[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 24 (Thursday, February 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1753-S1755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  BRAC

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I do have a question, and it involves 
what I believe to be an utter failing by Congress on behalf of our 
Nation's military men and women. My question to my colleague from Texas 
is this. I know in Kansas we are at risk of losing $365 million in 
regard to BRAC construction. My question would be to the Senator 
whether the same thing is true in Texas.
  I think, probably to put it in perspective, I need to get a little 
background information so the Senator could reply. That brings 
attention to why I am bringing a question to the distinguished Senator 
and why I wished to take the floor for 15 minutes. I hope we don't get 
into an objection. I certainly have no problem with Senator Kennedy 
speaking on any subject. I think he does that very well--and often.
  Basically, let me say, with apologies to the Lizzie Borden family, 
that:

       The Democrat House took a continuing resolution axe,
       and gave the military 40 whacks,
       and when they saw what they had done,
       then they gave Kansas 41.

  I don't think that is right. I am not here to speak about our 
military presence in Iraq. We have moved away from the debate on our 
presence in Iraq. We must now address the issue of support for our 
troops at home, and that is why I am going to ask the Senator a 
question, as soon as I give the background in regard to the question I 
have.

  As we have heard some of my colleagues already state today, we are in 
danger of underfunding military construction associated with BRAC by 
over $3 billion--actually it is $3.1 billion. Should the Senate let 
this occur, we will have failed our Nation's soldiers and their 
families.
  Why did this occur? Because there was $6 billion within the military 
budget, within the Department of Defense, who wanted $6 billion for 
BRAC construction. Is that not correct, I ask my distinguished friend?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The distinguished Senator from Kansas is exactly 
right. You know, it was pointed out earlier that we had $1.5 billion in 
fiscal year 2006, with the implication that we were increasing from 
that amount in this budget because it has $2.5 billion. The problem is, 
in 2006, the money was planning money, now we are trying to actually 
build the project and we are missing $3.1 billion. Now we are in the 
building stage.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Basically, if I understand the Senator, we are down to 
$2.88 billion, which means if we had a whole pie and there were six 
slices, now we are down to less than three. And somehow or other the 
Department of Defense has to spread that money for BRAC construction to 
these other projects? That is going to be extremely difficult.
  I am trying to figure out why on Earth the House acted in such a 
fashion. I think it is, if I read the press about this--and I ask the 
Senator if she would agree--it is that under the banner of ``earmark 
reform,'' there was at least a theory, by some, that all of the money 
in the $6 billion was somehow earmarks.
  I ask another question. The $3.1 billion is the first time in my 
memory where we have had a breach in the agreement to say we are not 
going to fund nondefense programs--which are very meritorious and 
should stand on their own right, and I support many of them--out of the 
military budget. I can't remember when we have done that.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. The Senator is correct. I have no memory of ever 
doing that. Of course, there are no earmarks in the BRAC funding. The 
funding, the $3.1 billion that was set out was all Department of 
Defense. They are doing the planning for BRAC, not Congress. There are 
no earmarks.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If I could ask my distinguished colleague one more 
question? I am going to own up. The $365 million for Kansas in BRAC 
construction funding, there were no earmarks to that, no earmarks. That 
was requested by the Department of Defense and put in the President's 
budget for projects that are essential for our men and women in uniform 
when they come back from Iraq.
  There were three earmarks in there. They are gone and I understand 
that. I had one for a childcare center, Todd Tiahrt had one for 
lighting a ramp on a runway--I don't know what you are going to do if 
you don't have any lights on a runway when you land--and then there was 
another vehicle maintenance center at Fort Riley to take all the 
humvees and vehicles back from the desert and get them fixed up and 
replenished. They are gone. The rest of it, the $365 million that is at 
risk in Kansas, goes for projects in regard to BRAC construction.
  I don't know if this happened because of somebody who didn't know 
what was going on--sheer incompetence or ignorance--or this was 
political, under the banner that we are going to stop all the earmarks. 
This is not an earmark.
  As a matter of fact, let me ask the Senator from Texas a question. Is 
not the breach of taking $3.1 billion from military spending and 
putting it over into non-Federal spending--isn't that an earmark, a 
$3.1 billion earmark by itself?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It would appear the Senator is correct.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Let me go on with a little background about this because 
I want the Senator to understand how

