[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 13, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5762-S5764]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our 
military construction program and some concerns I have about an 
apparent shift in strategy, what this means for our American soldiers 
and their families and for the growing debt and deficits we are seeing 
on the taxpayers of this country.
  Without question, our military construction program should be 
fiscally responsible and driven by the future security posture of the 
U.S. forces. Dating back to the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military 
determined that our Armed Forces would be best trained and equipped for 
service when stationed at installations on U.S. soil.
  Our military adopted a force projection strategy that allows our 
U.S.-stationed service men and women to deploy from home rather than 
being based primarily overseas.
  This Congress has been very supportive of the Army's transformation 
to a more modular and expeditionary force structure, allowing more 
troops to be stationed in the United States.
  In 2005, the Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed the force 
projection strategy. It applauded the vision behind the Pentagon's 
efforts to transform the military and restation tens of thousands of 
military personnel back on U.S. soil.
  So the Pentagon's strategy, endorsed by the Overseas Basing 
Commission, has guided the way Congress directs resources and funding 
for military construction facilities. We have invested more than $14 
billion to build housing, stationing, training, and deployment 
capabilities at major military installations in the United States. We 
have proven we can best train and deploy from the United States and do 
it more cost-effectively.

  Despite these taxpayer-backed investments, the Pentagon's current 
MILCON program is shifting military construction projects, military 
forces, and taxpayer dollars overseas. Strategically, this would set in 
motion a worldwide transformation of U.S. basing that would actually 
expand our overseas presence, and this at a time when the aid given to 
American efforts in the war on terror is, with a few exceptions, not 
impressive.
  Fiscally, the Department of Defense is pursuing expensive and, in 
some cases, duplicative military construction projects in Europe, 
Korea, and Guam without demonstrating adequate cost efficiencies or 
projected future costs. This shift in global posture fundamentally 
disconnects with stateside basing capabilities and reverses the 
Overseas Basing Commission's recommendations.
  Europe: In Germany massive plans are underway to move U.S. Army 
headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden. I question this move because 
European and African Commands already have substantial infrastructure 
in Stuttgart where efficiencies would be available. The Government 
Accountability Office does not believe the Army will achieve any cost 
savings. Not only would these

[[Page S5763]]

