[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7814-7817]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is my pleasure to rise with my friend 
and colleague from Rhode Island to speak about the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017.
  For 54 consecutive years, Congress has passed this vital piece of 
legislation, which provides our military servicemembers with the 
resources, equipment, and training they need to defend the Nation. The 
NDAA is one of the few bills in Congress that continues to enjoy 
bipartisan support year after year. That is a testament to this 
legislation's critical importance to our national security and the high 
regard with which it is held by the Congress.
  Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 23 to 3--23 to 
3--to approve the NDAA, an overwhelming vote that reflects the 
committee's proud tradition of bipartisan support for the brave men and 
women of our Armed Forces.
  I thank the committee's ranking member, the Senator from Rhode 
Island, for his months of hard work on the NDAA. It has been a great 
pleasure to work with him on this legislation, and I remain 
appreciative of the thoughtfulness and bipartisan spirit with which he 
approaches our national security. He is a great partner and a great 
leader.
  I also thank the majority leader, the Senator from Kentucky, for his 
commitment to bring the NDAA to the Senate floor on time and without 
delay. It is a testimony to his leadership that the Senate will once 
again consider this bill in regular order with an open amendment 
process.
  I am tremendously proud of the Senate Armed Services Committee's work 
on this legislation. This year's NDAA is the most significant piece of 
defense reform legislation in 30 years. It includes major reforms to 
the Department of Defense that can help our military rise to the 
challenge of a more dangerous world.
  The NDAA contains updates to the Pentagon's organization to 
prioritize innovation and improve the development and execution of 
defense strategy. The legislation continues sweeping reforms of the 
defense acquisition system to harness American innovation and preserve 
our military's technological edge.
  The NDAA modernizes the military health system to provide military 
servicemembers, retirees, and their families with higher quality care, 
better access to care, and a better experience of care.
  The NDAA authorizes a pay raise for our troops. It invests in the 
modern equipment and advanced training they need to meet current and 
future threats. It helps to restore military readiness with $2 billion 
for additional training, depot maintenance, and weapons sustainment. 
And it gives our allies and partners the support they need to deter 
aggression and fight terrorism.
  This is a far-reaching piece of legislation, but there is one 
challenge it could not address: the dangerous mismatch between growing 
worldwide threats and arbitrary limits on defense spending that are in 
current law. This mismatch has very real consequences for the thousands 
of Americans who serve in uniform and sacrifice on our behalf all 
around the Nation and the world. Our troops are doing everything we ask 
of them, but we must ask ourselves: Are we doing everything we can for 
them? The answer, I say with profound sadness, is we are not.
  Since 2011 the Budget Control Act has imposed arbitrary caps on 
defense spending. Over the last 5 years, as our military has struggled 
under the threat of sequestration, the world has only grown more 
complex and far more dangerous. Since 2011 we have seen Russian forces 
invade Ukraine, the emergence of the so-called Islamic State and its 
global campaign of terrorism, increased attempts by Iran to destabilize 
U.S. allies and partners in the Middle East, growing assertive behavior 
by China and the militarization of the South China Sea, numerous cyber 
attacks on U.S. industry and government agencies, and further testing 
by North Korea of nuclear technology and other advanced military 
capabilities. Indeed, the Director of National Intelligence, James 
Clapper, testified in February that over the course of his 
distinguished five-decade career, he could not recall ``a more diverse 
array of challenges and crises'' than our Nation confronts today.
  Our military is being forced to confront these growing threats with 
shrinking resources. This year's defense budget is more than $150 
billion less than fiscal year 2011. Despite periodic relief from the 
budget caps that imposed these cuts, including the Bipartisan Budget 
Act of last year, each of our military services remains underfunded, 
undersized, and unready to meet current and future threats. In short, 
as threats grow and the operational demands on our military increase, 
defense spending in constant dollars is decreasing. How does that make 
any sense?
  The President's defense budget request strictly adheres to the 
bipartisan budget agreement, which is $17 billion less than what the 
Department of Defense planned for last year. As a result, the military 
services' underfunded requirements total nearly $23 billion for the 
coming fiscal year alone. Meanwhile, sequestration threatens to return 
in 2018, taking away another $100 billion from our military through 
2021. This is unacceptable.
  While the NDAA conforms to last year's budget agreement at present, I 
have filed an amendment to increase defense spending above the current 
spending caps. This amendment will reverse shortsighted cuts to 
modernization, restore military readiness, and give our servicemembers 
the support they need and deserve. I do not know whether this amendment 
will succeed, but the Senate must have this debate and Senators are 
going to have to choose a side.
