brac. you've seen since discussion started, it has not been greeted warmly on the hill, to put it mildly. that has a single positive to say about it. i looked at it logically and te force to the size we are, we're moving two brigades out of europe, we're making substantial changes in the strategy, regardless of the debate in the budget we're moving things around. lodgicly there's no way to do and realignments. i don't see where it's possible. sequestration. so there was a plan on the able and i share the chairman's remarks that the sooner we resofl that overall issue, the better if all concerned, whatever that plan may end up looks like. i wanted to talk to you about brac. the discussion has not been greeted warmly on the hillary to put it mildly. except by me. i think i'm the only one that had a single positive thing to say about it. if we're shrinking the force by the side we are in reaction of the fact that iraq is dpoen, afghanistan sf winding down. we're moving two bring grades out of

but i also understand we won't cut that infrastructure without the brac. and as difficult as it is, i frankly would encourage you to ask for that new authorization and would like to work with you to support it. not because i like brac, because i even greater dislike the alternatives to it. i thank you for your time and testimony this morning. >> thank you. mr. jones. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. mr. secretary, i might be the only republican on the committee to say thank you for your recent decision about bringing our troops out in 2013. this has been of great interest and concern to me at camp lejeune in my district. that's what my question will deal with. you being an elected official served in the house i think with my father a few years ago, walter jones sr. you know better than any of us here or as good as any of us, politics is local. there's no question about it. i have cherry point and also the depot in my district. it brings the question mr. bartlet was asking you about, the f-35. and of course, at cherry point interest in the f-35 b, and

and one of those bracs eliminated ft. ord in my district which represented 25% of the local economy. so i know the impact the brac process has. at the same time, we were able to establish a campus at the california of state university system and reuse that area and frankly came out on the better end of the deal. but nevertheless, it's a tough process to go through. and yet, you know, standing back, i can't see a better way to do this other than brac. because if you try to do this on a piecemeal basis, we know what's gong to happen. it's not going to go anywhere. to put nit this kind of package. brac costs a hell of a lot of money. >> let's be clear. this is not about a way we can save money. we know it's not from ore previous five experiences. in the long term it does save money. yes, for the five, ten-year number, but the long-term matters. it's more about making sure you have the fore structure and basing system you need to support your national security strategy. >> that's right. stu. thank you. i just want to make one

brac, what is going to happen with the brac?verybody recognizes it. >> brac will not pass the house of representatives this year. broke the senate armed services committee will you put in its budget because it's done this before, making a difficult decision. but i do not believe it will pass and i think that their biggest excuse is brac costs money up front. and so if you're worried about spending too much, that's the one argument you can use and congress used successfully before. it's a great idea but -- >> we'll get to it later. the paradox is when the time comes for cuts, you have the least political motivation to do it in an efficient or effective way. >> but it's an election year. nobody will vote -- >> the problem is brac is the 2005 was so badly handle that it's got on a bad name. it was great in '88, '91 and '93. '95 was not well handled and 2005. and that's the real problem. >> brac is coming eventually bus the force structure -- >> not election. but health care, i think is a different situation. i think that the mood n

we've been following the 2005 brac like a box score in terms of its results. it costs about twice as much as was predicted, and as mr. thornberry said, the net savings is still years away. and, you know, obviously we all sort of get pinned as sort of looking at our own backyard when this issue gets discussed. but i think there is a legitimate question here, particularly with the fact that we've got a deal with the budget control caps. how you do this, in terms of not costing money in the short-term, the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is that it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. so zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it's annulty in terms of trying to achieve the budget control act targets. and frankly, i think that's a very threshold question which the department has to answer before i think there is going to be any willingness to look at this at all. >> you know, i hear what you're saying, and the 2005 costs are frankly unacceptable, the way that process ultimately worked out in t

