National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, this is an opportunity for me to commend and thank the Senator from Oklahoma for extraordinary leadership on the committee. Obviously, we were all inspired by Chairman McCain and his incredible leadership over the last many, many years, but the Senator from Oklahoma has stood up there and really set a tone--and I think the Presiding Officer understands because he was there--of very purposeful, very deliberate, very collegial activity to bring everyone involved into the process. We were operating basically under the rules of appropriateness for the committee and a close connection to the Department of Defense because, as Chairman Inhofe said, this is ultimately about the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States.

Always, every year--we will pass this bill; I am confident of that because of the chairman's leadership and because of colleagues like the Presiding Officer. But each and every year, people see this as the only train leaving town, and we have to be able to keep in balance that this is about the Department of Defense and related agencies, like the National Nuclear Security Administration, for example, and the DOE and other agencies. We would like to be able to open up the floor to amendments that are closely connected and have a clear nexus to the Department of Defense, and the men and women in the Department of Defense, and then have votes. That is the ideal, and we hope we can do that.

We might have to spend some time procedurally getting to the bill. We will get to the bill, and under the leadership of Chairman Inhofe, we will get the bill done. We hope to be able to accommodate our colleagues as much as possible with amendments, and I hope these amendments will be directed once again to the activities, priorities, and critical needs of the men and women of the Armed Forces and related agencies. If we do that, I think we will have a very successful and very productive floor debate, as we did in the committee.

Again, let me thank the Senator from Oklahoma. We both stand ready to work and get this bill done for the men and women wearing the uniform of the United States.

Thank you.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me again thank Chairman Inhofe. I, too, will comment that the collaboration and cooperation was superb in the committee. A great deal of that was the result of his work, and, as I mentioned before, the inspiration of Chairman McCain.

Mr. President, I join the Senator from Oklahoma to rise and discuss the fiscal year 2019 national defense authorization bill, which passed out of the Armed Services Committee on May 23 with a very strong bipartisan vote.

First, I would like to recognize Chairman McCain, after whom this bill was named. Senator McCain has guided this committee through several NDAAs with a steady hand and unyielding leadership. His commitment to a bipartisan process has been an example of the way Congress should function, and I am pleased to say this bill, again, follows in that tradition.

I also want to thank Senator Inhofe, who has ably and graciously led the committee this year through many hearings and an extremely efficient markup, which produced the bipartisan bill we are beginning to consider. We would like to have begun considering it and taking amendments today, but we will consider it, we will pass it, and we will continue the outstanding record of annually passing a national defense act for the men and women in the Armed Forces.

The committee has thoughtfully considered the President's budget request, held hearings on national security challenges, and received briefings on emerging threats. The result of this hard work is a bill, I believe, that will improve the readiness and capability of our Armed Forces, push back on our adversaries that threaten the democratic system and the global order, and improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.

This bill reflects the strategic shift toward prioritizing the strategic competition with Russia and China. It supports the President's budget request for resources to deter, and, if necessary, defend against aggression from near-peer competitors. This includes $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative as a continuing demonstration of our commitment to the security of our European allies and the deterrence of Russian expansionism. It also requires a 5-year plan from the Department for the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative on the necessary resources and activities to counter China's destabilizing behavior in the region.

The bill also includes a provision calling on the administration to urgently complete a comprehensive strategy to counter Russian malign influence below the level of direct military conflict. Russia attacked the heart of our democracy in 2016, and our intelligence experts warn of even more sophisticated Russian attacks targeting this year's midterm elections. Yet the administration has failed to bring together our military and nonmilitary tools of national power to counter this Russian aggression, despite a requirement in last year's NDAA to submit to Congress a whole-of-government strategy to counter Russian malign influence.

This bill expresses the sense of the Senate that the administration should complete a counter-Russian influence strategy without delay.

Over the course of the past year, the committee has held numerous hearings in which witnesses have told us, in no uncertain terms, that the President has not tasked the Department of Defense to prepare to respond to a repeat of Russia's influence campaign. Their ongoing campaign of misinformation has largely been conducted through cyber space--a domain that the Department of Defense has specially trained cyber forces designed to disrupt significant cyber attacks.

It is my belief that the ongoing attacks on our democratic process constitute such a significant attack. Therefore, it is noteworthy that the bill includes a provision that would directly and clearly authorize the Secretary of Defense to employ our cyber mission forces to defend against Russian attacks on our democracy.

With respect to countering the continued threat by ISIS, the bill extends the Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Programs at the requested funding level, while requiring appropriate information with respect to the partner forces to be trained and the expected level of engagement with U.S. forces. This is a prudent approach that recognizes the continued threat from ISIS while ensuring appropriate oversight of these authorities in a dynamic environment.

I am pleased the bill also includes provisions designed to incorporate lessons learned from the campaign against ISIS that can be used to more effectively account for and respond to allegations of civilian casualties going forward.

