[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4095-S4097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National
Defense Authorization Act. I rise in support to move this bill forward
and the amendments that many of us in this body want to have heard,
debated, and voted on.
I also rise in opposition to obstruction--obstruction to this bill,
obstruction to the key issues of national defense for our country. Make
no mistake, there is obstruction going on, on the Senate floor right
now, with regard to this important bill.
A little bit of background here: This bill, the NDAA, came out of the
Senate Armed Services Committee after a lot of hard work, bipartisan
work, by all the members of the committee. We worked together to
include over 185 amendments. Almost all of these were bipartisan
amendments.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked about voting
against the bill because they did not like the way it was funded, even
though our committee had nothing to do with the funding. But at the end
of the day, after much debate in the committee, we worked and passed a
strong, important, reform-oriented bipartisan NDAA by a vote of 22 to
4. That is bipartisan.
I thank the chairman of that committee Senator McCain and the ranking
member Senator Reed on their great leadership in getting this committee
to work so closely together to move the bill forward.
As part of the Armed Services Committee, just 2 weeks ago, I had the
distinct honor of traveling with both of them to Vietnam and to
Singapore for an important Defense Ministry conference. It was a huge
honor for me as a new Member of the body to travel with John McCain and
Jack Reed--two veterans who have sacrificed a lot for their country--to
Vietnam and other places. They did a fantastic job on this bill.
Then, this bill came to the floor and it all stopped. Everything came
to a halt. There are over 500 amendments of Senators who want to move
forward on a bipartisan basis to try to improve this bill. We have
gotten to barely a trickle--barely a trickle--and nothing has happened.
For 2 weeks we have been on this bill and nothing has happened after
the great work we did in the Senate Armed Services Committee.
What is going on here? It is the same obstructionist playbook that my
colleagues and particularly the minority leader used for the last few
years, and the American people have rejected it. They rejected it last
November, and they rejected it when they realized this body had only 14
rollcall votes on amendments during the entire year of 2014. That is
not how this body is supposed to work. Nobody on either side of the
aisle wants this body to work that way. It is certainly not how it is
supposed to work when it comes to the defense of our Nation and the
critical bill to take care of our men and women in uniform. Yet, the
minority leader said this bill is a waste of time. I will repeat that.
The National Defense Authorization Act, one of the most important
things we do in this body, is ``a waste of time.''
I understand that the parties have ideological differences, and that
is certainly the way it should be. That is the
[[Page S4096]]
way it has been since the founding of our great Nation. But if leaders
on the other side of the aisle believe that protecting the country,
taking care of the men and women in uniform, and keeping our promises
to them is a waste of time, then we don't belong to different parties,
we belong in different universes. In this world, in this universe, in
the U.S. Senate, our most important job is to protect this country and
to take care of the men and women who so courageously serve our
country. It is not a waste of time to be doing that. It is the most
important thing we were sent here to do.
We took an oath. We pledged to solemnly swear to defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. That is what this bill does, and that is what we--Members on
both sides--are trying to do in terms of improving it with amendments,
but none of those are moving. None of those are moving, and that is a
shame.
One of the things we tried to address in the bill is the serious
threats and challenges our Nation faces.
At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing we had several weeks
ago, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said:
The United States has not faced a more diverse and complex
array of crises since the end of the second world war.
We know what they are--the growth and brutality of ISIS, a rising
China, Iran on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The largest
state sponsor of terrorism is possibly on the verge of gaining a
nuclear weapon, and a resurgent Russia has invaded the sovereign
territory of another country. It is the first time since World War II
in the heart of Europe.
So at this time we not only have obstruction on the other side of the
aisle from the leader there, the President of the United States is
threatening to veto the NDAA. I am not sure they are reading about what
is going on in the world. I am not sure they recognize the critical
importance of this bill. And to threaten to veto this bill, and
therefore what--we are going to stop? No. We are going to do our duty,
and we will put this on the President's desk, and we will see if he
vetoes it when the United States faces this huge array of challenges.
