Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I begin by commending my colleagues from Arizona. I couldn't agree more with them and what they were just talking about with regard to ObamaCare. Similar to Arizona, Alaska is going through the same thing. We are now down to one health insurance provider in the entire State. It started with five, and we are now down to one for the entire State of Alaska. Similar to Arizona, our premiums and deductibles are going through the roof. I certainly want to work with my colleagues from Arizona on ways to address States and counties in Arizona or places like Alaska, where we have seen essentially no competition. So we certainly want to focus on that as well. I also commend the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, on what he has done for our military and how he has been a leader, really, in the country on national security and foreign policy issues. His leadership, particularly as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is absolutely critical for the national security and foreign policy of the entire country. We are coming back from our work session. Most of us were home for the last 6 weeks. I had an amazing trip back home in Alaska and heard the concerns, hopes, dreams of my constituents across the State. I also saw a lot of pride. One reason I saw a lot of pride is that we have pride in our military forces that serve in the great State of Alaska, thousands and thousands of Active-Duty and Reserve Forces, more veterans per capita than in any other State in the country. I had the opportunity to visit with a lot of our veterans, a lot of our military Active-Duty and Reserve Forces. I also had the opportunity to bring a number of our U.S. military and civilian leaders up to Alaska to show them our troops, show them the great training. This was the Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Secretary of the Army, the head of Missile Defense, the new combatant commander in charge of NORTHCOM. So we had a number of military officers visiting Alaska, and they got to see a lot of our troops, not only Alaska but Iowa National Guard, Hawaii troops, all training in the great State of Alaska. You know that our troops are doing amazing work, not just the training in different bases throughout the country but keeping us safe throughout the world and risking their lives in combat throughout the world. I certainly don't have to mention to this body the number of troops we have deployed all over the world keeping us safe--in combat and risking their lives. I mentioned the pride that Americans have in their military because it is really important to understand what just happened on the Senate floor about 20 minutes ago. What just happened? Sometimes it is hard to figure out the process. What did we just vote on? Let me put it bluntly. The minority leader of the Senate once again encouraged the Members of the other side of the aisle, of his party, to filibuster the funding for our troops. That just happened. The press will not report on it, but it is pretty remarkable given what we have going on in the world and one of the most sacred responsibilities of what we should be doing in this body. We just saw another filibuster of spending for the men and women who serve in the U.S. military. What a disappointment it is and what a disconnect between what is going on in the rest of America and here in DC. I want to remind my colleagues of this. If you went back home, regardless of where you live, regardless of what party you are in, and you asked your constituents: Should we be funding our military right now, should we be funding the men and women who are overseas risking their lives, keeping this Nation safe, the answer, probably, of virtually every American in the United States of America would be yes. I want to remind my colleagues that what just happened on the Senate floor--another filibuster of spending for our troops--wasn't the first time. Indeed, this is the bill that the minority leader of the Senate decided he wants to filibuster more than any other bill that we have brought up in the last year and a half. This evening's vote was the sixth time that the minority leader of the Senate has led a filibuster against funding for our troops. He wasn't satisfied to do it one time or two times or three times or four times or five times--six times. You and I and many other Members of the Senate were on the floor in July making the case that we shouldn't be doing this. We--I mean the Senate--should be focused on funding our troops. By the way, they read about this. For those who think the members of the military don't understand what is going on--that one party consistently denies them funding, that nobody understands that--that is not true. The troops know what is going on. We were down here, like many other Members of the Senate, encouraging our colleagues to support the troops, to stop the filibuster. This is what our troops want. This is what the American people want, and this is what the Senate of the United States of America should be doing-- supporting our troops, not denying them funding. I know my colleagues and I will continue to fight for this funding and fight these misguided attempts by the minority leader to undercut our troops, undercut our military, and undercut the funding that they desperately need and that should be a primary responsibility of this body. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I have a motion to instruct at the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise to support my motion to instruct in relation to the NDAA of 2017. In the past few weeks the President and the Secretary of Defense have made additional military commitments across the globe for our men and women in uniform, and we have read about these. These include 560 troops to Iraq to help reinforce the fight against ISIS, a decision to keep 8,400 members of the military in Afghanistan fighting against terrorism, 1,000 troops in Poland and a headquarters to beef up NATO's eastern flank, as well as two carrier strike groups in the South China Sea to protect freedom of the seas. I believe many of us are supportive of these commitments. However, in order to support these pledges, we need to make sure we fully authorize these commitments so our brave men and women in uniform have everything they need to fight and win these battles. When our service men and women train here and deploy abroad, they need to know that the Congress of the United States and the Senate of the United States stand with them. Supporting this motion to instruct lets them know we have their back, as we should. I yield to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, as you can see, there is bipartisan support for this measure. I ask that all my colleagues support it now. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa who has distinguished military service and just retired. We are honored that she is leading this colloquy today. I am honored to be here with some of my colleagues. Our freshman class sees this as a critical issue, and many of us have been on the floor all week to stress the importance of what Senator Ernst just spoke about--funding our troops and stopping this filibuster that denies our troops funding. Although we have been out here all week, I am not sure I have seen any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle coming to the floor to try to explain to the American people why they have filibustered funding for our troops not once, not twice, not three times but four times in the last year. Hopefully, they will not do it again today for the fifth time. It has been a good week for the Senate. We passed the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which was bipartisan. Senator Whitehouse, Senator Portman, and Senator Ayotte led that. We passed the FAA authorization, led by Senator Thune and Senator Nelson, which will protect the American people in the aviation space. But we have more important work today on defense issues and on national security issues, and much of it is dealing with supporting our troops. This is not a partisan issue. They need the support. This past week, the President and Secretary of Defense have made many more commitments with regard to our troops, with 8,400 troops in Afghanistan, 560 additional troops in Iraq, 1,000 additional troops in Poland and a battalion headquarters, and two carrier battle groups in the South China Sea. They are protecting us, they are supporting us, and we should be doing the same. It is that simple. Along with my colleagues, I find it amazing, remarkable, and, to be quite honest, I find it sad that the minority leader is encouraging a filibuster of the Defense appropriations bill again for the fifth time in a year. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should reject this approach. They are going to have the opportunity in the next hour to come down here and actually vote to fund our troops, and I guarantee that regardless of what State they are from, regardless of what political party they represent, the American people in every State of the United States support funding our troops and dropping this ridiculous filibuster against the men and women in uniform who are out there right now protecting us. I call on all of my colleagues to do the right thing by our troops and by the American people and to vote today to fund our troops. All of my colleagues have been very focused on this, but no more so than my colleagues from Iowa, North Carolina, and Montana. All of us have significant military populations and experience. I yield the floor to my colleague from Montana, Senator Daines, to further discuss this important issue.