Peter Visclosky: “I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds made available by this…”

“I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I note that the gentleman's amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used to propose, plan, or execute an additional Base Realignment and Closure round. If the gentleman had simply said today we should not execute that national additional Base Realignment and Closure round, I would not have stood on my feet. But the fact is, he said we shouldn't propose or plan either. He also indicated that because we are today paying, I believe, some hundreds of millions of dollars for the current base closure, we should not consider paying for another one. But the question I would ask, rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleagues, is, don't we have to sometimes make an investment for the future? That is, there are cleanup costs, there are close-up costs, there are demolition costs, and those are short-term costs. But potentially, those are investments year in and year out for decades where this Nation's taxpayers can save money. And where the gentleman says we shouldn't consider another closure and, at this point I'm not aware that there's a proposal pending, what if we could save money by doing that? Should we simply say no? Should we just say no to everything? Is it wrong to consider how we might look at every last base and military facility in this country to save taxpayers money? Essentially, the gentleman's amendment says it's wrong to look at them.…”