i know, secretary panetta, you have seen just about every side of the brac process. can you commit to providing us with a comprehensive assessment from the savings of the 2005 round? and also, to, i assume, if you're looking at 2013 and 2015 that you also have estimates of savings in those two round and we would also see those as we're looking at a decision about what to do about the next brac round? >> i'll be happy to give you what information we have with regards to the past brac round and obviously some ideas about what we would do in terms of future round. you know, look, as i said, i have been through the process. frankly i don't wish the process on anybody having been through it because it is tough. 25% of my local economy was hit by virtue of a brac closure but we did use it as opportunity to develop a college university campus there and has proven very successful as a reuse. the issue is it did cost a lot more than anybody anticipated but the fact in the long run we're achieving significant savings as a result. that is number one. number two, i don't know an

and i'd say in general about brac, even though they're costly up front, they do save money. i think this last round will probably save us $400 billion and those will occur in perpetuity and that's a lot of money. in the end they will and we hope the country will provide it to st a moment. you're watching "this week in >>> we are he a back with bob hale, the pentagon comptroller. sir, in your budget request, you claim there's going to be another $60 billion in savings from efficiencies on top of the $150 billion you guys have worked over the past two years. how much of the money that has been claimed to be saved already has actually been saved? what amount are we talking about there? and what happens if the full $60 billion doesn't materialize, how do you plug that gap? >> well, $150 billion from last year was over fiscal '12 to '16. most of it has not been saved. i do think we have specific plans now, we have people in charge, we have targets, we have a governance structure, so i think we are moving toward saving most of it. there are some high-risk areas. we placed a cap on

any idea on the time frame and will that feed into, you know, what's going on with brac at this point? >> we still don't have a time frame. it could be several months. again, i mean, the army staff has a lot of work to do, because, again, we are looking at not only the, when you start to look at the fore structure and look at the basing part of it, but when you start to take that fore structure down, what type of brigades are there going to be? icbt? hbct? a striker? you do that and take them down, there are different skill sets in there. so, and different grade sets in there as compared. so it's going to be a very complicated and long process as we go through it. >> i would just follow on to that, because you asked about brac as well. the army benefited tremendously from the last brac round on the active component, and we don't see a significant change in the army's footprint that's going to result from the fore structure drawdown. right now we don't see a lake. as the general said, until we know what the brigades will look like, navy forces and stationing, we can't say that for sure

i am going from memory now, but i've been here since the very first brac. you lose money in the first five years. there is going to be opposition. secretary panetta, i saw you on 60 minutes and i did not envy when you had to answer the question of how many combat operations there are and you start counting on your fingers. when you talk about the budget, i just want to get in here -- now we have the budget. we keep hearing about inheriting that this is an all of this -- iheritin -- inheriting deficits and all this. $3.20 trillion. this president with his budget he has proposed is $5.30 trillion in four years. huge amount of money. i saw in this morning's "washington post," the talk about everything growing anti- government except, -- everything growing in government accept, is your it is, military. this is supposed to be our number one concern up here. i would just like to ask the question, when you meet with the chairman and you come up with your risk assessment, when would you say that would be. >> i had to submit by the end of the month. >> after con was

shouldn't it be included into a puertglobal brac? >> congress has every right to ask the administration and his department to present the rationale for what we're doing infrastructure our broad and how it fits the larger picture. i agree with that. >> let me go to cybersecurity. you say there is $10.3 billion for cyber-command, which i applaud and think is necessary. we are a little bit behind the curve, and are in a race, and the threat factor is developing far greater rate than our defense capability is going against it. could you speak a little bit about the military supply chain security against planted cyber- threats? we have supply chain security for textiles, thank god, for rhode island industries, and yet we have aircraft flying at around that have components built overseas. do you need more resources now that the cyber threat has become more great to make sure that our supply chain security is protected -- supply chain is protected against cyber-an intrusion? -- cyber-intrusion? >> as has been pointed out, we are seeing incr

thornberry's point on brac. i respect the fact that you have deep profound personal went through in your time in congress. some of us have our own experience as well. i served on the readiness subcommit for the last five years. we've been following 2005 brac like a box score in terms of its results. it cost about twice as much as predicted and as mr. thornberry said the results are years away. we're sort of pinned in the backyard when this issue is discussed. i think there is a legitimate question here. particularly with the fact that we have to deal with the budget control caps. how do do you this in terms of not costing money in the short term. the answers we've gotten so far from dr. carter and yourself is it's zero in terms of projected savings for the plan that was submitted there. zero minus zero equals zero. if we don't do it, it's a nullity in terms of trying to achieve the budget control act targets. frankly, i think that's a very big threshold question which the department has to answer before i think