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, last week we had a lot going on in terms of national security and foreign policy facing our country and, most importantly, facing our troops, facing our military. The President, the Secretary of Defense, the top leaders in the military were asking a lot of our troops in 1 week. Let me just give you a little example of that. Just yesterday, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter announced, from where he is in Iraq, that the United States will be deploying 560 more troops to Iraq in our fight against ISIS. Make no doubt about it, the White House might spin what we are doing over there, but our troops are definitely in combat, fighting to protect us. At the NATO summit on Friday, President Obama announced that the United States will be deploying an additional 1,000 troops and a separate brigade headquarters to Poland. A lot of us--I think bipartisan--support what is going on at the NATO summit and congratulate the President for a successful summit. On Wednesday, the President announced he plans to leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan--more than he originally planned, a number that a lot of us had been advocating for, maybe even more--to combat the Taliban; again, our troops in action. On Saturday, we learned that North Korea launched a submarine ballistic missile off the coast of the eastern part of the country. Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that even after reaching the Iran nuclear deal, the Iranians continue to try to illegally procure nuclear equipment from Germany. Finally, just today, there was an important ruling from The Hague, the tribunal there, about what is going on in the South China Sea, in keeping sealanes open where we just recently had two carrier battle groups--two U.S. carrier battles groups, thousands of sailors in that part of the world. So what did the Senate do with regard to all the activities facing our troops? What did the Senate do to support these troops whom the President and the Secretary of Defense are asking so much of? Well, a lot of Americans did not see it, but in the late night, on Thursday night, led by the minority leader, unfortunately our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered defense spending, filibustered the Defense appropriations bill. This is not the first time that has happened. Indeed, that is the bill the other side seems to like to target. Amazingly, they like to target funding for our troops and our military. That is not the first time. It is not the second time. It is not the third time. It is the fourth time, inside of a year, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle filibustered funding our troops, at a time when national security challenges and what we are asking our military to do are at an alltime high. What I want to do with my colleagues is talk about this, try to let the American people know this is not what we should be doing. Perhaps the media will talk about this and highlight this a little bit more because we are going to vote again on this appropriations bill, which, by the way, came out of committee unanimously. The Democrats on the committee voted for it. Yet, somehow, when it comes to the floor, they are going to do another filibuster. They did it last Thursday. It is our hope--and one of the reasons we are on the floor right now--to convince our colleagues to change their ways. I am sure they don't want to have to go home after recess and have to explain to their constituents why they voted not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but five times to filibuster spending for our troops. I hope they don't have to do that. We are going to vote on that again this week. I am honored to be on the floor with some distinguished Members of the Senate, some of the Members of the class of 2014. I am going to ask the junior Senator from Iowa--who knows a little bit about what she is talking about when it comes to the U.S. military, with 23 years of military service, having just retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard. I am honored to have her open up and say some words about something that is remarkable that is going on, on the Senate floor--filibustering the spending for our troops at this dangerous time. It is not what we should be doing. Our colleagues know it. I guarantee you the American people know it. If you ask people, Democratic or Republican: Should we be funding our troops at this moment, the answer, clearly, in every State and every part of the country, would be yes. Senator Ernst.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy for 30 minutes with the Senators from Montana, North Carolina, and Iowa.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I thank Senator Tillis, and he put his finger on it when he said it is personal. I think it is personal to all of us. Senator Ernst talked about it. She literally has her former colleagues, the troops she commanded, in Afghanistan right now. There is nothing more personal than that. Just like Senator Tillis and Senator Daines, the great State of Alaska also has thousands and thousands of Active-Duty Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Marines servicemembers, reservists, and veterans, and they are wondering why. I get asked: Why would the minority leader filibuster spending for America's troops? Isn't that like the most important thing the Congress does--national defense? Why? Why on Earth would they consider doing it a fifth time before we go home on recess? The one thing we should be doing before we take a 2- month recess--when, as Senator Ernst said, the whole world is imploding with national security challenges--is voting to fund our troops. So why? I really don't know the answer. At one point, the minority leader came to the floor last year and said the bill was ``a waste of time.'' I am not sure most Americans would agree with him on that. Then they made some kind of excuse: Well, we need to make sure the appropriations bill fits with the bipartisan budget agreement from last year. Well, it does. Nobody is making that argument. He was even recently quoted as saying he doesn't want his party to be ``at the mercy of Republicans.'' In essence, that blocking our defense budget gives his political party leverage. Well, I will tell you who gets leverage from blocking this funding--our enemies and our adversaries, not our troops. There is one other myth here, and I hear it a lot. When these procedural votes happen in the Senate, the troops don't really see it. They do not really understand it. Heck, this vote they took to block it last time on Thursday night was almost at midnight. Maybe nobody saw it. But I want to ask Senator Ernst: Do you think the troops see this? Do you think they understand what is going on? Do you think your troops in Afghanistan or in the Iowa National Guard or all the other military members we have gotten to know through our positions on the Committee on Armed Services see what is happening? How do you think that impacts morale?

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to conclude this colloquy.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who bring honor to the Senate by coming down here and talking about this important issue. Those watching at home should be calling their Senators and telling them: Fund our troops. Fund our troops. When there are so many national security challenges out there, we need to make sure we do not go on a 2-month recess without funding our troops and moving forward on this bill. We should not move forward on a vote to have another filibuster vote, the fifth one in a year--the only bill that seems to get the focus of our colleagues and the minority leader to filibuster. We need to do the right thing. We need to do the right thing by the American people, and we need to do the right thing by our troops. Fund the troops. Break the filibuster. We need to move forward. I certainly hope my colleagues on the other side are going to finally see the light and vote to move forward funding for our military, national security, our troops, and our families. