crushed them. pictures of them doing it.

they ripped you up a the tracks and they knew if they tore up the tracks and rightaway they'd never be able to build those street cars again. mr. chairman, if we tear up all of these fasts, we're not going to be able to put that force structure back again and all mr. whitman's language does, it says, let's have a pause for this year. that's all this is. it doesn't say forever, because we better make sure these dramatic and substantial force structure reductions are the right way for us to go before we tear up all of these facilities, and go back and say, oh, my gosh. we made a huge mistake and now we can't put them back. so i hope we will support this language and pass it, and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes ms. davis. gentle lady. >> launch, mr. chairman and i appreciate the work mr. whitman has done on this but i would question even though think obviously refers to the authorization we're looking at

it implies we're never looking at brac again. we're looking for a more tomorrow yum. we've all said there are positive and negative examples of brac. some parochial, some not. it tends to get everybody's blood boiling a little bit. but at the same time, i'm really concerned that we would sort of throw out there that we're never going to look at these issues, because, in fact, we know that if we have to look at personnel swreshgs to look at so many of the issues a we're deal wig tod dealing with today it doesn't make sense to say never, never, never. that's what the language says subpoena a moratorium seems more responsive to the situation we have today. >> will the gentle lady yield? >> yes. >> just being in this ndaa it's limited to the scope of this ndaa so it's just for this year. >> i understand that you're saying that, but i think the term moratorium would make a little more