As the tip of the spear of our efforts to counter violent extremist groups like ISIS across the globe, our Special Operations forces require the best equipment and training possible. The bill authorizes full funding for the Special Operations Command and includes important provisions to enhance the ability of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to act as the service Secretary-like civilian responsible for the oversight and advocacy for all our Special Operations forces.

For the Navy and Marine Corps, I believe the bill represents a continuation of the efforts that are so important for improving our Armed Forces. The proposals would begin significant efforts to improve the readiness of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft, ships, tanks, and other weapons systems.

I am pleased the bill, for the second year, authorizes funds to help reduce the risk for ramping up submarine construction as we start the Columbia-class program to replace the Ohio-class strategic missile submarines.

While I support many of the provisions of the bill regarding the Navy and Marine Corps, I do have some concerns that the bill makes sizable reductions in the Marine Corps request for the upgraded amphibious assault vehicle that will remain the backbone of the Marine Corps' amphibious assault capability for years to come. I believe this is shortsighted, and I plan to continue to work with my colleagues on this issue throughout the process.

For the Air Force, this bill authorizes the A-10 wing replacement program to ensure the readiness of our A-10 fleet. Additionally, the bill authorizes $350 million for the Air Force to procure light attack aircraft and $2.3 billion for 14 KC-46 tankers. It also provides multiyear procurement authority for the C-130J program.

The bill also has provisions to begin to address the growing challenge of operating and supporting the F-35 fleet for all services. I believe this challenge will be with us for a long time, and we have to take additional actions in the future. We have begun this process.

Finally, JSTARS is the command-and-control aircraft for ground forces. Presently, the Air Force plans to retire JSTARS with the hope-- not the plan, but the hope--of replacing it in the future with a new concept. I believe the bill takes a very responsible position by preventing the Air Force from retiring the current fleet of JSTARS aircraft, and it provides additional resources to help the Air Force accelerate developing and fielding new capabilities to replace the current ground moving target indicator capability provided by JSTARS. In short, we shouldn't take JSTARS away until we have something very credible and capable to replace it.

As the Department of Defense prioritizes long-term strategic competition with China and Russia, the Army will be required to balance the high-end, near-peer fight while seeking more efficient approaches to counterterrorism activities. This will be a significant shift for the Army, given that for nearly the past 17 years, they have focused on combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and, most recently, in Syria.

In addition, the Army has had a spotty track record in recent decades with major acquisition programs. Coupled with the effects of the Budget Control Act and sequestration, the Army has had to defer modernizing platforms aimed at conflict with a peer adversary.

Recognizing the need to overhaul Army acquisition processes, the Army has created a number of cross-functional teams tasked with breaking down acquisition stovepipes so that new technologies and modernized platforms could be delivered to the force in a more effective manner. I commend the senior leadership of the Army for making acquisition reform a priority, and I believe the bill that we are considering today supports investments for critical weapons systems and research and development activities.

For example, the bill authorizes full funding for the Army's request for Abrams battle tanks, as well as Army helicopters to include AH-64 Apache helicopters and UH-60M Black Hawks. The bill also makes targeted investments to improve the range and lethality of Army artillery systems, and it supports the fielding of active protection systems on our combat vehicles in order to better protect our soldiers.

Again, there is much in this area that I support, but I am concerned that some programs were not fully funded, most notably the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program. While the Senate must always closely review the President's annual budget request, we must also be mindful of the impact to the force. Ensuring that our soldiers have the equipment and resources they need on the battlefield is our highest priority.

In the area of space, this committee has taken in-depth briefings on the threats we face to the use of our space systems. While many of the details are classified, I am satisfied with the investments we are now making in this area, given that space is increasingly becoming a contested domain upon which our ground, sea, and air forces rely upon worldwide. I would only comment to my colleagues that in the last year's National Defense Authorization Act, we made substantial changes to the Department's space governance--the way they operate and the policy development within the Department of Defense--and we should give the Department the time it needs to implement these new proposals before we consider additional tasks for the Department.

In the area of acquisition and technology, I am pleased to see that the bill continues efforts at acquisition streamlining and reform and tries to strengthen DOD's STEM and acquisition workforces. We continue to take steps to improve the Pentagon's ability to deploy information technology systems and embrace modern commercial software production practices. We also included a number of provisions that will strengthen the U.S. defense manufacturing industrial base, which is so critical to our ability to deal with threats around the world.

The committee's bill authorizes significant increases in funding for science and technology programs, above the President's requested levels, including supporting critical research areas, like quantum computing, artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and directed energy. We are in a full-scale technological race with China, with implications to both our national security and economic success, and many provisions in this bill are aimed to help us win that race.

This bill includes efforts to drive the Pentagon to engage more with our world-leading universities and small businesses to leverage their innovation and create the technologies that will shape the future battlefield and drive the economy. Among other things, the bill establishes a DOD venture capital program to invest in high-tech startups, as well as permanently reauthorizing the successful Small Business Innovation Research Program.

In the area of personnel, the bill includes a number of provisions designed to modernize the military officer personnel management system by giving the services greater flexibility to commission and promote individuals with the training and experience in specialized areas needed by the services.

