National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016--Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise once again to speak about the fiscal year's national defense authorization conference report. Yesterday I spoke at length about the OCO funding issue, and that, to me, is the most critical issue in the bill and one that has caused me to reluctantly not support the conference report. But this time I will discuss the conference report in its entirety.

Again, I would like to thank Chairman McCain, Chairman Thornberry, and Ranking Member Smith for a very thoughtful and cooperative process which allowed us to reach agreement on some very difficult issues. I also thank in particular the staff of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, who worked tirelessly over several months to resolve differences on over 800 different provisions.

As I stated yesterday, in many respects this is a good conference report which supports our men and women in uniform and establishes many much needed reforms and, with the exception of the OCO position, would be something that would have widespread support.

There are many provisions in the bill that are commendable. This conference report authorizes a 1.3-percent pay raise for servicemembers and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonuses and special pay authorities to encourage enlistment, reenlistment, and continued service by Active-Duty and Reserve component military personnel.

Significantly, it includes much needed reform of the military retirement system and brings the military retirement system into the 21st century for a new generation of recruits.

It also deals with the need to begin to bring into better control personnel costs at the Department of Defense because, as we all recognize, there is a huge trendline of personnel costs that would outstrip at some point the training and equipment that are necessary to the vitality and agility of the force.

One example is the pilot program to test approaches to the commissary and exchange system to see if there are ways in which that can be handled more efficiently without preventing military personnel from enjoying that benefit they have earned.

The report also includes a commitment to seriously consider reforms to military health care in the coming year. All told, these personnel authorities and reforms will serve tomorrow's servicemembers and their families, and they will save the Department of Defense annually in its discretionary budget, allowing that funding to be reapplied to readiness and modernization or even to maintaining a larger force.

The conference report includes roughly 60 provisions on acquisition reform. I commend in particular Chairman McCain for his efforts in this area. It is a long history and a proud history. He worked with Chairman Levin. Previously he has worked with so many others. He has made this a personal area of not only concern but of notable action. The provisions will help streamline acquisition processes, allow DOD to access commercial and small businesses, and improve the acquisition workforce. They build on the success of the reforms led by the chairman in the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.

The report also includes a number of provisions that will strengthen DOD's ability to develop next-generation technologies and weapons systems and maintain our technological superiority on the battlefield. The report strengthens the DOD laboratories and increases funding for university research programs and STEM education. It also contains a number of provisions that will make it easier for the Pentagon to work with high-tech small businesses, bringing their innovative ideas into the defense industrial base.

With respect to cyber security, this report includes multiple provisions, some of which I sponsored and all of which I support. These include a requirement for biannual whole-of-nation exercises on responding to cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, independent assessment of Cyber Command's ability to defend the Nation against cyber attack, comprehensive assessments of the cyber vulnerabilities of major weapons systems, and the provision of limited acquisition authorities to the commander of Cyber Command.

The conference report also has over $400 million in additional readiness funding for the military services--across all branches: Active, Guard, and Reserve. It fully authorizes the programs for modernizing our nuclear triad of sea, ground, and airborne platforms. There are also specific recommendations on many procurement programs that will help the Department improve management and cope with shortfalls. All of these provisions will ensure that our military personnel have the equipment and training they need to succeed in their mission.

For the various overseas challenges facing the United States, and they are considerable, this conference report provides key funding and authority for two major U.S.-led coalition operations: the mission in Afghanistan and the counter-ISIS coalition in Iraq and Syria. It also includes additional funding for initiatives to expand the U.S. military presence and exercises in Eastern Europe, reassuring allies and countering the threat of Russian hybrid warfare tactics, and authorizes additional military assistance, including lethal assistance for Ukraine. I had the privilege of visiting Ukraine recently and being with the paratroopers of the 172nd Airborne Brigade who are training Ukrainian forces. They are doing a commendable job and it represents a tangible commitment by the United States to support friends across the globe.

The conference report also includes, very notably and very importantly, the Senate provisions codifying the current policy that interrogations of detainees in the custody of any U.S. Government agency or department must comply with the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. These provisions, sponsored by Senator McCain, Senator Feinstein, and I, will ensure that detainee interrogations are conducted using noncoercive techniques that do not involve the threat or use of force, consistent with our values as a nation. I know how important this was, particularly to Chairman McCain and Senator Feinstein. It represents our best values and also from the testimony we have heard over many years, the most effective way to obtain information in circumstances as we have witnessed in the last few years.