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, my colleagues from Virginia and Rhode Island, for whom I have a lot of respect, have been on the floor talking about an important issue--what my colleague from Virginia called a ``today issue.'' Well, I would also like to talk about a today issue as well, and one that I think certainly the American public is interested in. In the past week we have had a lot of today issues. As a matter of fact, in the last week there have been new developments globally relating to our national security, the defense of the United States, and the importance of our military in ways that are pretty dramatic. I would like to list some of these, and this is literally in the last 7 days. Today, Secretary Carter announced from Iraq, where he is right now, that the United States will be deploying another 560 troops in our fight against ISIS. A lot of us support additional troops, and the Secretary announced that. On Friday, at the NATO summit, President Obama announced that the United States will be deploying 1,000 U.S. troops and a separate brigade headquarters to Poland as part of an effort by NATO to strengthen its eastern flank against Russian aggression. The President was actually quoted in the Financial Times extensively. He stated: ``This may be the most important moment for our transatlantic alliance since the end of the Cold War.'' Then he talked about all the different national security crises-- ISIS, the terrorist attacks in Orlando, Paris, and Brussels, conflicts from Africa to Syria, and Russia's aggression in Ukraine. This is the President speaking to the Financial Times. These are today issues. I also call them today issues. On Saturday, North Korea launched another submarine-based ballistic missile off the country's eastern coast. It didn't go that far, but they are learning. Madam President, you and I were over there recently. They are learning. That is a continuing threat. Then, last Wednesday, before the President went to the NATO summit-- which, by the way was a successful summit, and I applaud the President and Secretary Carter for that summit--the President announced that he plans to leave 8,400 American troops in Afghanistan, more than he originally planned to keep, to combat the Taliban. Again, a lot of us applauded that decision. It could have been more, but it certainly is better than the trajectory he was going on, which was to go to zero. During an Armed Services Committee hearing last week, former NATO Ambassador Nicholas Burns and the former Supreme Allied Commander, Marine Gen. James Jones discussed the report that was coauthored by the Atlantic Council, again talking about the importance of NATO's building up our military forces not only on the eastern flank but in the Arctic--an area in which, as Alaska's Senator, I am very interested-- where the Russians have dramatically expanded their military footprint in exercises. Over the weekend, in the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that even after reaching the Iran nuclear deal, Iran continued trying to illegally procure nuclear equipment from Germany. So we have the Iranian threat, which definitely is not going away after the ill-gotten and misguided nuclear deal by the President. Tomorrow morning, there is going to be big news. There is expected to be a tribunal ruling on what is going on in the South China Sea. Again, the Chair and I were there recently, in that region of the world, in Singapore, for the Shangri-La Dialogue. To Secretary Carter's credit and Admiral Harris' credit, we have had two carrier battle groups out there recently--two. That is very important. So this is what has happened in a week. This is what our military is facing in 1 week. So what did this body do? What did the Senate do as it relates to actions in terms of our military and dealing with all these threats of just 1 week? What did we do? Led by the Senate minority leader and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we filibustered spending for our troops. That is what the Senate did. We filibustered spending for our troops. That is right. We blocked funding for our military, which has to deal with all these issues. Now, I know it was in the dead of the night. I think it took place around midnight. I am sure some of my colleagues were hoping nobody saw it. But this is not like an anomaly. As a matter of fact, this was the fourth time the minority leader led my colleagues on the other side of the aisle into filibustering the Defense appropriations bill that funds our troops and keeps our Nation safe. Let me repeat that. This bill has been filibustered not once, not twice, not three times but four times in the last year. This is the bill the minority leader likes to filibuster more than anything, and this is despite the fact that when this bill came out of the Committee on Appropriations, it had huge bipartisan support. I think only three members of the committee voted against it. This year it came out of the committee unanimously. So what does this bill do? We just talked about the threats that everybody agrees exist. I will just cover a few of the highlights. First, and very importantly, it is actually consistent with the bipartisan budget agreement of 2015. So any discussion of how it is not fitting what we agreed to is not true. It is consistent with that. Readiness. We all know we need readiness for our military. It funds $212 billion in terms of base operations and maintenance accounts, training--enormously important--and shipbuilding. A significant portion goes to shipbuilding to make sure we have a strong navy. It is similar with regard to aircraft procurement to have a strong Air Force-- significant billions of dollars of funding for our Air Force. It even has, for the first time, funding for an icebreaker, which more and more of my colleagues in the Congress are recognizing as critical to our national security. Missile defense. With the growing threat from North Korea and Iran, there is significant funding for missile defense and the National Guard and Reserve equipment account. The Presiding Officer has been a leader in the National Guard and Reserve. There is almost $1 billion for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account, which is lacking. Of course, there is military pay. The Defense appropriations bill fully funds an Active-Duty end strength of 1.2 million members of the military and a Reserve component end strength of 800,000, and it funds a 1.6 percent pay raise. Those are some of the highlights of the bill we need, and some of the highlights of the bill that was filibustered in the wee hours of the evening last Thursday night. Our Nation needs this bill. Our troops certainly need this bill. Our allies need this bill. We have held hearings in the Committee on Armed Services. The Chair will remember when Secretary Kissinger came and testified that the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of World War II. Even the President, last week in the Financial Times, stated that this is possibly the most important moment in terms of the security of the transatlantic alliance since the Cold War. The Presiding Officer and I actually had the honor of recently going to see the new Secretary of the Army review the troops and review the Old Guard. She and I proudly represented the Senate. We have a new Secretary of the Army who is going to do a great job. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Milley, spoke during that. He said one of the most important things the Senate and the Congress can do in the next 5 weeks is to make sure there is a budget for the U.S. military and for the U.S. Army. That is what he said. So he certainly laid out what he thought was important. As a matter of fact, serving together on the Committee on Armed Services, the Presiding Officer and I hear this from every single admiral and general, including Secretary Carter: Fund the troops-- certainty. But the minority leader thinks it is fine to block funding for our troops. Maybe he knows more than Secretary Carter. Maybe he knows more than General Milley. Unfortunately, he has made a habit out of doing this. In my short time in the Senate--1\1/2\ years--this is the bill the minority leader has decided to filibuster more than any other bill. Since I have been here, he has done that four times. Think about that. I hope the American people are watching. Four times in a year the bill that gets picked on more than any other bill is the one that funds the troops and our national security, and it happened again in the wee hours of the night last week. So why does he do this? I have no earthly idea why he does this. If you asked Americans back home in Iowa, Alaska, or in any State-- Democrats or Republicans; it doesn't matter the party--the people would say that national defense and funding our troops is probably the most important thing we do. It is certainly one of the top one or two. But the minority leader last year said the Defense appropriations bill is ``a waste of time.'' Last week he put out a statement saying he needed a commitment that this bill abides by the bipartisan budget deal. Well, guess what. The bill does abide by the bipartisan budget deal. There is no one making the argument that it doesn't. So I have no idea. I have no idea why he singles out funding for our brave men and women in uniform, thousands of whom, by the way, are serving overseas in combat--yes, in combat, right now. We are not going to fund them, though. We will filibuster that. Maybe he can come down and explain it. Here is something else I really don't understand. I mean, I really don't understand this. Why is it that so many of my colleagues follow his lead on this--to filibuster funding for America's military not once, not twice, not three times but four times? Why are my colleagues following his lead? I don't know why. But what I do know is that we should not be heading out on a 2-month recess without voting again on funding our troops--without voting to fund our troops--especially given all the challenges I just listed here. We know they are there. The President was talking about them. We talk about them. But we don't want to fund the troops? We owe it to the American people and to our troops to have a vote on this Defense appropriations bill again. Let my colleagues come to the floor and explain why they are going to vote to filibuster this bill again, because when we bring it up again--and I certainly hope we do so this week--if they vote to filibuster it again, that will become the fifth time inside of a year. What we need to do is to bring back a longstanding tradition that used to exist in the Senate, which was the bipartisan funding of our military. That is certainly what we are all focused on. That is what we thought we were going to do when we got the budget deal. That is what we thought we were