U.S. Senator Ken Salazar

Member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees

 

2300 15th Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 | 702 Hart Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510

 

 

For Immediate Release

September 6, 2007

CONTACT:Stephanie Valencia – 202-228-3630
Cody Wertz 303-350-0032

 

 UPDATE: Sen. Salazar Secures Delay on Pinon Canyon Expansion in Military Construction and Veterans Administration Appropriations Bill
 Sens. Salazar & Allard to Continue to Push Amendment to DoD Bill to Study Whether Expansion is Needed

WASHINGTON, DC- Today, United States Senator Ken Salazar secured a delay on expansion at the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site (PCMS) in the Military Construction and Veterans’ Administration Appropriations Bill that passed the Senate today. Salazar’s amendment will halt the expansion of PCMS for one year. It is identical to the Salazar-Musgrave amendment that was adopted by the House of Representatives earlier this year. The bill will now go to Conference Committee where it will be reconciled with the version passed by the House of Representatives. The Conference Report will then have to be approved by the House and Senate and signed by the President.

“I am thankful for today’s vote. The vote was the right outcome for protecting private property rights, our national security, and fiscal discipline,” said Senator Salazar. “It is another important step to make sure we do what is right with Pinon Canyon.”

Senators Salazar and Allard will also offer a second amendment to the Defense Authorization or Appropriations bills later this month. It would require reports from the Army on the existing uses of PCMS and potential expansion.

This amendment requires the Army to provide a report on the following matters:

  • Is there a need for expansion, given the 2005 BRAC Commission finding that Fort Carson has sufficient training land to support its needs?
  • Is the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site being used to capacity?
  • How can the Army better use the existing land at PCMS to meet its training needs?
  • If the Army needs additional land to train Fort Carson units, can it use other federal lands or land at other installations?
  • If the Army added land to PCMS, what training capacity would be added to Fort Carson?
  • If the Army were to expand PCMS, what economic benefits would it provide to local communities and how could the ranching heritage of Southeastern Colorado be preserved?

The amendment requires the Army to provide the justification and requires it to solicit public input on its report. In addition, the amendment would require that the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the Army’s report and justification for expansion.

###