National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to make some brief remarks with respect to the Reed amendment that is pending, before our vote. Senator Mikulski would like to also, and I note the chairman is here. But I ask unanimous consent that when I finish my brief remarks, Senator Mikulski be recognized.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, we have had a very extensive and very thoughtful debate about the underlying amendment by Senator McCain to increase OCO spending by $18 billion strictly for Department of Defense operations and functions, and those are very critical and very important.

There have been two principles we have followed over the last several years when it comes to trying to push back the effects of sequestration. Those principles have been that the security of the United States is significantly affected by the Department of Defense's operations, but not exclusively. Indeed, there are many functions outside the parameters of the Department of Defense that are absolutely critical and essential to the protection of the American people at home and abroad: the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the CDC. So that has been one of the principles. The other principle we recognize is that that in lifting these temporary limits, we have to do it on an equal basis.

What the amendment Senator Mikulski and I have offered does is embrace these two principles. We would add an additional $18 billion to the chairman's $18 billion. That would encompass the broader view of national security, and do so in a way that I think is very sensible, and allow us to go forward as we have in the past.

All of us recognize the extraordinary sacrifices made by the men and women of our Armed Forces and the fact that they continue to serve as the frontline of the defense in so many different aspects. But we also recognize that defending our interests means agencies outside the Department of Defense--the State Department, Homeland Security--that have absolutely critical and indispensable roles in our national security.

Reflecting on the comments before about the potential for incidents both here and abroad, if we go back to 9/11, that was not a result of a failure to have trained Army brigades or marine regiments or aircraft carriers at sea; that was a deficiency in the screening of passengers getting on airplanes; that was a failure to connect intelligence that one FBI office had that was not shared effectively. Those threats to the United States will not be directly remedied even as we increase resources to the Department of Defense. Resources have to go to these other agencies as well. I think that is something we all recognize, and that is what is at the heart of what we are doing.

In addition, over the last decade we have seen a host of other threats, particularly cyber threats, which were rudimentary back in 2001, 2002, and 2003. Now we see them as ubiquitous--not rudimentary-- and threatening and with an increasing sort of sophistication.

I recall that in a hearing Senator Collins and I had with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, we asked the IG: What is the biggest issue that you think is facing your Departments right now? Both said it is the issue of cyber security--protecting the data we have, protecting the records we have, protecting ourselves from being an unwitting conduit into even more sensitive government systems.

So within our amendment, we propose significant resources for cyber protections throughout the Federal Government--Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, et cetera. These are essential, and I think the American people understand that.

We also understand that our infrastructure is critical to our economic well-being and our economic growth. Part of our dilemma going forward and one of the reasons we are locked in this sequestration battle is that unless we are growing our economy, we will be continually faced with difficult challenges about what we fund, how we fund it, how we provide the revenue to meet these obligations. One of the surest ways to increase our growth is to invest in our infrastructure.

I think what we are proposing makes sense in two fundamental ways. It recognizes--as I think everyone does--that our national security is not exclusively related to the programs and functions of the Department of Defense and that our national security is a function not just of our military, intelligence, and other related agencies, but the vitality and strength of the country, the ability to grow and to afford these investments in defense, in homeland security, and others. We make it clear. We make it clear in this legislation that that is our proposal. And the stakes are clear: We want to go ahead and support a broad- ranged increase in resources.

The final point I will make is that this is all in the shadow of the ultimate issue, which is getting rid of sequestration--not just for one part of the government but for the entire government. If we don't address that next year, we are going to be in an extraordinarily dire situation.

With that, I ask my colleagues sincerely and very fervently to support the Reed-Mikulski amendment. I think that would put us on the track to true national security.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, I join the chairman. He has very eloquently and passionately described the situation we are in. We have thousands of Afghans who have come forward and helped our forces--not just our military forces but our diplomats and our AID workers. They have been the translators. They have been on the frontlines, and they have exposed themselves to risk. Many of them are in danger of retaliation. What they want and what I think is owed to them is the opportunity to relocate to the United States.

The Senator from New Hampshire has proposed an amendment and has worked incredibly hard to satisfy objections from many different quarters, both technical and substantive, and I think has reached a very principled approach that would recognize our obligations to these individuals. It would, in a very controlled and very careful way, allow them to relocate to the United States.

Again, I thank the chairman for his passionate leadership and the Senator from New Hampshire for her extraordinary and tireless efforts, for the last 24-plus hours and throughout the larger process.

The other point I wish to make, and it does echo what the chairman said, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but particularly in Afghanistan, if we are going to sustain our presence there, as I believe we must, we have to be able to recruit additional Afghans to help us. If the message they are getting is ``You are going to put your life on the line, and when you are no longer useful to them, they don't even remember you. You are not even a name; you are just a nobody,'' we are going to have a difficult time. If we can't recruit these highly skilled interpreters and other Afghans, our personnel--diplomatic, military, and others--will be in jeopardy. In addition to supporting our troops, some of these interpreters have been involved with FBI agents who were in Kabul and other places on counterterrorism operations. It is very dangerous work. Work that couldn't be done without these interpreters.

