MR. REED: Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment, which would provide partial relief from the caps imposed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 on both the defense and non-defense portions of the budget for fiscal year 2017.

The Chairman has interest in them, and that provide relief for Department of Defense activities.  Mines long past time to replace the senseless sequester with a balanced approach that keeps America safe and strong at home and abroad.  Where I differ with Senator McCain is that I believe sequestration relief needs to be done in a truly balanced way – thereby keeping with the intent of the Bipartisan Budget Act and Budget Control Act by treating defense and non-defense spending equally.

Mine would provide a comparable amount of relief for activities that are beyond the Department of Defense but critical to our national security and national economy.

It's long past time to replace the senseless sequestration with a balanced approach that keeps America safe and strong at home and abroad, and Senator McCain and I both believe that sequestration has to be eliminated.  What I would suggest, it has to be done in balanced way.  It has to keep the intent of the bipartisan Budget Act and the Budget Control Act by treating defense and non-defense spending equally.

Let me also be clear: the bill before us provides the amount outlined under current law as well as the budget request of the Secretary of Defense, who along with the Service Secretaries and Chiefs, have testified in support of this amount.  They certainly would like more, but they have testified that for this year these resources are at least adequate. They have also made it very clear that if we do go into sequestration in the next year, it would be absolutely devastating to the Department of Defense. And as a result, we share, the Chairman and myself, the same commitment to ensuring that the sequestration is eliminated and will be moved to a more rational budgeting process.  These military professionals would rather have the certainty of year-long funding at the Committee reported level.  That certainty is extremely important.  I do not believe they want to roll the dice. They recognize the choice is a lengthy fight for parity that could last all the way through this year. 

What they'd like to see us do, I believe, is what they said in their testimony.  We can operate under the budget as proposed by the President and recognize and underline -- an underlining committee mark and that will give us the certainty we need.

The bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee includes $523.9 billion in discretionary spending for defense base budget requirements and $58.9 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations or “OCO” account.  It includes $19.3 billion for Department of Energy related activities resulting in a topline funding level of approximately $602 billion for discretionary national defense spending.  

While these funding levels adhere to the spending limits mandated by the Bipartisan Budget Act or “BBA,” concerns have rightly been raised that the Department may require additional resources to carry out the missions and to adequately maintain the readiness of our military forces.  As my colleagues are aware, when the Senate considered the BBA last fall, it established the discretionary funding level for defense spending for fiscal year 2017.  And that agreement passed this chamber with support from Senators from both political parties.   The spending was split evenly between the defense and non-defense categories.

It is important to remember that we have repeatedly made incremental changes to the discretionary budget caps for both defense and non-defense accounts.  We have done so in order to provide some budget certainty to the Department of Defense and our domestic agencies.  These spending caps were first revised with the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, and most recently with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. 

In each instance, bipartisan majorities in Congress voted to increase the spending caps and provide additional resources evenly split between defense and non-defense accounts.  Unfortunately, providing relief to the budget caps for defense spending, as the underlying amendment by the Chairman proposes, while taking no action on non-defense spending would renege on those bipartisan agreements and the sense of common purpose that at least motivated us in the last several adjustments to the Sequestration Act.

My amendment, in contrast, would keep the pressure on for a permanent solution to the budget caps and sequestration by treating defense and non-defense discretionary funding equally.  We can’t afford to miss any opportunity to make progress on sequestration relief.

It also reinforces and underscores the Sense of the Senate passed by the Committee as part of this bill that clearly states that “sequestration relief should include both defense and non-defense relief.” 

Specifically, my amendment would revise the budget caps to allow for an additional $18 billion in non-defense and defense-focused domestic spending to match the additional $18 billion in defense spending. 

The additional non-defense funds are intended primarily to help address security challenges facing our nation that do not fall within the purview of the Department of Defense – including funds to implement the integrated campaign plan to counter ISIL, enhance federal cyber security, and provide additional resources for border security, first responders, counter narcotics, refugee assistance, Zika prevention and treatment, and infrastructure security and vulnerabilities. 

True national security involves more than just the activities of DOD, and so non-DOD departments and agencies should also receive relief from the budget caps.  The Pentagon cannot meet the complex set of national security challenges we face without the help of other government departments and agencies—including State, Justice, and Homeland Security and other civilian departments and agencies that contribute to our national security.  It has been recognized that providing security for the American people requires a truly “whole-of-government” approach that goes beyond just a strong DOD.

