[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 187 (Monday, November 13, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5468-S5470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Biden Administration
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, shortly after President Biden took
office, I gave a speech wondering whether this new President Biden's
tough-on-Russia rhetoric would be matched by his administration's
actions. I wondered about President Biden because the actions of the
Obama-Biden administration were dangerously weak.
We all know that when it comes to Russia, weakness is provocative. It
encourages aggression. Russians follow the maxim attributed to Lenin:
You probe with bayonets: If you find mush, you push. If you
find steel, you withdraw.
The same is true when dealing with Iran and China. Only 6 months
after Russia invaded and occupied portions of the Republic of Georgia,
then-Vice President Biden went to Munich to deliver a speech calling
for the United States to hit the ``reset button'' with Russia. When
Russia invaded, the Republic of Georgia was westernizing and had gone
out of its way to cement close ties with our country.
Georgia even sent soldiers to fight and die alongside American
soldiers, but that support from Georgia was quickly forgotten in order
to reset relations with Russia. Secretary of State Clinton actually did
hit the ``reset button'' in an embarrassing, chummy ceremony with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
As part of the Obama-Biden reset, the United States unilaterally
canceled planned missile defense cooperation with our allies the Czechs
and the Poles, and the administration did so on the anniversary of the
Soviet invasion of Poland.
[[Page S5469]]
All of these actions then sent the exact wrong message to both Russia
and to our allies. No doubt the Obama-Biden administration thought our
unilateral show of goodwill would be warmly received and reciprocated
by Russia.
Instead, we know that Russia under Putin invaded and occupied
Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula and chunks of eastern Ukraine. The Obama-
Biden administration responded with angry words but refused to send
Ukraine defensive weapons of any kind.
President Obama urged Ukraine not to fight the 2014 Russian invasion.
The priority was to avoid escalation. The Obama-Biden administration
backed negotiations and a diplomatic solution.
Now, we all know Russia has a history of using negotiations to create
frozen conflicts that it can use then to destabilize and control its
neighbors. Historically, Russia will snatch a piece of land and then
demand a ceasefire and negotiations, allowing it to keep the ill-gotten
gains indefinitely. Meanwhile, Russia builds up its next aggression
while weakening its target.
The Obama-Biden reset and subsequent Ukraine policy was a disaster
for peace and security. In August 2013, the regime of Syrian President
Assad used chemical weapons. By doing so, it crossed President Biden's
redline--that famous ``redline'' that he spoke about. When nothing
happened, then, the world took notice.
Meanwhile, the Obama-Biden administration sought to strike an Iran
nuclear deal at all costs, alienating regional partners and emboldening
the Iranian regime.
In June of 2019, President Trump repeated a version of President
Obama's redline mistake. At that time, Iran had shot down a U.S. drone,
and the U.S. military had prepared a retaliatory strike, as you would
expect their defense to do. But President Trump stepped in, calling off
the strike, and, then, you know, he publicly announced that he had done
so 10 minutes before that attack was supposed to be launched.
President Trump's aborted retaliation then led to further escalation
by the Iranian regime, including attacks on U.S. soldiers; that is,
until President Trump finally took some solid action, making that bold
decision to restore deterrence by killing General Soleimani, as he was
plotting further attacks against U.S. forces. Iran responded with a
token missile barrage, but the dramatic escalation of the conflict with
Iran, predicted by some, fortunately, never materialized. In fact, Iran
was deterred.
Then, the Biden administration came into office and began
negotiations to resurrect the Iran deal.
Of course, who can ever forget the disastrous withdrawals from
Afghanistan? In time, we will learn more about the decisions that lead
to such enormous loss of American military equipment to the Taliban,
while leaving many Afghans who worked with our military still under
Taliban control--and still today.
Both of these losses sting this very day and influence others to see
us as weak or somebody who can't be counted on, as far as our friends
are concerned. But there is another loss that is harder to quantify;
that is, the loss of the reputation of the United States.