All of these provisions are commendable. They are the result of significant effort by Chairman McCain, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and the staff who worked tirelessly. However, there are provisions that do in fact cause some concern. Let me first talk about the issue of Guantanamo Bay. The report continues the restrictions on the President's authorities relating to the Guantanamo detention facility.

In previous Defense authorization bills, we had made progress in giving the President greater flexibility in streamlining the process of making transfers from Guantanamo to other locations, bringing us closer to the goal of closing Guantanamo. The Guantanamo provisions in this year's conference report, however, are in a sense a step backward. They continue to maintain the prohibitions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States and on the construction or modification of a facility in the United States to hold such detainees.

This deprives the President of a key tool for fighting terrorism, the ability to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in Federal court. To make matters more complicated, the conference report proposes additional hurdles on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees overseas, requiring the Secretary of Defense to complete a checklist of certifications for overseas transfers and prohibiting such transfers to certain specified countries altogether.

Further, the conference report does not include a provision from the Senate bill that authorized the temporary transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for medical reasons in the event of life-threatening emergencies. As the Guantanamo detainees get older, there is an increasing risk of a detainee suffering serious harm or death because the military is legally prohibited from bringing that person to the United States to receive necessary medical care.

Both President Bush and President Obama have called for closing Guantanamo Bay. Our military leaders have repeatedly said that Guantanamo harms our national security and serves as a propaganda and recruiting tool for terrorists. This is an issue we have been wrestling with for over a decade, and I regret that we are no closer to resolving it with this conference report.

This conference report also does not contain many of the cost-saving proposals that the Department of Defense requested. For example, the retirement of many aging aircraft and ships is prohibited and a BRAC round was not ever considered. Without such authorities, we in Congress are making

it even more difficult for the Department of Defense to acquire and maintain the things they need because we are forcing them to keep what they consider no longer cost- or mission-effective.

Finally, as I have said it many times consistently throughout this process, the one item that I find is most objectionable, and indeed reluctantly forced me to argue against the conference report, is the fact that it shifts $38 billion requested by the President in the base military budget, in the routine base budget--it shifts it to the Overseas Contingency Operations account or OCO.

Essentially, it skirts the BCA. This transfer from base to OCO raises several concerns. First, it violates the consensus that was agreed to when we passed the BCA that both defense discretionary spending and domestic discretionary spending would be treated equally. Now, we find a way to avoid that consensus. In fact, that was one of the premises many of us found persuasive enough to support the BCA, but the concerns that are raised are many.

First, adding funds to OCO does not solve--it actually complicates--the Department of Defense's budgetary problems. Defense budgeting needs to be based on our long-term military strategy, which requires DOD to focus at least 5 years into the future. A 1-year plus-up to OCO does not provide DOD with the certainty and stability it needs when building its 5-year budget. This instability undermines the morale of our troops and their families who want to know their futures are planned for more than 1 year at a time and the confidence of our defense industry partners that we rely on to provide the best technology available to our troops.

Second, the transfer does not provide additional funds for many of the domestic agencies which are also critical to our national security. We cannot defend our homeland without the FBI. In fact, we just heard reports today of FBI activities disrupting a potential smuggling of nuclear material in Eastern European, headed--the suggestion is--toward ISIL or other radical elements. We need the FBI. Yet they remain subject to the Budget Control Act.

We need to fund the Justice Department, other aspects of their activities, the TSA, Customs and Border Protection, and the Coast Guard. These later agencies are funded through the Department of Homeland Security. Without adequate support for the State Department, the danger to our troops increases. In addition, failing to provide BCA cap relief to non-DOD departments and agencies would also shortchange veterans who receive employment services, transition assistance, and housing and homeless support.

Third, moving funding from the base budget to OCO has no impact on reducing the deficit. OCO and emergency funding are outside the budget caps for a reason; they are for the costs of ongoing military operations or to respond to unforeseen events, such as the flooding we are witnessing in South Carolina. To transfer funds for known day-to-day operations into war and emergency funding accounts to skirt the law is not fiscally responsible or honest accounting.

The OCO was designed for the contingencies that were non-routine and would not be recurring. In fact, we have seen OCO funds go up dramatically as our commitments both in Afghanistan and Iraq went up and then go down as you would expect. Suddenly that curve is beginning to shift up and go up, not because of the increased number of military personnel deployed--in fact, there are fewer military personnel deployed in these areas today--but because we have found a way--at least we think we have found a way--to move around the BCA for defense and defense alone.

