Dan Sullivan

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 149, H.R. 2499.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the Vitter amendment at the desk be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m., Friday, July 24; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following leader remarks, all postcloture time on the motion to proceed to H.R. 22 be deemed expired.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to, that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 114, H.R. 23.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1626 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 229, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to start by offering prayers and thoughts--I think of every Member of the Senate--to the families of those who were killed in last night's horrific, horrific shooting in South Carolina. No words can undo the incredible pain that they are going through, but I think knowing that Members of this body and the entire Congress are thinking and praying for these families is something that I just wish to state on the Senate floor before I begin to talk about this very important bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak today about the National Defense Authorization Act, which was just passed on the floor after almost 3 weeks of debate on the Senate floor. Today, a very strong bipartisan majority passed this legislation. It is a very important bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act. I rise in support to move this bill forward and the amendments that many of us in this body want to have heard, debated, and voted on. I also rise in opposition to obstruction--obstruction to this bill, obstruction to the key issues of national defense for our country. Make no mistake, there is obstruction going on, on the Senate floor right now, with regard to this important bill. A little bit of background here: This bill, the NDAA, came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee after a lot of hard work, bipartisan work, by all the members of the committee. We worked together to include over 185 amendments. Almost all of these were bipartisan amendments. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked about voting against the bill because they did not like the way it was funded, even though our committee had nothing to do with the funding. But at the end of the day, after much debate in the committee, we worked and passed a strong, important, reform-oriented bipartisan NDAA by a vote of 22 to 4. That is bipartisan. I thank the chairman of that committee Senator McCain and the ranking member Senator Reed on their great leadership in getting this committee to work so closely together to move the bill forward. As part of the Armed Services Committee, just 2 weeks ago, I had the distinct honor of traveling with both of them to Vietnam and to Singapore for an important Defense Ministry conference. It was a huge honor for me as a new Member of the body to travel with John McCain and Jack Reed--two veterans who have sacrificed a lot for their country--to Vietnam and other places. They did a fantastic job on this bill. Then, this bill came to the floor and it all stopped. Everything came to a halt. There are over 500 amendments of Senators who want to move forward on a bipartisan basis to try to improve this bill. We have gotten to barely a trickle--barely a trickle--and nothing has happened. For 2 weeks we have been on this bill and nothing has happened after the great work we did in the Senate Armed Services Committee. What is going on here? It is the same obstructionist playbook that my colleagues and particularly the minority leader used for the last few years, and the American people have rejected it. They rejected it last November, and they rejected it when they realized this body had only 14 rollcall votes on amendments during the entire year of 2014. That is not how this body is supposed to work. Nobody on either side of the aisle wants this body to work that way. It is certainly not how it is supposed to work when it comes to the defense of our Nation and the critical bill to take care of our men and women in uniform. Yet, the minority leader said this bill is a waste of time. I will repeat that. The National Defense Authorization Act, one of the most important things we do in this body, is ``a waste of time.'' I understand that the parties have ideological differences, and that is certainly the way it should be. That is the way it has been since the founding of our great Nation. But if leaders on the other side of the aisle believe that protecting the country, taking care of the men and women in uniform, and keeping our promises to them is a waste of time, then we don't belong to different parties, we belong in different universes. In this world, in this universe, in the U.S. Senate, our most important job is to protect this country and to take care of the men and women who so courageously serve our country. It is not a waste of time to be doing that. It is the most important thing we were sent here to do. We took an oath. We pledged to solemnly swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is what this bill does, and that is what we--Members on both sides--are trying to do in terms of improving it with amendments, but none of those are moving. None of those are moving, and that is a shame. One of the things we tried to address in the bill is the serious threats and challenges our Nation faces. At the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing we had several weeks