National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona is correct, every uniformed Chief of service came before us and said the greatest crisis facing the military process was sequestration, the Budget Control Act, and they asked us to change it, and we didn't change it.
If we are going to change it, then we have to make every effort and take every step to make those changes, and that is the point I have tried to raise in this committee--not by eliminating the funds available to the military but by making these funds subject to responsible action with following the request of the defense officials to eliminate sequestration. I think we should do it as soon as possible. If we don't take every opportunity to make that case and every action possible to make that case, then we will be essentially rejecting the advice of our senior military leaders.
Suggesting that this bill is somehow so totally disconnected to the appropriations process is belied by the title of the bill. This is an act to authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 2016 for the military activities for the Department of Defense, for military construction, the defense activities in the Department of Energy. We are directly linked to the appropriations process. In the ideal world, the one that we authorize and would like to see, nothing can be appropriated, no dime can be spent, unless we have authorized it.
What we have done, effectively, in the bill--and I think it is not because it is the chairman's first choice but because it was the only available option given the budget resolution--is that we have taken the overseas contingency account, bolstered it up dramatically, and set a new sort of pathway, which next year, unless we resolve this issue of the Budget Control Act, we will come back again with more money--and the following year.
Also, as has been pointed out, we will have situations where we will find some very strange things happening in our OCO account, because we can't fund legitimate concerns of the government in other areas because of caps. That is essentially what happened in the eighties. That is why we have a significant amount of medical research money in the Department of Defense--not because the Department of Defense does it but because that was the only available option in the eighties and nineties to get money to where we thought we would need it.
I think the other issue here, too, is very implicit in our activity, which is that this bill is aimed at the Department of Defense and the military activities of the Department of Energy. Our national security is much more than that. The chairman read quite accurately reports about activity in the world, but up my way, in Roslindale, MA, there was an alleged terrorist who was confronted by an FBI agent and a Massachusetts police officer. That is the kind of terrorism a lot of people are concerned about, and if we sequester and cut off funding for the Department of Justice and the FBI and the Customs Service, et cetera, we will see this threat growing. So this is about a broader view, a wider view, and the overall mass security of the United States.
I know we have some votes pending, and I would like to go ahead and allow for my colleague to speak.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, the amendment pending before us now is the Portman amendment proposed by the Senator from Ohio. We spoke about it yesterday.
First, let me recognize that he is trying to assist the Army in modernizing the Stryker, which is a very critical piece of equipment. But I want to reiterate some of the concerns I have about the amendment. I know Senator Portman will be here shortly to make a final comment on the amendment. The amendment would add $371 million of funding for procurement, research, and development of the lethality upgrade to the Stryker program.
I do not have to tell anyone around here that we are in a very tough budget situation. We have to look very closely at every request. The traditional way it is done is that there will be in the President's budget the request by the service department, including the Department of Army, and then the Army will submit an unfunded requirements list--those priority elements that have not made the cut, if you will, in the President's budget. That was done in March. I understand that this whole requirement for the Stryker lethality upgrade came in in April. There is an issue of unfortunate timing. But, nevertheless, because we did not have the opportunity to look at this as part of the overall unfunded requirements list--nor the Army, for that matter--we really do not have a sense of the priority. Is this the most important program that we can invest $371 million in at this moment for the benefit of the Army? Therefore, I am very concerned that we are sort of moving forward without full and careful analysis both by the Department of the Army and by the committee, and we need, at this particular moment, this difficult time, to have that type of analysis.
The other issue here, too, is that this is the first step in a multiyear process. We are not quite sure how much additional funding will be needed over the next several years. It is clear from the Army that additional funding will be needed.
So we are at this time, without the usual review by the Army and by the committee, committing ourselves, perhaps, to significant funding going forward. The present estimate is that it will cost $3.8 million per vehicle. The plan is to upgrade about 81 vehicles. But it is something that, again, could be more expensive and will commit us over several years.
The funding--the vast majority of it--is going to be dedicated to one plant in a single State. Indeed, I think, generally and appropriately, it is a concern of the Senator from Ohio because most of the work will be done in Ohio. I think, again, he should be commended for being interested in what is happening in his home State.
So I appreciate the demand, but I just do not think this has gone through the process sufficiently enough for us to make that type of commitment today on the floor, and I will be opposing it right now.
I would also point out two other factors. First, the Army has the capability going forward, if this program becomes so critical and they raise it to the highest priority, to request a reprograming of funds, to move money from one less significant priority to this program. That is an option they have, and that is an option they may well choose to use, but it will only be after their careful consideration of the other priorities that are facing the Army. I think that is a better way to do it.
The other factor I would point out is that the pay-for for this program is the foreign currency account. Basically, that is a hedge within the Department of Defense for their international transactions and the value of the U.S. dollar versus other currency. Well, the dollar is strong, and so there appears to be additional excess funds in that account, but currency over the next year could change dramatically. We have already put significant pressure on this supposed excess funding. We have reduced by about $550 million the request that the Department of Defense has made for this hedge fund, if you will, against currency changes in the world going forward in their acquisition process. I know the House has used more. But I think we have been careful not to try to put too much weight on this account.