Many have argued: Well, that might be true, but this is not the place to talk about this issue. I disagree. This is not a debate about which appropriations account we put the money in; it is a fundamental debate about how we intend to fund the workings of the government today and in the future, all parts of the government, because if we can use this technique for defense, it, frankly and honestly, relieves the pressure to take the constraints off other agencies. It sets the whole table, if you will, for our budget for every Federal agency.

So this is not a narrow issue of appropriations, whether it is the committee on housing and urban development or the committee on interior and environment; this is a fundamental issue. The BCA is a statute, not an appropriations bill, per se. It came to us as an independent statute. We have a responsibility to respond to the challenge it poses to the defense budget and to every other budget.

This is just not a 1-year fix. If this were a bridge that we knew would take us from this year to next year, well, we might do these things in a different way. Unfortunately I think this conference report is going to be replicated in the future, because if we rely on this approach this year, there is huge pressure next year to do the same thing, unless we can resolve the underlying problems of the Budget Control Act.

I believe it is essential for us to do this for the best interests of our country, for the best interests of our military personnel. I don't think by standing up and casting a vote in this light we are disrespecting or not recognizing the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. In fact, it has not been uncommon over the years that because of issues, this bill has been objected to by both sides.

Indeed, since 2005 my colleagues on the Republican side have cast votes against cloture on the NDAA 10 times and successfully blocked cloture 4 times over such issues as Senate rules and procedures, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell, and in one case gasoline prices. So to argue today that the only reason we should vote for this bill is because it is procedurally not appropriate to discuss this, well, was it procedurally appropriate to use the Defense bill to essentially register anguish about gasoline prices?

This goes to the heart not just of this bill but every bill. Therefore, I don't think it is something we have to shy away from. In fact, I think we have to take it on. If we cannot fix this Budget Control Act straightjacket we are in, it will harm our national security. If we don't have the FBI agents out there trying to disrupt smuggling of uranium and other fissile materials, that hurts us. It hurts our national security.

If we don't have the Department of Energy laboratories that are capable of doing research, helping us and working with foreign governments about detection of radioactive material, that hurts our national security. This is about national security, and I think we have to consider it in that light.

So we are here today, and we are dealing with an issue of the authorization act in the context of the continuing resolution because we have not resolved the Budget Control Act. These are all roads coming together: the conference report, the continuing resolution, all of them in the context of trying to respond to the Budget Control Act. I think we should step up and deal with the Budget Control Act.

We have had many months to try to find the answer. We haven't. When we considered this legislation previously in the Senate, it was summer time, and it appeared that there might be a coming together on a bipartisan basis and a thoughtful basis, trying to provide the relief so we wouldn't have to rely on OCO when the conference report arrived, but we are here today and OCO is still staring us right in the face.

I think we have to ensure that we stand and say that is not the way we want to go forward for the defense of our country in the broadest context and for the support of our military personnel.

There is one other issue I do wish to raise, too, because it has been brought up; that is, the suggestion that if this bill does not pass today, then our military will not receive their pay raises and bonuses. The provisions in this bill go into effect January 1, 2016. We still have time. I would hope we would use that time not only to make some changes--technical here and there--but also to deal with the central issue which I hope we all agree is driving everything; that is, fixing the Budget Control Act in a way that we can provide across-the-board support for our Federal agencies, particularly our national security agencies which go beyond simply the Department of Defense.

I think the time is now. This is a moment to deal with the issue, not defer it and hope something happens in the future. We have to resolve the Budget Control Act.

I urge, for that reason as much as anything, that my colleagues would vote against this conference report as an important step in the process and a necessary step, in my view, in the process of resolving the great budget crisis we face in terms of the Budget Control Act.

In fact, one of my concerns is that if we do in fact pass this conference report and it subsequently becomes law or just the simple fact that we pass it, it gives some people the excuse of saying: Well, we have fixed the only problem that we think is of some significant concern, the Department of Defense, so we don't have to do anything else.

Again, we have to fund the FBI, we have to fund Homeland Security, and we have to fund a vigorous State Department. All of those agencies, if we do nothing on BCA, will see sequestration arise, diminish their capacity, and in some way diminish our national security.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source