[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 98 (Thursday, June 18, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4277-S4279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, as I mentioned, we passed the NDAA this 
afternoon after almost 3 weeks of debate, and I do wish to extend 
congratulations to the leadership, particularly to the chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking 
member, Senator Reed, who did such an outstanding job of working in a 
bipartisan fashion on this bill.
  In many ways, this bill is about something that is so critical to 
American foreign policy and national security interests. What is that? 
It is credibility, the credibility of the United States. In many ways 
it is the coin of the realm in international security--how our friends, 
how our allies, and how our adversaries view American credibility, 
particularly in the realm of national security, international affairs, 
and foreign policy. They pay close attention to what we are doing on 
this floor, in the White House, and overseas--credibility.
  Unfortunately, as many are aware, both at home and certainly 
overseas, we are rapidly losing credibility around the world. In fact, 
much of the world is puzzled. What is happening to American credibility 
in terms of foreign policy? We used to be the shining city on the hill, 
a beacon of strength, a beacon of freedom. Countries that wanted to do 
us harm didn't because they feared us. Our allies respected and trusted 
us. But, unfortunately, that is starting to change. It is changing. Red 
lines have been crossed with no consequences in places such as Syria, 
Ukraine, Russia, and in the Iranian negotiations. Many say American 
credibility has declined. Some say American credibility overseas is in 
shambles. Nations that once counted on us as friends, as allies, are 
having a harder time trusting the United States and in some ways are 
even suspicious of our motives and our policies.
  So it is a critical, critical issue. How do we, as a country, regain 
credibility in the world. It is something that everybody in this body 
and everybody in the Federal Government should be focused on.
  The NDAA bill that we just passed, the National Defense Authorization 
Act, is a way to start regaining credibility for our country, and we 
did that this afternoon. A very strong bipartisan majority in the 
Senate, 71 Senators, voted to pass this very important bill. It is one 
of the most important bills that we are going to vote on all year.
  This is an important signal. U.S. foreign policy--our national 
security is strongest when we act in a bipartisan manner, as we did on 
the Senate floor today, and when the executive and legislative branches 
are working together on foreign policy and national security issues. 
That is what this bill does.
  In many ways, this bill does pretty much exactly what the President 
has asked in a whole host of areas regarding the military. For example, 
it funds the Department of Defense at the levels requested by the 
President. And again I congratulate Chairman McCain and Ranking Member 
Reed for many of the key programs, many of the key reforms, and such a 
powerful bill that got through this body.
  This bill also strongly endorses one of the President's signature 
foreign policy issues--the rebalance of our military focus to the Asia 
Pacific. There are many provisions in the NDAA that support this 
rebalanced strategy. Most Members--Republicans and Democrats--of this 
body are supportive of the President's rebalance strategy.
  There is even a directive in the bill from the Congress to the 
Department of Defense and our military leaders that states: ``In order 
to properly implement the U.S. rebalance policy, United States forces 
under operational control of the U.S. Pacific Command should be 
increased''--increased, not decreased. That is strong language. That is 
supporting the President's rebalance. The Department of Defense needs 
to heed this language from Congress, and of course we will be keeping a 
close eye on whether they do.

[[Page S4278]]

