[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 20233-20236]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                RUSSIAN ROCKET ENGINES POLICY PROVISION

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to call attention, sadly, to the 
triumph of pork-barrel parochialism in this year's Omnibus 
appropriations bill--in particular, a policy provision that was 
airdropped into this bill, in direct contravention to the National 
Defense Authorization Act, which will have U.S. taxpayers subsidize 
Russian aggression and ``comrade'' capitalism.
  Nearly 2 years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin, furious that 
the Ukrainian people had ousted a pro-Moscow stooge, invaded Ukraine 
and annexed Crimea. It is the first time since the days of Hitler and 
Stalin that brute force has been projected across an internationally 
recognized border to dismember a sovereign state on the European 
Continent. More than 8,000 people have died in this conflict, including 
298 innocent people aboard Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 who were 
murdered by Vladimir Putin's loyal supporters with weapons that 
Vladimir Putin had supplied them.
  Putin's imperialist campaign in Eastern Europe forced a recognition, 
for anyone who was not yet convinced, that we are confronting a 
challenge that many had assumed was resigned to the history books: a 
strong, militarily capable Russian Government that is hostile to our 
interests and our values and seeks to challenge the international order 
that American leaders

[[Page 20234]]

of both parties have sought to maintain since the end of World War II.
  That is why the Congress imposed tough sanctions against Russia, 
especially against Putin's cronies and their enormously corrupt 
business empire. As part of that effort, Congress passed the National 
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2015, which restricted the Air 
Force from using Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines for national 
security space launches--engines that are manufactured by a Russian 
company controlled by some of Putin's top cronies. We did so not only 
because our Nation should not rely on Russia to access space but 
because it is simply immoral to help subsidize Russia's intervention in 
Ukraine and line the pockets of Putin's gang of thugs who profit from 
the sale of Russian rocket engines.
  Last year the Defense authorization bill exempted five of the engines 
that United Launch Alliance purchased before the invasion of Ukraine. 
This allowed ULA, the space launch company that for years has enjoyed a 
monopoly on launching military satellites, to use those Russian rocket 
engines if the Secretary of Defense determined it was necessitated by 
national security.
  Since the passage of the act in the Senate 89 to 11, Russia has 
continued--as we all know--to destabilize Ukraine and menace our NATO 
allies in Europe with aggressive military behavior. Putin has sent 
advanced weapons to Iran, violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear 
Force Treaty. In a profound echo of the Cold War, Russia has intervened 
militarily in Syria on behalf of the murderous regime of Bashar Assad. 
Clearly, Russian behavior has only gotten worse.
  That is why a few weeks ago Congress acted again and passed the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2016. The NDAA 
authorized $300 million in security assistance and intelligence support 
for Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. At the same time, the bill 
recognized that a small number of Russian engines could be needed--
could be needed to maintain competition in the National Security Space 
Launch Program and facilitate a smooth transition to rockets with 
engines made in the United States. Therefore, the legislation allowed 
ULA to use a total of nine Russian engines. The fiscal year 2016 
Defense authorization bill, including its provision limiting the use of 
Russian rocket engines, was debated for months. For months the issue 
was debated. The Committee on Armed Services had a vigorous debate on 
this important issue. An amendment was offered to maintain the 
restriction on the Air Force's use of Russian rocket engines. In a 
positive vote of the committee, the amendment was adopted.
  We then considered hundreds of amendments to this bill on the Senate 
floor over a period of 2 weeks. For 2 weeks we literally considered 
hundreds of amendments, and we did so transparently, with an open 
process which was a credit, frankly, to both sides. There was not one 
amendment that was called up to change the provision of that 
authorization bill concerning the RD-180 rocket engines. The 
legislation passed with 71 votes.
  Then, because of a misguided Presidential veto, this defense 
legislation was actually considered a second time on the floor and it 
passed 91 to 3. I want to reemphasize, one of the things I was proud of 
