[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.
____________________