  So the NDAA just passed on the floor helps--it can help and it will 
help restore America's credibility in the world. But it would be 
another blow to our credibility--to U.S. credibility globally--if, 
after all the hard work that has gone into this bill, after the strong 
bipartisan support this bill achieved, the President would then decide 
to veto the NDAA. What would the world think of that? What would the 
world think of our commitment to our troops with a bill that strongly 
passed in the House and Senate to fund the U.S. military, to set 
policies that support the President's policies, if the President then 
vetoed the bill? This would further undermine U.S. credibility in the 
world right at a moment when the Congress is trying to be supportive 
and rebuild this credibility.
  After today's vote, after passing the NDAA, it is not clear that 
Members of this body are going to move forward to actually appropriate 
the money to fund the military. Think about that. The NDAA passes with 
strong bipartisan support out of the Committee on Armed Services and 
strong bipartisan support on the Senate floor this afternoon and the 
President of the United States vetoes it. That is not going to help 
America's credibility.
  Now we are moving to Defense appropriations, again with strong 
bipartisan support out of the Committee on Appropriations. Yet we are 
hearing rumors that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
not going to fund the military, that they are going to filibuster this 
bill.
  Playing politics with the funding of our defense, the funding of our 
men and women in uniform, is not going to help enhance America's 
credibility anywhere. I think Members are going to have a hard time 
explaining votes that don't look to fund the men and women who so 
courageously defend us day in and day out here and abroad. It just 
doesn't make sense. We have to recognize that these actions that are 
being taken on the floor and in the White House are not only being 
watched by Americans, they are being watched by our allies and our 
adversaries overseas.
  Another way to start to restore America's credibility in the world 
and to support the President and the White House's rebalance strategy 
in the Asia Pacific is to pass trade promotion authority next week. We 
have all talked about that. We debated that here on the floor for many 
weeks. It will help increase jobs. It will make sure that we, the 
United States, are setting the rules of the road for international 
trade in the Asia Pacific and not China. But it also goes to America's 
credibility.
  I had the honor of traveling a couple of weeks ago with Chairman 
McCain, Ranking Member Reed, and the Senator from Iowa, Mrs. Ernst, to 
Vietnam and Singapore. We met with the Prime Minister of Singapore. All 
the discussion was on American engagement in the Asia Pacific. They 
want us there. They want us leading. But the consensus was that if we 
can't move forward on TPA, it would be disastrous for our credibility.
  So, again, the world is watching. We cannot afford to lose U.S. 
credibility in another region of the world. I am hopeful that next 
week, as this bill comes to the floor of the Senate, we will once again 
vote to pass trade promotion authority because that goes to not only 
helping spur economic growth and greater job growth in our own country, 
but it goes to America's leadership and credibility in the world.
  Finally, I want to talk about another area of the world where U.S. 
credibility is at stake, and that is the Arctic. Fortunately, Congress 
has begun to recognize this fact. In the bill we just debated and 
passed on the floor today, the NDAA, there is an important provision 
about the national security of the United States in the Arctic. It is 
now up to the administration and the Department of Defense to start to 
focus on this very important area of the United States but also the 
world.
  Nobody spoke more eloquently and compellingly about peace through 
strength and about our country's credibility in the world than former 
President Ronald Reagan. President Reagan's philosophy to win the Cold 
War was simple. As he put it, ``We maintain the peace through our 
strength; weakness only invites aggression.''
  The important thing President Reagan did was he matched his rhetoric 
with credible actions. Under President Reagan, we strengthened our NATO 
allies, strengthened our military, provided strong funding for the men 
and women who defend us, modernized our strategic defense systems, and 
countered potential Soviet threats throughout the world.
  As a result of this credible policy that people and countries around 
the world believed whether they were our allies or adversaries, the 
efforts of the Soviet Union to build an empire based on aggression were 
thwarted and the Soviet Union itself ended up collapsing.
  Today, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but make no mistake--the 
imperialist dreams of expansion that have dominated much of Russian 
history since the days of the czars is still alive. Today's Russia is 
again a threat to its neighbors and to the peace of the world. Think 
about Russia's unlawful military aggression in the Ukraine. But that is 
not all. There are other vital areas of the world in which Russia is 
now taking new actions that should concern us. One of these areas is 
the Arctic.
  We don't hear much about the Arctic from the mainstream media. That 
is largely because it is hard to get reporters and television cameras 
out to the Arctic. But America is an Arctic nation. We are an Arctic 
nation because of my State, the great State of Alaska. And there is 
much at stake in the Arctic--new transportation routes, huge 
opportunities for energy. As a recent column in the Wall Street Journal 
pointed out, ``No wonder Moscow has been racing to reopen old Soviet 
bases on its territory across the Arctic and develop new ones.''
  The signs are everywhere that Russia is making a new push into the 
Arctic. Let me provide a few examples. Earlier this year, the Russian 
military held 5 days of Arctic war exercises that included close to 
40,000 troops, 50 surface ships, 13 submarines, and 110 aircraft. The 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, said recently 
that the Russians are increasing their military forces by six combat 
brigades, four of which will be stationed in the Arctic. President 
Putin has said he wants to build at least 13 new airfields, and they 
are starting in the Arctic. They are establishing a new Arctic command, 
with several new icebreakers to add to their robust fleet.
  In the paper just today, there was another report of the Russians 
planning yet another large-scale exercise in the Arctic involving two 
Arctic brigades.
  Just last week, in a study called ``America in the Arctic,'' CSIS 
talked about what the Russians are doing. The article said:

       Recent actions taken by Russia do not instill confidence 
     that the Arctic will be exempt from recent geopolitical 
     tensions. The Kremlin continues to hold unannounced military 
     exercises in the Arctic, which engage significant numbers of 
     forces . . . and simulate the use of nuclear weapons. 
     Moscow's authorization of the use of military force to 
     protect Russian interests in the Arctic . . . the planned 
     reopening of over 50 Soviet-era bases along Russia's Arctic 
     coastline, and Russia's recently Unified Arctic Command, as 
     well as Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin's 
     pronouncement that ``the Arctic is Russia's Mecca,'' have all 
     raised serious questions regarding Russia's intent in the 
     Arctic.

