[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 90 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3601-S3604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 2943, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2943) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2017 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, for military construction, and for defense
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes.
Pending:
McCain amendment No. 4229, to address unfunded priorities
of the Armed Forces.
Reed/Mikulski amendment No. 4549 (to amendment No. 4229),
to authorize parity for defense and nondefense spending
pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Amendment No. 4549
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment, which will
provide partial relief from the caps imposed by the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2015 on both the defense and nondefense portions of the budget
for fiscal year 2017. The chairman has offered an amendment that will
provide relief for the Department of Defense activities. My amendment
will provide a comparable amount of relief for activities that are
beyond the Department of Defense but critical to our national security
and critical to our national economy.
It is long past time to replace the senseless sequester with a
balanced approach that keeps America safe and strong at home and
abroad. Senator McCain and I both believe that sequestration has to be
eliminated. What I would suggest is that it has to be done in a
balanced way. It has to keep the intent of the Bipartisan Budget Act
and the Budget Control Act by treating defense and nondefense spending
equally.
Let me also be clear. The bill before us provides the amount outlined
under current law as well as the budget request of the Secretary of
Defense who, along with the Service Secretaries and Chiefs, has
testified in support of this amount. They certainly would like more,
but they have testified that for this year these resources are at least
adequate. Now they have also made it very clear that if we do go into
sequestration in the next year, it would be absolutely devastating to
the Department of Defense. As a result, we share--the chairman and I--
the same commitment to ensuring that sequestration is eliminated and we
move to a more rational budget process.
These military professionals would like to have the certainty of
year-long funding at the committee level reported at least. That
certainly is extremely important. I don't think they want to roll the
dice. They recognize that this lengthy fight for parity could last all
the way through this year. I believe what they would like to see us do
is what they said in their testimony. We can operate under the budget
as proposed by the President, as recognized in the underlying budget
committee mark, and that will give us the certainty we need.
The bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee includes
$523.9 billion in discretionary spending for defense base budget
requirements and $58.9 billion for overseas contingency operations, or
OCO account. It includes $19.3 billion for Department of Energy-related
activities resulting in a top-line funding level of approximately $602
billion for discretionary national defense spending.
While these funding levels adhere to the spending limits mandated by
the Bipartisan Budget Act, or BBA, concerns have rightly been raised
that the Department may require additional resources to carry out the
missions it has been assigned and to adequately maintain the readiness
of our military forces. As my colleagues are aware, when the Senate
considered the BBA last fall, it established the discretionary funding
level for defense spending for fiscal year 2017. That agreement passed
this Chamber with support from Senators from both political parties.
Furthermore, the BBA split the increase in discretionary spending
evenly between the defense and nondefense categories.
It is important to remember that we have repeatedly made incremental
changes to the discretionary budget caps for both defense and
nondefense accounts. We have done so in order to provide some budgetary
certainty to the Department of Defense and our domestic agencies. These
spending caps were first revised with the American Taxpayer Relief Act
of 2012, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and most recently with the
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.
In each instance, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to increase
the spending caps and provide additional resources, evenly split
between defense and nondefense accounts. Unfortunately, providing
relief to the budget caps for defense spending, as the underlying
amendment by the chairman proposes, while taking no action on
nondefense spending, would renege on those bipartisan agreements and
the sense of common purpose that motivated us in the last several
adjustments to the Sequestration Act.
In contrast, my amendment, would keep the pressure on for a permanent
[[Page S3602]]
solution to the budget caps and sequestration by treating defense and
nondefense discretionary funding equally. We can't afford to miss any
opportunity to make progress on this issue of sequestration relief. It
also reinforces and underscores the sense of the Senate passed by the
committee that states ``sequestration relief should include both
defense and nondefense relief.'' Again, that is a concept that has
motivated all of us or the vast majority for many years.
Specifically, my amendment would revise the budget caps to allow for
an additional $18 billion in nondefense and defense-focused domestic
spending to match the additional $18 billion in defense spending.
The additional nondefense funds are intended primarily to help
address security challenges facing our Nation that do not fall within
the purview of the Department of Defense, including funds to implement
the integrated campaign plan to counter ISIL, enhance Federal cyber
security, and provide additional resources for border security, first
responders, counternarcotics, refugee assistance, Zika prevention and
treatment, and infrastructure security and vulnerabilities.
True national security involves more than just the activities of DOD,
and so non-DOD departments and agencies should also receive relief from
the budget caps. The Pentagon simply cannot meet the complex set of
national security challenges we face without the help of other
government departments and agencies, including State, Justice, and
Homeland Security.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the DOD and other civilian
departments and agencies that contributes to our national security. It
has to be recognized that providing security for the American people
requires a truly whole-of-government approach that goes beyond just a
strong DOD.
