Jack Reed

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would note that Senator Klobuchar is here and she, I believe, wanted to participate in the discussion about the IMF, but we shortly have a vote, and we would very much like to proceed. The majority leader is here also. I am prepared to speak now on the pending Reed amendment that we are going to go to a vote on at 11:15.

Mr. REED

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. REED. Madam President, at this juncture I call up Reid amendment No. 4603.

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, 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.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to discuss my amendment, which will provide partial relief from the caps imposed by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 on both the defense and nondefense portions of the budget for fiscal year 2017. The chairman has offered an amendment that will provide relief for the Department of Defense activities. My amendment will provide a comparable amount of relief for activities that are beyond the Department of Defense but critical to our national security and critical to our national economy. It is long past time to replace the senseless sequester with a balanced approach that keeps America safe and strong at home and abroad. Senator McCain and I both believe that sequestration has to be eliminated. What I would suggest is that it has to be done in a balanced way. It has to keep the intent of the Bipartisan Budget Act and the Budget Control Act by treating defense and nondefense 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, has 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. Now 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. As a result, we share--the chairman and I-- the same commitment to ensuring that sequestration is eliminated and we move to a more rational budget process. These military professionals would like to have the certainty of year-long funding at the committee level reported at least. That certainly is extremely important. I don't think they want to roll the dice. They recognize that this lengthy fight for parity could last all the way through this year. I believe what they would like to see us do is what they said in their testimony. We can operate under the budget as proposed by the President, as recognized in the underlying budget 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 top-line 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 it has been assigned 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. That agreement passed this Chamber with support from Senators from both political parties. Furthermore, the BBA split the increase in discretionary spending evenly between the defense and nondefense categories. It is important to remember that we have repeatedly made incremental changes to the discretionary budget caps for both defense and nondefense accounts. We have done so in order to provide some budgetary 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 nondefense accounts. Unfortunately, providing relief to the budget caps for defense spending, as the underlying amendment by the chairman proposes, while taking no action on nondefense spending, would renege on those bipartisan agreements and the sense of common purpose that motivated us in the last several adjustments to the Sequestration Act. In contrast, my amendment, would keep the pressure on for a permanent solution to the budget caps and sequestration by treating defense and nondefense discretionary funding equally. We can't afford to miss any opportunity to make progress on this issue of sequestration relief. It also reinforces and underscores the sense of the Senate passed by the committee that states ``sequestration relief should include both defense and nondefense relief.'' Again, that is a concept that has motivated all of us or the vast majority for many years. Specifically, my amendment would revise the budget caps to allow for an additional $18 billion in nondefense and defense-focused domestic spending to match the additional $18 billion in defense spending. The additional nondefense 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, counternarcotics, 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 simply 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. There is a symbiotic relationship between the DOD and other civilian departments and agencies that contributes to our national security. It has to be 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's point is perhaps best illustrated in the administration's nine lines of effort to counter ISIL. Of these nine lines of effort, only two fall squarely within the responsibilities of the Department of Defense and intelligence communities; i.e., traditional security activities. The remaining seven elements of our counter-ISIL strategy fall primarily on the State Department and 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 doesn't govern in a more transparent and inclusive manner that gives Sunnis hope that they will participate politically 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. Those resources will come through the State Department, primarily. Building partner capacity. The coalition is building the capabilities and capacity of our foreign partners in the region 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 Department of Defense, the State Department and USAID are also responsible for billions of dollars in similar activities and across a broader spectrum of activities. Under the underlying amendment, none of the State and USAID programs will receive additional funding for these purposes. 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 our counter-ISIL sanctions regime is implemented and enforced. These State- and Treasury-led efforts are nonsecurity in the very simple dichotomy that has been drawn under the budget caps. It is also notable that the Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, and the 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 who 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 the State Department, Voice of America, and USAID. The Republican approach to funding our strategic communications strategy is a part-of-government plan, not a whole-of- government plan, since the additional funds that could be used by State, USAID, Voice of America, and other agencies would not be there. We have to stop 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 the 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. Again, we have to provide support because of the huge humanitarian crisis that causes instability worldwide, particularly in areas of concern. Virtually none of the activities that support our humanitarian efforts in the region--in 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, the USAID, and the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to provide for refugees and other vulnerable populations overseas are critical to our broader security efforts, and that is particularly true on the counter-ISIL campaign. The administration's two remaining lines of effort against ISIL-- namely, denying ISIL safe havens and enhancing intelligence collection--are 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 ADM 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 security. 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 nondefense agencies. I was particularly struck in hearings we had with the Department of Transportation IG and Department of Housing IG. When asked to give their major concerns, both indicated the potential for cyber attacks and cyber security within their Departments. So this issue of cyber security certainly transcends the Department of Defense, and funding cyber security is a critical primary objective included in the amendment that I propose. We are also asking for $1.4 billion for law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security. This money 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 is 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 advising passengers to show up 2 hours early for domestic flights in order to clear security. The flight to Providence is 1 hour 15 minutes, and I take it often. So it is possible that people flying to Rhode Island will spend more time in the security lines than on the plane. We all know how much that affects the people we represent. It is also important we have an adequate number of Customs officers not only at the southern border but all ports of entry across the country. T.F. Green Airport in my home 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 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 with this epidemic. In the United