  I want to put this in perspective with a map. This shows the new push 
by the Russians into the Arctic. It shows the new airfields, the new 
bases. If we look at the map here, we see red on these different spots. 
These red spots are the new or existing Russian bases and airfields in 
the Arctic. The three blue spots on this map are the U.S. presence--a 
small airfield and radar station in Greenland and Alaska. America's 
Arctic. Two combat brigades in the great State of Alaska.
  Our U.S. military commanders are starting to wake up to the fact that 
the red is clearly expanding on this map, and it is concerning them. 
Even Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said just 2 months ago:

       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.

  We are late. So what are we doing? The Russians have Arctic 
exercises, new airfields, a new Arctic command, and four new Arctic 
combat brigades, according to our own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. What are we doing? The Department of Defense has

[[Page S4279]]

a 13-page Arctic strategy. That is it--13 pages. That is what the 
United States of America has--the greatest military force in the world 
right now--as this is happening. We have this.
  I want to talk about credibility. This is not credible. This is not 
credible. Worse--much worse--the Department of Defense is thinking 
about removing one or maybe two brigade combat teams from America's 
Arctic.
  Let me repeat that. As the Russians are building up everywhere, we 
are looking at possibly removing the BCTs right here--these two blue 
dots--one or two, gone. That is not credible. These are the only U.S. 
soldiers in the Arctic. They are Arctic-tough soldiers, cold-weather 
trained. This is the only Arctic airborne brigade in the United States. 
This is the only airborne brigade in the entire Asia-Pacific, right 
here, Fort Richardson, Alaska. These soldiers, thousands of them, are 
capable, well-trained, tough U.S. soldiers, and they are the only ones 
capable of protecting our country's interests in the Arctic, as that 
part of the world becomes more and more an area that Russia becomes 
interested in.
  So we have this, 13 pages. We have announced we are seriously 
contemplating removing these forces from the Arctic. Let me just say, 
Vladimir Putin must surely be smiling somewhere in Moscow as he makes 
these moves and he hears that the Department of Defense is thinking 
about removing our only Arctic forces out of the Arctic. This is not 
credible.
  We are not only showing a lack of credibility, removing Army troops 
from the Arctic, removing them from Alaska, will show the world 
weakness. As President Reagan noted, weakness is provocative. We can be 
assured of that.
  This strategy defies logic. Importantly, it also defies the direction 
of the U.S. Senate and the NDAA, which we just passed by large 
bipartisan numbers. As I mentioned at the outset, the bill we just 
passed states that the Department of Defense should increase troops in 
the Asia-Pacific region--increase troops--under the command of the 
PACOM commander, which includes these troops right here.
  Fortunately, as I said, there are also provisions in the NDAA to 
start making sure our country wakes up to the security interests we 
have in the Arctic. The bill we just passed on the floor provides an 
important first step toward ensuring that the Arctic remains a 
peaceful, stable, and prosperous place.
  The NDAA requires our military to lay out a specific strategy--not 
just 13 pages--in the Arctic region that protects our interests there. 
It requires the Secretary of Defense to update the Congress on the U.S. 
military strategy in the Arctic region, and, importantly, requires a 
military operations plan for the protection of our security interests 
in this important region of the world.
  The Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, should not even contemplate 
moving one single soldier out of America's Arctic until all of this has 
been completed, and they should look hard at this bill--that we hope 
the President will not veto--with regard to the direction of the 
Congress on the importance of increasing U.S. military forces in the 
Asia-Pacific to add credibility to our rebalanced strategy. That means 
keeping appropriate troop levels in appropriate places--like the Asia-
Pacific, like the Arctic, and like Alaska--as required by the bill that 
we just passed by an overwhelming majority.
  Alaska is the northern anchor of the Pacific rebalance. It is the 
gateway to the Arctic. It is what makes America an Arctic nation. It is 
our only Arctic State, and it probably is the single greatest 
repository of untapped energy resources that will power our Nation's 
future. That is why, in the words of Gen. Billy Mitchell--the father of 
the U.S. Air Force--it is the most strategic place in the world.
  We need a strong rebalanced strategy that is credible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________