National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, let me say with great respect how I appreciate the collaboration and cooperation of the chairman on so much of the bill where we worked together, but this is an issue that I feel very strongly about.
Let me be very clear about what this amendment does. First, it recognizes the need--as the President did in his budget submission--for adequate resources for our Department of Defense. But what it does is it says that the additional money above the President's request for OCO--the $38 billion which was taken from the base and put into this overseas account--would be essentially fenced or set aside until we resolve the Budget Control Act, and I think we have to begin that process immediately.
Senator McCain has said quite sincerely and quite persistently that we have to fix sequestration. Every uniformed service chief who came before our committee said we have to fix sequestration and the budget control caps. The reality is that this legislation does not do that. Indeed, my amendment does not do it, but it points us in that direction and gives us a strong incentive to fix the BCA and to do what all of our defense leaders have asked us to do for the welfare and safekeeping of our troops and forces in the field.
The President recognizes this need. His budget is virtually identical to the top-line number we are talking about today. But what he also recognized is that we had to put this money into the base budget of the Department of Defense, not into the OCO account.
OCO was created because of our contingency operations overseas in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was created to fund those unpredictable year-by-year needs that arise when you have forces in conflict and in combat. It was not designed to be a fund that would take care of long-term, routine demands of the Department of Defense.
Interestingly enough, in 2008 we had 187,000 troops deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. If we look at the OCO number for that year, we were spending approximately $1 million per troop--all the costs, such as the fuel, the ammunition, and their own safekeeping. Today, we have 9,930 troops deployed in these combat zones. Yet, if we look at the same ratio we are asking for in this bill, it is about $9 million per individual soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. That shows us that this fund has gone way beyond its intent. It has become an escape valve from the Budget Control Act just for the Department of Defense.
It is important to emphasize that our defense is not just the Department of Defense. Our national security rests on a strong Homeland Security Department that protects our borders. It rests on our Border Patrol, which is part of Homeland Security. It rests on the Coast Guard, which patrols our waters, the Justice Department, and the FBI.
We had an incident just a few days ago in Massachusetts where an FBI agent and a Massachusetts police officer confronted an alleged terrorist. It wasn't military forces, it was the local police force and FBI agents who were protecting our neighborhoods and communities. Those functions will not be adequately funded if we get on this path for OCO. In fact, that is my greatest concern. If this were a 1-year, temporary fix, we might be able to justify it, but what we are seeing is a pathway that will have us taking more from OCO every year, and there will be more interesting and more remote uses of OCO funds. Unfortunately, that is the way it tends to be around here. You go where the money is, and right now the money is in OCO.
I think we should step back and do what the chairman said. We have to fix it. And he is committed to fixing it, but we have to begin now. We have to make the case now. We can't simply sit back and say we will take it up later. And that is at the heart of this.
The other issue here is very clear: OCO is not a perfect fix for the Department of Defense. As the Chief of Staff of the Army said, it has limits, it has restrictions, and it is funded for 1 year, but it is there, and they will take the money. We know that. But it is our duty and responsibility to have a more thoughtful, long-term approach, and in doing so, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It does not take away the resources. It simply says that these resources will be there once we fix the Budget Control Act, and that is what I hear everyone in this Chamber--practically everyone--saying every day: We will fix it. We will fix it. When we do, this money will already be authorized.
I am convinced that unless we stand up right now and say--hopefully with one voice--in a formal way that we have to get on the task of fixing the Budget Control Act, days will pass, weeks will pass, and months will pass to the detriment of our country, to the detriment of our military forces, and ultimately we will find ourselves, both in terms of national security and a whole range of programs, in a very bad position.
I ask that all of my colleagues consider this amendment and give it support.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I believe the vote on my amendment is in order at this time, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source