[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9332-9335]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 9333]]

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 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.

[[Page 9334]]

       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 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.

[[Page 9335]]

  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.

                          ____________________