Mr. Reed: Mr. President, I would like to make some brief remarks with respect to the Reed amendment that is pending on a vote. Senator Mikulski would like to also. I note the chairman is here, but I would ask unanimous consent that when I finish my brief remarks that Senator Mikulski be recognized.

Thank you, Mr. President. We've 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. But there's been two principles that we have followed over the last several years when it comes to trying to at least push back the effects of sequestration. And those principles have been that the security of the United States is significantly affected by the Department of Defense 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 that has been one of the principles.

The other principle is that we've recognized that in lifting these temporary limits, we have to do it on an equal basis. What the amendment offered by myself and Senator Mikulski 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. We recognize, all of us recognize the sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces and the fact that they continue to serve as a front line of our defense in so many different aspects. But we also recognize that defending our interest means also agencies outside the Department of Defense. The State Department, Homeland Security, etc., that have absolutely critical and indispensable roles in our national security. Just reflecting on the comments before about the potential for incidents both here and abroad, and if you go back just 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 screening passengers getting on airplanes. That is a failure to connect intelligence that one FBI office had and was not shared effectively. Those threats to the United States will not be directly remedied even as we increase resources to Department of Defense. Resources have to go to these agencies. And that, I think, is something that we all recognize. And that's what at the heart of what we're doing.

In addition of the last decade we've 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 increasing sort of sophistication. I recall 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 addressing your department right now, and both said, well, it's this issue of cybersecurity, protecting the data we have, protecting records that we have, protecting ourselves from being an unwitting conduit through us into even more sensitive government systems. And so within our commitment we proposed significant resources for cyber protections throughout the federal government. Homeland Security, HHS, the HUD department, etc. These are essential and I think the American people understand that.

We also understand that our infrastructure is critical to our economic well-being, our economic growth and part of our dilemma going forward and one of the reasons we're locked in the sequestration battle is unless we're growing our economy, we're continuing to be faced with difficult challenges about what do we fund, how do we fund it, how do we provide the revenue to meet these obligations. And one of the surest ways to increase our growth is to invest in our infrastructure. So what we're proposing here, I think, makes sense in two fundamental ways. It recognizes, which 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 it's the vitality and strength of the country, the ability to grow and to afford these investments in defense, in homeland security and others. And 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 range increase in resources.

And the final point I'll 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. And if we don't address that next year, we are going to be in an extraordinarily dire situation. So with that, I would ask my colleagues sincerely and very, very fervently to support the Reed-Mikulski Amendment. I think that will put us on the track to true national security. And with that, I would yield the floor to the chairwoman.