[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 1, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S433-S434]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           Government Funding

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are 4 months into the fiscal year, and 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have still not agreed to 
a deal to fund the Federal Government, including the Department of 
Defense. In a matter of days, we will face the prospect of a long-term 
continuing resolution or government shutdown if an agreement on overall 
funding levels cannot be reached.
  From the moment President Biden submitted his budget request, 
Republican leaders said his proposed $12.6 billion increase for defense 
was not enough. So, on a bipartisan basis, we worked to raise that 
number to a level proposed by the ranking member of the Armed Services 
Committee and supported by every Republican on the committee as well as 
the 88 Senators who voted for the final National Defense Authorization 
Act.
  But even with that defense number in hand, our Republican colleagues 
continue to draw out negotiations on a top-line funding number for the 
Federal Government. In doing so, they risk pushing us into a full-year 
continuing resolution that would fund defense at a level that is less 
than President Biden's initial request.
  Let me say that again. They were deeply critical of the President's 
proposal. They worked and we worked with them to get a robust increase 
in defense spending, and now they are prepared to accept a number even 
below President Biden's request.
  Make no mistake, a full-year CR will short-change our military, and 
it will disrupt the efficient operations of the Federal Government in 
the midst of international tension, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and 
a fragile economic recovery.
  As my colleague from Ohio just pointed out, we are in a serious 
confrontation on the Ukrainian border between Russian forces and 
Ukrainian forces. And we have indicated that we want to help. A big 
part of that help would come from the Department of Defense, but it 
would be very difficult with a continuing resolution to marshal the 
help and support to our colleagues and our friends in Ukraine.
  As I noted, the outlines of a reasonable agreement for both defense 
and nondefense funding have been evident for some time. Indeed, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, which passed on a bipartisan basis 
in December, set a funding level for defense that is 5 percent higher 
than last year's enacted level. It reflects the level proposed by 
Ranking Member Inhofe. And, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I fully supported that funding level and cosponsored Senator 
Inhofe's amendment to authorize the increase.
  For his part, Senator Leahy has adopted the NDAA defense funding 
levels in the bills that the Appropriations Committee introduced in 
November. He accommodated that increase by reducing funding for 
domestic programs by $22.5 billion from the level in the 
administration's request.
  So Democrats have agreed to increase defense funding and to reduce 
nondefense funding from the levels requested by the President. In doing 
so, Democrats proposed a budget that funds defense activities at a 
level that is higher than nondefense activities.
  Let me underscore that point, because GOP leaders often say there 
should be parity between defense and nondefense spending. Senate 
Democrats have proposed spending bills that have $777.5 billion for 
defense and $753 billion for every other discretionary program--the VA, 
education, agriculture, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and so 
on. Democrats have offered our Republican colleagues nearly everything 
they have asked for, but they won't take yes for an answer.
  As we drift toward the full-year CR, our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle are reacting with nonchalance to the impacts on defense.
  Let me remind my colleagues what a full-year CR will mean for 
national defense. It will mean that defense spending would be about $37 
billion lower than the levels set out in the NDAA and lower than the 
funding levels requested by President Biden--yes, those levels they 
criticized so aggressively that President Biden suggests. If they 
pursue this path of a CR, the numbers for defense will be less than the 
President's initial request.
  It means military personnel accounts will be funded $5 billion below 
what the Department requested. A CR means DOD will have to cannibalize 
other accounts in order to provide the pay raise and other benefit 
increases that our servicemembers rightfully deserve.
  It means the Pentagon may have to delay or suspend permanent change-
of-station moves and accession of troops--again, all of this in the 
context, as my colleague from Ohio pointed out, of a major crisis in 
Europe and a growing concern about Chinese activities in the Pacific.
  It means training and readiness accounts will fall about $5.3 billion 
short of what the Department requested. And the key to the morale of 
soldiers--among one of the most important keys--is that they are well 
trained and they are prepared. We owe it to them to give them that 
training and ensure they are prepared.
  It means the military healthcare account will be short over $1 
billion.
  A CR also means that we will be tied to funding priorities from a 
year ago, even though circumstances have changed markedly. For example, 
our military engagements with Afghanistan and Eastern Europe are vastly 
different from last year. Funding will be trapped in the wrong accounts 
and the Defense Department will not have the flexibility to move it 
where it is needed.
  A CR will prevent the Defense Department from effectively modernizing 
and reinvesting in new programs. Because new program starts are not 
allowed under a CR, the Department of Defense will be forced into 
funding legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient. Meanwhile, 
important new initiatives and acquisitions would be delayed.

  We won't be able to fund three additional ships and seven more Joint 
Strike Fighters in the Navy's 2022 budget. The Marines would have to 
delay procurement of the MQ-9A Reaper UAV, and the Amphibious Combat 
Vehicle.
  The Space Force would have to cut two of the five planned national 
security space launch missions, and the Air Force would have to delay 
the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program and the long-range 
standoff weapon.
  DOD also won't be able to start over 100 military construction 
projects--new facilities that our servicemembers need to do their jobs 
safely and effectively. This includes, among others: $32 million in Air 
Force corrosion and simulator projects in Florida, $55 million for a 
joint operation center at Fort Polk in Louisiana, $56 million in total 
projects for Wisconsin, $75 million in total projects for Georgia, $94 
million in total projects for Michigan, $161 million in total projects 
for Texas, $186 million in total projects for California, $251 million 
for a runway extension at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, 
$251 million in total projects for South Dakota, and $321 million in 
total projects for North Carolina.
  Finally, a CR will disrupt DOD's partnerships with outside partners 
in the private sector and academia, and with our allies, because they 
inject uncertainty, instability, and additional costs to R&D and 
acquisition processes.
  In short, a yearlong CR will make us less competitive with our 
adversaries and less able to respond to the rapidly changing global 
landscape, which was illustrated so eloquently by my colleague from 
Ohio. It would be a self-inflicted wound at a dangerous time for the 
country and our international partners.
  The impact will not only be felt on the defense side of the ledger. 
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to produce new and potentially 
dangerous strains, we risk losing $5 billion in research at the NIH and 
$2.4 billion in funding for our public health infrastructure, including 
funding for the CDC, BARDA, and the National Disaster Medical System.
  And a CR would sacrifice $3 billion in new investments in mental 
health, and

[[Page S434]]

one of the obvious outcomes of this pandemic is the mental health 
challenge that is facing all Americans, and particularly young 
Americans.
  We risk losing a proposed $400 increase in the maximum Pell grant, 
just as schools and students are trying to finalize financial aid 
packages. Too many students have put off their college education due to 
economic hardship and uncertainty during the pandemic. This Congress 
should not make matters worse by withholding student aid.
  A CR would also be a slap in the face to the Capitol Police, who have 
been stretched to the limit in the aftermath of the January 6 assault 
on the Capitol. It would deny the department needed funding to hire new 
officers, for overtime and retention payments, as well as resources for 
officer wellness and mental health support.
  Chairman Leahy has bent over backward to engage our Republican 
colleagues. Four months into the fiscal year, we need them to reach an 
agreement. Otherwise, we risk a full-year CR in which everybody loses--
most of all the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. First of all, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to speak for up to 7 minutes and Senator Barrasso be permitted to speak 
for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. MORAN pertaining to the introduction of S. 3541 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. MORAN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, first, I would like to commend my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Kansas, for his incredible ongoing 
leadership on the issue of the veterans of our Nation and his strong 
commitment to each and every one of those veterans and to the men and 
women who wear the uniform and go to battle to keep us safe and keep us 
free, and it is his long history of leadership for which I am most 
grateful.