Let me talk about one of those challenges for a few minutes. It is an
important area. As a Senator from Alaska, it is certainly an important
area for me. It is the Arctic and the increasing militarization of the
Arctic by Russia.
Earlier this year, Russia began a 5-day Arctic war exercise that
included 38,000 troops, 50 surface warships, in addition to submarines,
and 110 aircraft in the Arctic. And the Russians are not being shy
about their ambitions in the Arctic. President Putin has said he wants
to build 13 new airfields and add four new Russian combat brigades in
the Arctic. He is going to stand up a new Arctic command, and he is
going to add several new icebreakers to their already robust fleet.
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee talked about this. He
talked about what the Russians are doing in the Arctic. There is no
mystery here. As a matter of fact, today there was an outstanding
article in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``The New Cold War's Arctic
Front,'' with the subtitle ``Putin is militarizing one of the world's
coldest, most remote regions.'' Well, in my State, this is home.
America is an Arctic nation because of Alaska.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[The Wall Street Journal, Jun. 9, 2015]
The New Cold War's Artic Front
(By Sohrab Ahmari)
Helsinki.--G-7 leaders gathering in Bavaria on Monday vowed
to extend sanctions if Russia doesn't dial back its
aggression against Ukraine. Previous sanctions haven't
deterred Kremlin land-grabs, and the question now isn't if
Russian President Vladimir Putin will strike again but whom
he'll target next. Mr. Putin considers Europe's eastern
periphery, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea,
part of Russia's imperial inheritance.
Yet in recent years the Russian leader has also turned his
attention northward, to the Arctic, militarizing one of the
world's coldest, most remote regions. Here in Finland, one of
eight Arctic states, the Russian menace next door looms
large.
``That is a tough nut to crack, to know exactly what the
Russians want,'' newly appointed Finnish Foreign Minister
Timo Soini says. ``But I'm sure they know. Because they are
masters of chess, and if something is on the loose they will
take it''--a variation on the old proverb that ``a Cossack
will take whatever is not fixed to the ground.''
There is much that ``is not fixed to the ground'' already
in the Arctic, and more every year. Climate change is
transforming the High North. By 2030, the Northern Sea Route
(NSR) from the Kara Strait to the Pacific will have nine
weeks of open water, according to the U.S. Navy, up from two
in 2012. The NSR is a 35% to 60% shorter passage between
European ports and East Asia than the Suez or Panama routes,
according to the Arctic Council. The Northwest Passage, which
connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans via the Canadian
Arctic Archipelago, will have five weeks of open water by
2030, up from zero in 2012. It represents a 25% shorter
passage between Rotterdam and Seattle than non-Arctic routes,
according to a NATO Parliamentary Assembly study published in
March. As with other claims about the climate, these aren't
universally accepted prognostications.
These changes have implications not just for trade but also
for the ability to exploit the vast energy resources beneath
the Arctic. Energy fields in the region have to date produced
some 40 billion barrels of oil and 1,100 trillion cubic feet
of natural gas. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the
region also holds 13% of the world's undiscovered
conventional oil, a third of the world's undiscovered
conventional gas and a fifth of the world's undiscovered
natural-gas liquids.
No wonder Moscow has been racing to reopen old Soviet bases
on its territory across the Arctic and develop new ones. Mr.
Putin wants by the end of 2015 to have 14 operational
airfields in the Arctic, according to the NATO Parliamentary
Assembly, and he has increased Russia's special-forces
presence in the region by 30%.
``In the Arctic area they have twofold objectives,'' says a
senior official at the Finnish Defense Ministry. ``To secure
the Northern Sea Route and [exploit] the energy-resources
potential. And they are increasing their ability to surveil
that part of the world, to refurbish their abilities for the
air force and the Northern Fleet. They are exercising their
ability to move their airborne troops from the central part
of Russia to the north.''