The budget caps are based on a misnomer – that discretionary spending is divided into “security” and “nonsecurity” spending.  But Members need to be clear – essential national security functions are performed by government departments and agencies other than the Department of Defense.

As retired Marine Corps General Mattis said, “If you don't fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition.”  General Mattis’ point is best illustrated in the Administration’s 9 lines of effort to counter ISIL.   Of these 9 lines of effort, only 2 fall squarely within the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and intelligence community (i.e. “security” activities).  The remaining fall primarily on the State Department and our other civilian departments and agencies. 

My amendment includes $1.9 billion to support this counter ISIL strategy, including:

Supporting Effective Governance in Iraq:  No amount of military assistance to the Government of Iraq will be effective in countering the ISIL threat in Iraq if the Abadi Government does not give Sunnis hope that they will participate in Iraq’s future.  We need our diplomatic and political experts at the State Department to engage with Sunni, Shia, Kurd and minority communities in Iraq to promote reconciliation in Iraq and build the political unity among the Iraqi people needed to defeat ISIL. 

Building Partner Capacity: The Coalition is building the capabilities to wage a long-term campaign against ISIL.  While the efforts to build the capacity of the Iraqi security forces and some of our other foreign partners are funded by the Defense Department, the State Department and USAID are also responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities and across a broader spectrum of activities. 

We have to disrupt ISIL, particularly, their finances.  Countering ISIL’s financing requires the State Department and Treasury Department to work with their foreign partners and the banking sector to ensure that our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and enforced.  These State and Treasury-led efforts are “nonsecurity” and a very simple dichotomy drawn under the budget caps.  The Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) and Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) Treasury Department are also categorized as “nonsecurity” activities under the budget caps.  The Republican funding strategy not only means that our counter-ISIL efforts will be hampered, so too will our efforts to effectively impose sanctions against Iran, Sudan, and individuals that support their illicit activities.

We also have to continue to expose ISIL’s true nature.  Our strategic communications campaign against ISIL requires a truly whole-of-government effort, including State Department, Voice of America, and USAID.  The Republican approach is a “part-of-government” plan, not a “whole-of-government” plan.  It is the additional funding that could be used by State, USAID, Voice of America and other agencies that would not be there.

We have to disrupting the flow of foreign fighters:  Foreign fighters are the lifeblood of ISIL.  Without the efforts of our diplomats around the world prodding our foreign partners to pass laws and more effectively enforce the laws on their books, the efforts of the Coalition to stem the flow of foreign fighters will never be successful.  

Of course we have to protect the Homeland: While a small portion of Department of Homeland Security is considered “security” related activities under the budget caps, the vast majority of the Department falls into the “nonsecurity” portion of the budget.  Providing no relief from the budget caps to the Department of Homeland Security shortchanges efforts to secure our communities and borders against ISIL threats. 

And then again, we have to provide support because of the huge humanitarian crisis that causes instability worldwide and particularly in areas of concern.  Virtually none of the activities that support our humanitarian efforts in the region, the Middle East and many other parts of the world, are considered “security” activities.  Military commanders routinely state that the efforts of the State Department, USAID, and Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to provide for refugees and other vulnerable populations are critical to our broader security efforts – and that is particularly true in the counter-ISIL campaign. 

The Administration’s two remaining lines of effort against ISIL – namely denying ISIL safe havens and enhancing intelligence collection – are primarily funded under the so-called “defense” or “security” accounts.  However, the continued presence and activities of our diplomats overseas significantly enable both of these lines of effort.  Therefore, our amendment would also authorize additional funds to provide for improved embassy security to help keep these personnel safe. 

The importance of adequately funding other security-focused civilian departments and agencies was also underscored by the former Commander of U.S. Northern Command Admiral William Gortney when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year.  Admiral Gortney stated: 

“Our trusted partnerships are our center of gravity and are critical to our success across the spectrum of our missions.  Homeland Partnerships…underscore every one of our mission areas, and are best represented by the integration in our headquarters of nearly 60 DOD and non-DOD federal agencies, department representatives, and liaison officers. I view homeland defense as a team effort, and I rely on partnerships with my fellow combatant commands, the Services, and our interagency partners to accomplish this mission.”