States, drug overdoses have exceeded car crashes as the No. 1 cause of injury death. Two Americans die of drug overdoses every hour. In my 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 the funding efforts have been blocked. So we have a situation where there is authority but no funds. I think we need both, and I think we have to continually ensure we have both authorities and funds. It is critical that we provide real resources to States and local entities to confront this epidemic and to ensure that people have access to the treatments they need. Another issue which threatens our national security that is not a traditional Department of Defense issue by any means is the threat of the Zika virus. It is on every front page and on every news show at almost every moment. This legislation would authorize $1.9 billion for Zika prevention and treatment. The threat of the Zika virus is a serious public health issue. It has been over 2 months since the administration asked for funds to speed up the development of vaccines and for a comprehensive response to the Zika virus. This should not be a partisan issue, and continued inaction leaves us more susceptible to this serious public health emergency. Already, there are over 1,700 cases of the Zika virus in the United States and U.S. territories, including over 300 involving pregnant women. We have seen seven cases so far in my home State of Rhode Island. The virus is spreading. It is not going away on its own, and we will certainly see these numbers increase as we approach the summer months. Again, I think we have to see this as a threat to our national security and deal with it as we are trying to deal with other threats to national security. But our national security is not just about being strong abroad, it is also being strong at home. A growing, vital economy allows us to meet the fiscal challenges we need to fully fund defense and to fully fund our nondefense security activities. So, as Secretary Carter has said, underfunding the nondefense portion of the budget, in his words, ``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.'' The words of the Secretary of Defense, I think, are right on target. 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 nondefense spending. We have done so because we all recognize that we must protect our Nation as well as keep our Nation worth protecting. Our servicemembers and their families also rely on many of the services provided by non-DOD departments and agencies. Efforts to support all these goals will be hampered unless civilian departments and agencies also receive relief from the budget caps. Therefore, my amendment also revises the budget caps to allow for additional spending on important programs carried out by civilian agencies, including $5.1 billion for infrastructure improvement. President Eisenhower understood the importance of a strong highway infrastructure to our national defense. In fact, I think, at least colloquially, his legislation was referred to at times as the ``national defense highway system.'' But it was the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 which led to our 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 will result 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 $5.1 billion to help meet critical infrastructure needs for roads, bridges, rail, affordable housing, VA construction projects, water infrastructure, and funds to mitigate lead contamination. Here are a few facts for the consideration of my colleagues. Barely one-third of our roads are in good condition, and one-quarter of our bridges need significant repair. In my State, we have the highest percentage of structurally deficient bridges. Without increased investment, that number could double in the next decade. The Department of Transportation has identified an $86 billion state- of-good-repair backlog for bus and rail transit. That backlog continues to increase at a rate of $2.5 billion per year due to inadequate Federal funding. Amtrak's busy Northeast corridor has a $28 billion state-of-good-repair backlog and relies on bridges and tunnels that are over 100 years old. 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 system, efficiency and safety will be compromised. Meanwhile, we have also an affordable housing crisis. Nearly 8 million 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 assistance, only one can be served within this fiscal environment. Families cannot pay for higher education or get ahead if the majority of income goes to simply keeping a roof over their heads. It is also important to continue to adequately fund the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund and to work to mitigate lead contamination. State revolving fund resources are critical to modernize our water infrastructure, reducing pollution, and protecting public health. As the tragic events in Flint, MI, illustrate, when water quality is compromised, it becomes a public health crisis. Water quality oversight isn't just about pipes and infrastructure. It is also about preserving an ecosystem and keeping our sources of drinking water free from harmful contaminants. Inadequately funding these basic necessities means that we cannot meet the needs of our communities. We also understand, particularly as we look across the globe at our competitors--our military competitors-- that our technological edge is narrowing. One reason is that they are investing a great deal in their research infrastructure and we are not investing as we were in the past, again, partly as a result of these budget caps. So, my amendment would authorize an additional $3.5 billion for science and technological investment. Federal research centers like NIH, the National Science Foundation, NASA, and ARPA-E, all 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 foundation of our national security. Again, the technological edge that we enjoyed over our near-peer competitors in the past is narrowing. Every defense official will say that. We are not simply going to fix it by putting some more money into defense-directed DOD research. We have to put 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, including the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Individuals 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 rise to positions of leadership, not just in the military but in other critical areas that will make this Nation strong and continue our ability to provide the finest military force in the world. We have tried to articulate throughout that our national security is much more than simply the funding we give to the Department of Defense. A well-trained and educated workforce, a productive workforce contributes to our economy, and that contributes to our defense. Innovation through scientific research is important to our national security. The agencies that I cited, particularly the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and all of these agencies have a critical role overseas. 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 efforts of the 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. That was the reason why I reluctantly had to vote against last year's bill. I was deeply concerned that if we used this OCO approach for 1 year, it would be easy to do it 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 nondefense 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 nondefense, is judged by its merit and not by arbitrary limits. 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 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 nondefense portion of the budget, moves us farther away from that goal. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I second Senator McCain's comments about the cooperation and collaboration. We hope that tomorrow we can move forward on several amendments, and I want to join him in commending and thanking our colleagues for their help. Thank you. Mr. President, I believe we have both yielded the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I thank and commend the chairman. As he indicated, he has proposed an amendment, and he is also allowing us to prepare a second-degree amendment, which I would like to offer as soon as it is ready and then conduct debate on a very important topic; that is, investing in our national security in the broadest sense and doing it wisely and well. Then, I would hope again--subject to the deliberations of the leaders on both sides--that we could have a vote on both the underlying amendment and the second-degree amendment tomorrow or the succeeding day. Again, I thank the chairman for not only bringing this issue to the floor but also for giving us the opportunity to prepare an appropriate amendment. Thank you.