and one of those bracs eliminated ft. in my district which represented 25% of the local economy. so i know the impact the brac process has. at the same time, we were able to establish a campus at the california of state university system and reuse that area and frankly came out on the better end of the deal. but nevertheless it's a tough process to go through. and yet, you know, standing back, i can't see a better way to do this other than brac. because if you try to do this on a piecemeal basis, we know what's gong to happen. it's not going to go anywhere. the only effective way to do it is to put nit this kind of package. brac costs a hell of a lot of money. >> let's be clear. this is not about a way we can save money. we know it's not from ore previous five experiences. in the long term it does save money. yes, for the five, ten-year number, but the long-term matters. it's more about making sure you have the fore structure and basing system you need to support your national security strategy. >> that's right. stu. i th

and an an air reserve station in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, outside a brac process. the base serves 1400 active reserve and guard units of both navy and air force and has tens of millions of dollars appropriated for improvements. can you tell me if the decision to close the base was made in coordination with your office or with other stakeholders, and how many other bases are being identified for unilateral department of defense closure outside of the brac process? >> congressman, i really recommend that you ask the chief of the air force that question, because the decision to make that decision was in his hands as part of the strategy that was being implemented to kind of fulfill the strategic goals that we were after. so on that specific decision, i would recommend you ask him that question. >> okay. thank you. and it plays actually into a larger role. because as you know and are aware, that the air force's restructuring plan propose as reduction of 65 c-130 tactical airlifters getting us to a total fleet projection of 318 aircraft. part of that is because we're go

new a new study suggests building a convention center could help the county benefit even more from brac. >> reporter: 5800 workers traveled down interstate 95 at the new job at aberdeen proving ground. >> every event we've had, they have all been oversold. >> reporter: a new study suggests building a convention center would help double tourism over the next decade. the county must build up its marketing, its businesses and hotels to attract tourists. that's why the consultants are calling for a hotel tax. >> by being the only jurisdiction, the only jurisdiction in the state of maryland that does not have a lodging tax. >> reporter: they range from 3 1/2% to 9%, bringing in an average of 4 1/2 million each year while harford county gets zero but any bid to get conservative lawmakers to introduce such a measure in annapolis has run into a red light. >> it is one of those issues where they look at the three letter word tax. it actually relieves their consistent tax -- constituent taxpayers. >> reporter: ripken stadium is proof enough. $2million in hotel tax would produce a $100 million ben

. >> the way to find out is through a test called brac analysis.blood test in which lab technicians at myriad genetics examine two genes that exist in all of us. if mutations--irregularities-- are found, it means the risk of getting breast cancer and ovarian cancer is extremely high: breast cancer, five times more likely; ovarian cancer, as much as 40 times more likely. since a positive result usually means the removal of ovaries before cancer can develop, doctors told lisbeth she needed to get tested. >> i did try to have the test done several times. >> and? >> my insurance actually covers the test and would pay for the test, but the lab won't accept my insurance. >> myriad genetics charges about $3,200 for the test, and most insurance policies do cover it. but myriad won't accept ms. ceriani's plan because it won't pay the full amount. >> i don't have the $3,200 to pay for that test, and i spent days trying to track down what is going on. if my insurance covers it, there must be someplace else i can bring this test. i mean, it's a simple blood te

as somebody that's gone through brac and i went through it in my district and know what it means and the impact that it can have with it is a controversial process. it impacts our members and it impacts on their constituencies and i understand that. and yet, it's the on the effective way to try to achieve te needed infrastructure savings that we have to achieve in the long run. >> lastly, to provide better financial information, we're also increasing our emphasis on audit readiness and accelerating key timelines. in october of 2011, i directed the department to accelerate the efforts to aachieve fully audible financial statements originally under a mandate we were supposed to do that by 2017. i asked it to be done by 2014. efficiencies alone are not enough to achieve the required savings. and that's obviously, why we had to make significant adjustments to forgs structure and procurement investments. but we did it in line as, again, with the strategies that we put in place. and let me quickly walk through those. we knew that coming out of the war as the military would be smaller. our

