National Defense Authorization Act

Floor Speech

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.

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
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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source