Mr. REED. Madam President, the key aspect of this legislation that was included in the committee mark is that it is a pilot, and I believe, along with the chairman, this is the best way to evaluate the merits or demerits of privatization of commissaries. It will allow an evaluation that is not theoretical, not a report but an actual company actively engaged in running a facility. The goal is not just to maintain the commissaries, the goal is to enhance the value of service to men and women. I think, along with the chairman, this approach is an appropriate approach and would do just that. I urge rejection of the Inhofe amendment.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the two pending amendments. I will begin by thanking my colleague from South Carolina for his thoughtful and kind words about the collaboration we have both witnessed on the committee as we brought this bill to the floor under the leadership of Chairman McCain. Amendment No. 4204 First, with respect to the Inhofe-Mikulski amendment, I share their concerns about the quality of commissaries. It is an essential service for military personnel. In fact, it is really in the fabric of military life, being able to go to a commissary. It is an important benefit, particularly for junior members, those who aren't as well paid as more senior members of the military. But both the chairman and my colleagues on the committee--many of them recognize the need to look for alternate approaches for delivering services to military families but doing so in a way that can save resources that could be used for operations and maintenance, for training, equipment--all the critical needs we are seeing much more clearly at this moment. So we have proposed--and I support the chairman's proposal--to try a pilot program for commissaries that would be run by commercial entities. I think there is merit to this proposal. I want to emphasize that it is a pilot program. It is not a wholesale replacement of the commissary system. It is designed to test in real time whether a commercial entity can effectively use the resources and the operation of the commissary to better serve military personnel. We have come a long way from years ago when the commissary was practically the only place a servicemember could get groceries or get the supplies they need for their home. Today, go outside any military base and you will see a Target, a Walmart, and every other combination of stores. Frankly, our young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are used to going there. They are used to going to both places looking for bargains. They are used to the service. This is no longer the isolated military of decades ago where literally the only place you could shop was the commissary, and I think we have to recognize that. The other thing we have to recognize is that there is now an interest by many grocery chains to test this model, to see if, in fact, they can deliver better services to military personnel. I think that test should be made. That is the essence of the proposal within the Armed Services Committee mark. There is an ongoing study of this by the Department of Defense which I think is helpful. Part of the conclusion is this: ``The Department is critically assessing the privatization of all portion(s) of the commissary system.'' I will emphasize that this amendment does not support the privatization of all commissary systems at this time; they are looking at that issue. ``Initial conversations with interested business entities informed the Department of private sector willingness to engage, which is leading to more thorough market analysis, including a more formal Request for Information.'' This request was issued in May, just a few weeks ago. I think we are now positioned to move forward and test this model, and that is what we are asking for--a pilot test. It is sensible. It is limited. We will learn quite quickly and very effectively whether this model works and what its potential is. I think in that process, too, we can conduct it in such a way that we will be able to structure, if it is a valuable enterprise, relationships between commercial entities that not only protect military personnel but enhance their experience at the commissary. That is the goal. It is not just to save dollars-- that is important--but also to make sure that their experience in the commissary is both adequate and, in effect, more than adequate. Mr. President, let me turn to Senator Durbin's amendment very quickly. I support this amendment. The reason I do is not only because of the eloquence of the Senator from Illinois about the success of this program. But how we got here, as described by my colleague, to me, is a crucial point. It is a combination of history, of rules, of budgeting 20-plus years ago. But in the interim we have been able to create a useful medical research enterprise which I think will be dismantled-- not intentionally. That is not the intent of the chairman or of any of the supporters of this provision in the bill. In fact, as the chairman said, he would stand up and support reallocating these funds someplace else. My colleague from South Carolina suggested, I believe, NIH. But if we look at how difficult it is to fund the Health and Human Services budget here--and this is what drives it--the reality is if these funds are taken out of this bill, they will not reappear, even through the best and sincere efforts of many of my colleagues, elsewhere. We will lose this funding, and we will lose hugely valuable resources. As to the whole issue with certification by the Secretary of Defense, if we step back, this research has been so effective, and there is a linkage to every military member. It might not be as dramatic as a prosthesis to fix someone who lost their limb in combat, but certainly their wife, their child--pediatric diseases--may be affected. This research affects every American. For those reasons, I am going to support Senator Durbin's amendment. He has stated the case very well about unintended overhead caused by the certification process and all of the related issues. But I think the essence here is we have a valuable national resource that through the history and the bureaucratic and congressional procedures and policies has been embedded in the Defense Department. If we do not support Senator Durbin's amendment, we will lose that. We won't recapture it elsewhere in another spending bill or in another authorization bill. I just think it is too much to lose. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to first inquire how much is remaining on my time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I look forward to a very thoughtful debate tomorrow. Senator McCain has introduced an amendment that would increase spending with respect to the Department of Defense and related functions. In this amendment, we are proposing an additional increase in nondefense programs. I look forward to tomorrow. I thank the chairman for his consideration through the process of this floor debate.