going to do when we saw these very big bipartisan numbers coming out of the Appropriations Committee. Yet, every time we try to bring this bill to the floor--this year and last year--the minority leader filibusters it. The American people are watching. The American people are watching. A recent Politico article talked about this. A defense analyst from the Heritage Foundation said: I think this is pretty disappointing, but sadly not surprising. . . . There used to be a bipartisan consensus that defense was a priority, but sadly I think that consensus no longer exists. . . . With the Senate Democrats stopping DOD [appropriations], the Pentagon will at least have to wait until after the election for its budget, and maybe even into the next calendar year [to get its budget]. That is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are filibustering this bill. How does that help our troops? How does that help the national defense of the United States? Somebody please come down here and explain this to me. I agree with this analyst where he said this is sad. I hope we will bring this bill to the floor again and drop what has been happening, which is playing politics with our troops and funding our military. I will conclude by saying that after the Vietnam war, the Democratic Party gained a reputation as the anti-military party of America, and they struggled for years to shed that reputation. I don't think having any of America's major political parties being viewed as anti-military is good for us as a nation. Support for our military should never be a partisan issue, and I proudly serve--with the Presiding Officer and others--on the Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I know for a fact that my colleagues on those very bipartisan committees--Democrats and Republicans--support our troops, support national defense, and support the military. And I know many of my colleagues in this body--many on the other side of the aisle--have served with distinction in the military for decades and are strong supporters of our men and women in uniform. I have seen it. I have seen it my entire short time in the Senate. But four filibusters blocking funding for our troops inside of a year certainly makes one wonder what is going on with the leadership of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when it comes to supporting our troops. I hope they come down and explain it this week. What we need to do this week is vote again on the Defense appropriations bill and do the right thing. We all know what the right thing is and the American people know what the right thing is. We need to fund our troops, we need to keep them safe, and we need to keep our country safe. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, one of the great things about being able to come to the floor and preside--as is the Presiding Officer, and it is something I have had the opportunity to do a lot--is that when you are in the Chair, you get to hear a lot about the home States of other Members of the Senate. A lot of Senators like to come to the floor, as they should, to talk about their constituents and talk about so many things that are happening throughout our country. We just heard the Senator from Arkansas talk about some local heroes in his State. He came to the floor to talk about them. Presiding, I have had the opportunity to hear many great stories: Vietnam veterans in North Dakota, great basketball from the Presiding Officer's State of Indiana, proud members of our military who live in Texas, and tight- knit communities in responding to disasters in States across our Nation. These are great stories and in many ways they are what make our Nation great; it is what makes our Nation strong. Hearing about all the wonderful communities we have, I certainly have learned a lot from listening to these speeches, and I encourage my colleagues to come and talk about their States and do a little bragging. That is what I am going to do for the next couple of minutes. My State, the great State of Alaska, has certainly captured the country's imagination in a lot of ways. It is hard to turn on cable TV without seeing a new show on Alaska, and for good reason. There is so much about the great State of Alaska that is awe-inspiring and captures the imagination of the American people. Our mountain ranges, hundreds of them, literally seem to go on for miles and miles--forever, like waves in the ocean. The color of our glaciers is unlike anything you have ever seen before. Our rivers and streams, particularly this time of year, are choked with salmon--millions and millions of salmon. We have moose, bear, wolves, caribou, and muskox. But one of the very best things about Alaska, one of the things that makes us unique, is our mix of cultures and the extraordinary lengths people in Alaska go to keep these cultures alive. Today I wish to speak specifically about the culture of whaling and to honor our Alaska Eskimo whaling captains--heroes in our communities--and the communities that support these brave Americans. In Alaska, 11 communities in northern Alaska, which we call the North Slope, participate in two whaling seasons. Nuiqsut, Kivalina, Barrow, Kaktovik, Wainwright, Gambell, Little Diomede, Wales, Point Lay, Savoonga, and Point Hope--these are the whaling communities of my State. There is a spring whaling season and a fall whaling season. Both correspond to the migration patterns of the great bowhead whale. The spring has ended now, and it is time for celebration. Nalukataq season is upon us. This is when with the communities get together to celebrate the harvest. It is like a summer picnic on the top of the world, but without hot dogs. Families eat whale and muktuk. Let me spend a few minutes talking about what it takes to harpoon a whale. I have never done it, but a lot of my constituents have. Amazingly, today's whaling captains and crews still hunt using handheld harpoons, as their ancestors had done for thousands of years. During the spring harvest, many of the villages--also as their ancestors had done--go into the icy waters of the Arctic in hand-sewn boats that are built using wooden frames and hand-sewn walrus or bearded seal skin. When a bowhead whale is landed, to spread the good news the people exclaim ``Yay, hey, hey'' across the North Slope. The VHF radios that sit on kitchen counters and dining room tables all across this part of Alaska begin to buzz. When a whale is brought to shore, the entire community comes out to help pull in the giant leviathan. It is such an exciting time for these communities. It is exciting because every time it happens, a piece of this important culture is reenacted and honored. The whales are honored, and every part of the animal is used. These are subsistence communities, meaning they use this whale--all of it. Whale meat is necessary to feed these communities. On average, a whale can produce between 6 tons to 25 tons of food. I should point out that we have no road system in northern Alaska, so these communities are accessible only by air or seasonal barge transport. Some can be reached this way only at certain times of the year. In other words, these communities need their food; they need these whales. The annual bowhead whale migration provides the largest subsistence resource available in these remote areas of our great State. Even so, when a whale is taken, the sharing does not stop simply with the residents of the community. The food is shared with other subsistence communities and family members throughout our State. This is yet another amazing example of the resourcefulness that has enabled humans to survive in the Arctic for a millennia and that shapes the character of Alaska to this date. Yet, throughout the years, it has sometimes been a struggle for the first peoples of Alaska to get their quota of whales. In 1977, the International Whaling Commission tried to shut down the subsistence harvest for Alaska's native people. It was relying on incorrect population estimates provided by Western scientists, and they were ignoring what we in Alaska call traditional knowledge. The Alaska Eskimo whaling captains organized and started the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, which is alive, well, and thriving today. Here is a great story. In 1977, when the IWC, the International Whaling Commission, attempted to shut down the harvest in Alaska for Alaska Natives, our whalers told the Western scientists: You don't know how to count the whales because you're looking for them from the air during the spring migration, and they're swimming under the spring ice. You have to listen for them under the ice. When one of the scientists argued that the whales wouldn't swim under the ice because it is too dangerous, Harry Brower, Sr., the father of some of the prominent whalers today, took the scientist to the ice, put an oar in the water, and told the scientist to put his ear to the oar. What the scientist heard was an entire world of marine life invisible to the eye. From that, a research program using both traditional knowledge-- Alaska Native knowledge--and Western science was born and is used today, still today, to monitor the size of the western Arctic bowhead population. This research program, still combining Western science and traditional knowledge, is considered the gold standard, the most accurate and sophisticated way in which marine biologists measure whaling populations. The bowhead whale population is healthy and growing. Currently, it is estimated that there are about 20,000 bowhead whales, up from about 