ago, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said: The United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the second world war. We know what they are--the growth and brutality of ISIS, a rising China, Iran on the verge of obtaining a nuclear weapon. The largest state sponsor of terrorism is possibly on the verge of gaining a nuclear weapon, and a resurgent Russia has invaded the sovereign territory of another country. It is the first time since World War II in the heart of Europe. So at this time we not only have obstruction on the other side of the aisle from the leader there, the President of the United States is threatening to veto the NDAA. I am not sure they are reading about what is going on in the world. I am not sure they recognize the critical importance of this bill. And to threaten to veto this bill, and therefore what--we are going to stop? No. We are going to do our duty, and we will put this on the President's desk, and we will see if he vetoes it when the United States faces this huge array of challenges. Let me talk about one of those challenges for a few minutes. It is an important area. As a Senator from Alaska, it is certainly an important area for me. It is the Arctic and the increasing militarization of the Arctic by Russia. Earlier this year, Russia began a 5-day Arctic war exercise that included 38,000 troops, 50 surface warships, in addition to submarines, and 110 aircraft in the Arctic. And the Russians are not being shy about their ambitions in the Arctic. President Putin has said he wants to build 13 new airfields and add four new Russian combat brigades in the Arctic. He is going to stand up a new Arctic command, and he is going to add several new icebreakers to their already robust fleet. The chairman of the Armed Services Committee talked about this. He talked about what the Russians are doing in the Arctic. There is no mystery here. As a matter of fact, today there was an outstanding article in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``The New Cold War's Arctic Front,'' with the subtitle ``Putin is militarizing one of the world's coldest, most remote regions.'' Well, in my State, this is home. America is an Arctic nation because of Alaska. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. The writer of this article talks about what is at stake and about what the Russians are doing in the Arctic. Here is a map. It is a little small, but it shows Russia's Arctic push and the dramatic increase of airbases, operational infrastructure all around the Arctic, and the different exercises. We know that it is an important place--transportation, natural resources. This is a critical area. Our leaders are taking notice, our military leaders. ADM Bill Gortney with the U.S. Northern Command stated: ``Russian heavy bombers flew more out-of-area patrols in 2014 than in any year since the Cold War.'' Secretary of Defense Carter just 2 months ago said: ``The Arctic is going to be a major area of importance to the United States, both strategically and economically in the future--it's fair to say that we're late to the recognition of that.'' This is why the NDAA is so important. Congress heard this testimony. The Senate Armed Services Committee heard this testimony. We have been following what has been happening in the Arctic, and we have acted. The NDAA has provisions to start to address the challenges we see in the Arctic. It certainly is focused on making sure the Arctic remains a peaceful and stable place, but it also starts to focus the leadership of our military on the Arctic, and that is important. There is language in the NDAA which was unanimously voted on in the committee--it is very bipartisan--that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report that updates the U.S. military strategy in the Arctic and requires a military operations plan to be described for the protection and security of our interest in the Arctic. It lays out what the issues are, what the threats are, and what the Russians are doing in the Arctic. President Putin is certainly going to be watching, and maybe he is taking notice that we are noticing, and that is one reason why this is an important bill. As we can see here, today's Wall Street Journal article talked about President Putin moving forward and possibly having the ability to send airborne troops and airborne brigades to the Arctic. Yet, right now, our own U.S. Army is thinking about removing the only airborne brigade in the Arctic. That is not good strategy. That is why we need this bill. We need to set the direction in terms of strategy and to make sure we are not making strategic mistakes as the Russians move forward in the Arctic and we start looking at reducing our capabilities there. Weakness is provocative, and if anyone knows that, it is President Putin. We need to show strength, and that is why we need to pass this bill. Finally, I want to talk briefly about an amendment I wanted to offer. I am still trying to get it offered as part of the NDAA. As I mentioned, there is a lineup of hundreds of amendments. Unfortunately, the leader on the other side of the aisle doesn't want to move them. This is one of those amendments. It is a very bipartisan amendment. If it were allowed to come to the floor, it would probably pass overwhelmingly. It is a simple amendment. All it does is ask the President to follow the law when it comes to raising the pay of members of our military. It is a simple amendment. The law States that our servicemembers are entitled to get a larger pay increase--not much, but when there is a pay increase, they should get a slightly larger