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4549 to McCain amendment No. 4229, and I ask unanimous consent that it be reported by number.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to discuss the fiscal year 2017 national defense authorization bill, which was passed out of the Armed Services Committee on May 19 by a vote of 23 to 3. I want to begin by thanking Chairman McCain, not only for his kind and thoughtful words but for ably leading the committee through many thought-provoking hearings and a successful markup with bipartisan support of the bill. I believe the committee has worked diligently in the past month, not only to evaluate the President's budget request for fiscal year 2017 but also to take a hard look at the Department of Defense and to consider what reforms are necessary. Most, if not all, of that effort is a direct result of the leadership of Chairman McCain and his commitment to ensuring that we were thoroughly immersed in the details, that we had access to expert testimony, and that we heard both sides of the argument and led to the markup, which was productive and has resulted in the legislation that is before us today. I think we both agree that we can make improvements, and we both will strive to do that over the course of the next several weeks and in our deliberation with the House, but we are beginning with very thoughtful and very constructive legislation that we brought to the floor. I thank the chairman for that. There are many provisions in this bill that will help the Department today and in the future. It is a lengthy bill that contains sweeping reforms, as the chairman described in some detail, and I support many aspects of this bill. In fact, I was privileged to work with the chairman and our staffs in developing some of these aspects. Because of the scope and because of the range of these improvements and reforms, I believe--and I think this is shared by others--that we need a continued dialogue with the Department of Defense and other experts to ensure that we not only take the first steps but that the subsequent consequences, both intended and unintended, are well known and contribute to our overall national security. We truly must ensure that our decisions which are ultimately incorporated in this legislation improve the Department's operations and do not create unnecessary and detrimental consequences. Let me highlight some of the aspects of the bill that will help our military in ongoing overseas operations. We are engaged in a difficult struggle with ISIL and radical extremists, and critical to our efforts to fight against ISIL are our local partners. That is why this bill includes $1.3 billion to support the Iraq and Syria train-and-equip programs and $180 million to support the efforts of Jordan and Lebanon to secure their borders. The bill also includes $3.4 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to preserve the gains of the last 15 years. These are critical investments that enhance our interests and keep pressure on our enemy. The bill provides the funds necessary to enable our operations across Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and other locations where ISIL, Al Qaeda, and its remnants are located. This funding will continue to enable the Department to hunt the leaders of these organizations and illuminate their network of supporters. Ensuring that there is continuous pressure on violent extremists is critical, and it is with that focus that the chairman and I worked to include these important elements in the legislation. The bill funds U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, at the requested level of $10.76 billion, including an increase of $26.7 million to help address technology gaps identified by SOCOM on its fleet of MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicles, which are important to our ability to effectively carry out counterterrorism strikes while avoiding collateral damage. The bill also extends critical authorities used by special operations forces and enhances the role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict in providing oversight and advocacy for SOCOM within the Department. The fight against terrorism is not our fight alone, and it requires the support of old and new partners across the globe. This bill will enable the Department of Defense to support and enable our foreign partners and also, critically, will continue to provide support to our intelligence community to protect the homeland. Of major significance, this year's bill would undertake the most comprehensive reform of the Defense Department's security cooperation enterprise in decades. Since 9/11, Congress, partly at the request of the Department and partly through our own doing, has created dozens of new authorities to enable our Armed Forces to engage with the national security forces of friendly foreign countries. This patchwork has been difficult to navigate and oversee. To address this problem, this bill would consolidate and streamline security cooperation authorities. This will greatly enhance the Defense Department's ability to address the wide-ranging and evolving nature of global threats. Additionally, the NDAA consolidates roughly $2 billion in security cooperation funding into a new fund, the Security Cooperation Enhancement Fund. This new fund will enhance public transparency, increase flexibility, and improve congressional oversight. While the Department of Defense is responsible for only two of the administration's nine lines of effort against ISIL--and this bill funds those two lines of effort--DOD also plays an essential enabling role for many other parts of our government, particularly in the areas of intelligence collection and analysis. This bill ensures the Department is able to continue this critical support so we can maintain an integrated effort against our enemy. The Department of Defense is not the only Federal agency that is responsible for our Nation's security. All agencies have a role and should receive the resources they need. The bill before us also includes $3.4 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative, which will deliver critical investments to increase U.S. military presence in Europe, improve existing infrastructure, and enhance allied and partner military capabilities to respond to external aggression and bolster regional stability. It also authorizes up to $500 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative to continue the ongoing efforts to support the Ukrainian security forces in the defense of their country. One major concern the committee heard repeatedly, and the chairman made reference to