10,000 in 2001. Our communities in Alaska do an enormously important part in terms of making sure there is conservation of the bowhead whale. The current catch limit for Alaska natives is no more than 67 whales a year, a fraction of a percentage of the total population. That limit was set in 2013 and will last until 2018, when the IWC meets to establish new catch limits. Every time a new catch limit--a new quota--comes up, there is a fight between the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission and the countries that don't respect that tradition and want to stop all subsistence whaling, including my constituents. What I am hoping for these kinds of talks is that they will make all the Members of the Senate understand how important this tradition is for Americans, for Alaska Natives, and they can learn more about this important tradition. I will do everything in my power to work with my colleagues here in the Senate to ensure that when the quota comes up in 2018, they have their fair share. This is a vital tradition. It is vital for subsistence, and it is vital to keep a culture alive and to respect a group of great Americans who bring uniqueness and strength not only to Alaska but to our country. Here is how one of our Alaska Eskimo whaling captains puts it: To our people, the bowhead is more than food. It keeps our families together. It keeps our children in school. It allows our elders to pass generational knowledge to our youth. It teaches us patience and perseverance. It teaches us generosity. It strengthens our community. It provides wisdom and insight. It gives us hope. It is our way of life. The spirit of the whale lives within each of us. Let me repeat that last line. ``The spirit of the whale lives within each of us.'' These are some of the people of my State. These are my constituents. As I have said before, Alaska has bragging rights right now. Our whalers and their culture and their traditions are certainly worth bragging about. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have been on the floor quite a bit in the past several months talking about a topic I think the vast majority of Americans want us to focus on, and that is the economy. That is, in my opinion, something we don't do enough here, and certainly the current administration doesn't do enough. They never even seem to want to talk about the economy, and they do not because the news isn't good. When they do try to talk about the economy, they typically try to spin the facts and the bad news into good news. For the most part, as has become abundantly clear, when they do this, the media tries to repackage it, put a bow on it, and then the administration sells it back to the American public. Everything is going great, they tell us, or to use the language of the President's speechwriter and one of his chief spin doctors, in a recent New York Times magazine piece, he stated: We created an echo chamber. . . . They-- The media-- were saying things that validated what we had given them to say. So to put that in simple terms: We tell them our spin, they print it, and that is good. Well, with regard to the economy, I don't think many in America are buying it. And I am glad our Presidential candidates are finally starting to talk about this issue--economic growth for middle-class families. Secretary Clinton recently gave a speech on the economy where she mostly lambasted her opponent. She said that under Mr. Trump, the U.S. economy would be a disaster. Well, no disrespect to the former Secretary of State and former Senator, but in case Mrs. Clinton didn't notice, the economy already is a disaster right now, and we need to fix it. I want to talk about that a little bit because it is something you never hear about from the media, from the administration, even from this body enough, to be honest, and yet Americans are feeling it all across the country. Under this administration, we have now had the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. The executive branch may have a reverberating echo chamber, but the American people know what is going on when it comes to the economy, and it is not a pretty picture. Let me provide some examples of the Obama administration's anemic economy and what it has done to the thing we all believe in--we all believe in--and that is the American dream. First, let's talk about our country's gross domestic product. As you know, the GDP of the United States is really a marker for our country's health. It is basically a marker of American progress. It is a marker of the American dream. And with regard to the health of the economy, right now it is not healthy. We have a sick economy. Last quarter, this economy grew at only 0.8 percent GDP growth. It essentially didn't grow. To put that in perspective, if you look at one of the things that have made our Nation great, it is that year after year, decade after decade, Democratic or Republican administration, we have always typically grown at traditional levels of American GDP growth--3 percent, 3.5 percent, 4 percent GDP growth, 5 percent, 6 percent in some eras. Looking at this chart, which I have brought to the floor many times, it looks at the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Obviously, there are ups and downs. There was some really strong growth--Kennedy, Johnson, Reagan, Clinton; 4 percent, 4.5 percent, 5 percent GDP growth. But this red line right here, this 3 percent, that is at least the number we need to hit, that everybody thinks we should be hitting. For most administrations, it has been way above that. In the 8 years now with President Obama, it never hit once--not once. Never hit 3 percent GDP growth. That is not what we were promised by this administration when they put forward their policies, many of which, in the early years of this administration, were supported by the Congress. Remember the stimulus package? Remember the Affordable Care Act? These were all things that were going to stimulate the economy. As a matter of fact, we were told--and these were numbers from the Obama administration--that by 2010, we would see 3 percent GDP growth, and that by 2011 to 2014, we would be at 4.1 percent GDP growth. That would have been good. Four percent is strong. That is what they told us. That is what they predicted with their policies. We never came close, and now they do not talk about that. You never hear the President talk about 3 percent, 4 percent. He sure did a lot early on. But their policies drove us in the other direction. Now even the Federal Reserve, noting that we don't even hit 2 percent GDP growth any more, is essentially saying these numbers are not going to improve. They predicted just a couple of weeks ago that maybe we will hit 2 percent in the next 2 to 3 years--stagnant growth, surrendering the American dream. Yet nobody is talking about this. This is the biggest issue facing our country. As Michael Boskin, a very well respected Stanford economics professor, stated recently, ``Mr. Obama will likely go down as having the worst economic growth record of any president since the trough of the Great Depression in 1933.'' That is right here. These are his numbers, by the way, right here. So that is one thing, GDP growth. Let's talk about jobs. The American people are feeling what is happening with regard to jobs. Yes, the President likes to tout an unemployment rate that is going down. While that is true, the main reason the unemployment rate is going down is because the labor force participation rate is crashing. So most of the unemployment rate declines the President likes to talk about, his administration likes to talk about, have occurred because people have stopped looking for work. They have quit. They are done. They are so discouraged, they have just quit. Let me give an example. Last month, in May, the jobs report sounded like a pretty good jobs report. Unemployment went from 5.1 percent down to 4.7 percent. That normally sounds good. But what really happened? Only 38,000 jobs were created and almost 700,000 Americans quit looking for work. They just quit. They were that frustrated. That is how we have this unemployment rate going down, not because of strong growth or a strong economy but because the American worker--the greatest workforce in the world, which built this amazing country--is now saying: I have had enough. I am so discouraged, I am just going to stop looking for a job. And that sends the unemployment rate down. As I mentioned, year after year, the labor force participation rate has gone down dramatically and--I know this is kind of an economic term--a little wonky. I think it is really a measure of the optimism or the hope of the American worker. I like to call it the American worker hope index, and if you look at where it is right now, we haven't had a hope index this low since the malaise of the Carter years. As a matter of fact, the hope index we have right now under President Obama--just look at that--is cratering. It is the same as it was in 1978. So, Mr. President, that is the job situation. That is what is happening with the hope of American workers, but also, just looking at the straight numbers, in the last 7 years Americans have become poorer. Under the President--under his administration--real median household income has gone down by 2.3 percent, from $54,920 to $53,600. That doesn't seem like a lot, this number, but for decades the trend and this number, of course, have always been up--always. So the fact that it is going in the wrong direction is a very bad sign. Essentially, Americans and their