[[Page S1754]]

serious the situation is in Kansas. Should this $3.1 billion deficit be 
allowed to move forward and become law, soldiers in Kansas and many 
other States will suffer greatly. As I said before, $375 billion--I 
have been saying $365 billion. I am $10 billion short--$375 million 
worth of Kansas BRAC-related projects will be put at risk, and there 
are even more projects at risk in future years if the operational tempo 
of the Army is disrupted.
  I wish to be sure all of our colleagues understand exactly what this 
shortfall could mean--as it would be in Texas or Oklahoma or any 
State--what this would mean to our men and women in uniform and their 
families based in our respective States.
  The Combat Aviation Brigade, which is coming to Fort Riley, KS, as a 
result of the BRAC process, is in danger of losing $152 million for a 
complex that will house their barracks, their office space, their 
hangars, their fueling aprons, and their crash rescue fire station.
  This unit, this aviation brigade, is going to deploy to Iraq soon, 
and they need these facilities when they return. The commanding general 
at Fort Riley, General Carter Hamm, told me yesterday that if the 
aviation brigade comes home in 2008 to find these projects incomplete, 
they will have to live in dated facilities.
  What do I mean by dated facilities? We call them the white elephant 
barracks. They have holes in the walls. There are even rumors they have 
snakes underneath these barracks.
  The general said they will have to live in dated facilities that will 
provide worse living conditions than the brigade will find in Iraq.
  Let me repeat that statement to the Senator from Texas. I don't know 
if she has a dire situation like this. I will ask her to respond, for 
our colleagues.
  If this construction fails to move forward, members of the air 
brigade will return to housing at Fort Riley that will be below 
anything they have experienced in Iraq. Is this the way the Senate 
wants to treat these soldiers? Does the Senator from Texas have a 
similar situation, where men and women in uniform coming back will find 
their housing less than what it was in Iraq? I am incredulous.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely incredible. As a matter of fact, 30,000 
troops are going to be moving into Fort Bliss. There have been many 
accommodations begun. But now it is going to stop in its tracks and we 
are going to have the same situation. We could be having either 
substandard barracks or worse, it could be tents or mobile homes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Let me ask the Senator another question and give a 
little background. Not only is the air brigade in danger of losing all 
of their support facilities--they need a new runway, specifically they 
need a $17 million runway. That is in danger of being cut from this 
$3.1 billion earmark. That is what I call it--a cut in an earmark going 
to nondefense programs. I find it unacceptable to move these people and 
then inadequately support them when they return home. Fort Riley is 
also in danger of losing an $87 million division headquarters, a 
sustainment brigade headquarters, to support another group of soldiers 
who will be returning from their current deployment in Iraq. If these 
facilities are not done by the time they return, they will be required 
to live in trailers, modular buildings. That is not acceptable. These 
soldiers are already sacrificing for the Nation. I refuse to ask them 
to also sacrifice when they return home from a deployment.
  Let me mention something else to the Senator. As a result of the BRAC 
process, nearly 11,000 soldiers and their families have already begun 
moving back to Fort Riley. This is unprecedented growth. I know at Fort 
Bliss the situation is somewhat similar. But Fort Riley does not have 
the support facilities to ensure these soldiers and families have full 
access to health, dental, and childcare.

  Let me ask the Senator from Texas another question, if I could have 
her attention. At Fort Riley we do not have the facilities to ensure 
these 11,000 soldiers and their families full access to health, dental, 
and childcare. Is there a similar situation in Texas?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely. Absolutely. We are talking about all the 
facilities that would accommodate the move of soldiers and their 
families. So you have childcare facilities--the Senator from Georgia is 
on the floor and he has essential not only childcare facilities and 
housing and barracks but training facilities. The reason we are 
bringing the troops home from Germany is for better training 
facilities, and at Fort Benning, part of this BRAC funding is for the 
training facilities that are the upgrades the Department of Defense is 
trying to give to our men and women for their readiness for their 
missions.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I truly appreciate the response of the 
Senator from Texas. The reason I ask that is we are losing a $17.5 
million health and dental clinic and a $5.7 million child development 
center, which will make an enormous difference in the quality of life 
in regards to the soldiers coming back.
  There is another project I want to mention, and the Senator has 
brought it up. We need a $27 million battle command training center. 
What is that all about? That is 4,000 people going through that center 
which is going to be improved, who are going immediately to Iraq to 
serve under General Petraeus to see if that mission can work, and they 
are following the doctrine General Petraeus laid down at Fort 
Leavenworth, KS, which is the intellectual center of the Army. This 
center is necessary for training command, control, and communications 
functions that are critical to the training of the brigade and division 
staff. If you don't want to have them go to Iraq, rest assured they 
need the training to basically have them prepared for any kind of 
national security threat in the future.
  Another Kansas project in jeopardy of losing funding that is of deep 
concern to me and should be of deep concern to the Army is the joint 
regional correctional facility at Fort Leavenworth. This is a little 
different. I don't know if the Senator has something like this, but I 
would ask the Senator a question. We need to build a joint regional 
correctional facility to house prisoners from around the Nation who are 
moved to Kansas. Currently, the Army is stretched to its limit. It 
needs these new beds for prisoners, and as the general told me, there 
is no place to put them.
  The Acting Commanding General at Fort Leavenworth, BG Mark O'Neill, 
told me yesterday, add to the equation that the facility is underfunded 
at $68 million--they need $95 million at a bare minimum. What do we do 
with the prisoners? That is $27 million more than was even budgeted.
  So the House is saying they will receive zip, nada, zero. Now, that 
is a correctional facility. I know it doesn't compare to the readiness 
problem, but with more prisoners and no place to put them, what are we 
going to do? That is a real problem.
  I want to give you some good news, and I am going to ask the Senator 
if she has a similar situation in Texas. Kansas leaders share my 
concern. Last night, our Governor Sebelius's Military Council passed a 
unanimous resolution supporting our efforts to bring this amendment 
before the Senate.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter of support be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Governor's Military Council,