So for all of these reasons, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Later, there will be an opportunity for the Department of the Army to reprogram funds if it is necessary.
I think this should have been done in the context of a careful review of all their priorities so we know exactly where it stands. Again, I think we are putting too much pressure on this currency account. It might turn out to evaporate these supposed savings.
I yield the floor since I see the Senator from Ohio has arrived.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, again, I recognize the way that the Senator from Ohio is articulating a need of the military. The question is how high the priority is.
Just one point I wish to make is that we do understand acutely the crisis in the Crimea, et cetera. The availability of this equipment would not be instantaneous. It would take many months to do the upgrade, to do the evaluations, et cetera.
Again, I think the best approach would be to allow the Department of the Army to make a judgment, to reprogram, if necessary, and to get this moving.
With that, I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to commend the Senator from New Hampshire. I think one of the best indications of the appropriate direction of this policy is that the Department of Defense extends benefits regardless of State law to all military personnel. Consistent with the Department of Defense, this should be done by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
So I commend the Senator. I think it is the right thing to do and the consistent thing to do and the logical thing to do.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to comment briefly on the amendment proposed by my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Tillis, with respect to the stationing of the C-130 aircraft at Pope Army Airfield in North Carolina.
The amendment states that these aircraft shall be positioned in Pope Army Airfield. They are C-130 Avionics Modernization Program aircraft, the AMP program. Basically, they are C-130H models that were upgraded. In addition, the Air Force has C-130J models, the newest model. In the give-and-take of the budget deliberations over the last few years, this AMP modernization program is essentially curtailed dramatically because the choice was buying new J models or fixing the old H models.
So, in effect, what we have is a group of C-130 modified aircraft that are at Little Rock Air Force Base. They are only being minimally maintained because these AMP-modified aircraft are not standard. They are different from the traditional hotel model, and they are not as new or as modern as the J model, and they are not being supported with AMP-trained crews or AMP-unique logistics. Logistically, they are at Little Rock Air Force Base and sort of caught up in this funding and programmatic dilemma.
They are not fully deployable because of these conditions. They are just sort of additive to the force structure of the C-130J. There are only three that are modified, with five more to be modified. That would be at $8 million per aircraft for about an additional multimillion dollar pricetag. Therefore, they are not as functional as a unit since there are only three aircraft and not a full complement. To operate these aircraft would require additional resources.
The thrust of the gentleman's amendment is that these aircraft be transferred to Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, but they would not really be effectively utilized by the forces there and would not, in my view at least, contribute to the training and the real-time operations of the 82nd Airborne Division, the XVIII Airborne Corps, and the special operations forces that are there.
So rather than doing that, what we did in the underlying legislation at section 136 is to go through and quite clearly have a careful review of the adequacy of aircraft to support operations of the paratroop forces at Fort Bragg so that the Air Force is fully supportive of this very important issue. The 82nd is America's most ready Army force, and of course we know special forces operators are all across the globe constantly.
So my comments are that this amendment would not essentially help what I think is the underlying goal, which is to ensure that our airborne forces have the platforms necessary. It would, in fact, restrict the flexibility of the Air Force in terms of using C-130 aircraft. It would practically have the effect of simply taking aircraft that because of their modification and their nonstandardization are being parked at Little Rock and moving them without effect, I think, on the operational capacity and capabilities of our airborne forces.
So as a result, I believe our best approach is to stay with the language in the underlying bill, section 136, which--to the credit of Senator Tillis, he was very adamant about including--would have a careful review of the operational capacity of the Air Force to support the airborne operations.
It would include the ability of commanders from the corps level, XVIII Airborne Corps, 82nd, Special Operations Command, to comment effectively on whether the Air Force was doing this. After such a review and analysis, we could make better decisions about the allocation of the Air Force aircraft.
Again, ironically--and again it strikes me that simply moving these aircraft--which are sort of one-of-a-kind aircraft--to Pope would not help the airborne operations of our military forces. They would simply involve additional cost, and they would not be part of the ability of our Air Force and our mobility command to support a wide range of missions. They would complicate, rather than simplify, our ability to respond.
So for that, when this vote, which is scheduled later today, comes up for a vote, I will oppose it, and I will do so because I believe--in the underlying legislation, through the work of Senator Tillis particularly--we have an appropriate response to the issue of flexibility, mobility, and operational capacity of our airborne forces at Fort Bragg.
With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, very quickly, the Senator from North Carolina worked very hard to get legislative language in the bill which has a study of the sufficiency of the airlift requirements for the units stationed at Fort Bragg, NC. This legislation would take several aircraft that are at Little Rock and move them up to North Carolina. It would not effectively help the mobility of our forces. It would micromanage the use of military aircraft. As such, I would ask that there be a ``no'' vote.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source