[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.
____________________