. >> professor edna greene-medford, the year 2008 and brac rarack obama running f president, where do you think all this will end up in history of african-americans? >> it's an important period that we're living in certainly, you know, we don't know what's going to happen with the election, but what we do know is that this is historic, not just because there's an african-american running but because there's a woman running as well. but for african-americans it's especially important because it gives us hope, i think, that there will be full inclusion in american life. whether obama wins or not, i think, many people will be pleased that he did so well. they would be even more pleased if he'd won, of course, but, you know, i look at what's happening in terms of my students getting interested in the whole campaign, and i've seen them energized in a way that i have never seen before. i've seen relatives who may not have been particularly interested in politics now very interested, and so i think it's been very important for african-americans, not just because he's running for president, b

communities that have such a large military industrial base is the fear between sequestration and talk of brac. it's disrupting businesses whether it's a entrepreneur that wants to build a restaurant or city trying to determine what sewer capacity they need or water capacity or other types of farah they need. it's i think in the end causing us more unemployment because of that uncertainty. zell miller was one of georgia's governors and was a u.s. senator and one of the things that he did and he received some criticism for it when he did it but in the end it worked, he went through a process called redirection where he asked every agency to deliver the agency head was to deliver the 5% that they would cut. it wasn't up to any of the elected officials, the agency heads delivered the 5% that they would cut so your base commander could deliver the 5% that they would take out and then they were allowed to present back to command where they would put 2 1/2% of that. the net result of that was a 2 1/2% reduction in spending and quite honestly a more efficient agency. and so as somebody who's come fro

you know, next, i'm concerned about we're going to go through a brac round, a base realignment closure commission. at the same time that we're still retaining permanent bases overseas without adequate participation of our allies. in nato, most of our nato partners are spending less than 2% on gdp on defense. we're at about 4.7% right now. yet we're -- we have 45,000 troops in germany. 79,000 troops i think in europe altogether. we are moving to brigade combat teams, heavy brigade combat teams i understand out of germany, out of that 45,000. but i think we ought to look at if they're not involved in the prepositioning of forces, if they're not a expeditionary nature, they ought to come out of europe. we can demonstrate our capability by doing some of the things you mentioned, having protational forces, and certainly doing joint military exercises demonstrates our commitment to the north atlantic treaty organization. in south korea, you mentioned 20,000 soldiers in south korea. there are some substantial, and this is obviously dod, military construction programs going on. i think -- i be

. >> yeah, and i mean on top of that too one of the biggest issues is brac which is the base realignmentnd closure commission that came up again and again in both the house and senate hearings to everyone aside from ranking member smith on the house side and senator graham on the house side said they are opposed to doing it because it amounts to bases being closed in someone's district. >> jeremy herb, his work availablen online at thehill.com. >> walter jones, a republican from north carolina a huge military presence in his congressional district posing questions to defense secretary panetta. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. and mr. secretary, i might be the only republican on the committee to say thank you for your recent decision about bringing our troops out in 2013. this has been of great interest and concern to me. i have camp lejeune in my district. that's what my question will deal with. you being an elected official, served in the house, i think with my father a few years ago, walter jones sr. you know better than any of us here or as good as any of us, that politics is loc

the past brac rounds and in regards to the future rounds. as i said, i've been through the process. frankly, i don't wish the process on anybody because it's tough. 25% of my local economy was hit because of a brac closure. we did use it as an opportunity to develop a college university campus there and it's been successful as part of reuse. it did cost a lot more than anybody anticipated but the fact is we are achieving in the long run significant savings as a result of that. that's number one. number two, i don't know of any other way to deal with the kind of infrastructure savings we got to achieve here as a result of reducing the force without going through that kind of process. that's the problem i have. it's the most effective way of trying to address that issue. >> well, certainly in new hampshire we've seen both sides of the issue because the air force base was the first to close in the country. fortunately it's doing very well now. and the port and naval ship yard on the border of new hampshire and maine was actually removed from th

