[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6809-S6810]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



               AFRICOM, Foreign Policy, and Our Military

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I came back just a week ago from visiting 
our troops stationed all around the world, in all the commands--
AFRICOM, EUCOM, CENTCOM--and talked to them about the threats in all 
these regions.
  At a time when I hear colleagues across the aisle and political 
pundits ask the question, Why do we have troops in various places like 
Africa, it is important to remember the strategic importance of Africa.
  I remember 10 years ago we didn't have a command for Africa. It was 
part of three commands: Pacific Command, Central Command, and European 
Command. Now we have AFRICOM. It is its own command. It seemed a little 
unreasonable that we were treating Africa as somewhat of a stepchild 
when that is the breeding ground out there for a lot of the things 
happening in terms of terrorism.
  Despite our military's reach and influence, our Nation's shrinking 
defense budget has put AFRICOM at risk during a time when commanders 
are saying we face the most dangerous world we have ever faced, and we 
have.
  I have often said that I look wistfully back at the days of the Cold 
War, when we had two superpowers and they were predictable. We knew 
what they had. They knew what we had. You have people from all over the 
world who are putting together equipment that we never dreamed they 
would have.
  We have just gone through 8 years of another administration. I don't 
say this critically of him, but one thing about President Obama was 
that he was a committed, sincere liberal. Liberals generally don't pay 
a lot of attention to the military. Now we find ourselves in a 
situation where we are hurting. A lot of people assume that we don't 
have any problems militarily.
  Sometimes I remind people that up until about 1962, we spent more 
than half--52 percent in 1962--of all of our revenues on defending 
America. What is it today? It is 15 percent. When I tell people that, 
they are in shock that we are in the situation we are in. We have 
terrorist groups in Africa--such as ISIS, al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram--
and they are all growing in capability and have expanded their areas 
throughout Africa. This year we have seen horrific events occurring at 
the hands of these extremists. On October 14, a truck bombing killed 
300 people in Somalia's capital. In Niger--it just happened--we had 
four of our U.S. soldiers who were killed in action on October 4 by an 
ISIS group.
  We know that we have serious problems. I think it is a great 
disservice for people to say that we must have known that we had the 
threat that was out there in Niger, when in fact we didn't know it. 
They even compare it sometimes with Benghazi. I remember Benghazi. I 
was there at the time. I remember Chris Stevens. Chris Stevens was the 
Ambassador who went there. He was in my office right before he left, 
talking about the threats that were there, talking about the Taliban, 
his training there, and talking about organized terrorist activity.
  I have to remind people that the persons who are responsible for 
advising the Secretary of State, who at that time was Hillary Clinton, 
and the President, who was President Obama at that time, are the DNI--
that was James Clapper at that time--the Secretary of Defense and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. When the Benghazi event 
happened, the annex was blown up. They all said at that time--they 
advised us, the President, and the Secretary of State--that they were 
forewarned by more than a month that on the anniversary of 9/11 things 
would blow up, and it was going to be an organized attack.
  Right now there is an investigation going on to determine whether or 
not there is any way that we could have anticipated that in Niger this 
would be happening, and so far, that hasn't come up.
  Despite the best of intentions, many of our partners in the region 
lack the capacity and the effectiveness to adequately defend 
themselves. People say: What do we have to gain there? This is exactly 
the same situation that we saw in Afghanistan prior to the war there. 
The terrorists have to have a safe harbor to train in, and that is what 
has happened.
  During my travel, I had the opportunity to meet Prime Minister 
Benjamin Netanyahu. I have to say this about him. I have never seen him 
so ecstatic. A lot of us were looking back at what they were trying to 
do during the Obama administration. It was disheartening to think that 
they put together this Iran deal, and our Secretary of State at that 
time, John Kerry, talked about how great it was and all of these 
concessions that were made when, in fact, that wasn't the case. 
Nonetheless, when our President came out and said that he was not going 
to recertify the Iran deal, that was kind of neat because people don't 
realize that it takes a recertification every 30 days by the President 
in order to keep the Iran deal together. He has not done that.
  Shortly after that, I happened to be talking to Prime Minister 
Netanyahu. It was an incredible relief to him that we were going to be 
looking at this. Still today, I think we all understand that Iran is 
the one that is financing terrorism all around the world. We discussed 
the shortcomings and looked forward to working with my colleagues in 
the future so that Iran does not become a nuclear nation, not now or 
ever.
  What is perhaps the most encouraging is the message that this 
approach sends to the rest of the world, specifically to North Korea. 
President Trump's approach shows me--and, more importantly, shows Kim 
Jong Un--that an America-first foreign policy means that we refuse to 
take a single-minded approach to global threats.
  I recall the changes taking place 8 years ago when our new President, 
President Obama, started his appeasing tour by going over and talking 
about