families have become poorer. The same with home ownership. Look at this number. One of the biggest indicators of the American dream is home ownership. Again, the number is going in the wrong direction. Household income and home ownership are down, causing Americans to increasingly have to rely on government assistance. We are a proud people. This is not what most Americans want to be doing. Yet, when we look at the number of Americans on food stamps, it has almost increased by 40 percent--40 percent--from 33 million Americans to nearly 46 million. These are people who want to work. These are people who want jobs to care for their families. Yet that number is soaring. Finally, I want to talk briefly about the Nation's fiscal outlook. If we want to talk about a number that is soaring, look at this number: The national debt of the United States--literally, one of the most important issues facing our Nation--has essentially doubled since the President took office. The national debt was $10 trillion. Today it has exploded to over $19 trillion. No other President in the history of the United States has racked up so much debt and done so much damage to the balance sheet of our Nation. Let me give one example. Our debt now is so high, for the first time in U.S. history, our AAA credit rating--the full faith and credit of the United States. We have always had it, ever since there has been a rating, for 70 years. It was downgraded. A lot of people forget that. It was downgraded. I look at these hard-working pages and this debt issue. If we don't get control of it, if the Congress doesn't get control of it, if the administration doesn't, it is going to be on their backs, our young people, and that is simply--simply--not fair. I would like to summarize. The number of people giving up looking for work in our country has increased dramatically by the millions; wages for jobs have been stagnant; household incomes--families, essentially-- have become poorer; economic growth is at alltime lows, at least in the last 70 years; the dream of buying a house is slipping away; and the national debt has exploded. This is the economy of this administration. What is still interesting is 7\1/2\ years after they took office-- with their policies, where they promised a 4-percent GDP growth, strong job growth--they are still looking in the rearview mirror, and when they are shown some of these numbers, they point fingers at the people who came before them, after nearly two terms in office. Well, this is the President's economy. He owns it. He should take responsibility for it, and he should start talking about it and instituting policies that start to change this, but we don't hear him or his administration do that. We don't hear them tout their record. They start to focus on this echo chamber. Fortunately, others in the public eye are more forthcoming. We are starting to talk about it more on the Senate floor. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come out and talk about it a little bit. Certainly, as I mentioned, former Senator Clinton was talking about it, and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, has been talking about the economy. To be honest, President Clinton has actually put his finger on what is happening. He stated: Millions and millions and millions and millions of people look at that pretty picture of [the America economy] Obama [has] painted and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives. Former President Clinton also recently said this: The problem is, 80 percent of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 financial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I was president 15 years ago. That is what the matter is. That is former President Clinton. Even Secretary Clinton has apparently decided it is prudent to step out of the echo chamber of the administration she used to work for and confirm to the American people what is happening because when you leave Washington, DC, you see it, you hear it. In an interview with the Washington Post on Tuesday, she talked about how our current economy has failed many in this country. She even stated: What people are feeling is that the economy failed them, their government failed them. You don't have to go just to coal country to see that. You can go to a lot of parts of America, where people had good, decent jobs that provided a good middle class life for them and their kids. That was the American Dream. That's how we used to define it. That is a former Secretary of State, former Senator, who is putting her finger on what is actually happening. We need to rekindle the American dream. We need to rekindle traditional levels of American growth. Our economy is sick. The American worker can't find the great jobs that have sustained him and her in the past. What this body needs to do is focus more on these issues. Certainly, what the Obama administration needs to do is level with the American people about these challenges because besides protecting the Nation's national security, the No. 1 thing we can be doing here is focusing on policies that drive economic growth, that drive true hope, and job creation. That is what we need to be doing more of in the U.S. Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I want to rise to also support my colleagues on the Veterans Affairs' Committee. It is an honor to serve with the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia, and the ranking member from Connecticut, Senator Blumenthal. One of the great honors about being on that committee is not just serving our veterans but that it is a committee that gets a lot of work done. It is a very bipartisan committee, and that is why so many of us are coming to the Senate floor to talk about this important issue-- accountability for the VA. I was home in Alaska this past weekend, and as I often do, I ran into veterans. Every State in the Union likes to talk about their veterans and brag a little bit. Well, in my State we have more veterans per capita than any State in the Union. We are very proud of that. I was talking to a Vietnam veteran on Friday in Anchorage, a combat veteran corpsman. He saved a lot of marines during his time. He had such deep frustration about this issue of accountability with the VA. As a matter of fact, he used to work at the VA. The one issue he raised with me was this: How can we do more with regard to accountability? He reads about it in the paper. The key here to that conversation and to so many conversations I had with veterans back home is that we must restore the bond of trust between the VA and the veterans that the VA serves because we all know that bond of trust has eroded. Trust is eroded when no one is accountable. Trust is eroded when no one is accountable. My colleagues have already talked about it, but once again, it is very disappointing to see the VA walking away from accountability as opposed to embracing it. Senator Tillis did a great job of describing the bill that was signed by the President in 2014, the Choice Act, which had some strong accountability measures. Yet, just recently, the Attorney General of the United States sided with the argument of a former Phoenix VA director who was at the helm when as many as 40 veterans died waiting for health care. The Attorney General of the United States sided with her argument and is not even testing the accountability provisions in this new law that was passed by this body and signed by the President. She just quit and didn't even let the courts declare that this law is unconstitutional. She just quit and sided with that argument. I think that is an outrage. What it does is undermine the issue of trust. It is also a dangerous precedent by allowing the head of the VA and the Attorney General of the United States to substitute the judgment of the Congress of the United States in a law, saying we are not even going to defend this issue anymore. It is a precedent that I don't think anyone in this body would agree with--essentially gutting the accountability provisions in a recently enacted law signed by President Obama and not even trying to defend them. This is exactly the kind of action that further erodes the trust between the VA and our veterans. Yesterday, in a hearing chaired by the senior Senator from Georgia, we demanded a bipartisan approach and that the Attorney General or her representative get before the VA committee very soon and explain what she is up to, because I don't think anyone in this body is agreeing with the actions they are taking. While we are waiting for answers from the Attorney General, we are not going to give up on the critically important issue of VA accountability, which is why moving forward on the Veterans First Act, which does focus on accountability, is so important, and why we are on the floor making the case for this. This bill which I cosponsor currently has 44 cosponsors and has support from multiple veterans service organizations. You have heard about some of the important accountability measures that are in this bill. I want again to thank the great leadership of Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Blumenthal on this. What we need to do is move forward on this bill and restore this issue of trust. The best way we can restore trust is to let our veterans know that the leadership of the VA is accountable. Remember, the leadership of the VA works for our veterans, and when they see people getting away with malfeasance and incorrect behavior, that trust is further eroded. I yield the floor back to Chairman Isakson.