Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join many of my colleagues who have come to the floor to implore the leadership and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to work with us to address critical matters facing our Nation. From failing to provide the necessary funding to combat the Zika virus and our Nation's opioid epidemic to failing to even consider a candidate for the Highest Court in the land, or legislation to curb gun violence and address college costs and the student debt crisis--we must act on all of these measures, and we must do it promptly. We are entrusted by the American people to find solutions for difficult, hard-to-fix problems, not to ignore them at almost every turn. I have heard from people of all persuasions, reaching out, urging Congress to take action. So I come here today to remind my colleagues across the aisle, and my colleagues within my caucus, that we all must do our job. That message has come through loud and clear from the American public, and we have to put those words into action. For more than 8 months, we have seen, for example, the harmful effects of the Zika virus. We have seen its heartbreaking impact on newborns, women, and families and deepened our understanding of the suffering this virus causes. Pregnancies have been lost. We have seen children born with permanent birth defects that could have been avoided. And recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that the disease can enter people's eyes, causing serious vision impairment. It has been over 6 months since the President requested $1.9 billion in emergency funding to fight the Zika virus. It has been 4 months since the Senate passed a compromise measure to provide $1.1 billion for a comprehensive response to Zika and to speed up development of a vaccine by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 29. Instead of the other body passing this measure, the majority in both bodies agreed upon a bill that uses this public health crisis as an opportunity to attack the Environmental Protection Agency and make cuts to the Affordable Care Act, veterans' health care, and other provisions. This approach seeks to drain funds from critical health needs, which have not abated, as a way to pay for the Zika emergency. Indeed, it is an emergency that requires an emergency response. In light of this failure, the administration shifted all the funds it could to the Zika efforts. As the head of the Centers for Disease Control has noted, these funds are now running out. It is urgent that we pass a measure like the one we already did that gives the public health community the resources it needs to prevent further infections, treat those who have been affected, and develop vaccines to limit future outbreaks. Unfortunately, Congress has taken a similar approach of delay to the opioid epidemic, severely underfunding efforts to combat this crisis. Like many Americans, I have seen the devastating impact the opioid crisis continues to have on our Nation. Indeed, since 2010, we have lost more than 1,000 Rhode Islanders to accidental drug overdoses, including more than 230 overdose deaths in 2014--an increase of 73 percent since 2009. Nationally, drug overdoses have exceeded car crashes as the number one injury-related death. Two Americans die of drug overdoses every hour. Action is urgently called for, and I commend my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, who spearheaded passage in this body of the bipartisan Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, or CARA. However, CARA provides authority only for a response plan to address this complex challenge; it does not adequately fund this effort. For this law to work, we need real dollars to deliver lifesaving prevention and treatment services. It is critical that we provide robust resources to confront this epidemic and ensure that people have access to the treatment they need. Unfortunately, that has not happened. We cannot fight the opioid crisis with words. We need dollars, as well as words. Those across the aisle have also fallen short on their responsibility by refusing to hold so much as a hearing on President Obama's nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. This body has a constitutional obligation to advise and consent on the President's nominees. When we fail in that obligation, we undermine the stability of our system of justice and endanger Separation of Powers. Since the stunning announcement by the majority leadership that no hearing would be held on a replacement, the Supreme Court has deadlocked on five major questions of law. These are legal issues that directly impact millions of Americans in terms of labor force protections, business interests, and civil rights. These issues are more important than political gamesmanship, and they need resolution now. If this obstructionism continues, American families and businesses will face growing legal uncertainty as disputed Federal laws apply differently across States. This damage to our legal system is unprecedented and could take years to undo. I urge my colleagues to do their job and allow a vote on Chief Judge Garland's nomination. The majority has also thwarted efforts to address the continuing epidemic of gun violence in our country. This year, nearly as many Americans will lose their lives to guns as will be killed in automobile accidents. Sadly, the number of gun deaths continues to grow, fueled by easy access to lethal firearms. This body could take action to limit the devastation to families in our communities brought about by military-grade firearms that are too easily accessed. It is my hope that through an honest, open dialogue, we can bridge the divide and pass legislation--such as closing the terror gap--in order to keep our families and communities safe from the threat of gun violence. Another area that I want to emphasize is college affordability, where inaction has exacerbated a crisis in which sending a child to college can often put families hopelessly in the red. We all understand that education is the engine that pulls this economy forward, fulfills individual aspirations, and makes America what it is. The United States invented modern public education and led the world in access to higher education for generations. It is a great irony that we are falling behind. Rising college costs