on numerous occasions, is about the state of readiness with our troops and their equipment. I am very pleased that this bill contains almost $2 billion in additional readiness funding to satisfy some of the Service Chiefs' unfunded requirements, with the goal of restoring military readiness as soon as possible. Additionally, all of these increases are paid for with corresponding and targeted funding reductions. One other aspect of our national security is our nuclear deterrent. In many cases, it forms the bedrock of our defense posture. This is an essential mission which must not be neglected and our committee continues to support it on a bipartisan basis. The bill continues to fund the President's request to modernize our triad of nuclear-capable air, sea, and ground delivery platforms. This is the first year of full engineering, manufacturing, and development funding for the B-21, which will replace the B-52s that were built in the 1960s. While the B-21 will be costly, I believe this bill places rigorous oversight on the program to ensure that we understand the technology risk as it moves forward. Turning to the area of undersea deterrence, if we are to maintain a sea-based deterrent, the current fleet of 14 Ohio-class submarines must be replaced starting in 2027 due to the potential for hull fatigue. By then, the first Ohio submarine will be 46 years old--the oldest submarine to have sailed in our Navy in its history. The third aspect of our triad, our land-based ICBMs, will not need to be replaced until the 2030s. We have authorized the initial development of a replacement for this responsive leg of the triad, which acts as a counterbalance to Russian ICBMs. Let me focus for a moment on the submarine program, which is frankly an important part of our national security and an important industry for my home State where this construction begins. This bill supports the Virginia-class attack submarine production at a level of two per year. The Navy's requirement for attack submarines is a force of 48 boats. Since attack submarine force levels will fall below 48, even with the purchase of two Virginia-class submarines per year, we cannot allow the production rates to drop at all. The bill also supports the Virginia Payload Module upgrade to the Virginia-class submarines, with production starting in fiscal year 2019. The Virginia Payload Module program is important to begin replacing Tomahawk missile magazine capacity that will decline sharply as we retire the Navy's four guided missile submarines in the next decade. Our support of the Virginia-class attack submarine program has led to stability that helped drive down costs and improve productivity. This bill continues that support and also supports the plans for achieving similar effectiveness on the Ohio replacement program. Establishing and achieving cost reduction goals in these Virginia-class and Ohio replacement programs will yield significant stability to our Nation's submarine base, which will ensure the Navy has a modern, capable submarine fleet for many years to come. The chairman also indicated in his remarks that the bill accomplishes much on behalf of our servicemembers and the Department of Defense. It authorizes a 1.6 percent pay raise for all servicemembers and reauthorizes a number of expiring bonus and special pay authorities to encourage enlistment, re-enlistment, and continued service by active duty and reserve component military personnel. The bill permanently extends the Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance scheduled to expire next year, clarifies the applicability of certain employment rights for military technicians, establishes an independent National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service to review the Selective Service process, and makes numerous enhancements to military whistleblower protections. Notably, this bill also contains a robust package of health care reforms. The current military health care system, designed decades ago, has served us well. Since 2001, battlefield survival rates have been higher than at any time in our Nation's history. Clearly, battlefield medicine is a pocket of excellence in the military health system that must be maintained. However, it is also clear that the military health care system has increasingly emphasized delivering peacetime healthcare, and beneficiaries have voiced their concerns about access to care. While I know that many in the military community are wary of changes to the healthcare system, I believe the reforms included in this bill are designed to improve and maintain operational medical force readiness while at the same time affording better value to TRICARE beneficiaries by providing higher quality medical care, with better access to that care, and a better experience of care. I am also pleased to note that the mark includes the 105 recommendations of the Military Justice Review Group. The review group was made up of judges and lawyers, all military justice experts, who spent 18 months reviewing and providing recommended changes to update the entire Uniform Code of Military Justice. These provisions provide a much-needed updating of the military justice system, and I want to commend the members of the review group for their work and also the counsels on the committee, Gary Leeling and Steve Barney, for all their efforts in this area. Again, a major effort, as has been highlighted by the chairman, is to continue the Senate tradition for improving the way DOD buys everything, from major systems like the F-35 and submarines to office support services, to spare parts, and even to the buying of new technologies and next-generation research products. I am pleased we have taken positive steps to strengthen our contracting and program management workforces and support Secretary Carter's efforts to reach out to innovative Silicon Valley companies and other high-tech small businesses. I am glad we are building on the considerable and successful efforts Under Secretary Frank Kendall has taken to control costs and improve delivery times of our major weapons systems through his active management and leadership, which have resulted in a very successful series of better buying power procurement reforms. Consistent with those efforts, we have taken steps to improve our ability to estimate costs of new weapons systems, especially the cost to maintain them in the field or at sea, sometimes for decades, and to de-layer the bureaucracy and untangle the redtape that the Pentagon acquisition process has sometimes been very much weighted down by. We can use better data and better analysis to make better decisions on what we acquire and how we maintain it. I want to note that I believe there are a few provisions where continued dialogue with the Pentagon can improve our bill and make sure we achieve our shared goal: delivering the best and most modern systems to our forces, while protecting taxpayer money in the most responsible manner possible. I hope we can work together to reexamine and refine a few provisions of the bill to that end. For example, I am concerned that we overly limit the flexibility of DOD to use all available contract types to best balance the needs of government and industry. I am pleased the bill before us is very supportive of the scientists, engineers, and other technical innovators in organizations like DARPA, in the Department of Defense, and in DOD laboratories across the Nation. We fully fund the President's request for science and technology research programs, including the university research programs that are the foundation of almost all military and commercial technology. We also fully fund the important work of DARPA and the Strategic Capabilities Office, both of which are working to develop the next- generation systems that will dominate the battlefields of the future, on the ground, on the sea, under the sea, in space, and in cyber space. We also take important steps to ensure that DOD can better compete with the private sector for a limited and shrinking pool of world-class technical talent. I am pleased to see we have given the DOD labs and DARPA important tools to hire the best scientists and engineers through faster hiring processes and some special pay authorities. We have also taken steps to cut the redtape that often ties up these organizations and keeps them from achieving their full innovative potential, as well as to allow the labs to more easily build and maintain modern research equipment and laboratory facilities. One of the major challenges facing DOD is the difficulty in moving such a large and diverse organization to adopt new and more efficient business practices. I am pleased the bill provides a number of authorities and pilot programs that will allow the Department to explore new business practices, informed by best commercial practices, which hopefully will drive down costs and reduce the bureaucratic burdens on the military. For example, we push for the Department to make more use of the burgeoning field of big data and data analytics so it can collect and use information and data in a much more sophisticated way, to improve DOD management, human resources, and acquisition practices. Big data techniques are changing the way the commercial sector markets products, manufactures, and manages supply chains and logistics. It is even changing the way people manage sports teams. We would like to see similar techniques and technological advances used in ways that will improve the efficiency of the Pentagon and its processes. We take a major step in this bill to redesignate the position of the Under Secretary for Acquisition Technology and Logistics as the Under Secretary for Research and Engineering. I understand and support the chairman's intent to make sure that innovation, research, and technology are at the forefront of Pentagon thinking. We all know we are now in a world where the Pentagon can no longer corner the market on the best people or the best new technologies. Our foreign competitors are closing the gap on our battlefield technological superiority, and global commercial companies are far outspending the government on the development of new systems and technology in areas like cyber security, biotechnology, aerospace, and others that are critical to the future of our national security. I hope the reorganization and realignment steps we take in this bill support DOD's effort to stay at the leading edge of technological advances. I worry that we may not understand all of the implications of the major changes we are proposing, and I hope we can continue to have a robust and open dialogue, including with the Pentagon's leadership, so we can take these steps in a thoughtful, considered way. Once again, we have taken very bold and very thoughtful steps, but I think we can enhance these steps with a bigger, productive dialogue. This bill takes several other steps to reform both the organizational structures of the civilian and military leadership and also the Pentagon's overall approach to its operations. One of the most significant provisions of the bill is the creation of cross-functional teams. The Office of the Secretary of Defense is organized exclusively along functional lines, such as acquisition, personnel, logistics, finance, and intelligence, but the real work of the Department is mission performance, which requires integrating across all of these functional stovepipes to achieve specific objectives. This integration task has always been a serious challenge, conducted through layers of management spanning more and more functional boundaries, ending with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The Armed Services Committee, in the years before drafting the Goldwater-Nichols act, grappled with the broad problem of mission integration across DOD. The committee found solutions for achieving ``jointness'' in the combat operations of the Department, but the committee was unable, at that time, to find practical mechanisms to achieve mission integration in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The problem of integrating across silos of function expertise is not unique to DOD or the government as a whole. Industry has long struggled with the same problem. Not surprisingly, industry has pioneered effective ways to integrate across their enterprises, dramatically improving outcomes in shorter timeframes, and ultimately streamlining and flattening organizational structures. This bill is the first major step in applying these concepts systematically in government. It will not be easy. There will be resistance to such changes, but I believe we are taking steps in the right direction, and I encourage the leadership of the Department of Defense to work with Congress to make this reform successful. Another important provision is a reform of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, JROC, which shepherds the joint acquisition process. This bill elevates the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs from merely ``first among equals'' on the Council to the principal adviser to the Chairman on military requirements. The committee hopes this change will solve one of the most important and consistent criticisms of the JROC; namely, that it is a quid-pro-quo process dominated by parochial service interests. There are other reform provisions--changes to the role of Chairman of the Joint Staffs and Combatant Commands, a reduction in the number of general and flag officers, and a change to the type of strategy doctrines produced by the Department. Again, these reforms are a good start, but these are major changes that may have unforeseen consequences. I think they would benefit, again, from