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, for months now I have been coming to the floor to talk about an issue that I know the American people want us to talk about, and that is the economy and the importance of growing our economy. I am highlighting what unfortunately has been a very anemic record of economic growth over the last 10 years, highlighting what is called the gross domestic product for the United States. I have been doing that because certainly the Obama administration doesn't want to do that. When we look at these numbers, we know that these are some of the weakest economic numbers, certainly in the last 7 years--some of the weakest economic numbers in U.S. history. The media doesn't want to talk about it, so I believe it is important that we come and have a debate on the economy because the American people want us to talk about this. I want to remind my colleagues that the gross domestic product--what we have here on this chart--is really a marker of the health of our economy. It is a marker of progress, a marker of the American dream. Right now we have a sick economy by any measure. Last quarter the U.S. economy grew at 0.8 percent GDP growth--barely grew. To put that in perspective, what has made our country great year after year, decade after decade, has been an economic growth rate of about 3.7 percent, almost 4 percent. If you look at this chart, it has many different administrations. This red line is the 3-percent GDP marker, which is considered OK, not great. Usually, most administrations are above that. Year after year, decade after decade--Democratic administration, Republican administration--what has made the country great is economic growth. If you look at the Obama years right here, it never even hit 3 percent GDP growth. That is why they don't want to talk about it. When the President does talk about it, he doesn't remind Americans that this is the slowest, weakest recovery in over 70 years, but when he does talk about it, he still points fingers at those who came before him. After nearly 7\1/2\ years, two terms, this economy is his. He owns it, and he should take responsibility for it. As Michael Boskin, the well-respected Stanford economics professor, put it: ``Mr. Obama will likely go down as having the worst economic- growth record of any president since the trough of the Great Depression in 1933.'' Whether the President owns up to it, there is no doubt--just look at the charts. These are their numbers, by the way. These are the Obama administration numbers. There is no doubt we have experienced a lost decade of growth that is harming not only the economic security of our country and the national security of our country but--most importantly--American families who are experiencing this. The great engine of our economic growth, driven by the American worker, the most productive worker in world history, is now idle because we cannot grow our economy. We had more evidence of this last month with the abysmal May jobs report. Again, nobody talked about it. The media didn't talk about it. Certainly, the White House didn't talk about it, but we should be talking about it, what happened in May. The report showed, in May, employers throughout the entire United States added 38,000 jobs. That is in an $18 trillion economy that employs 126 million Americans-- 38,000 jobs is nothing and everybody knows it. As a matter of fact, today, Fed Chairman Janet Yellen talked about what a dismal report that was in May. In fact, that is the lowest monthly gain since 2010 in terms of jobs, and 2016 has seen the worst employment start since 2009, since the beginning of the Obama administration. All of this is very bad news for the country, the economy, American families, and American workers. Every economist, including the Fed Chairman today, every pundit, even politicians who understand this issue, know this is a big problem. Yet the President and Members of his administration refuse to level with the American people about what is going on. You didn't hear anyone talking about the jobs report. In fact, right now they are calling our economy the strongest in the world. They are touting the fact that despite this economic jobs report, the unemployment rate actually ticked down. It went down from 5.1 percent to 4.7 percent. They are kind of bragging about that. That is normally good news. The unemployment rate going from 5.1 to 4.7 percent, they are talking that up. What is going on? What is the real story behind these numbers? Because the people who know these numbers know what is going on. I thought I would try to explain a little bit about why this administration is not leveling with the American people at all. First, having the strongest economy in the world right now is nothing to brag about. The President used to brag about how we were growing more than Europe. That was last quarter. We are not growing more than Europe now. The EU grew at about a 2-percent GDP growth last quarter. As I said, we grew at about 0.8 percent, so even that comparison is not working. An economist recently stated that bragging about having a strong economy right now globally is ``like having the best-looking horse in the glue factory.'' There is not a lot to brag about there. Really, the only comparison that matters when the administration tries a spin, ``Hey, we are doing better than Japan or better than Brazil''--the only comparison that matters is this one: How are we doing relative to American history? That is all that really matters, not the spin of how we are doing relative to another country. This is what matters. Again, by any measure, we have been performing very poorly for the last 10 years. Second, let's unpack the unemployment numbers. The 4.7-percent unemployment rate sounds pretty good, but what the President knows and what his administration knows but will not tell the American people, is that rate from the jobs report last year had numbers behind it that were very worrisome. If we only created 38,000 jobs, then how does the unemployment rate go down from 5.1 percent to 4.7 percent? This is how. The standard measure of unemployment in this country, the unemployment rate, includes only people who are actively looking for work. That is a term called the labor force participation rate. So if the labor force participation rate goes down, then the unemployment rate will also go down, even if we have a weak economy. So what happened in May? Why did the unemployment rate tick down to 4.7 percent? That is normally good news. Well, we know it is not because of robust job growth because there were only 38,000 jobs created. Nobody thinks that is robust. What happened in May--and the White House isn't talking about it--the unemployment rate went down because almost 700,000 American workers quit working, quit looking for a job. Think about that. In 1 month, 664,000 Americans--in 1 month, almost 700,000 Americans who had been looking for work got discouraged. They said there is nothing out there. This economy is so weak so I am quitting even looking for a job. That is why the unemployment rate went down--not a strong economy, not strong growth--discouraged American workers saying: I am done. I am not even going to look anymore. Of course, that is nothing to celebrate, 700,000 Americans completely discouraged who said: I have had enough, I am not even going to try. Think about the families. Think about the workers who made that decision. Unfortunately, this is one of the dismal, economic legacies of the Obama years. Year after year, as exhibited by this chart, millions of Americans have simply left the workforce. They just quit. This is a chart of the labor force participation rate at the beginning of the Obama administration and now. Year after year, you can see more Americans say: I have had it. I give up. The economy is too weak. I am quitting, quitting even looking. Again, they are not counted in the unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate is a rather ungainly term, but what it really measures is the hope of the American worker and his or her family. So we should call it the American worker hope index. Here is the hope index for the American worker. As you can see by the chart, it has been crashing under this President with his economic policies year after year. Hope has been declining for American workers ever since the President got into office. In fact, it has not been this low since the economic malaise years of President Jimmy Carter. If you see the right hand here, 62 percent--the Carter malaise years--Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and then the Obama administration years, back almost on par with the Carter years. That is not a strong legacy. The last time we had an American worker hope index this low was in 1978, the height of the Carter stagflation, when so many Americans were discouraged from even trying to work. That is the legacy we have right now. The most recent job numbers that came out in May was the day the President gave a speech to a bunch of high school students. To the children, the high school kids, the President painted a rosy picture of the economy. He told them the economy was strong and that he had cut the unemployment rate in half. We know that is not a fully accurate statement. If we had the same labor force participation rate today that we had at the beginning of the Obama administration, our unemployment rate would actually be 9.7 percent, almost unchanged from the beginning of 2009 when it was 10.1 percent. So the bottom line, the main reason--indeed, almost the sole reason