Floor Statements
|
|
|
Print this page |
REMARKS BY SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON HIS AMENDMENT TO STRIKE FUNDING FOR GUAM FROM THE CR
March 13, 2013
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following remarks on the floor introducing his amendment to strike funding for Guam in the Continuing Resolution currently before the Senate:
“Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about my amendment #33, which would strike Sections 8104 and 8039 of the bill, a pair of Guam earmarks that directly contravene the explicit direction provided by the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives in the Conference Report on the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. Since Congress has not yet received a sufficient cost analysis of the proposed movement of troops from Okinawa to Guam, the Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate explicitly prohibited this type of premature investment in civilian infrastructure. At a time when the Department of Defense is facing the impact of sequestration on top of the $487 million in cuts directed by the President, it is appalling to me that the Appropriators would circumvent the authorizers.
“The following things are beginning to happen, now that the Department of Defense is under sequestration, and this is just the brief list:
· The Navy was unable to deploy the USS Truman Carrier;
· 80% of the Army’s non-deploying brigades have reduced readiness; Army base operations have been reduced 30%;
· The Navy is reducing flying hours on deployed carriers in Middle East by 55% and shut down all flying for four of nine Carrier Air Wings. If funding is restored, returning to normal readiness will take 9-12 months and cost two-to-three times as much.
· The Air Force is delaying planned acquisition of satellites and aircraft including JSF and AC-130J, which will increase the future cost of these systems; and
· The Commandant of the Marine Corps said: ‘By the end of this year, more than 50 percent of my combat units will be below minimal acceptable levels of readiness for deployment to combat.’
“Instead of trying to remedy these drastic reductions to our military strength, the appropriators are willing to overstep the authorizers and fund civilian projects in Guam, which U.S. Pacific Command told me yesterday is not a military requirement.
“The Guam provisions would provide $120 million for a public regional health laboratory and civilian wastewater improvements in Guam and permit the Secretary of Defense to redirect additional funding from Defense Operation and Maintenance accounts to supplement other civilian infrastructure funding. I have an amendment to immediately strip these provisions from the bill and restore that funding to the Defense Operation and Maintenance Accounts.
“The Department of Defense wants to move Marines to Guam, but does not know how much military infrastructure will be needed to support the move, what the implications will be to operational responsiveness in the Pacific theater, or how much any of it will cost. Over the last two years, the Armed Services Committee received many hours of testimony, briefings, and meetings on the troop realignment in the Pacific and directed the Center for Strategic and International Studies to conduct an independent assessment on U.S. Force Posture Strategy in the region.
“That assessment, delivered in August 2012, recommended a better alignment of engagement strategies between U.S. Pacific Command and the Department of Defense (DOD) in order to improve our capabilities in the region and respond to a range of contingencies. CSIS was clear in their appraisal that the Department of Defense had not ‘adequately articulated the strategy behind its force posture planning, nor aligned the strategy with resources in a way that reflects current budget realities.’
“After more testimony, briefings, and meetings, the Armed Services Committees acted and, through the vehicle of the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, prohibited the use of funds for any military realignment to Guam until the Department of Defense and U.S. Pacific Command provided a detailed set of reports.
“These reports will address the plan for ensuring that any proposed force realignments in the Pacific region, to include moving U.S. Marines from Japan to Guam and Hawaii, are supported by resources that will allow our forces to meet operational requirements. Admiral Locklear, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command told me yesterday that these reports would be ready this summer.
“Military commanders in the region must have adequate ground, naval, and air assets to meet the operational and logistical challenges in the Pacific theater, including strategic airlift and sealift to move forces quickly around an extremely large and diverse area of responsibility. These resources should be in place before the forces are realigned, so as not to incur additional operational risk in this critical region.
“So, the Department of Defense has planning left to do. And while Congress may someday authorize some number of Marines to be realigned to Guam, it will only be after we have a clear understanding of the operational implications and costs.
“In this context, the Appropriations Committee would fund unrequested, civilian infrastructure – not military infrastructure mind you, civilian infrastructure – far greater in scope that would be required even in the event that the most extreme estimates of troop realignment occur. And there is absolutely no justification for it. That is why the Armed Services Committees expressly prohibited such funding. Because we do not know how much military or civilian infrastructure we may need, if any.
“Has one single Marine, sailor, or airman been assigned to Guam as part of the intended buildup that would justify using DoD money to rebuild Guam’s civilian wastewater facilities or build a new civilian health laboratory? The answer, obviously, is no. This is a pork-barrel payoff to Guam to solve an already existing problem that has nothing to do with any future military realignment related to Guam.
“Mr. President, this is no better than last year’s set of earmarks for a ‘cultural artifacts repository’. It’s disgraceful.
“As should be very clear by now, these expenditures, pushed through in direct contravention of the bipartisan, bicameral decisions of the Armed Services Committees, are a shameful waste of taxpayers’ money and, in my view, a clear example of abuse of the appropriations process.”
###
|