and student loan debt are putting America at risk. And too many institutions lack accountability, putting profit before providing a quality education to students. We need to revamp our system for financing college, and we need to help families currently struggling under the weight of student loan debt. Many of my colleagues, and I have joined them, have put forth commonsense proposals to allow families to refinance student loans at today's low rates; to ensure that all Americans have access to tuition- free community college; to strengthen the Pell grant and reduce the reliance on student loans; and to ensure that States and institutions live up to their shared responsibilities in providing high quality and affordable higher education. These solutions are badly needed, and the majority needs to work with us to do our job and not leave students and families behind. It is a great honor to serve the people of Rhode Island, and I know all of my colleagues in the Senate feel the same way about their respective States. Congress has always faced an array of complex and varied challenges. We must come together and find sincere solutions to improve our country. I say to my colleagues: It is long past time to get to work, to do your job, and to act on these pressing problems. They cannot wait any longer. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I strongly support S. 2848, the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, of 2016. I want to thank and commend Chairman Inhofe, Ranking Member Boxer, and their staffs for developing a bipartisan bill to authorize and invest in our Nation's infrastructure--our harbors and waterways, flood and coastal protection projects, and drinking and clean water systems. I particularly want to thank them for including provisions on small dam safety from S. 2835, the High Hazard Potential Small Dam Safety Act that I introduced with Senator Capito. Like our bill, this legislation creates a new program in the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to assist States and communities in rehabilitating small dams that have high-hazard potential, meaning that they threaten human life and property if they fail. There are thousands of these dams across the country, and we have seen the damage they can cause in the instances when they have failed. While there are programs to address small agricultural dams that were built by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there is no Federal program to deal with the small dams that proliferate the Northeast, Southeast, and Midwest, including 78 high-hazard potential dams in Rhode Island. The bill authorizes up to $445 million over 10 years to begin to address these structures, with funding to be disbursed on both a formula and a competitive basis. Estimates show that $1 of predisaster mitigation spending can save between $3-$14 in postdisaster spending. Therefore, by assisting in the repair or removal of high-hazard dams before they fail, this program makes an investment in future cost savings, not to mention lives and property saved. The bill also includes language to address concerns that Senator Whitehouse and I identified about marine debris and abandoned Army Corps projects in Narragansett Bay by expanding the Corps' authority to remove obstructions adjacent to Federal navigation channels. I am pleased that the bill reauthorizes the Water Resources Research Act, which allows the U.S. Geological Survey to provide grants to colleges and universities, including the University of Rhode Island, to support research to improve water supply, address water quality, and train researchers. Additionally, the bill requires a study of the Army Corps' policies on aquaculture in certain areas of the country. Shellfish aquaculture is something we do well in Rhode Island, where there is an excellent relationship with the Corps and where the industry continues to grow. I hope the studies authorized in this bill will be informed by our State's very productive experience. Beyond the traditional authorizations, the bill also includes important policy changes and funding to deal with the tragic public health and drinking water crisis in the city of Flint, MI, which was brought about by disastrous cost-cutting measures that caused lead contamination in the water supply. The situation in Flint is acute and pronounced. The $100 million in funding provided under the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the $70 million under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act is long overdue. However, drinking water is not the only source of lead contamination. Communities across the country are finding lead contamination in their soil and in the paint within their homes. In fact, lead-based paint is the leading cause of lead poisoning in children. Sadly, this is nothing new, and too often, it is low-income families and communities that experience this problem. This issue has long been a concern of mine. My home State of Rhode Island has the fourth oldest housing stock in the country. For the past two decades, I have undertaken initiatives to address lead-based paint hazards. I have pushed for increased funding for housing and public health programs to better track lead hazards and then remediate those hazards within homes for low-income families. While these investments have been significant, more must be done. As ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Transportation and Housing, I have worked with my chairman, Senator Collins, to direct HUD to update the elevated blood lead level standard that requires an immediate environmental investigation in HUD assisted housing. This aligns HUD's standard with the recommendations of health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. Senator Collins and I have gone a step further in the fiscal year 2017 bill, providing $25 million to help public housing agencies comply with this new rule and an additional $25 million for the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes that provides grants to help low-income families mitigate lead-based paint hazards in their homes. I am pleased that the WRDA bill builds on our efforts in the Appropriation Committee by providing an additional $10 million for the Healthy Homes program over the next 2 years, as well as $10 million for the CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund, which supports research and funds State programs to address and prevent childhood lead poisoning. The bill also provides $10 million for the HHS Healthy Start Initiative to connect pregnant women and new mothers with health care and other resources to foster healthy childhood development. Many of these measures and others are ones that I have joined some of my Democratic colleagues in proposing in legislation we introduced known as the True LEADership Act of 2016. They add a new dimension-- public health--to a bill that is typically about ``bricks and mortar.'' For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill. Section 2004

