[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S23-S24]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have a couple of concerns here. One is a 
driving concern. After having served on the House Armed Services 
Committee before and for the last 12 years on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I am deeply distressed that we did not get our MilCon 
Appropriations bill passed. I don't think a lot of people realize how 
significant it is that we get it passed for this fiscal year, 2007.
  The partisan issues that some people are trying to tie up on the 
floor are nowhere near as important as this issue, and I am talking 
about some of the other bills. It is true that we need to have the DC 
appropriations bill, but it is not life-threatening and certainly not 
going to result in the loss of lives of our fighting troops. Labor-HHS 
is important but not as important as this bill. Commerce-State-
Justice--a lot of those items can be put into a CR. I would have no 
problem with a continuing resolution. But as far as this bill is 
concerned, if we don't do it now, there are a lot of items in 
conjunction with our BRAC process that are not going to happen and have 
to happen and are life-threatening to our troops.
  I compliment Senator Hutchison, who was chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Military Construction. She tried so hard in the last 2 days of the 
last session to get this bill through. Quite frankly, it wasn't really 
a problem in the Senate as much as it was in the other body. We tried 
very hard. We talked with a number of people and were unable to get 
that bill done.
  Over the past few years, the military has sought to reshape itself 
out of a Cold War footing into a modern, more modular force. It has 
tried to reconstitute its equipment, while at the same time fighting a 
war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been forced to come to Congress for 
supplementals to meet just the bare minimum requirements of fighting 
the war and rebuilding the military as is so necessary.
  So we have stretched them every way we can. We have cut into almost 
every program, essential initiatives such as the Future Combat System. 
That is a recognition, after the 1990s, when we let our modernization 
slide and a lot of our military needs, to bring us up so that when we 
send our kids into battle, we send them with the very best of 
equipment. If we look at some of our ground equipment, such as our 
artillery pieces, it is World War II technology. It is the old Paladin 
where they actually have to swab the breech after every shot.
  The Future Combat System came up, and there was a recognition that we 
should have an army, a ground force that is faster, more agile, more 
transportable, more modern than it is today. Every week that goes by 
that we don't get this done, it is causing the Future Combat System--
there are about 19 elements of it--to move to the right and delay this 
from taking place.
  The fiscal year 2007 Military Construction appropriations bill was 
not passed into law. The continuing resolution, as currently enacted, 
does not allow the Department of Defense to proceed with over $17 
billion in new construction and BRAC projects authorized by Congress in 
the 2007 authorization bill.
  Let me mention what will happen if we don't do this. There are so 
many things having to do with the BRAC process. I opposed the last BRAC 
round. We went ahead and had it, and I think that is probably the last 
we will have for a long period of time. It has a deadline of 2011. If 
we don't get this bill passed--by the way, I have introduced S. 113. We 
have a number of cosponsors. Most of the Republican members of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee are on it.
  The 1st Armored Division will have to stay in Germany if we don't get 
this passed. If that happens, we are not going to be able to have the 
two modular combat brigade teams we so critically need on the front 
lines. We are talking about the war that is taking place right now and 
why we need to get this MILCON appropriations bill passed.
  The Army National Guard and Reserve lack $1.1 billion to construct 
and replace aviation support facilities. They cannot function without 
these facilities. The postponement of construction of 250 new homes at 
the naval base in Guam and the Marine Corps logistics base in Barstow, 
CA, are just some of the housing needs that will not be able to be 
continued. Of course, they will cost more money the longer we put them 
off.
  We opened up some serious shortfalls in our UHF--that is, ultra high 
frequency--satellite communications capabilities. Two of the $6.5 
million mobile user objective systems ground control tracking stations 
were slated for Hawaii and Sigonella, Italy. Without the stations, the 
already-funded satellites--we have the satellites ready to go--cannot 
launch until we get this bill passed.
  We went through months of agonizing discomfort in deciding what are 
we going to do with the F-22, C-17, C-5, C-9, and C-40 in terms of the 
new locations. That has all been determined. It has been outlined in 
BRAC, but we can't do it until we have the hangars to take care of 
them, to get them into the new areas.
  What we are talking about are items that directly affect the 
warfighting effort. The Predator, for example, has the tactical air 
control program that should be supporting the Army brigade combat 
teams.
  I think we all know our ground forces have to have support, either 
close air support or artillery support on the ground. We can't do the 
close air support if we don't have the appropriations bill passed.

  The Predator mission--a lot of people are not aware of this; they 
think of it as being intelligence-gathering agencies and a 
communications system targeting and retargeting on the ground. While 
that is very important and it has to be done, a lot of people don't 
realize the Predator also has the capability of firing a rocket. So we 
need to have that program. We cannot have it unless we get this bill 
passed.
  The military is going to lose a lot if we don't get this bill passed. 
When we look at the military construction that is going on in the 
continental United States and we see the community support--in my State 
of Oklahoma, we have five major military installations. They are 
located near major cities. Vance Air Force Base is at Enid, OK. Then we 
have Altus, Lawton, McAlester, Oklahoma City, and Midwest City. We have 
always done well in our BRAC process because we have greater community 
support than most other installations. But when you have a community 
that has made a commitment toward MILCON predicated on the assumption 
that we are going to pass our Military Construction appropriations bill 
and then we don't do it, they could very well renege on their 
commitment for housing, hospitalization, and childcare. It is far more 
significant than most people realize. If we don't pass the needed 
funding, the results will be very serious.
  I have in front of me a letter signed by Army Secretary Harvey and 
General Schoomaker:

       The potential negative effects on operational readiness 
     cannot be overemphasized; the Army's ability to prosecute the 
     Global War on Terrorism and to prepare for future conflicts 
     would be severely hampered.

  Another letter from Navy Secretary Donald Winter and Marine Corps 
Commandant GEN James T. Conway and ADM Michael G. Mullen:


[[Page S24]]


       The lack of construction money ``is precluding our ability 
     to provide modern, government owned or privatized quality 
     housing to our Sailors, Marines and their families at a time 
     when the Global War on Terror is placing enormous stress on 
     our military and our military families.''

  I am going to be looking for every opportunity to get this bill up 
for consideration. Again, I am concerned about all appropriations 
bills, and a continuing resolution, as far as I am concerned, at least 
is going to take care of those needs. But the one thing it cannot do is 
take care of the military construction needs we will have to address.
  That bill is S. 113. I look forward to it coming up for 
consideration. We already have, as I mentioned, most members of the 
Armed Services Committee cosponsoring this legislation.

                          ____________________