Like it or not, stacked on top of the other expressions of American
weakness that I have described, the Afghanistan debacle led to a
perception that the United States is weak and unwilling to stand behind
its commitments. After the Afghanistan embarrassment, our allies and
partners worried that we were no longer reliable. Worse yet, those
countries that have long sought America's downfall no longer feared us.
Our enemies were emboldened.
According to Russian opposition journalist Mikhail Zygar, in his
recent book, the fall of Kabul was a turning point in Putin's mind.
Putin became convinced then that he could conquer Kyiv, President
Zelenskyy would flee the country, and the United States would do
nothing to stop that takeover of Ukraine.
Today, we face the consequences of an emboldened Russia and an
emboldened Iran. And, two, China is increasingly aggressive in the
South China Sea and the Strait of Taiwan. To be sure, our responses are
being closely watched by all three of these adversaries: Russia, China,
and Iran. This is a critical time when sending more messages of
weakness would be very dangerous.
Today, some people--even in my own political party--are reverting to
the Obama-era stance, arguing that we cannot afford the actions
necessary to deter all three would-be adversaries of our country. I am
convinced that we must deter further aggression from our enemies. We
must restore credible deterrence before we reach the point where we
have to expend much more, both in American blood and American treasure.
Estonia's Prime Minister is in town this week. Remember that little
country that was taken over by the Soviet Union in 1940 and, until the
early 1990s, was still under their control? Now they are a free nation.
We ought to listen to them of what freedom really means.
So I recommend to my colleagues to listen to Prime Minister Kallas,
if you have any chance to do that. She has shown remarkable clarity and
leadership since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. She often points
out:
If Putin wins, or if he even has the view that he has won
this war, his appetite will only grow.
Meanwhile, that old impulse to deter ourselves is still evident in
this present administration when the U.S. National Security Advisor
says he is worried about starting World War III. That is a way of
convincing Putin to hang on a little longer.
We should have learned by now that escalation of aggression happens
when the United States demonstrates weakness. Telegraphing that we are
afraid to give Ukraine what it needs to win is deeply counterproductive
to freedom and, most importantly, to the Ukrainian people, but also
encouraging Russia because, remember, for Russians, weakness, not
strength, is provocative.
I urge Members of both political parties to discard the failed Obama
policies of weakness toward Russia and give Ukraine what it needs
today. Reset didn't work, and ignoring Russia's ambitions in that area
is harmful for peace around the world and, particularly, for national
security. Our national security is tied, through NATO, with Europe.
The more advanced weapons that Ukraine can obtain quickly, the faster
that war will be over. When it comes to quick decisions to send needed
weapons to Ukraine to defeat Russia, several countries have shown great
leadership: the United Kingdom, Poland, and the three Baltic countries,
for example.
Now, for sure, yes, the United States has provided many advanced
weapons to Ukraine--the most of any country helping Ukraine--but
usually only months after they are needed to have the maximum effect
that these good weapons provide.
Ukraine didn't get the tanks needed to launch the counteroffensive
until after the Russians had months to dig in and fortify their
frontlines.
After months of dithering, President Biden finally gave permission
for the Dutch and Danish to send their F-16s to Ukraine, but it will
still take months to train the pilots.
The United States military would never launch a ground campaign
without controlling the skies, but that is what Ukraine has been forced
to do without the F-16s. After all the public hemming and hawing,
President Biden finally approved sending a version of the ATACMS
missiles to Ukraine, but shorter range cluster munitions were the
variant that was sent, not the most destructive.
Meanwhile, President Biden is still withholding the long-range
versions needed to take out the Russian supply lines in the Crimean
Peninsula. Now, I can only assume this is another example of self-
deterrence that has proven so misguided a policy of the past.
Ukrainians are making steady progress, but they could be doing it
faster and at less cost in American dollars and Ukrainian lives if
President Biden would not be so hesitant, as he is, to take bold
action.