  At the same time, as I have long believed, providing for the common 
defense is not just about a bigger defense budget--as necessary as that 
is. We must also reform our Nation's defense enterprise to meet new 
threats, both today and tomorrow, and to give Americans greater 
confidence, which they don't have a lot of now, that the Department of 
Defense is spending their tax dollars efficiently and effectively. That 
is exactly what this legislation does.
  The last major reorganization of the Department of Defense was the 
Goldwater-Nichols Act, which marks its 30th anniversary this year. Last 
fall the Senate Armed Services Committee

[[Page 7815]]

held a series of 13 hearings on defense reform. We heard from 52 of our 
Nation's foremost defense experts and leaders. The Goldwater-Nichols 
Act of 30 years ago responded to the challenges of its time. Our goal 
was to determine what changes needed to be made to prepare the 
Department of Defense to meet the new set of strategic challenges. As 
Jim Locher, the lead staffer on Goldwater-Nichols, testified last year: 
``No organizational blueprint lasts forever. . . . [T]he world in which 
DOD must operate has changed dramatically over the last 30 years.''
  Instead of one great power rival, the United States now faces a 
series of transregional, cross-functional, multidomain, and long-term 
strategic competitions that pose a significant challenge to the 
organization of the Pentagon and the military, which is often rigidly 
aligned around functional issues and regional geography. Put simply, 
the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 30 years ago was about operational 
effectiveness--improving the ability of the military services to plan 
and operate together as one joint force. The problem today is strategic 
integration--how the Department of Defense integrates its activities 
and resources across different regions, functions, and domains, while 
balancing and sustaining those efforts over time.
  The NDAA would require the next Secretary of Defense to create a 
series of ``cross-functional mission teams'' to better integrate the 
Department's efforts and achieve discrete objectives. For example, one 
could imagine a Russia mission team with representatives from policy, 
intelligence, acquisition, budget, the services, and more. There is no 
mechanism to perform this kind of integration at present. The Secretary 
and the Deputy have to do it ad hoc, which is an unrealistic burden. 
The idea of cross-functional teams has been shown to be tremendously 
effective in the private sector and by innovative military leaders, 
such as GEN Stan McChrystal. If applied effectively in the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, I believe this concept could be every bit as 
impactful as the Goldwater-Nichols reforms.
  The NDAA would also require the next Secretary to reorganize one 
combatant command around joint task forces focused on discrete 
operational missions rather than military services. Here, too, the goal 
is to improve integration across different military functions and do so 
with far fewer staff than these commands now have. Similarly, the 
legislation seeks to clarify the role of the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, focusing this leader on more strategic issues, while providing 
the Chairman greater authority to assist the Secretary with the global 
integration of military operations.
  The NDAA also seeks to curb the growth in civilian staff and military 
officers that has occurred in recent years. Over the past 30 years, the 
end strength--the total number of members of the services--of the joint 
force has decreased by 38 percent. The number of men and women serving 
in the military has decreased by 38 percent, but the ratio of four-star 
officers--admirals and generals--to the overall force has increased by 
65 percent. We have seen similar increases among civilians at the 
senior executive service level. The NDAA, therefore, requires a 
carefully tailored 25-percent reduction in the number of general and 
flag officers, a corresponding 25-percent decrease to the ranks of 
senior civilians, and a 25-percent cut to the amount of money that can 
be spent on contractors who are doing staff work.
  The NDAA also caps the size of the National Security Council policy 
staff at 150. The National Security Council staff will be capped at 
150. The staff has steadily grown over administrations of both parties 
in recent decades. Under George Herbert Walker Bush, there were 40; 
more than 100 in the Clinton administration; more than 200 during the 
George W. Bush administration; and now there are reports of nearly 400 
under the current administration, plus as many as 200 contractors. This 
tremendous growth has enabled a troubling expansion of the NSC staff's 
activities from their original strategic focus to micromanagement of 
operational issues in ways that are inconsistent with the intent of 
Congress when it created the NSC in 1947. It has gotten so bad that all 
three leaders who served as Secretary of Defense under the current 
administration recently blasted the NSC's micromanagement of 
operational issues during their tenures. Former Secretary of Defense 
Leon Panetta has come out publicly in favor of shrinking the staff, 
saying he thinks we can do the job better with fewer people.