Recognizing this reality, my amendment also includes additional funding for critical domestic security efforts, including: $2 billion for cyber security.  Cyber-attacks are a real threat to our national and economic security that we must work to address.  Cyber threats are increasing as our country and government become more digitally connected.  There is no question the federal government must do a better job of protecting its systems. This amendment provides an additional $2 billion to address our cyber security vulnerabilities in non-defense agencies. 

I was particularly struck in hearings we had with the Department of Transportation I.G. and the Department of Housing I.G. when asked to give us what they felt their major concern was, both indicated it was the potential for cyber-attacks and cybersecurity within their departments. So this issue of cybersecurity certainly transcends the Department of Defense and funding cybersecurity should be a critical, primary objective. It is included in the amendment that I proposed. 

We’re also asking for $1.4 billion for law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security.   This will help state and local law enforcement and first responder efforts.  It will also allow the Department of Homeland Security to hire 2,000 new Customs and Border Protection Officers and reduce wait times and improve security. 

It's a good sign for our economy that more and more people have been using air travel since the economic recovery started in 2009.  We have seen, particularly at many of our larger airports, passengers experiencing significant delays trying to clear security.  For instance, BWI Airport is asking passengers to show up 2 hours early for domestic flights in order to clear security.  Now, the flight to Providence is 1 hour and 15 minutes.   So it's possible that people flying to Rhode Island will spend more time in the security line than on the plane.  We all know how much this affects the people we represent. 

It's also important that we have an adequate number of customs officers not only at the southern border, but at all points of entry across the country.   T.F. Green Airport in my state has a growing international service, but it has become a challenge for the existing number of customs agents and inspectors to meet new demands for service. 

One of the areas we've talked about extensively on both sides of the aisle over the last several months has been the opioid epidemic. The amendment I propose would provide resources in the amount of $1.1 billion to help counter this epidemic. 

In the United States, drug overdoses have exceeded car crashes as the number one cause of injury death.  Two Americans die of drug overdoses every hour.  In my home state of Rhode Island, there were more than 230 opioid overdose deaths in 2014. 

We acted earlier this year on the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act to help deal with this issue, but so far these funding efforts have been blocked.  So we have a situation where there is authority, but no funds.  And I think we need both.  It is critical that we provide real resources to confront this epidemic and to ensure that people have access to the treatments they need. 

Another issue which threatens our national security but is not a traditional Department of Defense issue by any means is the threat of the Zika virus.  It is on every front page, on every news show at almost every moment.  The legislation I propose would authorize $1.9 billion for Zika prevention and treatment.  The threat of the Zika virus is a serious public health issue and Congress must act to help minimize its spread before we have an epidemic on our hands.  It’s been over two months since the Administration asked for emergency funds to speed up the development of a vaccine and for a comprehensive response to the Zika virus.  This should not be a partisan issue. 

However, already, there are over seventeen hundred cases of Zika virus in the United States and U.S. territories, including over three hundred pregnant women. We’ve seen seven cases so far in my home state of Rhode Island.  The virus is spreading and isn’t going away on its own.  We will certainly see these numbers increase as we approach the summer months. 

I think we have to see this as a threat to our national security and deal with it as we’re trying to deal with other threats to national security.  Our national security is not just about being strong abroad.  It’s also being strong at home.  A growing, vital economy allows us to meet the fiscal challenges we need to fully fund defense, to fully fund our non-defense security activities.  And so, as Secretary Carter has said, underfunding the non-defense portion of the budget “disregards the enduring long-term connection between our nation’s security and many other factors.  Factors like scientific R&D to keep our technological edge, education of a future all-volunteer military force, and the general economic strength of our country.” 

Furthermore, the men and women of our military volunteer to protect and are fighting overseas for American ideals – including a good education, economic opportunity, safe communities, and functioning infrastructure.  There is a reason why our past budget agreements have provided budget parity between defense and non-defense spending.  We’ve done so because we all recognize that we must protect our nation as well as keep it a nation worth protecting.  Our service members and their families also rely on many of the services provided by non-DOD departments and agencies.  Efforts to support all of these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies also receive relief from the budget caps. 

My amendment also revises the budget caps to allow for additional spending on important programs carried out by civilian departments and agencies, including $5.1 billion for infrastructure improvements.  President Eisenhower understood the importance of a strong highway infrastructure to our national defense and prosperity when he championed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which led to the interstate transportation system.  Today, many elements of that transportation system, both roads and bridges, have fallen below acceptable standards. 