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the Career and Technical Education for Adult Learners or the CTE for All Act with my colleague, Senator Baldwin. Our legislation addresses the critical need to expand educational opportunities for working adults with low academic skills. A Department of Education update of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, 2013 Survey of Adult Skills confirms that a significant number of working adults in the United States have low literacy, numeracy, and digital problem solving skills. Specifically, 14 percent have low literacy skills; 23 percent have low numeracy skills; and 62 percent have low digital problem solving skills. Moreover, the skills gap has no age barrier as half of low skilled working adults are under the age of 45. Our ability to accelerate the economic momentum we have seen in the latest income data from the U.S. Census Bureau will depend, in large part, on our commitment to providing education and training opportunities to low-skilled adults. These workers are concentrated in fields such as construction, health care, manufacturing, and hospitality. Expanding career and technical education opportunities to these workers could enhance their career opportunities and strengthen their earning potential, fueling economic productivity and growth for the future. Unfortunately, according to the U.S. Department of Education, roughly half of low-skilled workers are not engaged in formal or non-formal learning opportunities. The CTE for All Act aims to change that by ensuring that there are pathways for adult learners in career and technical education programs. Specifically, our legislation will ensure that programs funded under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act are aligned with adult education programs and industry sector partnerships authorized under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The CTE for All Act will require that the state director for adult education is consulted in the development of the statewide plan for career and technical education. The bill adds low-skilled adults to the special populations to be served in career and technical education programs and will allow states to report separate performance indicators for adult career and technical education students. The legislation would also allow adult education providers that offer integrated education and training programs to receive career and technical education funding. Additionally, the legislation encourages career and technical education programs to include work experiences for their students. We have worked with the adult education community and other stakeholders in developing this legislation. We are pleased to have the support of the National Council of State Directors of Adult Education, the Commission on Adult Basic Education, the National Skills Coalition, the Center for Law and Social Policy, CLASP, and the National Council of Adult Learning. We are stronger as a nation when every person--no matter their starting point--has the opportunity to develop their skills and reach their potential. The CTE for All Act will strengthen the ladder of opportunity for low-skilled adults who work hard every day to provide for their families. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and work with us to include these provisions in the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we worked with Senator Sullivan on this instruction. It is consistent, as the Senator has indicated, with the President's proposal with respect to force structure in Afghanistan and with our European Reassurance Initiative, where we are increasing our presence and cooperating more closely with our European allies. It is consistent with our position in the Pacific as articulated by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. It is consistent with proposals that have been made in other areas, and it does not expand the authority of the President. It simply recognizes what he has asked not just of our Congress but more importantly of the men and women who wear the uniform in the United States. This instruction will help us in our deliberations, and I would thank the Senator and urge its passage.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I join many of my colleagues here in encouraging the Senate to continue working on solutions to protect our planet from the growing threats of climate change. First, I would like to thank Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for his leadership and tireless work on these issues. We both represent the great State of Rhode Island, the Ocean State, and I am lucky to have such a strong partner to work with to improve the health of our oceans and fight sea level rise, beach erosion, and ocean warming and acidification. I am proud to work alongside him as we respond to the serious challenges of climate change. Indeed, he is the leader in this effort in the Senate, throughout my State, and throughout the country. I applaud his commitment to this endeavor and his efforts to organize all of us to come here and to speak out on this growing danger. We are already shouldering the costs of climate change as Americans, and these costs are increasing. Climate change is driving severe drought and wildfires in the West, larger and more frequent floods in the Midwest, and sea level rise and greater storm damage along our coasts. Vulnerable populations, like children with asthma and the elderly, are suffering from higher levels of smog in our cities and longer and more severe heat waves. Farmers and ranchers are struggling with crop and livestock losses from drought. Increasingly, acidic oceans are harming shellfish