pay increase than their civilian counterparts. That is the current law. My amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that when giving a pay increase to members of the Department of Defense, military and civilian, that the President simply needs to follow the law. I want to emphasize something as somebody who has served in the military and is still serving in the Reserves. Our civilian DOD employees and members do a superb job. They are patriotic, they work hard, and they deeply respect the members of the military with whom they serve. I have seen this throughout my entire career. The current law, however, recognizes the unique sacrifices our servicemembers make wearing the uniform of our country and mandates a half-a-percent greater pay increase when there is a pay increase for our men and women in uniform. Right now, the President is not abiding by that law. It is simple. He needs to do it. My amendment would request and focus on this issue, and I think we could probably get 100 Senators to vote for it. What is the origin of this law and the intent behind it? It is simple. It recognizes the unique sacrifices our men and women in the military make. These sacrifices are well known to the American people. They include long hours and serious, difficult separations from family. Of course, they include the risk of combat when our troops are deployed overseas in combat zones. It includes hardship to families. When our troops are deployed, they miss weddings, birthdays, first communions. It even takes training into account because the members of the military don't work on a 9-to-5 basis. I will give one example. I had the great opportunity to head out to the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, CA. It is one of the great training bases in our country--one of the great training places in the world. I was there to watch the training of the 1st Stryker Brigade, which is based in Fairbanks, AK. They were out there for a month deployment and training hard. They were not punching a clock 9 to 5; they were training around the clock every day. I happened to be out there on Super Bowl Sunday. The vast majority of Americans were enjoying the Super Bowl, as they should have been. They were having fun, going to parties, watching the game, drinking Coke, Pepsi, and a little beer. But there were some Americans who were out in the middle of Fort Irwin in the desert training. They were not watching the Super Bowl; they were training to make sure that when their country next called them up, they would be ready to protect our Nation. That is the reason this law states that we treat our military members a little bit different than other members of the Department of Defense. That is all my amendment would do, but unfortunately, this one, like dozens, if not hundreds, is not going to be heard--at least for the time being--because the minority leader on the other side is trying to bring back the way they used to run the Senate last year and the year before and the year before that. We know. We heard the stories. Last year, again, there were 14 amendments that were brought to the floor for a rollcall vote in 2014. They essentially shut down the greatest deliberative body in the world. We have heard the stories of how the previous majority leader used his position to block consideration of amendments more than twice as often as the previous six majority leaders combined, and now we are doing it on a bill that relates to the national security of our Nation and the critical issue of taking care of the men and women in uniform. I hope we can move through this. I hope we can get to regular order. I hope this body can take up amendments such as mine--commonsense, bipartisan amendments that are going to keep our Nation safer, take care of our troops and their families, and give the American people faith that we are doing the job they sent us here to do. That is my hope. We are already doing it under the new majority leader. We voted on almost 200 amendments already this year, but right now we are stuck on one of the most important bills this body will consider for the entire year. It is a shame. We need to get unstuck. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SULLIVAN

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

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. The title is ``Dismal Growth Needs the 3.5% Solution.'' He noted that from 1790 to 2014, almost the entire history of our great Nation, this country grew annually at 3.7 percent GDP growth--3.7 percent. The Obama administration's annual growth rate has been 1.3 percent. Think about that--1.3 percent. According to the former CBO Director, the difference between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent growth--just 1 percent GDP growth difference-- will have a huge impact on American families. We would be able to produce nationally 2.5 million more jobs and the average income in terms of wages would be $9,000 higher--$9,000 higher. Think about what you could do with that amount of money. Think about what American families could do with that amount of money, just by going 1 percent higher in our growth rate. Our distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania recently mentioned that in order to double the standard of living for a family--to double their income--at 3 percent growth, you can do that in 24 years, or a generation. That is why every generation of Americans has benefitted and done better than the previous one, because we have grown at 3, 3.5, 4 percent growth rate. We are doubling our standard of living. At 