the administration has called for two more base realignment and closure, or brac, rounds.my view, however, before we consider another round of brac, the department ought to take a hard look at whether further reductions in bases can be made overseas, particularly in europe. there are 4 combat brigades currently stationed in europe. even after they are withdrawn, there will still be over 70,000 u.s. military personnel deployed in europe. ending further reductions and consolidations in our overseas -- finding for the reductions and consolidations in our overseas forces should take place before further brac rounds. the process of transition has begun and continues apace. afghan security forces are assuming responsibility for securing the afghan people in more and more areas throughout afghanistan. progress on security israel. the second round of areas to be transitioned -- progress on security is real. the second round of areas to be transitioned will be completed this year. they will live in areas where afghan security forces have the lead for providing security with coaliti

what are you going to do if you don't get that brac from congress? >> we need him no more detail on service is working on exactly where -- we need to know more detail on service is working on exactly where the reductions would come. in terms of the blessed plan, it was expensive, about $35 billion in upfront costs we will save $5 billion a year or so. we will get a payback, and as i like to remind people, these savings occur in perpetuity. it is still a good deal even though, frankly, the costs are significantly higher. for 90 of your third question? since we have not budgeted for ok., we are a >> a lot of defense companies are shaking their head, looking at 40% of your savings from '13 falling into procurement accounts. 35% to 36%. what happened to the balanced approach of procurement, about 21% of the overall budget? >> first off, as general spencer said, we make the decisions on a by-weapons-system basis. we did not say we wanted a certain proportion out of or to men or any other category. it is common to see that procurement is just partially cut

as we go forward, talking about the possibility of additional brac's, you might just think about that. i think there is potential, and i say that because i have been a proponent of having regional homeland security facilities around the country. tom ridge was the original guy who was talking about that. i think it still makes a lot of sense. that might be one thing. when we look at all the various types of off-the-shelf hardware that the taxpayers have already paid for that has been utilized effectively and theater as we are out of iraq and have a drawdown in afghanistan we want to make sure that your department is looking at all the potential kinds of things we will be bringing back here that may have some application that you can get on the cheap. >> we are constantly interchanging with dod to see if there are technologies or things we have already paid to have developed that we can use in our civilian missions. that is an ongoing process. with respect to materiel that was in afghanistan and iraq that is coming home, we are getting both helicopter and aircraft from that that we will

the administration has called for two more base reagnment and closure or brac, rounds. in my view however, before we consider another round of brac, the department ought to take a hard look at whether further reductions in bases can be made overseas, particularly in europe. there are 4 combat brigades currently stationed in europe. even after they are withdrawn there will still be over 70,000 u.s. military personnel deployed in europe. ending further reductions and consolidations in our overseas -- finding for the reductions and consolidations in our overseas forces should take place before further brac rods. the process of transition has begun and continues apace. afghan security forces are assuming responsibility for securing the afghan people in more and more areas throughout afghanistan. progress on security israel. the second round of areas to be transitioned -- progress on security is real. the second round of areas to be transitioned will be cpleted this year. they will live in areas where afghan security forces have the lead for providing security with coalition

but please count me out when it comes to brac and here's why. i want to echo the concerns that secretary panetta himself having gone through the process released before the house committee in october where secretary, you said i went through and i know that all but dollars people looked for, you know, a huge savings, yet they didn't take into consideration the cleanup committee didn't take into consideration the work that had to be done. they didn't take into consideration the needs that had to be addressed and in many cases it round up costing more. the reason the gao report found that it cost us for the 2005 background, 67% more than we estimated and in that we will not see any savings from the 2005 drug until 2018, 13 or 14 years of life as a way of serious questions whether we would save any money from the process, and particularly at a time we are still making decisions about the global posture and strength of the forces i don't think is the right time for the process where we may not save a dollar and frankly. that is what concerns me at th

what are you going to do if you don't get that brac from congress? need him no more detail on service is working on exactly where -- we need to know more detail on service is working on exactly where the reductions would come. in terms of the blessed plan, it was expensive, about $35 billion in upfront costs we will save $5 billion a year or so. we will get a payback, and as i like to remind people, these savings occur in perpetuity. it is still a good deal even though, frankly, the costs are significantly higher. for 90 of your third question? since we have not budgeted for them, we are ok. >> a lot of defense companies are shaking their head, looking at 40% of your savings from 2013 falling into procurement accounts. 35% to 36%. what happened to the balanced approach of procurement, about 21% of the overall budget? >> first off, as general spencer said, we make the decisions on a by-weapons-system basis. we did not say we wanted a certain proportion out of or to men or any other category. it is common to see that procurement is just partially cut b