The Russian buildup in the region is made worse by the fact
that Moscow makes no effort to be a good neighbor. The
Kremlin's propensity for holding unannounced exercises in the
region can only be a deliberate attempt to provoke. The
senior official voices the concern that the Kremlin might use
yet another such drill ``as deployment for a real
operation''--which is considerably less paranoid than it
sounds given Mr. Putin's record.
Russian warplanes have violated Finnish airspace as
recently as August, and pro-Kremlin media have also launched
a systematic propaganda campaign against Finland. ``They are
writing things about us and our defense forces that are not
from this world,'' says the senior official, such as the yarn
that the Finnish government removes children from ethnic-
Russian Finnish families for adoption by gay couples in the
U.S.
Another Defense Ministry official says that he finds it
hard to view as spontaneous ``one of their pro-Putin
demonstrations with crowds shouting `Thank you, Putin! You
gave us Crimea. Now give us Poland and Finland.' ''
Despite such developments, the possibility of conflict here
might seem distant for now. But it poses troubling questions
about the West's readiness in the Arctic-security race. So
far there has been plenty of Allied strategizing, including a
2013 White House paper on Arctic strategy heavy on climate-
change alarmism but offering little by way of real
mobilization. Russia still has the world's largest fleet of
icebreakers, many of them nuclear-powered. Washington, by
contrast, fields just one heavy icebreaker, the Coast Guard's
aging Polar Star.
For the Finns, the Kremlin menace raises another touchy
issue: their nonmembership in NATO. The April election that
sent Mr. Soini to the Foreign Ministry and the centrist Juha
Sipila into the premiership relegated Alexander Stubb, an
uncommonly pro-NATO Finnish prime minister, to the Finance
Ministry in the new government. Mr. Soini, who leads the
right-wing populist True Finns party, has denounced Mr. Stubb
in the past as a ``radical market liberal NATO hawk.'' But
now in government, Mr. Soini strikes more nuanced notes that
belie his party's anti-Atlanticist reputation.
``If we think that the paradigm [in the region] is going to
be changed,'' he says,``there is no hesitation that we will
do it,'' meaning join NATO. He adds: ``Whatever the system or
situation in Russia we have to cope, and we have some
experience with them. And they also respect us. They know our
history. . . . We want to be independent and free.''
Mr. SULLIVAN. The writer of this article talks about what is at stake
and about what the Russians are doing in the Arctic.
Here is a map. It is a little small, but it shows Russia's Arctic
push and the dramatic increase of airbases, operational infrastructure
all around the
[[Page S4097]]
Arctic, and the different exercises. We know that it is an important
place--transportation, natural resources. This is a critical area.
Our leaders are taking notice, our military leaders. ADM Bill Gortney
with the U.S. Northern Command stated: ``Russian heavy bombers flew
more out-of-area patrols in 2014 than in any year since the Cold War.''
Secretary of Defense Carter just 2 months ago said: ``The Arctic is
going to be a major area of importance to the United States, both
strategically and economically in the future--it's fair to say that
we're late to the recognition of that.''
This is why the NDAA is so important. Congress heard this testimony.
The Senate Armed Services Committee heard this testimony. We have been
following what has been happening in the Arctic, and we have acted. The
NDAA has provisions to start to address the challenges we see in the
Arctic. It certainly is focused on making sure the Arctic remains a
peaceful and stable place, but it also starts to focus the leadership
of our military on the Arctic, and that is important.
There is language in the NDAA which was unanimously voted on in the
committee--it is very bipartisan--that requires the Secretary of
Defense to submit a report that updates the U.S. military strategy in
the Arctic and requires a military operations plan to be described for
the protection and security of our interest in the Arctic. It lays out
what the issues are, what the threats are, and what the Russians are
doing in the Arctic.
President Putin is certainly going to be watching, and maybe he is
taking notice that we are noticing, and that is one reason why this is
an important bill.
As we can see here, today's Wall Street Journal article talked about
President Putin moving forward and possibly having the ability to send
airborne troops and airborne brigades to the Arctic. Yet, right now,
our own U.S. Army is thinking about removing the only airborne brigade
in the Arctic. That is not good strategy.