1 percent growth, which is the Obama growth rate, it takes 72 years to double your standard of living--72 years. That is the trajectory we are on. What is most disturbing about this is that this is a huge issue for the country. You don't read about it in the press. Heck, last quarter we shrunk. The economy of the United States, the greatest economy in the world, shrunk, and there was barely a press report about it. It has become what people are now referring to as the new normal. Traditional levels of American growth at 3.5, 4 or 4.5 percent GDP growth--nope, in the Obama era that is a thing of the past. We are in the new normal era, with 1.5 percent GDP growth--maybe 2, if we are lucky. We need to change that. We need to get the traditional levels of American growth. What is most amazing is that the administration seems to be just shrugging its shoulders. Oh, we contracted last quarter? That is no big deal. A 1.5 percent to 2 percent GDP growth for the entire Obama administration record--that is fine. But it is a big deal, and it is not fine. We need to change this. Since 2009, the White House has blamed everything from former George W. Bush to the weather to climate change to Europe's health to growth problems in Africa for these slow growth rates. But have you ever heard the President say: It might be the policies of my own administration. It might be the fact that we are overregulating every element of this great economy of ours. They need to stop blaming and start fixing this economy. We need to get our country moving again. We have so many comparative advantages to other countries--so many. We have the greatest universities in the world right here in America--the greatest universities in the world compared to any other country. We have agriculture, farmers who feed the world. We have a high-tech sector that is the envy of the world. We have a capital markets sector that commercializes great ideas quicker than any place in the world. We have natural resources--oil, gas, minerals--that are the envy of the world. We are producing more natural gas than any place in the world right now. We are producing more oil than Saudi Arabia right now because our private sector has innovation, ingenuity, hard work. We have tremendous advantages that almost any other country would envy. What we need to do now is unleash this country's might, unleash the great potential that is the American economy. We need to refuel America. When we grow our economy, we will protect our country. We need regulatory reform. Right now the cost of regulations to our economy according to the President's own Small Business Administration is close to $2 trillion a year. That is almost $15,000 per American family. Think about that--$15,000 per family is keeping us down. We need a competitive tax system. We need to unleash the might of our private sector through cutting redtape and making sure that we are open for business, not strangling businesses with redtape from Washington. I want to emphasize these issues because we have been talking about the NDAA, the national defense of our country, for the past few days on the Senate floor, and we are going to be talking about these important issues next week as well. And they are critical issues, but this is a critical issue. If we can't grow our economy, if we can't get back to traditional levels of American growth, we are going to continue to have challenges. But if we can do this, if we can grow consistently by 4.5 or 5 percent in GDP growth, that is the best way to address our challenges, our deficit, our $18 trillion debt, our national security and the funding of our military. We need to focus more on the economy. This administration has failed the American people on these issues. We need to unleash the might of this great economy of ours, and we will keep our country safe by doing so. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National Defense Authorization Act. This is a bipartisan bill that will provide our servicemembers with the funding they need to continue to keep our country safe. Over the last 5 months, we have had numerous senior military officials, senior military officers, and foreign policy experts talk to the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve about the significant challenges that our country faces. The senior Senator from Arizona talked about this very eloquently today on the floor about ISIL, a resurgent Russia, North Korea with nuclear weapons, and this NDAA bill that we are now debating on the floor focuses on addressing these challenges. It also makes important modernizations to our investments with regard to military weapons, cuts bureaucratic redtape at the Pentagon, and ensures that our Armed Forces remain the most agile and lethal in the world. It upholds our commitments to our servicemembers, to their families, to military retirees, and to their families. It is remarkable that right now, as we debate this bill--this critically important bill on the Senate floor--the President of the United States has already come out and said he is going to likely veto it if it is in its current form. He is going to veto the NDAA. Think about that. One of the most important things we are doing to take care of our troops, and the President is threatening a veto. Now, during the markup of this bill, many Members on the other side of the aisle--our colleagues--also threatened to work on the amendments but to not vote for the bill. They were all going to vote against the bill. But we stood firm--the chairman and other members of the committee--and said: This is not the kind of