for years is that we do debate the Senate Armed Services national 
defense authorization bill. We have done so every year for some 43 
years, and passed it, and had the President sign it. We open it to all 
amendments, but there was no amendment on rocket engines proposed on 
the floor of the Senate. Why wasn't it? If there were Members of the 
Senate who did not like the provisions in the bill, we had an open 
process to amend it, but they didn't. They didn't because they knew 
they could not pass an amendment that would remove that provision in 
the Defense Authorization Act. So now in the dead of night we just 
found out, hours before we are supposed to vote, that they put in a 
restriction which dramatically changes that provision that was done in 
an open and transparent process. To their everlasting shame, in the 
dark of night, not a vote--not a vote--no one consulted on the Armed 
Services Committee.
  The fiscal year 2016 bill, including its provision limiting the use 
of Russian rocket engines, was debated for months. The committee had a 
vigorous debate, as I mentioned. Here is my point. The Senate had this 
debate. We had ample time and opportunity to have this debate. Through 
months of this fulsome debate, no Senator came to the Senate floor to 
make the case that we needed to buy more Russian rocket engines, no 
Senator introduced an amendment on the floor to lift the restriction on 
buying more Russian rocket engines. To the contrary, the Senate and the 
full Congress, including the House of Representatives, voted 
overwhelmingly and repeatedly to maintain this restriction. This is a 
policy issue, not a money issue--nowhere in the realm of the 
Appropriations Committee. It was resolved, as it should have been, on 
the defense policy bill.
  Here we stand with a 2,000-page Omnibus appropriations bill crafted 
in secret. Members outside of the Appropriations Committee were not 
brought into the formulation of this legislation. There was no debate. 
Most of us are seeing this bill for the first time this morning, and 
buried within it is a policy provision that would effectively allow 
unlimited purchases and use of--guess what--Russian rocket engines.
  What is going on here? ULA wants more Russian engines, plain and 
simple. That is why ULA recently asked the Defense Department to waive 
the NDAA's previous restriction on the basis of national security and 
let it use a Russian engine for the first competitive national security 
space launch. The Defense Department declined.
  So what did ULA do when it couldn't get its way? It manufactured a 
crisis. Though the Department of Defense is restricted in using these 
Russian rocket engines, there is no similar restriction on NASA or 
commercial space launches. So ULA rushed to assign the RD-180s--the 
rocket engines--that it had in its inventory to these nonnational 
security launches, despite the fact that there is no restriction on the 
use of Russian engines for those launches. This artificial crisis has 
now been seized on by ULA's Capitol Hill leading sponsors; namely, the 
senior Senator from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and the senior Senator 
from Illinois, Senator Durbin, to overturn the NDAA's restriction, and 
that is exactly what they have done--again, secretly, nontransparently, 
as part of this massive 2,000-page Omnibus appropriations bill.
  As I said, neither Senator Shelby nor Senator Durbin, nor any other 
Senator, raised objections to the provisions of the bill or offered any 
alternative during the authorization process on the Senate floor. That 
is a repudiation of the rights of every single Senator in this body who 
is not a Member of the Appropriations Committee.
  In fact, as I have said, when this issue was debated and voted on in 
the Committee on Armed Services, the authorizing committee of 
jurisdiction voted in favor of maintaining the restriction. Instead, my 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee crafted a provision in 
secret, with no debate, to overturn the will of the Senate as expressed 
in two National Defense Authorization Acts. The result will enable a 
monopolistic corporation to send potentially hundreds of millions of 
dollars to Vladimir Putin and his corrupt cronies and deepen America's 
reliance on these thugs for our military's access to space.
  This is outrageous and it is shameful. It is the height of hypocrisy, 
especially from my colleagues who claim to care about the plight of 
Ukraine and the need to punish Russia for its aggression.
  How can our government tell European countries and governments that 
they need to hold the line on maintaining sanctions on Russia, which is 
far harder for them to do than for us, when we are getting our own 
policy in this way? We are gutting our own policy. How can we tell our 
French allies, in particular, that they should not sell Vladimir Putin 
amphibious assault ships, as we have, and then turn around