The bill also addresses domestic violence and child abuse by establishing a new punitive article in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, prohibiting domestic violence and requiring programs to address child abuse and domestic violence on military installations.

The bill addresses the issue of opioid abuse by military personnel and their families by requiring a pilot program to minimize early opioid exposure and creating a new program for sharing information about opioid prescriptions with state prescription-drug monitoring programs.

The bill also supports a high quality of life for servicemembers and their families. It authorizes the full 2.6 percent basic pay increase for all servicemembers, as well as $40 million in Department of Defense supplemental impact aid and an additional $10 million in impact aid for military children with severe disabilities.

Additionally, the bill would apply the protections of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to all DODEA schools, closing a loophole in coverage of these protections, and it would require a new comprehensive sexual harassment policy for students in DODEA schools that provides protections at least equal to those afford by title IX.

I remain concerned, however, that the military services do not receive the full end-strength increases in this bill that they have requested. I understand the desire for quality over quantity and agree that quality is paramount, but I believe the services can achieve the increases they requested without sacrificing service standards.

I look forward to hearing from the services as we move forward in the legislative cycle about these provisions and whether they continue to believe that they can achieve the requested increases without sacrificing quality.

In the area of strategic systems, this bill continues to support the modernization of all three legs of the triad: the B-21 bomber, the ground-based strategic deterrent, and the Columbia-class submarine. These are all major acquisition programs that will take decades to field. Bipartisan support is essential for their success as we move forward, and this bill continues that bipartisan support.

The B-21 will replace the B-52 bomber, which was fielded in 1962 and will be required to operate well into the 2040s. The ground-based strategic deterrent will replace the current Minuteman III, which was fielded in the 1970s and uses electronics that, in many cases, predate the earliest personal computers. Finally, the Columbia-class submarine fleet will replace the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines, starting in 2027, due to the potential for full fatigue. By then, the first Ohio-class submarine will be 46 years old--the oldest submarine to have ever sailed in our Navy in its history.

Perhaps the biggest policy issue to be debated in the coming days is the development and deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. This bill authorizes the Defense Department's request for funding for a new low- yield submarine-launched ballistic missile. The request for this weapon is in response to a revanchist Russia with a military doctrine of ``escalate to de-escalate,'' which means that if Russia were losing a conventional war or had attained their objectives and wanted to prevent counterattacks that would displace them, they would launch a low-yield weapon and force us to choose between suspension of our military efforts or deployment of high-yield nuclear weapons, heightening the possibility of escalation and all-out nuclear war.

This low-yield system raises questions of policy that I believe require more time to fully analyze and understand. I have spent countless hours on this issue, and I am not alone. My colleagues in the committee and many Members of the Senate have spent hours thinking about the potential issues that could be caused by these proposals. I am concerned that we have not fully grasped all of the complex implications inherent to the deployment of such a system. Indeed, there is an honest disagreement among experts in the field on this issue.

While General Hyten, the commander of Strategic Command and one of our most prominent, effective, and distinguished officers, makes the case for this system, others, like former Secretary Ernie Moniz, who is also an expert in the field, says the system is not necessary.

No matter where you fall on the issue, to develop this weapon is a major change in U.S. policy, and I believe Congress needs to have a say each step of the way.

Under a law passed on a bipartisan basis in 2003, which I crafted with Senator John Warner, the administration could do research on a low-yield weapon but could not develop, produce, or deploy it without congressional authorization. This bill removes that restriction going forward and virtually all congressional input on these weapons and other potential weapons.

Given the policy ramifications of development and submarine deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons--and, indeed, of any type of nuclear weapon--I believe that Congress should be involved every step of the way. So we will be offering an amendment to ensure congressional oversight of this issue and to continue the process which we are using today, where Congress will actually debate and vote and consider the development and deployment of a new nuclear weapon.

Finally, this bill authorizes $639.2 billion in base funding for the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy, and $68.5 billion in funding for overseas contingencies operations. I am glad that the bill remains within the caps set by the Bipartisan Budget Act, which we passed in February. This will enable the Department to continue to restore readiness and modernize our forces. However, I will remind my colleagues that the budget deal only covers fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. Sequestration and the original caps will be back next year unless we again reach an agreement for both defense and nondefense accounts.

I think all of us have acknowledged that our national security is broader than simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. Customs and Border Patrol, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, the State Department, and many other agencies also contribute to our national security. The investments we propose in this bill before us will be short-lived if we cannot provide sufficient resources and stability in years to come for all of these critical funds in our government.

Let me conclude by, once again, thanking Senator Inhofe and my colleagues on the committee for working thoughtfully and on a bipartisan basis to develop this important piece of legislation. I also thank the staff who worked tirelessly on this bill throughout this year and will continue to work tirelessly throughout many days ahead.

I look forward to a thoughtful debate on the issues that face our Department of Defense and our national security.

Finally, I can think of no more appropriate title for this bill than the John McCain National Defense Authorization Act, to symbolize the leadership, the inspiration, and the direction that he is still providing us and will provide us as we move forward.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source