populations and threatening fisheries. Communities are struggling to pay for infrastructure damaged by fires, more extreme storms, and coastal erosion. In the face of this evidence, as my colleagues have all pointed out, there is a systematic and organized effort to discredit, dismiss it, ignore it, but Americans are sensing dramatically the effects in their own lives, and they understand this. One area I think is important to emphasize is that climate change is not just a local issue or an issue that is associated with domestic policy. It has profound national security ramifications. Indeed, to the military, climate change acts as a threat multiplier, exacerbating threats in already unstable regions of the world. Climate change creates chokepoints for oil distribution lines and exacerbates our dependence on foreign oil to fuel ships, tanks, aircraft, and tactical vehicles. To protect our national security, we must take action based on scientific evidence presented by our Nation's best climate scientists. Such experts have overwhelmingly warned us that the increasingly warmer temperatures will mean oppressive heat in already hot areas. This translates not only to geopolitical issues, but it translates down to the individual soldier. For our infantry personnel, this means carrying several pounds of additional gear across dry and arid regions. And supplying these troops with fuel and water is becoming a difficult challenge for our military leaders. Warmer temperatures also lead to glacial melt, causing sea level rise and ocean acidification, affecting our seafaring vessels and aircraft carriers, and increasing the complexity for our Navy. One of the more interesting moments I had on the Committee on Armed Services was to listen several years ago to an admiral describe to me that transit to the Arctic Ocean will become commonplace in just a few years. To someone who was brought up in the 1950s and 1960s and served in the military in the 1970s, that seemed completely implausible, but that is happening. Yet there are groups that are organized that are trying to make that disappear. It is not disappearing for our military. They have to cope with it, plan for it, and, indeed, ensure that our security is protected from the ramifications. In national security, decisions are made by a careful evaluation of risk. Given the preponderance of scientific evidence, it only makes sense that we address the major risks caused by climate change. National security and foreign policy leaders across the political spectrum issued a statement last year urging the highest levels of American government and business to take domestic and international action to fight climate change. These are the national security experts. They are a bipartisan group of Americans who have dedicated their lives to this Nation. They are not a self-interested group of people who are profiting from a certain position. They include former Secretaries of Defense, Chuck Hagel, William Cohen, and Leon Panetta; Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and George Shultz; National Security Advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert ``Bud'' McFarlane; Senators Olympia Snowe, Carl Levin, and Richard Lugar; New Jersey Governor and Chair of the 9/11 Commission Thomas Kean; and retired U.S. Army Chief of Staff, GEN Gordon R. Sullivan. These and many others agree that climate change is a threat to national security and have called for U.S. leadership in the global effort to tackle the urgent and complex problem of climate change. And yet, even these wise and selfless Americans are being dismissed, if you will, by the organized effort to undercut scientific evidence. We took steps and have taken steps. Last December, in Paris, we took a step forward with an international agreement. More than 150 countries pledged to develop plans to tackle climate change domestically, including countries once reluctant to act, such as China and India. American leadership has been the key to getting these countries on board and agreeing to do their fair share. These countries are also acting because it is in their self-interest to do so--for their own health and for their national security. It is clear that no country can avoid the impacts of climate change, and no country can meet this challenge alone. As a nation that has contributed more than a quarter of all global carbon pollution, it is our responsibility to lead, not to deny. As a nation already feeling the effects and costs of climate change, it is also in our national interest to do so. As we have seen time and again, other countries would join us if America leads the way--not by denial but by dedication to pragmatic solutions that can be achieved. American companies must also do a better job in addressing climate change. It is not enough just for America's government and military to take action; the private sector also needs to step up to the plate. Companies need to be transparent and provide fuller disclosure of the impacts their industries have on our climate and environment and must take full responsibility for their actions. Some companies have improved their sustainability practices and have made strides to inform consumers about their carbon footprint, and more need to join them. In fact, many companies concluded it is in their economic self-interest to do so, not just in the national or public interest to do so. Information about the risks posed by climate change is also something that is critical to investors, some of whom are demanding greater disclosures. For example, Allianz Global Investors, which is a global diversified active investment management with nearly $500 billion in assets under manager has specifically called for ``achieving better disclosure of the effects of carbon costs on the Oil & Gas companies.'' This is why I have introduced legislation to enhance climate-related disclosures by publicly-traded companies to ensure that these companies are providing investors with the information necessary to make informed investment decisions. These companies not only have an obligation, as we all do, to the greater welfare of the country and indeed the world, but they owe a very direct and fiduciary responsibility to their investors. Many of these companies have information--I would suspect at least--that should be disclosed, and we have to ensure that they do this so that the market operates appropriately. It is not just about broad statements of protecting the climate. It is not just about feeling good. It is about making concrete information available to the public, to investors, to the country as a whole--not to deny, obfuscate, or ignore this information. I urge my colleagues to support legislation that protects our air, water, natural resources, and environment. The health of our oceans and environment must be preserved for now and for future generations. Indeed, in this effort, I can think of no one who is taking a more forceful and constructive role than my colleague Senator Whitehouse. Again, I salute him. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Heller, I am introducing the Storage Technology for Operational Readiness and Generating Energy Act, or STORAGE Act. I thank Senator Heller for his work with me on this bipartisan bill. The advent of energy storage capacity means unused energy from renewable sources can be made available for use when needed, rather than wasted. As a result, advances in energy storage can help improve the reliability, resiliency, and flexibility of the grid, as well as reduce the potential for future rate increases for consumers. To further encourage the research and development of energy storage, the legislation we are introducing authorizes the Secretary of Energy to coordinate efforts among various existing programs at the Department of Energy. By streamlining these energy storage research and development programs, we hope we will maximize efficiency of funds and expand this vital research. I am pleased that the Senate has already included an amendment I offered with Senator Heller to add these provisions as part of the Energy Policy Modernization Act that we passed earlier this year. Our bill also amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 19781, or PURPA, to add energy storage systems to the list of strategies states should consider when developing their energy plan in an effort to promote energy conservation and greater use of domestic energy. The bill does not mandate the implementation of this or any technology. Rather it simply encourages states to analyze whether energy storage would provide benefits to the overall system. I look forward to working with Senator Heller and our colleagues to also find a path forward for these provisions. I urge our colleagues to join in supporting the STORAGE Act and taking commonsense steps to advance energy storage technology.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator Heller, I am introducing the Storage Technology for Operational Readiness and Generating Energy Act, or STORAGE Act. I thank Senator Heller for his work with me on this bipartisan bill. The advent of energy storage capacity means unused energy from renewable sources can be made available for use when needed, rather than wasted. As a result, advances in energy storage can help improve the reliability, resiliency, and flexibility of the grid, as well as reduce the potential for future rate increases for consumers. To further encourage the research and development of energy storage, the legislation we are introducing authorizes the Secretary of Energy to coordinate efforts among various existing programs at the Department of Energy. By streamlining these energy storage research and development programs, we hope we will maximize efficiency of funds and expand this vital research. I am pleased that the Senate has already included an amendment I offered with Senator Heller to add these provisions as part of the Energy Policy Modernization Act that we passed earlier this year. Our bill also amends the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 19781, or PURPA, to add energy storage systems to the list of strategies states should consider when developing their energy plan in an effort to promote energy conservation and greater use of domestic energy. The bill does not mandate the implementation of this or any technology. Rather it simply encourages states to analyze whether energy storage would provide benefits to the overall system. I look forward to working with Senator Heller and our colleagues to also find a path forward for these provisions. I urge our colleagues to join in supporting the STORAGE Act and taking commonsense steps to advance energy storage technology.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. The Senator continually references military-style assault weapons. Frankly, I had the privilege of commanding paratroopers, and we were armed with M-16s, which is an AR-15 military variance. It was clear to us--and this was 30 years ago--these are military weapons. These are weapons that were designed to mass fire, rapid fire, even in semiautomatic mode. These were not designed for hunting. In fact, back in those days, we replaced the M-14--which didn't have the same capabilities, much more accurate--because what they were looking for was just a sheer volume of fire that can inflict the most casualties possible, particularly in confined spaces, because of woods, because of jungle, because of war, because you are in a building. I think your points about military assault weapons are exactly the right points, and you, like me, have heard this not only from law enforcement professionals but also from military personnel about the nature of this weapon.

Mr. REED. Will the Senator yield again for a question?

Mr. REED. First, let me commend the Senator for this extraordinary and principled discussion that the Senator has led, along with Senators Blumenthal and Booker. I do have a question, and it stems from some of the comments I have received from the Chief of Police in the State of Rhode Island, Colonel Steven O'Donnell, a skilled professional. What Colonel O'Donnell said-- and it goes to one of the issues that Senator Whitehouse discussed, the access to high-capacity magazines for these assault weapons. Colonel O'Donnell said: I've yet to hear a viable argument for high capacity magazines, what the purpose is. I have friends that are hunters. They use high capacity weapons, but not magazines. They use several rounds to hunt, but they don't need 15, 30, and 45 round clips to hunt an animal. Is that some of the responses you are getting from some of your law enforcement professionals who deal every day with firearms?

