My question is this. We know under any scenario of BRAC taking place historically that it takes years to accrue those savings.

Looking at the savings and the costs from the 2005 BRAC, if you were to take the $35 billion cost of that particular BRAC and play it out over the period of time, that would have bought the United States three additional aircraft carriers.

What I don't want is for us to be put in a position at any future time under any future construct where somebody says you have to close, you know, 20 bases or eliminate 20,000 jobs.

During the Navy Posture Hearing of February 16, 2012, the Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert and Commandant of the Marine Corps General James Amos said they did not see any bases they needed to close.

So am I safe to assume from that then you are saying there is no empirical evidence that has been put together to support additional rounds of BRAC?

The question then becomes strategically what is our focus? Is it the budget driving strategy or strategy driving the budget?

How will the decision to withdraw two BCTs from Europe impact the realignment decisions in the United States?

I haven't heard anything today that indicates that there is a rational basis to pursue a BRAC, nor are there dollars available during these very austere times by which to pursue a BRAC.

Why would the Department request broad authority for an additional BRAC authorization when significant excess infrastructure does not appear to exist across the Department?

I am adamantly opposed to the pursuit of a BRAC at this particular time.

We need to turn it over to the States for at least the first 20 fathoms.