The budget caps are based on a misnomer, that discretionary spending
is divided into security and nonsecurity spending. But Members need to
be clear, essential national security functions are performed by
government departments and agencies other than the Department of
Defense.
As retired Marine Corps General Mattis said, ``If you don't fund the
State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.'' General
Mattis's point is perhaps best illustrated in the administration's nine
lines of effort to counter ISIL. Of these nine lines of effort, only
two fall squarely within the responsibilities of the Department of
Defense and intelligence communities; i.e., traditional security
activities. The remaining seven elements of our counter-ISIL strategy
fall primarily on the State Department and other civilian departments
and agencies.
My amendment includes $1.9 billion to support this counter-ISIL
strategy, including supporting effective governance in Iraq. No amount
of military assistance to the Government of Iraq will be effective in
countering the ISIL threat in Iraq if the Abadi government doesn't
govern in a more transparent and inclusive manner that gives Sunnis
hope that they will participate politically in Iraq's future. We need
our diplomatic and political experts at the State Department to engage
with Sunni, Shia, Kurd, and minority communities in Iraq to promote
reconciliation in Iraq and build the political unity among the Iraqi
people needed to defeat ISIL. Those resources will come through the
State Department, primarily.
Building partner capacity. The coalition is building the capabilities
and capacity of our foreign partners in the region to wage a long-term
campaign against ISIL. While the efforts to build the capacity of the
Iraqi security forces and some of our other foreign partners are funded
by the Department of Defense, the State Department and USAID are also
responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities and across a
broader spectrum of activities. Under the underlying amendment, none of
the State and USAID programs will receive additional funding for these
purposes.
We have to disrupt ISIL, particularly their finances. Countering
ISIL's financing requires the State Department and Treasury Department
to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector to ensure
our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and enforced. These
State- and Treasury-led efforts are nonsecurity in the very simple
dichotomy that has been drawn under the budget caps. It is also notable
that the Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, and the Office of
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, TFI, Treasury Department, are
also categorized as nonsecurity activities under the budget caps. The
Republican funding strategy not only means that our counter-ISIL
efforts will be hampered, so, too, will our efforts to effectively
impose sanctions against Iran, Sudan, and individuals who support their
illicit activities.
We also have to continue to expose ISIL's true nature. Our strategic
communications campaign against ISIL requires a truly whole-of-
government effort, including the State Department, Voice of America,
and USAID. The Republican approach to funding our strategic
communications strategy is a part-of-government plan, not a whole-of-
government plan, since the additional funds that could be used by
State, USAID, Voice of America, and other agencies would not be there.
We have to stop the flow of foreign fighters. Foreign fighters are
the lifeblood of ISIL. Without the efforts of our diplomats around the
world prodding our foreign partners to pass laws and more effectively
enforce the laws on their books, the efforts of the coalition to stem
the flow of foreign fighters will never be successful.
Of course, we have to protect the homeland. While a small portion of
the Department of Homeland Security is considered security-related
activities under the budget caps, the vast majority of the Department
falls into the nonsecurity portion of the budget. Providing no relief
from the budget caps to the Department of Homeland Security
shortchanges efforts to secure our communities and borders against ISIL
threats.
Again, we have to provide support because of the huge humanitarian
crisis that causes instability worldwide, particularly in areas of
concern. Virtually none of the activities that support our humanitarian
efforts in the region--in the Middle East and many other parts of the
world--are considered security activities. Military commanders
routinely state that the efforts of the State Department, the USAID,
and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to provide for refugees
and other vulnerable populations overseas are critical to our broader
security efforts, and that is particularly true on the counter-ISIL
campaign.
The administration's two remaining lines of effort against ISIL--
namely, denying ISIL safe havens and enhancing intelligence
collection--are under the so-called defense or security accounts.
However, the continued presence and activities of our diplomats
overseas significantly enable both of these lines of effort. Therefore,
our amendment would also authorize additional funds to provide for
improved Embassy security to help keep these personnel safe.
The importance of adequately funding other security-focused civilian
departments and agencies was also underscored by the former commander
of U.S. Northern Command ADM William Gortney when he testified before
the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year. Admiral Gortney
stated:
Our trusted partnerships are our center of gravity and are
critical to our success across the spectrum of our missions.
Homeland partnerships . . . underscore every one of our
mission areas, and are best represented by the integration in
our headquarters of nearly 60 DOD and non-DOD federal
agencies, department representatives, and liaison officers. I
view homeland defense as a team effort, and I rely on
partnerships with my fellow combatant commands, the Services,
and our interagency partners to accomplish this mission.
Recognizing this reality, my amendment also includes additional
funding for critical domestic security efforts, including $2 billion
for cyber security. Cyber attacks are a real threat to our national
security. Cyber threats are increasing as our country and government
become more digitally connected. There is no question the Federal
Government must do a better job of protecting its systems. This
amendment provides an additional $2 billion to address our cyber
security vulnerabilities in nondefense agencies.
