GAO recommended that targets for eliminating excess capacity be provided as a selection criterion.

Considering the significant variability associated with the budget and the resulting force structure, is it premature to initiate a BRAC round?

The difference between the commissions cost estimates and the actual costs identified by GAO varied significantly in BRAC 2005, with a 66% increase over the commission's estimate.

Has the Army participated in the overseas posture review and does the Army believe that the overseas force structure is correct in terms of position and size?

The Government of Japan has transferred $948.3 million toward the agreed total contribution of $3.1 billion for construction activities to support the relocation of 4,700 Marines from Okinawa to Guam.

Please provide an update as to when the Department is expected to complete the Study on Overseas Basing Presence of United States Forces required in Section 347 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

With the exception of the Army and Air Force, the other Service Chiefs generally indicated last year that they did not anticipate any major closures or realignments as a result of a future BRAC authorization.

The only way I know to effectively eliminate excess infrastructure is to close installations.

I categorically reject this notion that presumes to balance the Federal budget on the backs of our service members.

I want to call to order the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and today's hearing concerning the need for a BRAC.

I continue to have significant reservations with authorizing another BRAC round because of critical flaws in terms of both the process and the underlying assumptions.