bill we play politics with. This is not the kind of bill we try to make political points on. This is a bill that funds our troops, that funds the defense of our Nation. Guess what happened. They got the message. Only four members of the Senate Armed Services Committee voted against this bill. It was a very bipartisan bill coming out of the committee, and I certainly hope, when this bill passes the U.S. Senate and moves to conference with the House and then moves to the President's desk, that he does not play politics with our troops; that he removes his threat to veto one of the most important pieces of legislation that we will work on this year. I wish to thank the senior Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his critical leadership in ushering this bill out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I had the distinct honor of traveling with Senator McCain recently to Asia, including to Vietnam, where his service has inspired countless millions of Americans as well as the people of Vietnam. I saw that firsthand. It was humbling. It was an honor to be there with him, Senator Reed, and Senator Ernst on a trip I will certainly remember for a lifetime. Now, we all took an oath a few months ago to pledge solemnly to ``defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.'' We took that oath right here on this floor. That is what the NDAA does. It gives our servicemembers what they need to fight and defend our great Nation. That is why 53 NDAAs have consecutively passed the Congress. It hasn't been about partisanship. This bill has moved through the Congress every year for over half a century because it is so important. So again, I would say it would be remarkable if the President of the United States would veto this, particularly given the threats that we see to our Nation. I want to talk about those rising threats and one of the biggest ones that doesn't get enough attention. We have heard from the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and from both sides of the aisle about what those threats are facing our Nation: ISIS, Iran, Russia, China. These are rising threats, no doubt. But there is a rising threat to our national security that almost never gets talked about, and in some ways it is the biggest threat that our Nation faces. I am talking about our economy. I am talking about the need for a strong economy. Our economy is one of the most critical elements of our national security. A strong robust economy is our best defense. We have the greatest military in the world, no doubt--the most professional military force in the world, no doubt. We have built this up over decades. But we built this up and we have it because for decades we have had a strong economy. For decades we have had the most innovative, robust economy in the world. A strong economy is our best weapon against those who would do us harm. A strong economy means more peace, more security, and more prosperity. When America is strong, when it is working, when it is producing, when our economy is robust, the world is safer. Our strength sends a signal to the world. It allows us to set the narrative, to set the rules. It allows us to become the beacon that this country has been for generations. Right now, we don't have this critical component of our national security, a strong economy. We do not have this. As a matter of fact, our economy is getting weaker, not stronger. The verdict is in. Economists from all across the country, of all political persuasions, agree that the recovery from the last recession has been one of the slowest economic recoveries this country has ever had. We have not had a slower recovery in well over 50 years. The American Enterprise Institute has called this recovery ``glacially and painfully slow by historic standards.'' Even the Center for American Progress, a very liberal think tank, has said that ``this has been a poor recovery in every regard.'' That was last year. This year it is worse. The gross domestic product, which is the value of everything this country produces, last quarter shrank. Let me repeat that. We didn't grow. We didn't grow by 1 percent, 2 percent. The economy of the United States shrank by almost 1 percent. We contracted. It is the third time the economy has shrunk since 2009. We don't even have a recovery. We don't have a recovery. Right now we have no growth. That means Americans have less money in their pockets. It means wages haven't kept up with inflation. It means the gap between the richest and the poorest is growing. We must get back to higher growth rates. We must get back to traditional levels of American growth. We must get back to an economy that makes us stronger globally and produces hope and opportunity at home. It wasn't too long ago that we expected in this country at least 4 percent annual GDP growth. That is a very normal, traditional level of American growth. When President Reagan was in office, the average growth rate was about 4.8 percent. During President Clinton and the first term of President Bush it was 3.5 to 4 percent GDP growth. (Mr. PERDUE assumed the Chair.) My colleague from Louisiana, who was just presiding, wrote a recent excellent article in the Wall Street Journal. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be printed in the Record.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Understanding America's Long-Term Fiscal Picture.''

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 21, 2015, at 10:15 a.m., in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Financial Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015.''