only look at american bases and not overseas bases shouldn't it be included into an affect global brac? >> i think congress certainly if it proceeds with the process as every right to ask the administration in this department to present our rationale for what we are doing with regards to infrastructure abroad and how that fits the larger picture. i agree with that. >> let me jump to cybersecurity putative owsley understand your testimony since $3.4 billion for cyber command, which i applaud, which i think is necessary frankly we are behind the curve, and we are in a race and the threat vector is developing at a far greater rate than our defense capability is growing against. could you speak a little bit about military supply chain security against planted cyber threats? we have supply chain security for textiles, thank god for the rhode island industries and aircraft flying around that have components that are built overseas. if you need more resources now that it's become great to make sure our supply chain securities protected against cyber intrusion? >> it has been pointed out we ar

unlike brac, the purpose of h.r. 1734 is to save money and the commission would have to recommend actions that would result in net savings. the administration believes there are several million dollars worth of high-value properties that could be sold quickly and i agree with the assessment. it has been on the high-risk list for nearly a decade now and we have seen the waste firsthand. the bill create asinine-member commission that would review federal properties and recommend specific actions to more efficiently house federal employees. the chair: the gentleman from california will suspend. the house is not in order. i ask my colleagues to remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman from california. mr. denham: thank you, mr. speaker. the commission could recommend property sales, consolidations, redevelopments or other property actions. the bill does not apply to military bases, national parks or recreation areas or a variety of other properties. the administration would have 30 days to reject the recommendations or force them to congress

first of all the president's commission in his brac includes v.a. properties. as well as former v.a. secretary precippy testified before our committee we ought to look at all properties, including a.v. we are going to do the best interest of american taxpayers, we better address waste in government overall. across the entire nation, across every agency. there's a property not being used today, then we ought to look at either redevelopment it or selling it off. mr. denham: this gives us an opportunity to have republicans and democrats come together on something that the president included in his jobs bill to actually create american jobs. the old post office right here in washington, d.c., is a perfect example of waste in government. we have had a property sitting well over a decade that cost us $6.5 million in upkeep every single year. now we have redevelopment happening where we've got different hotel companies coming in not only bidding on it, creating 150 new jobs in construction, but an additional 150 jobs in ongoing jobs once this facility is redone. keepi

but please count me out when it comes to brac and here's why. i want to echo the concerns that secretary panetta himself having gone through the process released before the house committee in october where secretary, you said i went through and i know that all but dollars people looked for, you know, a huge savings, yet they didn't take into consideration the cleanup committee didn't take into consideration the work that had to be done. they didn't take into consideration the needs that had to be addressed and in many cases it round up costing more. the reason the gao report found that it cost us for the 2005 background, 67% more than we estimated and in that we will not see any savings from the 2005 drug until 2018, 13 or 14 years of life as a way of serious questions whether we would save any money from the process, and particularly at a time we are still making decisions about the global posture and strength of the forces i don't think is the right time for the process where we may not save a dollar and frankly. that is what concerns me at th

and to the question, by the way, that's related to brac, if you fix too many variables on us, if you, for example, there is some physics involved. if you fix the variable called infrastructure, and if we're kind of maxed out in terms of our, literally physical ability to pass people out of the service in a dignified way, it doesn't leave us very many levers to pull in the middle. it's operations, maintenance, training, equipment. so that's why we're concerned about brac and it's also why we're concerned about the pace at which we separate people. once we settle on the pace, and we have, then we go internal to our systems. promotion rates, exsession rate, we have evaluation reports, board processes. but to the extent that we can use the existing processes to identi identify, we can keep the highest performing personnel. keep them, encourage them, continue to develop them. to the extent this has accelerated on us, then we get into a position where we're forcing people out. at that point, i won't be able to sit here and guarantee yo you th that we're keeping the right people. >> is the d