National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to first inquire how much is remaining on my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the two pending amendments.

I will begin by thanking my colleague from South Carolina for his thoughtful and kind words about the collaboration we have both witnessed on the committee as we brought this bill to the floor under the leadership of Chairman McCain. Amendment No. 4204

First, with respect to the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment, I share their concerns about the quality of commissaries. It is an essential service for military personnel. In fact, it is really in the fabric of military life, being able to go to a commissary. It is an important benefit, particularly for junior members, those who aren't as well paid as more senior members of the military. But both the chairman and my colleagues on the committee--many of them recognize the need to look for alternate approaches for delivering services to military families but doing so in a way that can save resources that could be used for operations and maintenance, for training, equipment--all the critical needs we are seeing much more clearly at this moment.

So we have proposed--and I support the chairman's proposal--to try a pilot program for commissaries that would be run by commercial entities. I think there is merit to this proposal. I want to emphasize that it is a pilot program. It is not a wholesale replacement of the commissary system. It is designed to test in real time whether a commercial entity can effectively use the resources and the operation of the commissary to better serve military personnel.

We have come a long way from years ago when the commissary was practically the only place a servicemember could get groceries or get the supplies they need for their home. Today, go outside any military base and you will see a Target, a Walmart, and every other combination of stores. Frankly, our young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are used to going there. They are used to going to both places looking for bargains. They are used to the service. This is no longer the isolated military of decades ago where literally the only place you could shop was the commissary, and I think we have to recognize that.

The other thing we have to recognize is that there is now an interest by many grocery chains to test this model, to see if, in fact, they can deliver better services to military personnel.

I think that test should be made. That is the essence of the proposal within the Armed Services Committee mark. There is an ongoing study of this by the Department of Defense which I think is helpful. Part of the conclusion is this: ``The Department is critically assessing the privatization of all portion(s) of the commissary system.'' I will emphasize that this amendment does not support the privatization of all commissary systems at this time; they are looking at that issue. ``Initial conversations with interested business entities informed the Department of private sector willingness to engage, which is leading to more thorough market analysis, including a more formal Request for Information.'' This request was issued in May, just a few weeks ago.

I think we are now positioned to move forward and test this model, and that is what we are asking for--a pilot test. It is sensible. It is limited. We will learn quite quickly and very effectively whether this model works and what its potential is. I think in that process, too, we can conduct it in such a way that we will be able to structure, if it is a valuable enterprise, relationships between commercial entities that not only protect military personnel but enhance their experience at the commissary. That is the goal. It is not just to save dollars-- that is important--but also to make sure that their experience in the commissary is both adequate and, in effect, more than adequate.

Mr. President, let me turn to Senator Durbin's amendment very quickly. I support this amendment. The reason I do is not only because of the eloquence of the Senator from Illinois about the success of this program. But how we got here, as described by my colleague, to me, is a crucial point. It is a combination of history, of rules, of budgeting 20-plus years ago. But in the interim we have been able to create a useful medical research enterprise which I think will be dismantled-- not intentionally. That is not the intent of the chairman or of any of the supporters of this provision in the bill. In fact, as the chairman said, he would stand up and support reallocating these funds someplace else. My colleague from South Carolina suggested, I believe, NIH. But if we look at how difficult it is to fund the Health and Human Services budget here--and this is what drives it--the reality is if these funds are taken out of this bill, they will not reappear, even through the best and sincere efforts of many of my colleagues, elsewhere. We will lose this funding, and we will lose hugely valuable resources.

As to the whole issue with certification by the Secretary of Defense, if we step back, this research has been so effective, and there is a linkage to every military member. It might not be as dramatic as a prosthesis to fix someone who lost their limb in combat, but certainly their wife, their child--pediatric diseases--may be affected. This research affects every American.

For those reasons, I am going to support Senator Durbin's amendment. He has stated the case very well about unintended overhead caused by the certification process and all of the related issues. But I think the essence here is we have a valuable national resource that through the history and the bureaucratic and congressional procedures and policies has been embedded in the Defense Department. If we do not support Senator Durbin's amendment, we will lose that. We won't recapture it elsewhere in another spending bill or in another authorization bill. I just think it is too much to lose.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, the key aspect of this legislation that was included in the committee mark is that it is a pilot, and I believe, along with the chairman, this is the best way to evaluate the merits or demerits of privatization of commissaries.

It will allow an evaluation that is not theoretical, not a report but an actual company actively engaged in running a facility. The goal is not just to maintain the commissaries, the goal is to enhance the value of service to men and women. I think, along with the chairman, this approach is an appropriate approach and would do just that.

I urge rejection of the Inhofe amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank and commend the chairman. As he indicated, he has proposed an amendment, and he is also allowing us to prepare a second-degree amendment, which I would like to offer as soon as it is ready and then conduct debate on a very important topic; that is, investing in our national security in the broadest sense and doing it wisely and well. Then, I would hope again--subject to the deliberations of the leaders on both sides--that we could have a vote on both the underlying amendment and the second-degree amendment tomorrow or the succeeding day.

Again, I thank the chairman for not only bringing this issue to the floor but also for giving us the opportunity to prepare an appropriate amendment.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source