  In short, the NSC staff is becoming increasingly involved in 
operational issues that should be the purview of Senate-confirmed 
individuals in the chain of command, and doing so beyond the reach of 
congressional oversight. If this organization were to return to the 
intent of the legislation that established it, it could reasonably 
claim that its strategic functions on behalf of the President are 
protected by Executive privilege. If, on the other hand, the NSC staff 
is to play the kind of operational role it has in recent years--and I 
could give my colleagues example after example--if it is going to play 
the kind of operational role it has in recent years, then such a body 
cannot escape congressional oversight.
  The purpose of the provision in the NDAA to cap the size of the NSC 
staff is to state a preference for the Congress's original intent in 
creating the NSC.
  As I have said, integration is a major theme in the NDAA. Another one 
is innovation. For years after the Cold War, the United States enjoyed 
a near monopoly on advanced military technologies. That is changing 
rapidly. Our adversaries are catching up, and the United States is at 
real and increasing risk of losing the military technological dominance 
we have taken for granted for 30 years. At the same time, our leaders 
are struggling to innovate against an acquisition system that too often 
impedes their efforts. I have applauded Secretary Carter's attempts to 
innovate and reach out to nontraditional high-tech firms, but it is 
telling that this has required the Secretary's personal intervention to 
create new offices, organizations, outposts, and initiatives--all to 
move faster and get around the current acquisition system.
  Innovation cannot be an auxiliary office at the Department of 
Defense; it must be the central mission of its acquisition system. 
Unfortunately, that is not the case with the Office of the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, also 
known as AT&L. It has grown too big, tries to do too much, and is too 
focused on compliance at the expense of innovation. That is why the 
NDAA seeks to divide AT&L's duties between two offices--a new Under 
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and an empowered and 
renamed Under Secretary of Management and Support, which was 
congressionally mandated 2 years ago.
  The job of research and engineering would be developing defense 
technologies that can ensure a new era of U.S. qualitative military 
dominance. This office would set defense-wide acquisition and 
industrial-based policy. It would pull together the centers of 
innovation in the defense acquisition system. It would oversee the 
development and manufacturing of weapons by the services. In short, 
research and engineering would be a staff job focused on innovation, 
policy, and oversight of the military services and certain defense 
agencies, such as DARPA.
  By contrast, management and support would be a line management 
position. It would manage the multibillion-dollar businesses--such as 
the Defense Logistics Agency and the Defense Commissary Agency--that 
buy goods and services for the Department of Defense. It would also 
manage other defense agencies that perform other critical business 
functions for the Department, such as performing audits, paying our 
troops, and managing contracts. This would not only enable research and 
engineering to focus on technology development, it would also provide 
for a better management of billions of dollars of spending on mission 
support activities.
  These organizational changes complement the additional acquisition 
reforms in the NDAA that build on our efforts of last year. This 
legislation

[[Page 7816]]

creates new pathways for the Department of Defense to do business with 
nontraditional defense firms. It streamlines regulations to procure 
commercial goods and services. It provides new authorities for the 
rapid prototyping, acquisition, and fielding of new capabilities. It 
imposes new limits on the use of so-called ``cost-plus'' contracts. The 
overuse of these kinds of contracts and the complicated and expensive 
government bureaucracy that goes with them serves as a barrier to entry 
for commercial, nontraditional, and small businesses that are driving 
the innovation our military needs.
  Another major reform in this year's NDAA is the most sweeping 
overhaul of the military health system in a generation. This strong 
bipartisan effort is the result of several years of careful study. The 
NDAA creates greater health value for military families and retirees 
and their families by improving the quality of health care they 
receive, providing timely access to care, and enhancing patient 
satisfaction--all done at lower costs to the patients by encouraging 
them to seek high-value health services from high-value health care 
providers.
  The NDAA incorporates many of the best practices and recent 
innovations of high-performing private sector health care providers. 
For example, the NDAA creates specialized care centers of excellence at 
major medical centers based on the specialized care delivery model in 
high-performing health systems like the Cleveland Clinic. The 
legislation also expands the use of telehealth services and 
incentivizes participation in disease management programs. Finally, the 
NDAA expands and improves access to care by requiring a standardized 
appointment system in military treatment facilities and creating more 
options for patients to get health care in the private sector.
  Taken together, these reforms, along with many others in the bill, 
will improve access to and quality of care for servicemembers and their 
families and retirees and their families, and they will improve the 
military and combat medical readiness of our force and reduce rising 
health care costs for the Department of Defense. This entails some 
difficult decisions. The NDAA makes significant changes to the 
services' medical command structures and right-sizes the costly 
military health system infrastructure, and, yes, the NDAA asks some 
beneficiaries to pay a little more for a better health system.