Again, the Senator from New Hampshire has done the bulk of the work, and we have done good work in getting to the point where we really need to get this passed.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have been moving very steadily through this authorization bill. I once again commend the leadership of Chairman McCain. It really began months ago when the Chairman decided that he was going to do an indepth analysis of the Department of Defense, calling upon experts from an extraordinary range of academic, military, and diplomatic leaders. As a result, we became much more knowledgeable than we were previously about things within the Department that we should very carefully review and perhaps change. In fact, because of his leadership, this is the most fundamental revision of the Goldwater-Nichols procedures that were adopted three decades ago. We have spent a lot of time discussing important issues, but I don't think we have given quite enough credit to the work that the Chairman and our colleagues have done with respect to some of these important reforms.

One area that we worked on together is developing statutory authority for cross-functional teams within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. One of the challenges that Goldwater-Nichols faced, and faced successfully, was to try to integrate operational units. They came up with the concept of jointness, which now we assume has always been there, but that was not the case 30 or 40 years ago. Because of the inspiration of the concept and because of the emphasis in the assignment process of moving forward and having an assignment not in your branch of service but in a job that required the integration of other services, that approach made a significant, fundamental change on the effective operations of military forces today, and we take it for granted.

Similarly, we want to take that type of approach not just in the services and the operational command but within the headquarters of the Secretary of Defense. We have organized cross-functional teams that the Secretary-- he or she--can adopt. These cross-functional teams exemplify the real mission of the Secretary. It is not to organize personnel or logistics. It is to achieve an outcome which requires every component to work together. This is just one example of the innovation that is being promoted in this legislation. Again, I think it is not only building on Goldwater-Nichols, but it is really going much further more effectively.

One of the inspirations for this approach is what has been done in private industry. Private industry has faced some of the same challenges as every large institution--and the Department is a large institution. They have lots of functional areas, but they didn't have a common operational technique, a common team, et cetera. Looking at the private sector, this model has become prevalent because it has reduced costs, increased efficiency, and delivered products on time--in fact, even faster than they thought they could do. We hope this approach will similarly provide the kinds of organizational structure and incentives for the Department of Defense that will make the Office of the Secretary of Defense much more efficient. That is just one aspect but there are other aspects that are critical too.

Some of the other aspects involve trying to focus research and engineering in one particular focal point in the Department of Defense. This is in reaction to the phenomenon that we have all observed, and that is that our technological superiority--which we took for granted for decades and decades and decades--is now being slowly eroded because of research that is going on across the globe. Part of our proposal is to have a very centralized figure with significant rank to focus on this research and engineering effort.

Other duties in terms of management of the program, operation of the Department of Defense, and testing issues could be coordinated with other elements. That is another important aspect of these proposals.

Again, we have spent a great deal of time discussing important issues, but I think we should not fail to note these important changes.

In addition to structure changes at the Department of Defense level, we are also creating a much more organizationally streamlined structure in order to more appropriately deliver services.

In addition, we worked closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get their input about how the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can be more effective as the principal adviser to the President of the United States. That is an important change to be made. We have also been very careful to get feedback from professionals within the Chairman's office so that we are doing things that make sense, that work, and that function appropriately.

Another important aspect to note in talking about very fundamental Goldwater-Nichols reform is the role of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That person has the responsibility to head the Joint Requirements Oversight Council--JROC--which I am well familiar with. Essentially, the JROC lays out for all the services what types of equipment they need, what requirements they are fulfilling--whether it be an undersea craft or a new aviation platform. After listening to the numerous experts that came before us, our observation was that the Vice Chairman might have been in a sense first among equals, but there were more consensus decisions without a focal point of leadership. What we have done in this legislation is make it clear that the Vice Chairman is indeed the leader of that group, so he or she will someday have the ability to make decisions after getting advice from the other members of the JROC.

But it will not be what is perceived today as a sort of quid pro quo between services: The Navy might want a particular ship, and in return for that particular ship, they will be amenable to a proposal by the Air Force for a particular aviation platform. What we have now is that the Vice Chair will be able--not only as the official formal head of this but also as the chief adviser to the Chairman--to say: No, we have looked at this not from the perspective of the service but from the perspective of the Joint Chiefs and our role as giving advice to the President so that we can go ahead and give a decision that is not based upon anything else. Amendment No. 4603 to Amendment No. 4607

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, at this juncture I call up Reid amendment No. 4603.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, to continue briefly, we are again spending a great deal of time on an important issue, and we have more important issues that will emerge. But I think it is long overdue to cite what we have done in just a small part under the leadership of the chairman to make fundamental changes to the operation of the Department of Defense. I am confident that years from now, when they talk about Goldwater- Nichols, they will talk about McCain, what the McCain amendments did and what the McCain bill did. I think that is a fitting tribute to the chairman. I also think it is ultimately what we are all about here. It is going to make sure that the men and women in the field who wear the uniform of the United States have the very best leadership, from the Secretary's level, to the Chairman's level, all the way down to their platoon leader and commander.

I want to make sure we noted that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Will the chairman yield? If I had the opportunity to go to a football school and not an academic institution, I would be better off today.

Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source