We need to take action now to prevent further decline in that vital system.  The unrealistic and arbitrary budget caps have resulted in deep cuts to critical infrastructure programs. We need more resources to invest in our transportation and infrastructure systems – not less.  In response to these shortfalls, my amendment would provide $5.9 billion to help meet critical infrastructure needs for roads, bridges, rail, affordable housing, VA construction projects, water infrastructure, and funds to mitigate lead contamination. 

A few facts for the consideration of my colleagues:  

Barely one-third of our roads are in good condition and a quarter of our bridges need significant repair. 

In my state, we have the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges, and without increased investment, that number could double in the next decade.

The Department of Transportation has identified a backlog for bus and rail transit.  And that backlog continues to increase at a rate of $2.5 billion per year due to inadequate federal investment.

Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor has a $28 billion state-of-good-repair backlog.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s maintenance backlog has grown to $5 billion and the FAA has identified over $400 million in needs for immediate facilities repairs that we are not able to meet under our current allocation.

If we do not invest in our transportation systems, efficiency and safety will be compromised.

Meanwhile, we also have a major affordable housing crisis in this country.  Nearly 8 million very low-income Americans are paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent, living in substandard housing, or both.  In fact, for every four families that are eligible to receive HUD rental assistance, only one can be served within this fiscal environment.  Families cannot pay for higher education or get ahead if the majority of their income goes to simply keeping a roof over their head.

It is also important to continue to adequately fund the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), and work to mitigate lead contamination.  State Revolving Fund resources are critical to modernizing our water infrastructure, reducing pollution, and protecting public health.

As the events in Flint, Michigan illustrate:  when water quality is compromised, it becomes a public health crisis.  Water quality oversight isn’t just about pipes and infrastructure; it’s also about preserving the ecosystem and keeping our sources of drinking water free from harmful contaminants. 

In funding these -- we also understand particularly as you look across the globe at our competitors, our military, our technological edge is narrowing and one haven't that they are investing in a great deal in their infrastructure and we're not investing as we were in the past. Again, partly as a result of these budget caps.

So my amendment would suggest $3.5 billion for science and technology investments.  Federal research centers like the NIH, NSF, NASA, ARPA-E provide hope for treatments and cures for life-threatening and debilitating diseases, generate new technology, and make scientific breakthroughs.  They are also key in helping to strengthen our economy and maintain our competitive edge – the foundations of our national security.

Again, the technological edge that we enjoyed over our near-term competitors in the past is narrowing. Every defense official will say that. And we're not simply going to fix it by putting more money in defense directed at DOD research. We have to put the money throughout our entire research enterprise.  One other area is increasing our basic education.

This funding would support full implementation of several bipartisan legislative efforts like the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and efforts to improve college affordability.  We can never be fully secure if we are not fully providing for the development of the children of this country because they will eventually succeed to leadership, not just in the military, but other critical areas that will make this nation strong and continue our ability, particularly our ability to provide the finest military force in the world.

All of these funding initiatives require, I think, a sense that we’ve tried to articulate throughout, which is that our national security is much more than simply the funding we give to the Department of Defense.

A well-trained and educated workforce is critical to our economic and national security.

Innovation through scientific research is important to our national security. 

And then of course the agencies that I cited, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, all of these agencies have a critical role overseas, and they will not be able to play that role if we simply increase funding for the Department of Defense and not for these other agencies.

For some time now, the President and Secretaries Carter, Hagel, Panetta, and Gates have implored Congress to end the harmful effects of arbitrary spending caps and sequestration.  During last year’s debate, I repeatedly and forcefully argued that using the OCO account as a way to skirt the budget caps set a dangerous precedent.  It was the reason why I reluctantly had to vote against the bill last year. 

I was deeply concerned that if we used the OCO approach for one year, it would be easier to do next year and every year after that – ensuring an enduring imbalance between security and domestic spending.  Such an approach would be completely counter to the original rationale of the Budget Control Act, which imposed proportionally equal cuts to defense and non-defense discretionary spending to force a bipartisan compromise.

Ultimately, we must return to an era of budget deliberations in which all discretionary spending, both defense and non-defense, is judged by its merits and not by an arbitrary limit.  We need to begin working together now to remove the budget caps and the threat of sequestration, not just for the Department of Defense, but for all federal agencies that contribute to our collective national and economic security.

Providing relief from the caps to only the defense portion of the budget, while ignoring the very real consequences of continuing to underfund the non-defense portion of the budget, moves us farther away from that goal.