I joined the majority of my colleagues in opposing this proposal last year, and I continue to believe that now is not the time to spend billions of dollars on another BRAC round.

That will result in the termination of an estimated 5,000 employees and a--not only a delay in equipment readiness for 6 divisions.

But you are assuming you have money that you could shift in the budget in order to accommodate those closures.

I wonder if you are looking at legislative or procedural changes that could help ensure that the projects that are being funded and undertaken are those that are real priorities.

Why are they so urgent?

Well, based on some of the testimony, are you not concerned, all of you, that, in the short term, the savings from those furloughs are going to get added on in the long term because we're going to lose those skills and capabilities?

An estimated $3.36 billion impact to the surrounding communities.

Why would we authorize new facilities until we have the results of the study that Mr. Conger referred to?

But the goal is to have that report ready to present to the congressional committees by the end of the year?

If you could also share that with the rest of the subcommittee, we would appreciate that.

That would be helpful.

Do you have data that quantifies what the savings are from those performance contracts that you have put in place already?