further discussion with the Defense Department's military and civilian leadership and outside experts. I encourage and look forward to that dialogue. Let me highlight one provision of the bill that I am somewhat concerned with. It limits the Defense Department's ability to implement an important Executive order that protects the health, safety, and labor rights of veterans, disabled persons, and other persons of the defense industry workforce. The Executive order is an important tool to ensure that DOD is working with responsible contractors that are more likely to deliver goods and services critical to national security on time and on budget when they are following these procedures. This order is being implemented in a way that protects the rights of all employees, while also protecting due process rights for the companies concerned, and ensuring that there is no discrimination against them based on incomplete evidence of wrongdoing or unsubstantiated allegations. I hope we can work to continue a policy, as enunciated by the Executive order, that I think we can all support, ensuring DOD is working with responsible contractors to protect our workforce and support national security missions. Finally, I would like to say a few words about the funding levels for defense. The bill reported out of committee includes $523.9 billion in discretionary spending for defense base budget requirements and $58.9 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations. It also includes $19.3 billion for Department of Energy-related activities, resulting in a top-line funding level of $602 billion for discretionary national defense spending. While these funding levels adhere to the spending limits mandated by the Bipartisan Budget Act, BBA, of 2015, concerns have been raised that the Department requires additional resources. As all Members are aware, when the Senate considered the BBA last fall, it established the discretionary funding levels of defense spending for fiscal year 2017. That agreement passed this chamber with support from Senators from both political parties. Furthermore, the BBA split the increase in discretionary spending evenly between the security and nonsecurity categories. As we consider the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, there is likely to be--in fact, the chairman has made it very clear--an effort to increase military spending above the level established by the BBA. It is important to remember that since the Budget Control Act was enacted in 2011, we have made repeated incremental changes to the discretionary budget caps for both defense and nondefense accounts. We have done so in order to provide some budget certainty to the Department of Defense and also to domestic agencies. As debate on this bill continues, the chairman has indicated he will propose an amendment to increase spending for defense only. Again, this seems to run counter to the central tenets of all the previous budget negotiation agreements. If defense funds are increased, funding for domestic agencies must also be increased, I believe. In addition, this is a point that I think all of us acknowledge, our national security is broader than simply the accounts in the Department of Defense. It is the FBI, it is the Department of Homeland Security, and it is many other agencies that contribute to our national security. Let me conclude, once again, by thanking the chairman and my colleagues on the committee who contributed significantly and thoughtfully through this whole process, and I particularly thank the staff who worked laboriously and at great personal cost to ensure that we have a bill we can bring to our colleagues on the floor and stand and continue a very thoughtful, vigorous, and important dialogue about the national security of the United States. Let me thank them. I know there are many amendments that have been filed. I look forward to working with the chairman and all of my colleagues to get this legislation completed and sent forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Scott Fletcher, a Government Accountability Office detailee to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, have floor privileges during the consideration of S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me return the compliment to the Chairman of the committee, Senator Collins of Maine, for her extraordinary insight, leadership, and ability to bring us together. This bill reflects the priorities of members on both sides of the aisle, it reflects sound policy, and it was a pleasure to work with her. I think that she will also commend our extraordinary staffs who provided support, working many times when we were not working to get the job done. I thank Dabney Hegg, Heideh Shahmoradi, Christina Monroe, Nathan Robinson, Jordan Stone, Jason Woolwine, Mike Clarke, Lydia Collins, and Gus Maples. These are professionals who are thoughtful, skillful, pleasant, and probably deserving of the real praise for work done on the floor. Let me once again thank Senator Collins for her thoughtful leadership and her commitment to fairness and principle. I think that she is one of the major reasons we are here today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, the pending amendment is authored by my colleague from Maine and myself. The amendment makes very clear that local officials will remain in charge of zoning decisions and will determine how to best meet their obligations under the Fair Housing Act. Those obligations are fundamental to our American fabric, our lives, and the aspirations of this country, because they protect Americans' housing choices no matter their physical ability, race, family status, or religion. These protections are fundamental to who we are. But without effective information and transparency so that local communities can make wise decisions, these aspirations can never be realized, are seldom realized, or are not realized to the extent that we, as Americans, feel that they should be. Senator Collins and I have worked very hard to develop language that provides local communities with wide flexibility to meet their requirements under the Fair Housing Act. Those requirements will still be there regardless of our action today. If the resources made available under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulations are not provided, however, those communities will still be required to ensure that housing is available within their communities, regardless of race, physical ability, or the other protected classes under the law. The Lee amendment would make grantees liable for compliance without providing the data and tools needed to comply. The thrust--the heart and soul--of this HUD proposal, based on GAO analysis, is to give local communities the tools, so that they can determine the local answer that makes sense. Thank you.

