Government Funding

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are 4 months into the fiscal year, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have still not agreed to a deal to fund the Federal Government, including the Department of Defense. In a matter of days, we will face the prospect of a long-term continuing resolution or government shutdown if an agreement on overall funding levels cannot be reached.

From the moment President Biden submitted his budget request, Republican leaders said his proposed $12.6 billion increase for defense was not enough. So, on a bipartisan basis, we worked to raise that number to a level proposed by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and supported by every Republican on the committee as well as the 88 Senators who voted for the final National Defense Authorization Act.

But even with that defense number in hand, our Republican colleagues continue to draw out negotiations on a top-line funding number for the Federal Government. In doing so, they risk pushing us into a full-year continuing resolution that would fund defense at a level that is less than President Biden's initial request.

Let me say that again. They were deeply critical of the President's proposal. They worked and we worked with them to get a robust increase in defense spending, and now they are prepared to accept a number even below President Biden's request.

Make no mistake, a full-year CR will short-change our military, and it will disrupt the efficient operations of the Federal Government in the midst of international tension, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and a fragile economic recovery.

As my colleague from Ohio just pointed out, we are in a serious confrontation on the Ukrainian border between Russian forces and Ukrainian forces. And we have indicated that we want to help. A big part of that help would come from the Department of Defense, but it would be very difficult with a continuing resolution to marshal the help and support to our colleagues and our friends in Ukraine.

As I noted, the outlines of a reasonable agreement for both defense and nondefense funding have been evident for some time. Indeed, the National Defense Authorization Act, which passed on a bipartisan basis in December, set a funding level for defense that is 5 percent higher than last year's enacted level. It reflects the level proposed by Ranking Member Inhofe. And, as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I fully supported that funding level and cosponsored Senator Inhofe's amendment to authorize the increase.

For his part, Senator Leahy has adopted the NDAA defense funding levels in the bills that the Appropriations Committee introduced in November. He accommodated that increase by reducing funding for domestic programs by $22.5 billion from the level in the administration's request.

So Democrats have agreed to increase defense funding and to reduce nondefense funding from the levels requested by the President. In doing so, Democrats proposed a budget that funds defense activities at a level that is higher than nondefense activities.

Let me underscore that point, because GOP leaders often say there should be parity between defense and nondefense spending. Senate Democrats have proposed spending bills that have $777.5 billion for defense and $753 billion for every other discretionary program--the VA, education, agriculture, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and so on. Democrats have offered our Republican colleagues nearly everything they have asked for, but they won't take yes for an answer.

As we drift toward the full-year CR, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are reacting with nonchalance to the impacts on defense.

Let me remind my colleagues what a full-year CR will mean for national defense. It will mean that defense spending would be about $37 billion lower than the levels set out in the NDAA and lower than the funding levels requested by President Biden--yes, those levels they criticized so aggressively that President Biden suggests. If they pursue this path of a CR, the numbers for defense will be less than the President's initial request.

It means military personnel accounts will be funded $5 billion below what the Department requested. A CR means DOD will have to cannibalize other accounts in order to provide the pay raise and other benefit increases that our servicemembers rightfully deserve.

It means the Pentagon may have to delay or suspend permanent change- of-station moves and accession of troops--again, all of this in the context, as my colleague from Ohio pointed out, of a major crisis in Europe and a growing concern about Chinese activities in the Pacific.

It means training and readiness accounts will fall about $5.3 billion short of what the Department requested. And the key to the morale of soldiers--among one of the most important keys--is that they are well trained and they are prepared. We owe it to them to give them that training and ensure they are prepared.

It means the military healthcare account will be short over $1 billion.

A CR also means that we will be tied to funding priorities from a year ago, even though circumstances have changed markedly. For example, our military engagements with Afghanistan and Eastern Europe are vastly different from last year. Funding will be trapped in the wrong accounts and the Defense Department will not have the flexibility to move it where it is needed.

A CR will prevent the Defense Department from effectively modernizing and reinvesting in new programs. Because new program starts are not allowed under a CR, the Department of Defense will be forced into funding legacy systems that are outdated and inefficient. Meanwhile, important new initiatives and acquisitions would be delayed.

We won't be able to fund three additional ships and seven more Joint Strike Fighters in the Navy's 2022 budget. The Marines would have to delay procurement of the MQ-9A Reaper UAV, and the Amphibious Combat Vehicle.

The Space Force would have to cut two of the five planned national security space launch missions, and the Air Force would have to delay the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program and the long-range standoff weapon.

DOD also won't be able to start over 100 military construction projects--new facilities that our servicemembers need to do their jobs safely and effectively. This includes, among others: $32 million in Air Force corrosion and simulator projects in Florida, $55 million for a joint operation center at Fort Polk in Louisiana, $56 million in total projects for Wisconsin, $75 million in total projects for Georgia, $94 million in total projects for Michigan, $161 million in total projects for Texas, $186 million in total projects for California, $251 million for a runway extension at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Alaska, $251 million in total projects for South Dakota, and $321 million in total projects for North Carolina.

Finally, a CR will disrupt DOD's partnerships with outside partners in the private sector and academia, and with our allies, because they inject uncertainty, instability, and additional costs to R&D and acquisition processes.

In short, a yearlong CR will make us less competitive with our adversaries and less able to respond to the rapidly changing global landscape, which was illustrated so eloquently by my colleague from Ohio. It would be a self-inflicted wound at a dangerous time for the country and our international partners.

The impact will not only be felt on the defense side of the ledger. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to produce new and potentially dangerous strains, we risk losing $5 billion in research at the NIH and $2.4 billion in funding for our public health infrastructure, including funding for the CDC, BARDA, and the National Disaster Medical System.

And a CR would sacrifice $3 billion in new investments in mental health, and one of the obvious outcomes of this pandemic is the mental health challenge that is facing all Americans, and particularly young Americans.

We risk losing a proposed $400 increase in the maximum Pell grant, just as schools and students are trying to finalize financial aid packages. Too many students have put off their college education due to economic hardship and uncertainty during the pandemic. This Congress should not make matters worse by withholding student aid.

A CR would also be a slap in the face to the Capitol Police, who have been stretched to the limit in the aftermath of the January 6 assault on the Capitol. It would deny the department needed funding to hire new officers, for overtime and retention payments, as well as resources for officer wellness and mental health support.

Chairman Leahy has bent over backward to engage our Republican colleagues. Four months into the fiscal year, we need them to reach an agreement. Otherwise, we risk a full-year CR in which everybody loses-- most of all the American people.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source