  Let me make three brief points.
  First, Active-Duty servicemembers will not pay for any health care 
services or prescription drugs they receive, and the NDAA does not 
increase the cost of health care by a single cent for families of 
active-duty servicemembers enrolled in TRICARE Prime. There will 
continue to be no enrollment fees for their health care coverage. All 
beneficiaries, including retirees and their families, will continue to 
receive health care services and prescription drugs free of charge in 
military hospitals and clinics.
  Second, the NDAA does ask working-aged retirees, many of whom are 
pursuing a second career, to pay a little more. Increases in annual 
enrollment fees for TRICARE Choice are phased in over time, and there 
are modest increases in pharmacy copays at retail pharmacies and for 
brand-name drugs through the mail-order pharmacy. It is important to 
remember that 68 percent of retirees live within the service area of a 
military hospital or clinic where they will continue to enjoy no co-
pays for prescription drugs, and all military retirees have access to 
the mail-order pharmacy, where they can access a 90-day supply of 
generic prescriptions free of charge through fiscal year 2019.
  Third, while some military retirees will pay a little more, the 
guiding principle of this reform effort is that we would not ask 
beneficiaries to pay more unless they receive greater value in return--
better access, better care, and better health outcomes. The NDAA 
delivers on that promise. Modernizing the military health system is 
part of the NDAA's focus on sustaining the quality of life of our 
military servicemembers, retirees, and their families.
  The NDAA authorizes a 1.6-percent pay raise for our troops and 
reauthorizes over 30 types of bonuses and special pays. The legislation 
restructures and enhances leave for military parents to care for a new 
child, and it provides stability for the families of our fallen by 
permanently extending the special survivor indemnity allowance. No 
widow should have to worry year to year that she or he may not receive 
the offset of the so-called widows' tax. If this NDAA becomes law, he 
or she will never have to worry about that.
  The NDAA also implements the recommendations of the Department of 
Defense Military Justice Review Group by incorporating the Military 
Justice Act of 2016. The legislation modernizes the military court-
martial trial and appellate practice, incorporates best practices from 
Federal criminal practice and procedures, and increases transparency 
and independent review in the military justice system. Taken together, 
the provisions contained in the NDAA constitute the most significant 
reforms to the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a generation.
  Among the many military personnel policy provisions in the NDAA, 
there is one that has already attracted some controversy. That, of 
course, is the provision in the NDAA that requires women to register 
for Selective Service to the same extent as men beginning in 2018. 
Earlier this year, the Department of Defense lifted the ban on women 
serving in ground combat units. After months of rigorous oversight, a 
large bipartisan majority in the Armed Services Committee agreed that 
there is simply no further justification to limit Selective Service 
registration to men. That is not just my view but the view of every 
single one of our military service chiefs, including the Army Chief of 
Staff and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.
  There will likely be further debate on this issue. As it unfolds, we 
must never forget that women have served honorably in our military for 
years. They filled critical roles in every branch of our military. Some 
have served as pilots, like Martha McSally, who flew combat missions in 
Afghanistan. Some served as logisticians, like the Presiding Officer, 
Senator Joni Ernst, who ran convoys into Iraq. Others have served as 
medics, intelligence officers, nuclear engineers, boot camp 
instructors, and more. Many of these women have served in harm's way, 
and many women have made the ultimate sacrifice, including 160 killed 
in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  As we uphold our commitment to the well-being of our servicemembers 
and their families, we must also uphold our commitment to American 
taxpayers. As part of the committee's comprehensive effort to root out 
and eliminate wasteful spending and improve the Department of Defense 
acquisition system, the NDAA imposes strict oversight measures on 
programs such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the B-21 Long Range 
Strike Bomber, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, and the littoral combat 
ship. These provisions will ensure accountability for results, promote 
transparency, protect taxpayers, and drive the Department to deliver 
our warfighters the capabilities they need on time, as promised, and at 
reasonable costs.
  The NDAA also upholds America's commitment to its allies and 
partners. It authorizes $3.4 billion to support our Afghan partners as 
they fight to preserve the gains of the last 15 years and defeat the 
terrorists who seek to destabilize the region and attack American 
interests. The legislation provides $1.3 billion for counter-ISIL 
operations. The NDAA fully supports the European Reassurance Initiative 
to increase the capability and readiness of U.S. and NATO forces to 
deter and, if necessary, respond to Russian aggression. It also 
authorizes up to $500 million in security assistance to Ukraine, 
including lethal assistance. We should give the Ukrainian people the 
ability to defend themselves. Finally, the legislation includes $239 
million for U.S.-Israel cooperative missile defense programs.