Mr. REED

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

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to support my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Collins of Maine, in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Utah. This amendment would prohibit HUD from implementing or enforcing its Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulations. I think it is important to remind everyone of the reasoning for and history behind these regulations. The Fair Housing Act of 1968 was enacted because banks, landlords, and developers were excluding people from buying or renting in certain neighborhoods based on race. Under the Fair Housing Act, communities are required to take steps to further fair housing in order to prevent discrimination and segregation. I think we have come a long way since 1968, and I don't think anyone is arguing the premise, purpose, or beneficial aspects of the Fair Housing Act. The law is based on trying to ensure that Americans have fair access to housing, no matter their race, physical ability, family status, or religion. People should be able to live according to their own choice and resources. I hope that we can all agree that people should not be turned away from a home or neighborhood because of their religion, family status, disability, or race. Frankly, that was the aspiration in 1968 and still, too often, remains an aspiration. HUD is trying to give local communities the tools and resources needed to live up to the legislative mandate that we imposed and continue to impose. As the chairman said so well, these regulations don't emanate from some person in a room thinking a great thought. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office did an audit to assess compliance with the Fair Housing Act. That is the GAO's job. That office checks whether Federal agencies are doing what we--the Congress--tell them to do. GAO found that many HUD grantees did not analyze impediments to fair housing-- that we were giving money to organizations throughout this country and that they were not even making attempts to analyze the impediments that existed to fair housing. GAO also found that those organizations that did analyze impediments to fair housing often failed to establish any goals or objectives to address them. The organizations just found them and did not act. That is not what the Fair Housing Act requires. GAO also found that HUD was unable to determine if a community was actually meeting its obligations under the Fair Housing Act. HUD simply did not know whether the requirements of the Fair Housing Act were being implemented at the local level. HUD is often criticized for not effectively responding to GAO, but here they responded. HUD developed regulations that insist that grantees conduct a fair housing analysis and submit that assessment to HUD for review. As a result of this proposed regulation, HUD went through a 2-year rulemaking process. This was not some whimsical spur-of-the-moment decision or press release to say: Let's do this. The process was 2 years long, fully open to public hearing, comment and review, and susceptible to challenge in court if it did not measure up to the Administrative Procedure Act or the Fair Housing Act. This process has resulted in regulations that will actually carry out the intent of the Congress. To reinforce and clarify what the chairman has said, these regulations do not change existing law and do not in any way dictate local zoning decisions. In fact, these regulations simplify the responsibility of grantees to comply with the Fair Housing Act because they give grantees the data and tools to help communities comply with the law. These regulations do not require grantees to gather new data because HUD provides the data to them. To help communities comply with the Fair Housing Act, HUD is working closely with grantees, providing technical assistance, and holding training sessions across the country. This is a collaborative effort. It is an effort that does not dictate a national outcome. HUD is helping localities, working with their particular situation, to develop a response to the legislative requirements that we have been emphatically insisting upon since 1968. We are also working, as we should, to ensure that this process is continually evaluated by HUD, and streamlined and simplified-- particularly, when it comes to dealing with small communities that cannot bear the administrative overhead that some larger cities might be able to bear. HUD is providing assistance to ensure that these grantees are complying with the Fair Housing Act. We all understand--and this principle applies not just to HUD programs, but every program--that grantees have an obligation to use Federal resources responsibly and consistently with legal requirements. The Fair Housing Act requires that access to housing not be denied because of race, disability, or other protected category. This is what we should expect for all recipients of Federal support--that they follow the law. This improved process, in my view, protects communities and ensures that they still have a choice of how they meet their obligations under the Fair Housing Act. There is nothing in these regulations that undermines the ability of a local community to determine these solutions, but these communities must recognize their responsibilities. Their solutions are ones that will be organic to the community--what works for them, given the objective of ensuring that there are no artificial impediments to access housing. It is also important to note that, if HUD is prevented from implementing these regulations, there is no change to the obligations that these communities have under the Fair Housing Act. This law has been in place for 48 years. Those requirements will still remain in place and will not only be opportunities, but also obligations to take action in certain cases. Senator Kaine was on the floor this morning stating that, as a young lawyer in Richmond, VA, he became an advocate for fair housing because people came to him with complaints, and he took those complaints to court. What we are trying to do, interestingly enough, is to avoid all of that by having a process where the impediments have been removed by a local solution. The amendment that Senator Lee proposes would prevent HUD from satisfying these GAO recommendations to provide guidance, clarity, and support for these grantees. This amendment makes grantees liable for compliance without the tools and data needed to comply. Ironically, it probably puts grantees in a worse position. So I join the chairman and urge all of my colleagues to reject this amendment. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object. The Senator from Pennsylvania has very thoughtfully pointed to significant issues with respect to immigration law and public safety, but I believe the remedy of cutting off CDBG funding is not the appropriate response to these very serious problems. Indeed, CDBG funding is available throughout the Nation to large communities and small communities, and in many cases it provides support for public safety projects, such as infrastructure that protects people, and on and on and on. With all due respect to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I object to making the amendment pending at this time.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Julia Tierney and Jane Bigham, two detailees with the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Charcillea Schaefer, a military fellow in Senator Murray's personal office, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the 114th Congress.

Mr. REED

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I yield back the remaining time on our side.