I was particularly struck in hearings we had with the Department of
Transportation IG and Department of Housing IG. When asked to give
their major
[[Page S3603]]
concerns, both indicated the potential for cyber attacks and cyber
security within their Departments. So this issue of cyber security
certainly transcends the Department of Defense, and funding cyber
security is a critical primary objective included in the amendment that
I propose.
We are also asking for $1.4 billion for law enforcement and the
Department of Homeland Security. This money will help State and local
law enforcement and first responder efforts. It will also allow the
Department of Homeland Security to hire 2,000 new Customs and Border
Protection officers and reduce wait times and improve security.
It is a good sign for our economy that more and more people have been
using air travel since the economic recovery started in 2009. We have
seen, particularly at many of our larger airports, passengers
experiencing significant delays trying to clear security. For instance,
BWI Airport is advising passengers to show up 2 hours early for
domestic flights in order to clear security. The flight to Providence
is 1 hour 15 minutes, and I take it often. So it is possible that
people flying to Rhode Island will spend more time in the security
lines than on the plane. We all know how much that affects the people
we represent.
It is also important we have an adequate number of Customs officers
not only at the southern border but all ports of entry across the
country. T.F. Green Airport in my home State has a growing
international service, but it has become a challenge for the existing
number of Customs agents and inspectors to meet new demands for
service.
One of the areas we talked about extensively on both sides of the
aisle over the last several months has been the opioid epidemic. The
amendment I propose would provide resources in the amount of $1.1
billion to help with this epidemic. In the United States, drug
overdoses have exceeded car crashes as the No. 1 cause of injury death.
Two Americans die of drug overdoses every hour. In my State of Rhode
Island, there were more than 230 opioid overdose deaths in 2014. We
acted earlier this year on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act
to help deal with this issue, but so far the funding efforts have been
blocked. So we have a situation where there is authority but no funds.
I think we need both, and I think we have to continually ensure we have
both authorities and funds. It is critical that we provide real
resources to States and local entities to confront this epidemic and to
ensure that people have access to the treatments they need.
Another issue which threatens our national security that is not a
traditional Department of Defense issue by any means is the threat of
the Zika virus. It is on every front page and on every news show at
almost every moment. This legislation would authorize $1.9 billion for
Zika prevention and treatment.
The threat of the Zika virus is a serious public health issue. It has
been over 2 months since the administration asked for funds to speed up
the development of vaccines and for a comprehensive response to the
Zika virus. This should not be a partisan issue, and continued inaction
leaves us more susceptible to this serious public health emergency.
Already, there are over 1,700 cases of the Zika virus in the United
States and U.S. territories, including over 300 involving pregnant
women. We have seen seven cases so far in my home State of Rhode
Island. The virus is spreading. It is not going away on its own, and we
will certainly see these numbers increase as we approach the summer
months. Again, I think we have to see this as a threat to our national
security and deal with it as we are trying to deal with other threats
to national security.
But our national security is not just about being strong abroad, it
is also being strong at home. A growing, vital economy allows us to
meet the fiscal challenges we need to fully fund defense and to fully
fund our nondefense security activities. So, as Secretary Carter has
said, underfunding the nondefense portion of the budget, in his words,
``disregards the enduring long-term connection between our Nation's
security and many other factors. Factors like scientific R&D to keep
our technological edge, education of a future all-volunteer military
force, and the general economic strength of our country.''
The words of the Secretary of Defense, I think, are right on target.
Furthermore, the men and women of our military volunteer to protect and
are fighting overseas for American ideals, including a good education,
economic opportunity, safe communities, and functioning infrastructure.
There is a reason why our past budget agreements have provided budget
parity between defense and nondefense spending. We have done so because
we all recognize that we must protect our Nation as well as keep our
Nation worth protecting.
Our servicemembers and their families also rely on many of the
services provided by non-DOD departments and agencies. Efforts to
support all these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments
and agencies also receive relief from the budget caps.
Therefore, my amendment also revises the budget caps to allow for
additional spending on important programs carried out by civilian
agencies, including $5.1 billion for infrastructure improvement.
President Eisenhower understood the importance of a strong highway
infrastructure to our national defense. In fact, I think, at least
colloquially, his legislation was referred to at times as the
``national defense highway system.'' But it was the Federal-Aid Highway
Act of 1956 which led to our interstate transportation system.
Today, many elements of that transportation system, both roads and
bridges, have fallen below acceptable standards. We need to take action
now to prevent further decline in that vital system. The unrealistic
and arbitrary budget caps will result in deep cuts to critical
infrastructure programs. We need more resources to invest in our
transportation and infrastructure systems--not less.