The United States has spent roughly $44 billion on military aid to
Ukraine. That happens to be roughly 5 percent of the U.S. military's
own budget. Ukraine remains in control of roughly 83 percent of its
territory, and the U.S. intelligence community believes the war has
severely degraded Russia's military power and its ability to threaten
NATO allies. That is a victory not just for Ukraine's independence but
for our own national security, as it is
[[Page S5470]]
tied to the invoking of article 5 of the NATO alliance.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine sent a wake-up call to our military
that we need to increase our capacity to produce munitions. We have
ramped up production and are already investing in new capacity so we
will not be caught flatfooted in any future conflict. I am glad to say
this is already in evidence at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in West
Burlington in my State. The dedicated workforce in Iowa is cranking out
155-millimeter howitzer shells and a host of other key munitions.
Ground was recently broken for $1.2 billion in upgrades to the Iowa
plant, paid out of the Ukraine funding package passed by the Congress.
I know people talk like the money Congress allocated was literally
sent over to Ukraine and every dollar was spent within that country,
but the reality is that most of the money stayed right here in the
United States to produce arms and ammo and to build production
capacity.
I am proud that the portion of the Ukraine funding sent to Iowa will
help keep the United States the ``arsenal of democracy'' for years to
come.
Ramping up our military production capacity is good news for our U.S.
military readiness. It is also good news for Taiwan. The closed
production line for the Stinger air defense system has meant Taiwan's
orders have gone unfulfilled for years. That Stinger line is now
reopening.
I do not believe the United States is incapable of addressing the
multiple international challenges we face, and I fear the consequences
if we don't face strongly those challenges.
The United States believed that it could ignore World War I and World
War II until those wars became so large that we got dragged into those
conflicts. Once the United States joined the fight, our participation
was decisive but at enormous cost in American lives and American
dollars. We learned our lesson after World War II and took action to
make sure it wasn't repeated, and it hasn't been repeated. We did that
by helping form NATO to keep the peace in Europe for now 70 years.
Putin's Russia is continuing the Russian tradition of imperial
conquest and will not stop unless they are stopped. All you have to do
is look at what Putin himself has said. In addresses going back to 2008
and a couple of times since then, he said that his goal was to
reestablish the old Soviet Union. I guess he put it in the strongest
terms when he said that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the
greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. So you know he is
going to welcome the support he is getting from Iran, and Iran happens
to be sending drones to Russia to attack the civilian areas of Ukraine.
Iran also funds and backs Hamas as it inflicts a reign of terror on
innocent Israeli citizens. And for all those people who are
demonstrating around the country that you see on TV over the last 4
weekends against what is going on in Israel and Gaza, it seems to me it
ought to be pretty clear that there wouldn't be a single killing going
on today in that region of the country if Hamas had not invaded Israel.
That seems to be forgotten by all the people who are demonstrating. I
know they are peacefully demonstrating for the most part, and that is
their constitutional right, and I defend that right. But we have Iran
involved in this as well because it funds and backs Hamas as it
inflicts a reign of terror on innocent civilians.
Iran is firing rockets at U.S. soldiers in the region, resulting in
injuries--I guess if you believe the TV reports, about 48 instances of
attacks against American soldiers. Thankfully, nobody has been killed
at this point, but there have been injuries and some of them very
serious injuries, and we have not responded accordingly, showing
weakness. Iran respects our weakness and attacks more.
China is backing Russia diplomatically, economically, and with
technology that is being used to attack in Ukraine.
So I hope you see this China-Iran-Russia axis against the interests
of NATO, against the interests of peace, against the interests of
liberty and the independence of countries as something we should take
very seriously.
China is deterred also from attacking Taiwan and dominating other
neighbors in Asia largely based on its assessment of America's military
strength and political will.
So whether it is Russia, Iran, China, it ought to be a concern for
all of us. It is just not Russia v. Ukraine. What would China make of
the United States throwing in the towel again so quickly? It is pretty
clear from history, we must not find out. We know what Russia is up to.
We know what China is up to. We know what Iran is up to. We have to
make sure they don't succeed.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.