[[Page 20235]]

and try to buy rocket engines from Putin's cronies? Again, this is the 
height of hypocrisy. Since March of 2014, my colleagues in the Senate 
have tried to do everything we can to give our friends in Ukraine the 
tools they need to defend themselves and their country from Russian 
aggression. Rather than furthering that noble cause, Senator Shelby and 
Senator Durbin have chosen to reward Vladimir Putin and his cronies 
with a windfall of hundreds of millions of dollars.
  A rocket factory in Alabama may benefit from this provision. Boeing, 
headquartered in Illinois, may benefit from this decision. But have no 
doubt, the real winners today are Vladimir Putin and his gang of thugs 
running the Russian military industrial complex. I wish that Senator 
Shelby and Senator Durbin would explain to the American taxpayer 
exactly whom we are doing business with. They will not. But my 
colleagues need to know.
  Let me explain. At least one news organization has investigated how 
much the Air Force pays for these RD-180 rocket engines, how much the 
Russians receive, and whether members of the elite in Putin's Russia 
have secretly profited by inflating the price. In an investigative 
series entitled ``Comrade Capitalism,'' Reuters exposed the role that 
senior Russian politicians and Putin's close friends, including persons 
sanctioned over Ukraine, have played in the company called NPO 
Energomash, which manufactures the RD-180. According to Reuters, a 
Russian audit of that company found that it had been operating at a 
loss because funds were, ``being captured by unnamed offshore 
intermediary companies.''
  In addition, the Reuters investigation also reported that NPO 
Energomash sells its rocket engines to ULA through another company 
called RD Amross, a tiny five-person outfit that stood to collect about 
$93 million in cost markups under a multiyear deal to supply these 
engines. The Defense Contract Management Agency found that in one 
contract alone, RD Amross did ``no or negligible'' work but still 
collected $80 million in ``unallowable excessive pass-through 
charges.''
  Now, remember my friends, that is a five-person outfit--five persons. 
The Defense Contract Management Agency found that in one contract they 
collected $80 million in unallowable, excessive passthrough charges. My 
friends, thanks to this amendment, that is who is going to continue to 
receive this money.
  According to University of Baltimore School of Law professor Charles 
Tiefer, who reviewed Reuters documents, ``The bottom line is that the 
joint venture between the Russians and Americans is taking us to the 
cleaners.'' He said that he had reviewed Pentagon audits critical of 
Iraq war contracts, but those ``didn't come anywhere near to how 
strongly negative'' the RD Amross audit was.
  My colleagues, we have to do better. We have to do better than this. 
Some may say that we need to buy rocket engines from Putin's cronies in 
Russia. In particular, they will cite a letter from the Department of 
Defense, in response to a list of leading questions from the 
Appropriations Committee just a few days ago, which they will claim as 
confirmation that the Department believes the United States will not 
have a domestically manufactured replacement engine for defense space 
launches before 2022.
  Of course, that is nonsense. When the Department of Defense starts 
making predictions beyond its 5-year budget plan, what I hear is ``This 
isn't a priority'' or ``We don't really know.'' Either way, this is 
unacceptable. Both the authorizers and the appropriators have ramped up 
funding for the development of a new domestically manufactured engine. 
The Pentagon needs to do what it has failed to do for 8 years: Make 
this a priority.
  Indeed, American companies have already said that they could have a 
replacement engine ready before 2022. Our money and attention should be 
focused on meeting this goal, not on subsidizing Putin's defense 
industry. Proponents of more Russian rocket engines will also cite 
claims by the Air Force that ULA needs at least 18 RD-180 engines to 
create a bridge between now and 2022 when a domestically manufactured 
engine becomes available. This, too, is false.
  Today, we have two space launch providers--ULA and SpaceX--that, no 
matter what happens with the Russian RD-180, will be able to provide 
fully redundant capabilities with ULA's Delta IV and SpaceX's Falcon 9 
and, eventually, the Falcon Heavy space launch vehicles. There will be 
no capability gap. The Atlas V is not going anywhere anytime soon. ULA 
has enough Atlas Vs to get them through at least 2019, if not later. As 
I alluded a moment ago, the Pentagon agrees that no action is required 
today to address a risk for assured access to space.
  In declining ULA's recent request for a waiver from the Defense 
authorization bill's restriction, the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
concluded that they ``do not believe any immediate action is required 
to address the further risk of having only one source of space launch 
services.'' Indeed, in its recent letter, the Department of Defense 
even confirmed that ULA has enough engines to compete for each of the 
nine upcoming competitions and that the number they will pursue is 
``dependent upon ULA's business management strategy.''
  So I ask Senator Shelby and Senator Durbin: What are your priorities? 
As we speak, Ukrainians are resisting Russian aggression and fighting 
to keep their country whole and free. Yet this Omnibus appropriations 
bill sends hundreds of millions of dollars to Vladimir Putin, his 
cronies, and Russia's military industrial base as Russia continues to 
occupy Crimea and to destabilize Ukraine and their neighbors in the 
region. What kind of message does that send to Ukrainians who have been 
fighting and dying to protect their country? How can we do this when 
Putin is menacing our NATO allies in Europe? How can we do this when 
Russia continues to send weapons to Iran? How can we do this when Putin 
continues to violate the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty? 
How can we do this when Putin is bombing U.S.-backed forces in Syria 
fighting the murderous Assad regime?
  I understand that some constituents of Senator Shelby and Senator 
Durbin believe they would benefit from this provision, but as the New 
York Times editorial board stated earlier this year:

       When sanctions are necessary, the countries that impose 
     them must be willing to pay a cost, too. After leaning on 
     France to cancel the sale of two ships to Russia because of 
     the invasion of Ukraine, the United States can hardly insist 
     on continuing to buy national security hardware from one of 
     Mr. Putin's cronies.

  I repeat; that is from the New York Times, an editorial dated June 5, 
2015, titled ``Don't Back Down on Russian Sanctions.'' I also refer to 
an article from Reuters, dated November 18, 2014, titled ``In murky 
Pentagon deal with Russia, big profit for a tiny Florida firm.''
  On the record, I make this promise: If this language undermining the 
National Defense Authorization Act is not removed from the omnibus, I 
assure my colleagues that this issue will not go unaddressed in the 
fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Up to this point, 
we have sought to manage this issue on an annual basis. We have always 
maintained that if a genuine crisis emerged, we would not compromise 
our national security interests in space. We have sought to be flexible 
and open to new information. But if this is how our efforts are repaid, 
then perhaps we need to look at a complete and indefinite restriction 
on Putin's rocket engine.
  I take no pleasure in saying that. I believe that avoiding the year-
over-year conflict over this matter between our authorizing and 
Appropriations Committees is in our Nation's best
interests. Such back-and-forth only delays our shared desire to end our 
reliance on Russian technology from our space launch supply chain, 
while injecting instability into our national security space launch 
program.
  That instability threatens the reliable launch of our most sensitive 
national security satellites and the stability of the fragile 
industrial base that supports them. But I cannot allow--I

[[Page 20236]]