In response to these shortfalls, my amendment would provide $5.1
billion to help meet critical infrastructure needs for roads, bridges,
rail, affordable housing, VA construction projects, water
infrastructure, and funds to mitigate lead contamination.
Here are a few facts for the consideration of my colleagues. Barely
one-third of our roads are in good condition, and one-quarter of our
bridges need significant repair. In my State, we have the highest
percentage of structurally deficient bridges. Without increased
investment, that number could double in the next decade.
The Department of Transportation has identified an $86 billion state-
of-good-repair backlog for bus and rail transit. That backlog continues
to increase at a rate of $2.5 billion per year due to inadequate
Federal funding. Amtrak's busy Northeast corridor has a $28 billion
state-of-good-repair backlog and relies on bridges and tunnels that are
over 100 years old.
The Federal Aviation Administration's maintenance backlog has grown
to $5 billion, and the FAA has identified over $400 million in needs
for immediate facilities repairs that we are not able to meet under our
current allocation. If we do not invest in our transportation system,
efficiency and safety will be compromised.
Meanwhile, we have also an affordable housing crisis. Nearly 8
million low-income Americans are paying more than 50 percent of their
income on rent, living in substandard housing, or both. In fact, for
every four families that are eligible to receive HUD assistance, only
one can be served within this fiscal environment. Families cannot pay
for higher education or get ahead if the majority of income goes to
simply keeping a roof over their heads.
It is also important to continue to adequately fund the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and
to work to mitigate lead contamination. State revolving fund resources
are critical to modernize our water infrastructure, reducing pollution,
and protecting public health.
As the tragic events in Flint, MI, illustrate, when water quality is
compromised, it becomes a public health crisis. Water quality oversight
isn't just about pipes and infrastructure. It is also about preserving
an ecosystem and keeping our sources of drinking water free from
harmful contaminants. Inadequately funding these basic necessities
means that we cannot meet the needs of our communities.
We also understand, particularly as we look across the globe at our
competitors--our military competitors--
[[Page S3604]]
that our technological edge is narrowing. One reason is that they are
investing a great deal in their research infrastructure and we are not
investing as we were in the past, again, partly as a result of these
budget caps.
So, my amendment would authorize an additional $3.5 billion for
science and technological investment. Federal research centers like
NIH, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and ARPA-E, all provide
hope for treatments and cures for life-threatening and debilitating
diseases, generate new technology, and make scientific breakthroughs.
They are also key in helping to strengthen our economy and maintain our
competitive edge--the foundation of our national security.
Again, the technological edge that we enjoyed over our near-peer
competitors in the past is narrowing. Every defense official will say
that. We are not simply going to fix it by putting some more money into
defense-directed DOD research. We have to put money throughout our
entire research enterprise. One other area is increasing our basic
education. This funding would support full implementation of several
bipartisan legislative efforts, including the Every Student Succeeds
Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act, and efforts to improve college
affordability.
We can never be fully secure if we are not fully providing for the
development of the children of this country, because they will
eventually rise to positions of leadership, not just in the military
but in other critical areas that will make this Nation strong and
continue our ability to provide the finest military force in the world.
We have tried to articulate throughout that our national security is
much more than simply the funding we give to the Department of Defense.
A well-trained and educated workforce, a productive workforce
contributes to our economy, and that contributes to our defense.
Innovation through scientific research is important to our national
security.
The agencies that I cited, particularly the Department of Homeland
Security, the Department of State, and all of these agencies have a
critical role overseas. They will not be able to play that role if we
simply increase funding for the Department of Defense and not for these
other agencies. For some time now, the President and Secretaries
Carter, Hagel, Panetta, and Gates have implored Congress to end the
harmful efforts of the arbitrary spending caps and sequestration.
During last year's debate, I repeatedly and forcefully argued that
using the OCO account as a way to skirt the budget caps set a dangerous
precedent. That was the reason why I reluctantly had to vote against
last year's bill. I was deeply concerned that if we used this OCO
approach for 1 year, it would be easy to do it next year and every year
after that, ensuring an enduring imbalance between security and
domestic spending. Such an approach would be completely counter to the
original rationale of the Budget Control Act, which imposed
proportionally equal cuts to defense and nondefense discretionary
spending to force a bipartisan compromise.
Ultimately, we must return to an era of budget deliberations in which
all discretionary spending, both defense and nondefense, is judged by
its merit and not by arbitrary limits. We need to begin working
together now to remove the budget caps and the threat of sequestration,
not just for the Department of Defense but for all Federal agencies
that contribute to national and economic security. Providing relief
from the caps to only the defense portion of the budget, while ignoring
the very real consequences of continuing to underfund the nondefense
portion of the budget, moves us farther away from that goal.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cotton). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. AYOTTE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________