huge and costly projects create thousands of foreign jobs, but they 
would require continuous taxpayer funding to maintain facilities and 
training capabilities. The United States has averaged spending $278 
million per year in Germany in the last 5 years, but the Department of 
Defense now plans to raise that spending to $750 million per year. It 
costs nearly 15 percent less to build in the United States than to 
build in Germany, and while American taxpayers have invested $1.4 
billion in German infrastructure from 2006 to 2010, Germany's 
contribution has averaged $20 million per year, or less than 10 
percent.
  This is a poor taxpayer investment considering the serious 
limitations to U.S. military training and deployment capabilities 
overseas. It would also create duplicative headquarters at several 
locations in Germany. Our troops must have access to training areas 
where they can maneuver freely, conduct live-fire exercises, and work 
with night vision devices. Many overseas locations prohibit such 
intensive training. Others allow only certain aspects of the training 
to be done under closely monitored circumstances. These limitations 
hinder the readiness of our troops while taxing our citizens more.
  Deployment impediments also exist in Europe. During times of peace 
and war, our troops face restrictions traveling through many countries. 
In 2003, deploying American forces from Germany into Iraq was 
complicated when several European countries denied U.S. troops access 
to air and ground routes. Merely having our troops forward-deployed is 
no guarantee they will be available when and where we need them.
  Korea: The Department of Defense is also planning to spend millions 
to build deployment facilities in Korea. The Pentagon is proposing to 
shift 1-year deployments for troops alone to 3-year tours that include 
their families. This change would expand U.S. presence in Korea from 
30,000 service personnel to approximately 84,000, counting dependents. 
Substantial taxpayer funding would be required to build adequate 
housing, schools, hospitals, fitness centers, childcare facilities, 
commissaries, and more. We have asked for the numbers that would be 
projected for this. The Department has not given us any numbers nor any 
projections on the costs of adding 50,000 more people into Korea than 
we now have. Investing these resources into Korea makes no sense when 
we are already building up infrastructure and deployment capabilities 
at U.S. bases where amenities support military families and are well 
established.
  Guam: Plans to shift Marines currently stationed in Japan to the tiny 
island of Guam are also problematic. There are significant 
environmental concerns with trying to accommodate such a large number 
of military personnel in such a small space, and the island lacks 
sufficient existing infrastructure. In addition to that, the timeline 
for transitioning marines stationed in Japan is implausible and the 
costs are staggering. They are now estimated at $16 billion. With these 
considerable barriers, better basing alternatives should be explored. 
Again, we have asked the Department to look into this, to give 
alternatives. We have suggested alternatives, but we have received no 
feedback from the Department.
  The Department of Defense has indicated this new military 
construction program is intended to build partnership capacity. Some 
argue that U.S. presence overseas provides assurance to our allies and 
deterrence to our adversaries. History has shown this is not always the 
case. Basing American military personnel at key locations in Europe did 
not deter the Russians from conducting military operations against 
Georgia in 2008. Even with our 30,000 troops in Korea, North Korea did 
not hesitate to attack a South Korean naval vessel in May of this year.
  Let's look at what the partnership agreements we are seeking have 
given us so far. We are in a war on terror in which the United States 
now has more than 78,000 troops. Germany has 4,350. The United Kingdom 
has double what Germany has. So the United Kingdom, which has a smaller 
population, has more troops by double than Germany. Yet we are looking 
at all of this buildup in Germany for building partnership capacity. 
Germany contributes 4 percent of NATO troops to Afghanistan, but they 
have strict rules of engagement that include not going on offense and 
restrictions on night operations. So if we are going to do so much 
ourselves, does it make sense for the American taxpayer to be building 
what would be about a billion and a half more in Germany, in facilities 
that we already have in the United States? Or if there needs to be more 
Army building in Germany, at least do it in Stuttgart where the Army 
already has a headquarters, instead of a whole new operation in 
Wiesbaden.
  If the United States wants to make sure our assure our allies and 
deter our enemies, we should do it with strong military capabilities 
and sound policy, not by keeping troops stationed overseas, siphoning 
funds from equipment and arms, and putting it into duplicative military 
construction.
  Instead of breaking ground on military projects abroad and advancing 
the Department's new goal of building partnership capacity, we should 
be building American infrastructure. We are carrying the heaviest load 
by far in the war on terror, and we are carrying it for freedom-loving 
people throughout the world. We need to build up bases in our country 
which we have already done to accommodate the strategy since the Cold 
War. Yet now we appear to be reversing that strategy, and I am asking 
why. I have asked the Department of Defense. I have asked the Secretary 
of Defense for answers and have not yet been able to receive anything 
that would show why we would make such a huge investment in these 
foreign bases, with training constraints and deployment constraints, 
when we could do the same thing at home and deploy our troops at will.
  Following World War II, the United States constructed bases in Europe 
to establish a strong presence as nations rebuilt. We stayed in Europe 
and placed bases in Korea to protect the interests of America and its 
allies during the Cold War. The world has changed, and with it our 
Nation's military priorities must also change. Our military 
construction investment should reflect our strategic principles. It 
should meet the needs of military families. It should maximize the 
force flexibility of our modern military, and it should demonstrate the 
fiscal discipline that taxpayers rightly expect.
  Secretary Gates has made fiscal discipline a priority at the 
Department of Defense. He has said we are going to cut defense 
spending. So this military construction plan is puzzling. I am not sure 
the military and the Department heads are on the same wavelength 
because we are looking at $1 billion of foreign construction we do not 
need with capacity we have already built in America.
  So I am asking the Department of Defense to look at this and to make 
sure we are in every way having respect for the taxpayers and making 
sure our military and our families have the security and support they 
need, and I believe that can be done with bases at home.
  I will offer amendments to reduce the level of spending in overseas 
construction and possibly in administrative costs at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs that do not affect veterans health care or benefits. 
There is more at stake for our future, for our economy, and for the 
American taxpayer.
  Out-of-control spending is putting the short- and long-term fiscal 
health of the United States at risk. The national public debt hit an 
historic $13 trillion in May. This year, the Federal Government is 
borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, and it is spending 67 
percent more than it brings in. In pursuit of its costly and damaging 
big government agenda, the Obama administration has increased the total 
public debt by $2 trillion in less than 2 years, an increase of 23 
percent in 16 months. If the spending continues at this rate, at the 
end of President Obama's first term he will have added an additional $6 
trillion to the public debt. If we go along with the requests of the 
White House, $6 trillion more will be added to our debt in this term. 
This is irresponsible and unsustainable.
  As the appropriations process moves forward, I will offer amendments 
to bring military construction back down to levels that are consistent 
with the Secretary of Defense's own stated objective, which is to cut 
military spending. I am going to offer amendments I

[[Page S5764]]

believe will be responsible, will protect our forces, and will be 
better for our military families, and it will achieve the spending cuts 
the Secretary has said he believes are necessary.
  We need to make the tough decisions. I am offering a way forward. I 
am offering commonsense cuts that will assure we will be able to meet 
the needs of our military, the security of our military, the security 
of the American people, and a respect for this enormous deficit. We can 
cut back on this deficit with responsible spending.
  I have outlined some of these concerns in today's Politico magazine, 
and I ask unanimous consent that my op-ed be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Politico, July 13, 2010]

                   (By Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison)

              Military's Foundation Must Be Made in U.S.A.