That is why we need this bill. We need to set the direction in terms
of strategy and to make sure we are not making strategic mistakes as
the Russians move forward in the Arctic and we start looking at
reducing our capabilities there. Weakness is provocative, and if anyone
knows that, it is President Putin. We need to show strength, and that
is why we need to pass this bill.
Finally, I want to talk briefly about an amendment I wanted to offer.
I am still trying to get it offered as part of the NDAA. As I
mentioned, there is a lineup of hundreds of amendments. Unfortunately,
the leader on the other side of the aisle doesn't want to move them.
This is one of those amendments. It is a very bipartisan amendment. If
it were allowed to come to the floor, it would probably pass
overwhelmingly. It is a simple amendment. All it does is ask the
President to follow the law when it comes to raising the pay of members
of our military. It is a simple amendment.
The law States that our servicemembers are entitled to get a larger
pay increase--not much, but when there is a pay increase, they should
get a slightly larger pay increase than their civilian counterparts.
That is the current law. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate
that when giving a pay increase to members of the Department of
Defense, military and civilian, that the President simply needs to
follow the law.
I want to emphasize something as somebody who has served in the
military and is still serving in the Reserves. Our civilian DOD
employees and members do a superb job. They are patriotic, they work
hard, and they deeply respect the members of the military with whom
they serve. I have seen this throughout my entire career.
The current law, however, recognizes the unique sacrifices our
servicemembers make wearing the uniform of our country and mandates a
half-a-percent greater pay increase when there is a pay increase for
our men and women in uniform. Right now, the President is not abiding
by that law. It is simple. He needs to do it. My amendment would
request and focus on this issue, and I think we could probably get 100
Senators to vote for it.
What is the origin of this law and the intent behind it? It is
simple. It recognizes the unique sacrifices our men and women in the
military make. These sacrifices are well known to the American people.
They include long hours and serious, difficult separations from family.
Of course, they include the risk of combat when our troops are deployed
overseas in combat zones. It includes hardship to families. When our
troops are deployed, they miss weddings, birthdays, first communions.
It even takes training into account because the members of the military
don't work on a 9-to-5 basis.
I will give one example. I had the great opportunity to head out to
the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, CA. It is one of the great
training bases in our country--one of the great training places in the
world. I was there to watch the training of the 1st Stryker Brigade,
which is based in Fairbanks, AK. They were out there for a month
deployment and training hard. They were not punching a clock 9 to 5;
they were training around the clock every day.
I happened to be out there on Super Bowl Sunday. The vast majority of
Americans were enjoying the Super Bowl, as they should have been. They
were having fun, going to parties, watching the game, drinking Coke,
Pepsi, and a little beer. But there were some Americans who were out in
the middle of Fort Irwin in the desert training. They were not watching
the Super Bowl; they were training to make sure that when their country
next called them up, they would be ready to protect our Nation. That is
the reason this law states that we treat our military members a little
bit different than other members of the Department of Defense.
That is all my amendment would do, but unfortunately, this one, like
dozens, if not hundreds, is not going to be heard--at least for the
time being--because the minority leader on the other side is trying to
bring back the way they used to run the Senate last year and the year
before and the year before that.
We know. We heard the stories. Last year, again, there were 14
amendments that were brought to the floor for a rollcall vote in 2014.
They essentially shut down the greatest deliberative body in the world.
We have heard the stories of how the previous majority leader used his
position to block consideration of amendments more than twice as often
as the previous six majority leaders combined, and now we are doing it
on a bill that relates to the national security of our Nation and the
critical issue of taking care of the men and women in uniform.
I hope we can move through this. I hope we can get to regular order.
I hope this body can take up amendments such as mine--commonsense,
bipartisan amendments that are going to keep our Nation safer, take
care of our troops and their families, and give the American people
faith that we are doing the job they sent us here to do. That is my
hope.
We are already doing it under the new majority leader. We voted on
almost 200 amendments already this year, but right now we are stuck on
one of the most important bills this body will consider for the entire
year. It is a shame. We need to get unstuck.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________