[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8156-8159]
[From the U.S. 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 
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

[[Page 8157]]

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 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

[[Page 8158]]

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--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.

[[Page 8159]]

  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.

                          ____________________