                                                State Capitol,

                                     Topeka, KS, February 7, 2007.
     Hon. Pat Roberts,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Roberts: Today, the Governor's Military 
     Council (GMC) passed unanimously a resolution in support of 
     your amendment to H.J. Res. 20 which would fully restore 
     funding for implementation of the 2005 Base Realignment and 
     Closure (BRAC) round to the level requested by the 
     Administration.
       Full funding of the BRAC budget request is critical to 
     military readiness, quality of life, as well as Department of 
     Defense's transformation efforts. Furthermore, failure to 
     fully fund the budget for BRAC will delay implementation of 
     base closure and realignment actions, postponing indefinitely 
     the realization of budget savings resulting from the BRAC 
     round and the completion of BRAC movements for all affected 
     military installations.
       The GMC was originally constituted through an Executive 
     Order signed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius as the Governor's 
     Strategic Military Planning Commission (The Commission) in 
     January of 2004 to represent the State of Kansas during the 
     2005 BRAC process.

[[Page S1755]]

       In January of 2006, the Commission stood down and the GMC 
     was created by another Executive Order to support the 
     military in the State of Kansas. The GMC's membership 
     consists of 25 individuals from the communities in which the 
     state's four major installations are located, state 
     legislators, the Adjutant General and representatives of the 
     Kansas Congressional Delegation.
       We thank you for your leadership on the issue of critical 
     importance to our nation's military and the military 
     installations in the State of Kansas.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John E. Moore,
                               Chair, Governor's Military Council.

  Mr. ROBERTS. This bipartisan support shows how important these funds 
are to our military. So underfunding BRAC MILCON by $3 billion, or even 
$1, sends a terrible message to our troops. It tears to shreds the 
bipartisan support involved with the BRAC process.
  Isn't it ironic, I would say to the Senator from Texas, and to you, 
Mr. President, and to my colleagues, that at a time when many of our 
colleagues in the House and Senate are saying, bring the troops home 
now, and everybody wishes we could, these same colleagues in the 
House--again, either through ignorance or incompetence or politics--
apparently do not think it is necessary to provide the facilities that 
will support these troops and their families.
  There is no other option, I say to the Senator from Texas and to my 
colleagues. I urge the majority leader to support our troops and their 
families by allowing a vote on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for yielding me this time for these 
many questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kansas for 
pointing out some of the real problems delaying this BRAC funding are 
going to bring. I hope the distinguished majority leader and the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee will find a way 
we can move the BRAC military construction forward. It is essential 
that we do this, and we can do it. We have a week in which we can work 
out any details that need to be worked out. I think it is very 
important that we do what is right for our country. We have time to do 
it. There is no reason not to do it, and we can do it in a fiscally 
responsible way.
  What has been suggested by the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee is that we will handle this in a supplemental, 
that we will put $3 billion into the supplemental. But, of course, that 
means we will be spending $3 billion outside of the budget and added to 
the deficit, which is not necessary. We can fix this with a very small 
cut across the board of all of the projects in the bill, except for 
Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans. I think anyone can put together a 
program that has less than a 1-percent cut, and I think most people 
would say our priorities should be the active-duty military, that we 
should have the ability to put the housing and the childcare centers 
and the training facilities in place that would accommodate the needs 
of the military. My goodness, look what our military people are doing 
for us and for our country.
  The idea that we wouldn't give them what they need to do the job, and 
when they come home, to have a place to stay and live and do their 
training so they can be the very best, would be unthinkable. It would 
be unthinkable. So I do hope we can go forward. I don't remember ever 
taking up an Omnibus appropriations bill with no amendments in order. I 
hope it will be possible that we will be able to take it up in the 
normal process--or maybe not even the normal process. We would settle 
for not normal, but for some number of amendments.

                          ____________________