  As we continue to support allies and partners against common threats, 
the NDAA makes major reforms to the Pentagon's complex and unwieldy 
security cooperation enterprise, which has complicated the Department 
of Defense's ability to effectively prioritize,

[[Page 7817]]

plan, execute, and oversee these activities.
  This legislation also makes sure we are not providing support to 
adversaries like Russia. The United States' assured access to space 
continues to rely on Russian rocket engines. Purchasing these engines 
provides a financial benefit to Vladimir Putin's cronies, including 
individuals who have been sanctioned by the United States, and it 
subsidizes the Russian military industrial base. This is unacceptable 
at a time when Russia continues to occupy Crimea, destabilize Ukraine, 
menace our NATO allies, violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Forces Treaty, and bomb moderate rebels in Syria. That is why the NDAA 
repeals a provision from last year's Omnibus appropriations bill that 
furthered dependence on Russia.
  Once the nine Russian rocket engines allowed by the past two NDAAs 
are expended, the Defense Department would be required to achieve 
assured access to space without the use of rocket engines designed or 
manufactured in Russia. In testimony before the committee, the 
Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the 
Secretary of the Air Force each confirmed that the United States can 
meet its assured access to space requirements without the use of 
Russian rocket engines.
  We do not have to rely on Russia for access to space. Given the 
urgency of eliminating reliance on Russian engines, the NDAA will allow 
for up to half of the funds for the development of a replacement launch 
vehicle or propulsion system to be made available for offsetting any 
potential increase in launch costs as a result of prohibitions on 
Russian rocket engines. With $1.2 billion budgeted over the next 5 
years, we can cover the costs of ending our reliance on Russia while 
developing the next generation of American space launch capabilities.
  Finally, the legislation takes several steps to bolster border 
security and homeland defense. It authorizes $688 million for 
Department of Defense counterdrug programs. It enhances information 
sharing and operational coordination between the Department of Defense 
and the Department of Homeland Security. It provides additional support 
for the U.S. Southern Command, and it continues support for the U.S.-
Israel anti-tunneling cooperation program, which helps to improve our 
efforts to restrict the flow of drugs across the U.S. southern border.
  I say to my colleagues: This is an ambitious piece of legislation, 
and it is one that reflects the growing threats to our Nation. 
Everything about the NDAA is threat driven--everything, that is, but 
its top line of $602 billion. That is an arbitrary figure set by last 
year's budget agreement, having nothing to do with events in the world, 
and which itself was a product of 5 years of letting politics, not 
strategy, determine the level of funding for our national defense. 
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs GEN Martin Dempsey described last 
year's defense budget as ``the lower ragged edge of manageable risks.'' 
Yet here we are 1 year later with defense spending arbitrarily capped 
at $17 billion below what our military needed and planned for last 
year. I don't know what lies beneath the lower ragged edge of 
manageable, but this is what I fear it means--that our military is 
becoming less and less able to deter conflict and that if, God forbid, 
deterrence does fail somewhere and we end up in conflict, our Nation 
will deploy young Americans into battle without sufficient training or 
equipment to fight a war that will take longer, be larger, cost more, 
and ultimately claim more American lives than it otherwise would have.
  That is the growing risk we face, and for the sake of the men and 
women serving in our military, we cannot change course soon enough. The 
Senate will have the opportunity to do just that when we consider my 
amendment to reverse the budget-driven cuts to the capabilities of our 
Armed Forces that are needed to defend the Nation. I hope we will seize 
this opportunity.
  We ask a lot of our men and women in uniform, and they never let us 
down. We must not let them down. As we move forward with consideration 
of the NDAA, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to pass this important legislation and give our military the 
resources they need and deserve.
  Again, I note the presence of my esteemed colleague and friend, the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, without whom this 
legislation would not have been possible. It happens to be a source of 
great pride to me--and I hope to Americans who believe that we are 
bitterly divided--that as an example of defending this Nation and 
providing for men and women whom we send into harm's way, the Senator 
from Rhode Island and I have developed a partnership that I believe has 
been incredibly productive. Without the kind of partnership that I have 
enjoyed with my friend from Rhode Island, it would not have been 
possible to produce this legislation, which is obviously the most 
important obligation we have, and that is to defend the Nation.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________