Mr. REED. The Senator also commented, and I want to reconfirm it, that one of the characteristics of these weapons is that even in semiautomatic mode, there is a high rate of fire, and the velocity of the rounds are such that they inflict extreme damage. So even if it is in a semiautomatic mode, you have the ability to deliver devastating fire, and coupled with a large magazine, you can keep this fire up. The other point is that changing the magazine on one of these weapons is a matter of seconds. It is not a laborious task where you have to individually load rounds into the weapon. That, too, I think increases the lethality. Again, if the Senator would comment and concur, the adoption by the military had a logical military purpose--to increase the lethality of the weapons that we are giving to the soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen of the United States. That is not, I don't think, what you and I would like to see in our civilian population--weapons for which the primary purpose is increased lethality. It is not accuracy, necessarily, not for a skill in terms of marksmanship, but simply increased lethality. Is that the sense that you have?

Mr. REED. Essentially, what our adversaries are doing is exploiting loopholes in our law, and they are doing it very deliberately, very consciously. To date, we are standing by and letting them do that. They know where the weak points are. The weak points are not only that you can get these assault weapons, but another point is that a significant number of weapons were sold without a background check because they can be done through the Internet, through gun show sales, et cetera. We have taken this issue on before, and we failed to address those issues too.

Mr. REED. I have one final question for the Senator. It would seem to me that this would essentially deny our fiercest adversaries, the Islamist jihadists who are using the Internet to radicalize people--not only to radicalize them but, without directly controlling their conduct, suggesting to them the way they can get assault weapons legally in the United States and can arm themselves. If we take these steps, as you would suggest, we can deny our fiercest adversaries the arms they seek to inflict harm on our families, our friends and our neighbors.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me commend and thank the chairman on his leadership. He began this process with great deliberation months ago by bringing together experts on defense organization--experts on military and strategic policy. Through a series of many hearings, we were able to craft significant legislation reforming the operations of the Department of Defense. We will now go to conference and begin to work to improve that legislation. I think improvements can be made with respect to the changes in the context of Goldwater-Nichols reorganization. But I think the chairman's leadership was absolutely essential and incredibly productive in this process. We have had debate on a number of issues on the floor. I think we are now at the point where we should be, not only continuing our efforts to get this bill passed but, once again, underscoring the need to eliminate sequestration, which is looming on the horizon. When we don't have the relief afforded by last year's temporary agreement, we will be dealing with numbers that will not allow our military to perform their basic mission of protecting the United States. Therefore, we have to start working on this issue of sequestration. As I suggested, it applies not only to the Department of Defense but to other agencies of the Federal Government. Through the very careful leadership of the chairman, we were able to come up with a working and I think workable compromise with respect to Russian engines without surrendering the basic principle that the chairman had enunciated that we should not be relying on Russian engines to send our technology into space. As the chairman also indicated, there are several issues that we could not reach consensus on and which deserve not only a vote but in many cases deserve passage. Senator Shaheen has worked tirelessly. I have never seen a colleague work so intensely, so thoughtfully, so professionally, literally going from office to office asking for support for the Afghan interpreters-- individuals who have already been targeted in many cases because of their help to the United States. If we don't have this legislation passed, then not only will we send a terrible message to these individuals who have served with us and sacrificed along with us, but also to succeeding generations who will not come to our aid because they are afraid of the consequences. So not only looking back at justice and equity for people who helped us but looking forward to being able to operate in not just Afghanistan but other areas of the world, I think it was necessary to not only bring up the Shaheen amendment but to pass it. As the chairman pointed out, Senator Gillibrand has a very important amendment with respect to sexual assault in the military. She has done remarkable work with respect to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. She has worked very closely with many colleagues. I must also thank Senator Claire McCaskill for her extraordinary efforts. There are many provisions in this bill that Senator Gillibrand has included, but there is one very important to her about the role of the commander. That issue deserves a debate. Like the chairman, I do not agree with the conclusion, but I certainly believe that she should have had a vote. Senator Murray also came here with a very important amendment, cryopreservation for soldiers. As they go overseas and they do want to have a family, there is the risk in battle which could prevent that, and this is a procedure which would allow them not only to serve their country but in the event of them being wounded, they could still have a family. Again, many people have different views on this particular amendment, but I believe a vote would have been in order. These are three