National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to talk about a couple of issues that are wrapped up in the NDAA.

First of all, there is a National Guard issue.

As we all know, the men and women who serve our Nation in the Armed Forces are among the absolute best of us, and I thank the Presiding Officer for his service. When the Presiding Officer and his fellow citizens volunteered to serve, they did so by committing themselves to defending our families, our Nation, and our way of life. Through their service and sacrifice, they earn our respect and our honor. As a grateful nation, we strive to demonstrate that respect to them. Certainly, we should demonstrate our appreciation for our military on Memorial Day and Veterans Day, but, every day, we understand that we can never truly repay the sacrifice that many Americans have made--the ultimate sacrifice.

One of the customary and powerful demonstrations is when we pay our respects through a display of military honors during a servicemember's funeral. These honors include an honor detail that presents an American flag to the deceased's family and includes a bugler, who ceremoniously plays ``Taps'' and puts a lump in everyone's throat and tears in our eyes. Unfortunately, an Army audit found that in 2014, 88 deserving veterans' funerals did not receive those military honors as they should have. One service without its deserved honors is one too many.

Even more disappointing, based upon a recommendation from that audit, we learned that the National Guard Bureau has a plan now to eliminate in eight States the coordinator position for the military funeral honors. The National Guard Bureau is claiming a marginal cost savings as the excuse to eliminate these coordinator positions; however, a cost savings is an unacceptable justification, especially if losing these positions leads to more servicemembers not receiving military honors as our final demonstration of respect for their service.

The coordinator position is a vital link between the military and the veteran's surviving family. The coordinator's primary responsibility is to determine the eligibility and appropriate honors for deceased veterans. The coordinator also trains servicemembers who perform military honors, coordinates with units and veterans service organizations within the State, and provides immediate attention to families who are in need of assistance.

Common sense would tell one that if military honors are not being rendered when they should be, as this audit found, the NGB--the National Guard Bureau--should do everything possible to make certain to reverse that terrible outcome. Instead, it is seeking to eliminate the positions that are responsible for handling the care and coordination of military honors.

Even if the National Guard Bureau reverses course, the Military Honors Program deserves protection and preservation for all of those who served. Therefore, I draw attention to an amendment I have offered in this year's NDAA. Amendment No. 2575 would protect the Military Funeral Honors Program in the Army National Guard. This is a bipartisan amendment that has been cosponsored by Senators Manchin, Crapo, and Capito. If passed, my amendment would ensure that each State would maintain at least one military funeral honors coordinator, which we hope would reduce the chances of these honors being skipped in the future.

I urge my colleagues and the committee to support amendment No. 2575 for inclusion in the managers' package and allow this amendment to move swiftly in the Senate to help fulfill our promises to our veterans and make certain they receive the appropriate honors they will have earned at the time of their passings.

Another of my amendments, amendment No. 2269--a topic about which I spoke last week--improves upon the Army's force structure stationing process. It has been sponsored by Senator Roberts as well as by Senator Gillibrand and the minority leader, the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer from New York.

Again, I express my appreciation to the Senate Armed Services Committee for its diligence in authorizing appropriations for our Armed Forces in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. This amendment attempts to take the same approach that the Armed Services Committee is taking today-- deliberate. We want the Army to perform in a diligent way its internal process on force structure, to thoughtfully deliberate how and where it makes smart investments. That includes the stationing decisions about soldiers and families, which will have an impact on cost for decades to come. Simply put, the intent of amendment No. 2269 is to increase the rigor, transparency, and congressional oversight of the Army's stationing process regarding changes or growth in force structure.

Both the Department of Defense and the Army are experiencing a much needed period of growth. Our Armed Forces are modernizing and increasing their readiness to be in a position to deter, confront, and defeat potential adversaries in environments that are more complex and more volatile than we have experienced in recent history.

After months of speaking on this topic to Army leaders, such as Secretary Esper, General Milley, and General Abrams, I am convinced that the Army's most senior leaders agree that its current process needs improvement to become more accurate and comprehensive.

As the Army grows and modernizes, more stationing decisions will be made in the future, and the Army ought not miss the opportunity to conduct due diligence in all of their decisions and invest wisely to pay down the costs in the future. With the Army's focus on reform, transparency, and using every dollar wisely, I believe this amendment No. 2269 helps the Army maximize the value of every dollar, operate transparently with Congress, and wisely use resources entrusted to them by the taxpayer. Once again, my amendment seeks to codify the transparency they are seeking and updates to the Army's stationing process that will ensure the Army is making better, more cost- effective, long-term decisions.

The instructions to the Army in this amendment have already been prescribed by the GAO, and the Army's own regulations are based on Army testimony and correspondence where it is made clear that the Army wants to improve their process. For example, with regard to how contiguous and noncontiguous Army training areas are measured, General Milley testified before the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, of which I am a Member, and said: ``It is my belief that they are rated differently . . . because it seems to pass a common sense test,'' given the geographically distant nature of the training areas off post. The fact that the Army's analysis currently considers these training areas as one in the same eluded many of the Army's senior leaders when we first began this process.

In addition, this amendment codifies Secretary Esper's February 23, 2018, commitment to improving the quality of life for soldiers and their families by considering ``community schools around the installations and the professional licensure reciprocity'' in future stationing decisions.

The Army has not incorporated information regarding tax credits, license reciprocity, education, and employment in their basing, so this amendment follows through on the Secretary's intent and guidance to address these factors that are critically important to soldiers and their families. The addition of this amendment in the criteria would encourage States to further support military men, women, and their families.

It is a recruitment and retention factor. We say the Army recruits individuals but retains families. The quality of life families experience when they move from installation to installation is paramount to each soldier's personal decision to continue serving. Our intent with this amendment is to support the Army in making decisions based on fair, open, and comprehensive data, particularly long-term cost factors that will help the Army save in future years. Those savings can be put toward training, supporting soldiers and their families, sustaining our weapons, and increasing the Army's readiness and lethality.

I ask for support on amendment No. 2269. I am convinced these changes will make certain the Army's stationing process is transparent and will help the Army maximize the value of every dollar, while operating more transparently, communicating with Congress, and more wisely using resources entrusted by the American taxpayer. This will pay off in the long term for the Army, their families, and for the taxpayers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source