cannot allow the Appropriations Committee or any other Member of this 
body to craft a ``take it or leave it'' omnibus spending bill that 
allows a monopolistic corporation to do business with Russia's 
oligarchs to buy overpriced rocket engines that fund Russia's 
belligerence in Crimea and Ukraine, its support for Assad in Syria, and 
its neoimperial ambitions.
  I would like to address this issue in a larger context. The way the 
Congress is supposed to work is that authorizing committees authorize, 
whether it be in domestic or international or, in this case, defense 
programs. The responsibility of the authorizing committee is to make 
sure, in the case of defense--the training, equipping, the authorizing, 
the funding, the policies--that all falls under the Armed Services 
Committee.
  The Appropriations Committee is required in their responsibilities to 
decide the funding for these programs. It is within their authority to 
zero out a program if they do not think the funding is called for or 
necessary. They can add funding if they want to for various programs. 
But this--this is a complete violation, a complete and total violation.
  This issue was raised in the subcommittee and addressed in the 
subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. It was in the full 
committee. It was addressed on the floor where there were hundreds of 
amendments that were proposed. Yet what was decided by the Armed 
Services Committee remained intact until, in the dark of the night, 
until 10 or 11 or 12 or whatever time it was this morning, up pops a
direct contradiction, a direct dismembering, a direct cancellation of a 
provision in the law where we are talking about hundreds of millions of 
dollars that have no bearing whatsoever on the authority and 
responsibility of the Appropriations Committee.
  So there are two problems here: One, it was done in the dark of 
night--in the middle of the night. No one knew. Second of all, it is in 
direct violation of the relationship between the authorizing committees 
and the Appropriations Committee. So I say to my colleagues who are not 
on the Appropriations Committee: If you let this go, then maybe you are 
next. Maybe it is an amendment or a program that you have supported 
through debate and discussion and authorizing the committee and votes 
on amendments on the floor of the Senate. Then in the middle of the 
night, in December, when we are going out of session in 48 hours or 
so--or 72 hours--then up pops a provision that negates the entire work 
of the authorizing committee over days and weeks and months.
  I say to my colleagues: You could be next. You could be next. That is 
why this in itself--subsidizing Vladimir Putin--is outrageous enough. 
But if we are going to allow this kind of middle-of-the-night 
airdropping, fundamental changes in programs and proposals and policies 
that have been debated in the open, that have been voted on in the 
open, completely negated, then we are destroying the very fundamental 
structure of how the Senate and the Congress are supposed to work.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, dated November 19, 2015, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                Washington, DC, November 19, 2015.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Cochran: As you finalize the appropriations 
     bills for fiscal year 2016, I am concerned to hear that your 
     Committee may be considering authorization language that 
     would undermine sanctions on Russian rocket engines in 
     connection with the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) 
     program, as approved in the recently enacted Fiscal Year 2016 
     National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on November 10, 
     2015, by a vote of 91-3. That provision, which was reviewed 
     at length by the Armed Services Committee and subject to a 
     fulsome amendment process on the Senate Floor, achieves a 
     delicate balance that facilitates competition by allowing for 
     nine Russian rocket engines to be used as the incumbent space 
     launch provider transitions its launch vehicles to non-
     Russian propulsion systems.
       I know you share my concerns about our continued use of 
     Russian rocket engines in connection with military space 
     launch and I ask you to respect the well-informed work my 
     Committee took in crafting our legislation. Recent attempts 
     by the incumbent contractor to manufacture a crisis by 
     prematurely diminishing its stockpile of engines purchased 
     prior to the Russian invasion of Crimea should be viewed with 
     skepticism and scrutinized heavily. Such efforts should not 
     be misconstrued as a compelling reason to undermine any 
     sanctions on Russia while they occupy Crimea, destabilize 
     Ukraine, bolster Assad in Syria, send weapons to Iran, and 
     violate the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
       We welcome your Committee's views and look forward to 
     working with your Committee on ensuring that Department of 
     Defense resources are not unwisely allocated to benefit the 
     Russian military industrial base or its beneficiaries. I 
     believe avoiding the year-over-year re-litigation of this 
     matter between our authorizing and appropriations committees 
     is in our best interest, inasmuch as such back-and-forth only 
     delay our shared desire to eliminate Russian technology from 
     our space launch supply chain and injects instability into 
     the EELV program--not conducive to its success in ensuring 
     the reliable launch of our most sensitive national security 
     satellites or the stability of the fragile industrial base 
     that supports them.
       Thank you for consideration of this important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Ernst). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 15 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________