issues, but these issues cannot undercut the incredible reforms that the chairman inspired with the bill and the thoughtful debate and ultimately the conclusion--strong bipartisan support for this initiative. I want to thank the staff because we could not have done this without them. I want to particularly thank Chris Brose and all of his colleagues on the Republican side. They did a remarkable job. I want to individually thank my staff: Jody Bennett, Carolyn Chuhta, Jon Clark, Jonathan Epstein, Jon Green, Creighton Greene, Ozge Guzelsu, Mike Kuiken, Gary Leeling, Kirk McConnell, Maggie McNamara, Mike Noblet, John Quirk, Arun Seraphin, and my staff director, Elizabeth King. Let me thank the floor staff too. Without Gary and Laura and others on the floor, we would not have gotten to a conclusion. With that Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I wish to underscore what the chairman has said. We worked very closely with Senator Moran, Senator Shaheen, and many others, including Senator Gillibrand and Senator Murray, to come up with a package. As the chairman announced previously, if this package had moved, it would have also unlocked numerous other amendments that we had cleared on both sides. But, unfortunately, because of the objection of an individual whom the chairman has cited, we are now coming to final passage. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I withdraw amendment No. 4603.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I simply want to underscore the importance of these amendments that Senator Murray and Senator Gillibrand are putting forward. There can be disagreement on the substance, but the merits, the importance, and the criticality should be obvious to all of us. I would hope to find a way to have votes on these amendments. The same logic applies to Senator Shaheen and Senator Moran. They have amendments that they have worked tirelessly on for days. They are being frustrated, not by the majority of the Senate but by a few individuals. I think we have reached the point now where we have very little time left. If we could come together at least on a good-faith package of consents to deal with all of these or a majority of these and then continue to work forward for votes on all of them, I think that would be the appropriate thing to do. So, again, I just want to underscore the fact that the issues that Senator Murray and Senator Gillibrand have raised are deserving of a vote, and we should have a vote on these issues. With that, I yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, we have been moving very steadily through this authorization bill. I once again commend the leadership of Chairman McCain. It really began months ago when the Chairman decided that he was going to do an indepth analysis of the Department of Defense, calling upon experts from an extraordinary range of academic, military, and diplomatic leaders. As a result, we became much more knowledgeable than we were previously about things within the Department that we should very carefully review and perhaps change. In fact, because of his leadership, this is the most fundamental revision of the Goldwater-Nichols procedures that were adopted three decades ago. We have spent a lot of time discussing important issues, but I don't think we have given quite enough credit to the work that the Chairman and our colleagues have done with respect to some of these important reforms. One area that we worked on together is developing statutory authority for cross-functional teams within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. One of the challenges that Goldwater-Nichols faced, and faced successfully, was to try to integrate operational units. They came up with the concept of jointness, which now we assume has always been there, but that was not the case 30 or 40 years ago. Because of the inspiration of the concept and because of the emphasis in the assignment process of moving forward and having an assignment not in your branch of service but in a job that required the integration of other services, that approach made a significant, fundamental change on the effective operations of military forces today, and we take it for granted. Similarly, we want to take that type of approach not just in the services and the operational command but within the headquarters of the Secretary of Defense. We have organized cross-functional teams that the Secretary-- he or she--can adopt. These cross-functional teams exemplify the real mission of the Secretary. It is not to organize personnel or logistics. It is to achieve an outcome which requires every component to work together. This is just one example of the innovation that is being promoted in this legislation. Again, I think it is not only building on Goldwater-Nichols, but it is really going much further more effectively. One of the inspirations for this approach is what has been done in private industry. Private industry has faced some of the same challenges as every large institution--and the Department is a large institution. They have lots of functional areas, but they didn't have a common operational technique, a common team, et cetera. Looking at the private sector, this model has become prevalent because it has reduced costs, increased efficiency, and delivered products on time--in fact, even faster than they thought they could do. We hope this approach will similarly provide the kinds of organizational structure and incentives for the Department of Defense that will make the Office of the Secretary of Defense much more efficient. That is just one aspect but there are other aspects that are critical too. Some of the other aspects involve trying to focus research and engineering in one particular focal point in the Department of Defense. This is in reaction to the phenomenon that we have all observed, and that is that our technological superiority--which we took for granted for decades and decades and decades--is now being slowly eroded because of research that is going on across the globe. Part of our proposal is to have