[[Page S6810]]

how America hadn't been doing the right thing. Now, all of a sudden, we 
have changed that around. That is what is taking place now. At that 
time we didn't have the threats that are out there today.
  We look at North Korea. North Korea is run by a questionable person, 
totally unpredictable, according to our own military leaders. He is 
rapidly getting the capability not just of an ICBM--he has already 
proven he has an ICBM--but with a range not just of Alaska and some of 
those areas but of the entire continental United States.
  On July 4 he launched his first successful ICBM. If that were fired 
on a standard trajectory, that missile could have reached Alaska. Some 
experts think it could have reached even further, into the continental 
United States. In light of that test, the Defense Intelligence Agency 
updated their assessment of the timeline by which North Korea would 
have the capability of hitting an American city. Instead of being 2 
years out and 3 years out, it is now down to 1 year out. Some people 
say they have it right now. We have that threat that is out there. It 
is the greatest threat, in my opinion, that we are facing now or that 
we have ever faced.
  Following this, on September 3, North Korea tested what is believed 
to be a hydrogen bomb. That would be seven times the power of what was 
dropped on Hiroshima. Even if delivered by a relatively inaccurate 
ICBM, there would be horrible damage imposed on our continent.
  It is important to remember that all of this power is being wielded 
by an erratic despot, Kim Jong Un. North Korean officials have stated 
that they are not interested in diplomacy until they have an ICBM 
capable of reaching the east coast of the United States.
  What does that tell you? It tells you that they are on their way. 
This stresses the need for the United States to enhance and accelerate 
our ballistic missile defense systems and to continue to put pressure 
on North Korea through every other means we can, diplomatic and 
otherwise.
  My recent travels enforced again what I have been saying for some 
time; that is, that this is the most dangerous situation we have had, 
certainly in my lifetime. We have an opportunity to counter that threat 
right now. We are in the midst of our NDAA. One thing about the 
National Defense Authorization Act is that this act is going to pass. 
It has passed for 55 consecutive years so we know it is going to pass 
now. But we need to go ahead and get it done. It is important because 
the primary constitutional responsibility that we have is to provide 
for the common defense of our great Nation.

  We have serious readiness issues that are going to have to be 
addressed, and they are being addressed in this bill. I am the chairman 
of the Readiness Subcommittee, and we have fought hard to ensure that 
this year's NDAA takes care of these shortfalls we have had. Our forces 
are smaller now. We actually had a Readiness Subcommittee hearing, and 
we had the Vice Chiefs of all of the services there. They came in and 
said that right now we are in the same situation we were in when we had 
the hollow force following the Carter administration in the 1970s.
  In January of this year, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, General 
Daniel Allyn, said: What it comes down to is that we are going to be 
too late. Our soldiers arrived too late. Our soldiers required too much 
time to close the manning, the training, and the equipment we have, and 
the end result is extensive casualties to civilians and to our forces.
  We are talking about death. That is what is at stake right here. Just 
last week, I met with the Secretary of the Air Force, Heather Wilson, 
to discuss aviation readiness. Right now we are 1,500 pilots short, and 
1,300 of those are fighter pilots. Only 50 percent of the Air Force's 
squadrons are actually trained and ready to conduct all of their 
assigned missions. One-third of our ground brigades don't work. They 
are not ready for combat. As to the aviation brigades, it is the same 
thing.
  Right now, as we know, the Marines use our fleet of F-18s. Sixty-two 
percent of them don't work. They don't have the parts for combat. We 
have this situation. That is going to have to be direct. This year's 
bill will increase the troop levels. We will do what is necessary to 
correct these problems. We need to get moving on that and make people 
aware that help is on the way.
  By the way, here is one of my concerns in this bill. A lot of people 
are interested in the BRAC process. We do prohibit base realignment 
closings to take place for another year. The reason for that is not 
that there may be excess capacity right now or excess resources out 
there, but when we are in a rebuilding mode, we would rather be able to 
use those resources that aren't being used now rather than build new 
ones. One thing is true about a BRAC; it always loses money the first 3 
years. Right now we can't afford to lose any of the money that goes to 
defending America.
  Anyway, of the additional funding, there is going to be $8.5 billion 
for the missile defense that has been suffering, and we are going to be 
doing some good things. As we continue the conference process, which 
started today--we had our first conference meeting today--we need to 
focus on where we are.
  Again, I repeat, the threat is there. We understand that. We know 
what is happening in Africa. By the way, the number of troops we have 
over there--you have to quit using this number of about 6,000--is 
really 1,300 troops for the entire continent who are not committed or 
working in some of the Embassies. We need to get busy on that.