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room 328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. SULLIVAN

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the trade promotion authority bill which has been debated on the Senate floor the last few days. I begin, though, by complimenting my good friend and colleague from Ohio--one of the most well-respected Members of this body, I think an example of a true American statesman, and certainly one of our best U.S. Trade Representatives who knows a lot about the topic that we have been debating. So I thank him for his tremendous service for the people of Ohio and of our country. The TPA bill we have been debating is going to be good for the country. It will help move our country forward, provide tremendous opportunities for growth and expansion--for our farmers, ranchers, businesses, fishermen, workers, and those in the high-tech sector. As Senator Portman mentioned, 95 percent of all global consumers lie outside of the United States--95 percent. What we need to do is access those consumers to have more opportunity. Currently, it is estimated that over 38 million jobs in the United States are tied to trade. The trade agreements we are talking about on the Senate floor that would come after TPA will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and new opportunities for Americans. These are good jobs, and we need more jobs. This has been one of the weakest recoveries of any major recession in American history. We are barely growing at 1.5 percent, 2 percent GDP growth. These are not traditional levels of American growth. Why? Why has our growth been so slow? Well, there are many reasons. But I think the overregulation of our economy by the Federal Government clearly is one of the major reasons, and trade agreements are exactly the kind of boost we need. What do trade agreements do? They reduce regulations, they cut redtape, they reduce taxes on goods coming in to American families. We need this kind of policy, in terms of less regulation and more freedom for our domestic economy and internationally. That is how we are going to get moving again. That is how we are going to get this economy moving again. That is how we are going to get Americans working again. That is why TPA is so important to begin this process. But TPA is also about American leadership--bipartisan U.S. American leadership. Since the end of World War II, every administration--Democratic, Republican, it doesn't matter--has wanted to lead on trade, has wanted to obtain trade promotion authority, and that has been critical to American leadership, global leadership, and helping our businesses and workers. It is also critical to make sure we have a seat at the table, to set the rules for the global trading regime as we have traditionally done-- again, bipartisan, Democrats and Republicans for decades have been doing this--and to help make sure we are leveling the playing field for our workers. The American workers--the American fisherman, the American rancher, the American farmer--can compete against anyone in the world with a level playing field. We have done that for decades. That is the American way, but we have to be in the game. We need to be the country setting the rules. We need to be the country that lays out trade agreements that have strong intellectual property rights protection, that open markets, that get rid of state-owned enterprises, that have strong enforcement provisions--so when countries cheat in global trade, we have the ability to enforce rules and strike back if we need to, to protect our economy, our workers, our farmers, our fishermen. I wish to talk a little bit about free trade as it relates to my home State of Alaska. Here are some facts about trade in Alaska: Already, in my State of Alaska there are over 90,000 jobs tied to trade. That is more than one in five of all jobs in the Alaska economy tied to global trade, particularly trade to the Asia-Pacific region. We are also a huge recipient of foreign direct investment--foreign direct investment that employs Alaskans. These are good jobs. Fourteen thousand Alaskans are directly employed by foreign companies, and there are tens of thousands more who are indirectly benefited. So many Alaskans count on these important jobs. In terms of exports, of course we are a very large State with a relatively small population--a little over 700,000 citizens. But in 2013, the State of Alaska exported over $6 billion in goods and services. Per capita exports, we are a powerhouse. We are one of the strongest exporters in the country. And in terms of fish and seafood, we are the superpower of exports--not per capita but absolute exports. In 2013, we exported roughly $2.3 billion in seafood and fish. The fishing industry is a very important industry for a lot of States in our country, but more than half of all seafood harvested in America comes from Alaska's waters. It is also one of the biggest employers in my State. In fact, it is the biggest employer in my State, even more than some of the resource industries. There are 78,000 Alaskans employed in this industry, and these are the epitome of small businesses. Every fishing vessel, when you look at one, is a small business. What do they do? They take risks. I am sure some have seen ``The Deadliest Catch.'' A lot of times they are family-owned. They work hard, and they produce a great product--a great product--king crab, fresh Alaska salmon--a great product. These are classic American small businesses, which brings me to my amendment. As my colleague from Ohio mentioned, there are a lot of discussions right now. We sure hope Members of this body are going to have opportunities to present amendments to make the TPA bill stronger. The