a very centralized figure with significant rank to focus on this research and engineering effort. Other duties in terms of management of the program, operation of the Department of Defense, and testing issues could be coordinated with other elements. That is another important aspect of these proposals. Again, we have spent a great deal of time discussing important issues, but I think we should not fail to note these important changes. In addition to structure changes at the Department of Defense level, we are also creating a much more organizationally streamlined structure in order to more appropriately deliver services. In addition, we worked closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get their input about how the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs can be more effective as the principal adviser to the President of the United States. That is an important change to be made. We have also been very careful to get feedback from professionals within the Chairman's office so that we are doing things that make sense, that work, and that function appropriately. Another important aspect to note in talking about very fundamental Goldwater-Nichols reform is the role of the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That person has the responsibility to head the Joint Requirements Oversight Council--JROC--which I am well familiar with. Essentially, the JROC lays out for all the services what types of equipment they need, what requirements they are fulfilling--whether it be an undersea craft or a new aviation platform. After listening to the numerous experts that came before us, our observation was that the Vice Chairman might have been in a sense first among equals, but there were more consensus decisions without a focal point of leadership. What we have done in this legislation is make it clear that the Vice Chairman is indeed the leader of that group, so he or she will someday have the ability to make decisions after getting advice from the other members of the JROC. But it will not be what is perceived today as a sort of quid pro quo between services: The Navy might want a particular ship, and in return for that particular ship, they will be amenable to a proposal by the Air Force for a particular aviation platform. What we have now is that the Vice Chair will be able--not only as the official formal head of this but also as the chief adviser to the Chairman--to say: No, we have looked at this not from the perspective of the service but from the perspective of the Joint Chiefs and our role as giving advice to the President so that we can go ahead and give a decision that is not based upon anything else. Amendment No. 4603 to Amendment No. 4607

Mr. REED. Madam President, to continue briefly, we are again spending a great deal of time on an important issue, and we have more important issues that will emerge. But I think it is long overdue to cite what we have done in just a small part under the leadership of the chairman to make fundamental changes to the operation of the Department of Defense. I am confident that years from now, when they talk about Goldwater- Nichols, they will talk about McCain, what the McCain amendments did and what the McCain bill did. I think that is a fitting tribute to the chairman. I also think it is ultimately what we are all about here. It is going to make sure that the men and women in the field who wear the uniform of the United States have the very best leadership, from the Secretary's level, to the Chairman's level, all the way down to their platoon leader and commander. I want to make sure we noted that. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Will the chairman yield? If I had the opportunity to go to a football school and not an academic institution, I would be better off today. Forgive me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Madam President, I join the chairman. He has very eloquently and passionately described the situation we are in. We have thousands of Afghans who have come forward and helped our forces--not just our military forces but our diplomats and our AID workers. They have been the translators. They have been on the frontlines, and they have exposed themselves to risk. Many of them are in danger of retaliation. What they want and what I think is owed to them is the opportunity to relocate to the United States. The Senator from New Hampshire has proposed an amendment and has worked incredibly hard to satisfy objections from many different quarters, both technical and substantive, and I think has reached a very principled approach that would recognize our obligations to these individuals. It would, in a very controlled and very careful way, allow them to relocate to the United States. Again, I thank the chairman for his passionate leadership and the Senator from New Hampshire for her extraordinary and tireless efforts, for the last 24-plus hours and throughout the larger process. The other point I wish to make, and it does echo what the chairman said, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, but particularly in Afghanistan, if we are going to sustain our presence there, as I believe we must, we have to be able to recruit additional Afghans to help us. If the message they are getting is ``You are going to put your life on the line, and when you are no longer useful to them, they don't even remember you. You are not even a name; you are just a nobody,'' we are going to have a difficult time. If we can't recruit these highly skilled interpreters and other Afghans, our personnel--diplomatic, military, and others--will be in jeopardy. In addition to supporting our troops, some of these interpreters have been involved with FBI agents who were in Kabul and other places on counterterrorism operations. It is very dangerous work. Work that couldn't be done without these interpreters. Again, the Senator from New Hampshire has done the bulk of the work, and we have done good work in getting to the point where we really need to get this passed. With that, I yield the floor.