       For the future security posture of U.S. military forces and 
     for the fiscal health of our nation, our military 
     construction agenda should be guided by these words: build in 
     America.
       At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military determined 
     that our armed forces would be best trained and equipped for 
     service when stationed on U.S. soil. Thus, our military 
     adopted a ``force projection'' strategy that allows service 
     members to deploy from home, rather than being based 
     primarily overseas.
       The Overseas Basing Commission reaffirmed the force 
     projection strategy in 2005. It lauded the insights and 
     vision behind Defense Department initiatives to transform the 
     military and re-station tens of thousands of military 
     personnel back on U.S. soil. Congress has legislated and 
     appropriated accordingly.
       We've now invested more than $14 billion to build housing, 
     stationing, training and deployment capacities at major 
     military installations. Deployment of U.S. forces from 
     Germany to Iraq, for example, was complicated by denials of 
     air and ground routes through several European countries. We 
     have proved we can best deploy from the United States--and we 
     can do it more cost effectively.
       However, the DoD's current military construction proposal 
     would set in motion a worldwide transformation of U.S. basing 
     that would expand our overseas presence. DoD is pursuing 
     expensive, and in some cases duplicative, military 
     construction projects in Europe, South Korea and Guam, 
     without demonstrating adequate cost efficiencies, projected 
     costs or a broader basing strategy.
       This shift in global posture fundamentally disconnects with 
     stateside basing capabilities and reverses the Overseas 
     Basing Commission's recommendations.
       In Germany, massive plans are under way to move U.S. Army 
     headquarters from Heidelberg to Wiesbaden--though European 
     and African commands already have substantial infrastructure 
     in Stuttgart, where more efficiencies would be available.
       Not only would the projects create thousands of foreign 
     jobs; they would also require continuous taxpayer funding to 
     maintain facilities and training capabilities. This is a poor 
     investment given the serious limitations to U.S. military 
     training and deployment capabilities overseas. And it would 
     create duplicate headquarters at several locations.
       It costs nearly 15 percent less to build in the United 
     States than in Germany. In addition, the U.S. military has 
     invested $1.4 billion in German infrastructure from 2006 to 
     2010, while Germany's contribution has averaged $20 million 
     per year--or less than 10 percent.
       Our troops must have access to training areas where they 
     can maneuver freely, conduct live-fire exercises and work 
     with night-vision devices. Many overseas locations prohibit 
     such intensive training. Others allow only certain aspects of 
     the training to be done under closely circumscribed 
     conditions.
       These limitations hinder the readiness of our troops, while 
     taxing our citizens.
       Deployment impediments also exist in Europe. During times 
     of peace and war, our troops face restrictions traveling 
     through many countries.
       In 2003, for example, our NATO ally Turkey refused to let 
     U.S. troops travel through its territory, even in its 
     airspace, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
       Merely having troops forward-deployed is no guarantee that 
     they will be available when and where we need them.
       DoD is also planning to spend millions to build deployment 
     facilities in South Korea. The Pentagon proposes shifting 
     deployments from one year to three years, including troops' 
     families. This expands the U.S. presence from 30,000 service 
     personnel to approximately 84,000, counting dependents. It 
     will require substantial taxpayer funding to build adequate, 
     housing, schools, hospitals, fitness centers, child care 
     facilities and commissaries.
       Investing these resources in South Korea makes no sense 
     when we are already building up infrastructure and deployment 
     capabilities at U.S. bases, where amenities for military 
     families are well-established.
       Similarly, plans to shift Marines now stationed in Japan to 
     the tiny island of Guam are problematic. This proposal is 
     fraught with significant environmental concerns, insufficient 
     infrastructure, an implausible timeline--and staggering 
     costs, now estimated at $16 billion. With these considerable 
     barriers, better basing alternatives should be explored.
       Some argue that the U.S. overseas presence provides 
     assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. 
     History has shown otherwise.
       Having U.S. troops in Europe did not deter the Russians 
     from-conducting military operations against Georgia in 2008. 
     More recently, the U.S. military in South Korea did not deter 
     North Korean aggression against a South Korean naval vessel.
       We should assure our allies and deter our enemies with 
     strong military capabilities and sound policy, not merely by 
     keeping our troops stationed overseas.
       Instead of breaking ground on military projects abroad--and 
     advancing DoD's new goal of building ``partnership 
     capacity''--we should be building American infrastructure.
       After World War II, the U.S. constructed bases in Europe to 
     establish a strong presence as nations rebuilt. We stayed in 
     Europe and placed bases in South Korea to protect the 
     interests of America and its allies during the Cold War.
       The world has changed--and with it, our nation's military 
     priorities. Our military construction investment should 
     reflect our strategic principles, meet the needs of military 
     families, maximize the force flexibility of our modern 
     military and demonstrate the fiscal discipline that taxpayers 
     rightly expect.
       I hope the Defense Department will continue to build the 
     foundation of our military right here on American soil.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I very much appreciate the opportunity 
to lay out the strategy I am offering to the administration. I hope we 
can come back to the strategy adopted by Congress over the last 10 
years that would have American troops in America, would create American 
jobs in military construction, will save taxpayer dollars, and will 
assure that when our troops go into harm's way, they will not be 
blocked by European countries that do not allow us to use airspace or 
train troops on the ground. We cannot afford that kind of luxury in 
this kind of environment.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

                          ____________________