amendment I have filed, that I want to offer, is a simple amendment to make a principal negotiating objective under TPA focusing on making sure members of the fishing community--American Fish, American Seafoods--have opportunities for more open markets overseas. This will benefit the hard-working fishing families all across America. This amendment will ensure that of the many TPA objectives, this one will be in there--more access to markets, more opportunities for these great American small businesses. As I mentioned, not only in terms of Alaska is this an important industry, this is a hugely important industry for the United States. In 2013, our country exported over $5.5 billion worth of fish and seafood. The commercial fishing industry in the United States in 2013 employed over 1 million Americans, with an income of $32 billion. Let me repeat that: Over 1 million Americans in this industry nationwide and $32 billion in income--and, again, most of these are classic American small businesses. This is who TPA should be focused on. As I mentioned, the current TPA bill has negotiating objectives for a lot of important industries in our great country--textile, agriculture, services, manufactured goods. There are about 20 specific trading negotiating objectives that the TPA bill directs the U.S. Trade Representative to get in terms of the free-trade agreements he will try to seek once TPA has been passed, and this is the way it should be. Those are all great sectors. Agriculture is hugely important to our country. But we should also have a similar negotiating objective for another very important industry in this country--our seafood industry, the fishing industry. This is a simple amendment. It asks that the U.S. trade negotiator focus as a principal objective to make sure this industry has opportunities just like all the other industries do and, importantly, particularly as we are trying to work through this bill to see what amendments we can get on it, this is a very bipartisan amendment. Senator Markey of Massachusetts, on the other side, has a lot of hard-working fishing families. So from Alaska to Massachusetts, this is a very bipartisan bill that will help small businesses, and it help coastal communities that rely so much on fishing. Finally, I want to talk about TPA and go back to the issue of American leadership. TPA, open trade, and free-trade agreements can work for America. They can work for our workers, farmers, businesses, ranchers, fishermen. I know. I have had the opportunity of seeing this firsthand. I worked as an Assistant Secretary of State under Condoleezza Rice on economic issues, on trade issues, and a number of the free-trade agreements we currently have in force were ones I had an opportunity to work on with many members in the Federal Government. Let me give two examples: the free-trade agreement we had with Singapore and the free-trade agreement we had with Australia. Once these were passed and the barriers to our exports came down, American exports skyrocketed to these countries. As I mentioned, American workers can compete with anyone. Give us a level playing field, and we will take advantage of it. U.S. exports, in terms of goods to Australia, rose 33 percent between 2004 and 2009. U.S. goods exports to Singapore were up $21 billion--31 percent--from 2003 to 2009. I met with the Singapore Ambassador today. He reminded me that we actually have a trade surplus with Singapore, as I believe we do with Australia, because of these free-trade agreements. So free-trade agreements are a win-win for our country economically, but they also importantly deepen the economic ties that bind our country and our citizens to some of our most important friends and allies--such as the country of Singapore, such as the country of Australia, and that is happening. Finally, though, trade is also about American leadership, it is about American confidence, the ability to say: Open the markets and we can compete with anyone. We need that confidence back. For too long under this administration we have been disengaged from the world. For too long we have allowed other countries to be in the driver's seat globally--where we have not been driving events, we have been reacting to events internationally. For too long we have been withdrawing, for too long we have been leading from behind, and for too long we have not been showing confidence globally; we have been showing weakness. Weakness is provocative, and you see that all over the world. Now, I have been critical of this administration's approach to foreign policy in a whole host of areas--its foreign policy of global disengagement, its lack of confidence, and American leadership in the world. But I applaud the President for what he is doing now. I applaud the President for his strategy of rebalancing the focus of military forces and trade in the Asia-Pacific. I applaud the President for doing the hard work of seeking TPA. These are never easy votes. These are never easy votes. But we should support what he is doing because it means America is back. We are engaging again. We are not leading from behind. We are leading the way countless administrations in the past have done with regard to global trade. This will enable us to determine our future, to drive it, not react to it. I urge my colleagues to vote for this TPA bill because it is a vote for American leadership. I also urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment that is going to help many small businesses throughout the United States and coastal communities and our strong fishing communities. My amendment will strengthen the TPA bill, and I encourage all my colleagues to support that amendment as well. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.