the official unemployment rate has been, ``cut in half,'' as the President said, is because millions and millions of Americans have left the workforce because the hope of the American worker has crashed, and it has now reached the same low levels it did during the Carter years. The President did also tell these high school students that to create a better, stronger economy, we have to be honest about what our real economic challenges are. Here, I agree with him. Let's start with an honest assessment made recently by former President Clinton. This is what he said about the Obama economy: ``Millions and millions and millions and millions of people look at the pretty picture of America [Obama] painted and they cannot find themselves in it to save their lives.'' That was former Democratic President Bill Clinton talking about the loss of hope over the last 8 years. President Clinton recently said: But the problem is, 80 percent of the American people are still living on what they were living on the day before the [2008 financial] crash. And about half the American people, after you adjust for inflation, are living on what they were living on the last day I-- Meaning President Clinton-- was president 15 years ago. So that's what's the matter. That is President Clinton. He is talking honestly about this economy. That is what honesty looks like. Family incomes have declined during the Obama years, wages have been stagnant, and the economic hope of the American worker has crashed to levels not seen since Jimmy Carter. I close with a few words for the American people as we get to the final months of the Obama administration. The President is going to make the claim--and some of his supporters and maybe even Secretary Clinton are going to make the claim--that the unemployment rate during the Obama years went from 10.1 percent to 4.7 percent. They are going to talk about this. They are going to make people believe that somehow this is a great accomplishment. While technically true, what the President is not going to do, what Secretary Clinton is not going to do, is unpack the numbers to actually tell the whole truth because that unemployment rate decline is due primarily to the fact that so many American workers have simply quit looking for work. That is the full truth. So when you hear this great number--10.1 percent unemployment all the way down to 4.7 percent--the real number is 9.7 percent. The real number is in this index. The real number is that the American workers' hope over the last 8 years has crashed. So when the President and the White House continue to tell us that everything is fine, that jobs are plentiful, that the unemployment rate has been slashed in half, that our economy is strong relative to other countries, it is very important to look at what they are really saying. We shouldn't believe that. And the vast majority of Americans don't believe it because they are hurting. They are hurting because this economy is hurting. Millions of Americans want to work but can't find a job. Millions of Americans have quit looking for a job. And, as the President says, we need to recognize that fact and to be honest about it. Only then can we do what is one of the most important jobs this Senate can do, which is grow our economy again and create real job opportunities for the millions of American workers who want to work but have been so discouraged they have left the workforce. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my military fellow, Dave Deptula, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this session of Congress.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of what we have been doing on the Senate floor the past 2 weeks--moving forward on the National Defense Authorization Act. I wish to pay a compliment and my deepest respect to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, to the ranking member, and to all the members of the Armed Services Committee who have been focused on this bill that we have been putting forward in this Congress and every Congress for the last half century. Our forces are under strain at a time when Henry Kissinger said before the Armed Services Committee that ``the United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War.'' Here is what some of our top military officials have told our committee about the threats that are rising globally and the dramatic reduction in our military forces. Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Mark Milley, recently stated that due to cuts and threats, our Army is at a state of ``high military risk'' when it comes to being ready enough to defend our interests. That is a very serious statement by the Chief of Staff of the Army, ``high military risk'' for our military and the ability of the U.S. Army to do its mission. He also said that when it comes to Russia and its new aggressiveness, we are ``outranged and outgunned.'' Let me spend a little bit of time on the new challenge from Russia. There are many provisions in this bill--which is why it is so important--that will strengthen our military threat with regard to Russia--something that, as a Senator from Alaska, I am very concerned about. Nobody spoke more eloquently and compellingly about our country's credibility than President Reagan when he stated that his philosophy of dealing with our potential adversaries was that ``we maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.'' And he matched his rhetoric with credible action. That is what we need to do with regard to the NDAA, and that is why it is so important that we move forward and pass this bill. But the Russian threat is not just in Europe, it also in the Arctic, and those threats--we are hearing more and more in committee testimony on and what the Russians are doing. For example, there are 4 new Arctic brigades; a new Arctic command; 14 operational airfields in the Russian Arctic by the end of this year; up to 50 airfields by 2020; a 30- percent increase in Russian special forces in the Arctic; 40 Russian Government and privately owned icebreakers, with 11 additional icebreakers in development right now, including 3 new nuclear-powered icebreakers; huge land claims in the Arctic; increased long-range air patrols with Bear bombers--the most since the Cold War--and pilots in Alaska are intercepting these Russian bombers on a weekly basis; and a recent deployment of two sophisticated S-400 air defense systems again to the Arctic. Why are they doing this? Because it is a strategic place, new transportation routes, enormous resources. Our own Secretary of Defense stated in testimony that he realized we were late to the Arctic given how strategic and important it is. Right now we have no Arctic port infrastructure; two icebreakers--that is it; no plans to increase Arctic-capable special forces; and a lack of surveillance capabilities in this strategic region of the world. Why do I mention this? Because in this NDAA we start to address the problem. Just as we did in last year's NDAA, we start to lay the foundation for having a strategic vision of what is going on in the Arctic, the way the Russians are, and we are beginning to be prepared in an area of the world that is absolutely critical to U.S. security. Provisions include the first steps to build up an appropriate strategic Arctic port. We will also build up our Arctic domain awareness, and we will have a much better sense of what is going on in this region not only with regard to the Russians but what the Chinese are doing in this critical area of the world. Make no mistake--America is an Arctic nation. We are an Arctic nation because of my State, the State of Alaska. This NDAA begins the important process to start addressing the strategic concerns we are seeing in the Arctic and securing our Nation in a way that is important for all of us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, this instruction relates to an earlier amendment I had, No. 4065. It is a simple amendment that would allow States and communities throughout our Nation to expedite the permitting process and construction of their bridges that pose safety concerns for their citizens. This would only apply to bridges that are built in the same place--they are not expanding bridges--same size, and bridges they are replacing. It is essentially maintenance on bridges. If State environmental agencies determine that Federal permitting requirements should be waived, then they are allowed to do this to expedite the permitting of the bridge. Let me explain why this is important. Right now in America, there are 61,000 structurally deficient bridges in need of repair. Yet when we try to repair these bridges, it takes 5 years to 6 years just to get the Federal permitting requirements. This amendment--these instructions would allow this process to move much more quickly. It will be important for the safety of our citizens, to put Americans back to work, and to grow our economy. It is a commonsense instruction. I know my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are focused on permitting reform. This is something very simple that we can do that will benefit all of our States and all of our citizens.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I yield to my colleague from Maine.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I have a motion to instruct conferees at the desk.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2016, at 2 p.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a Subcommittee hearing entitled ``Improvements in Hurricane Forecasting and the Path Forward.''