[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 52 (Thursday, March 29, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S2223]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        OBAMA/MEDVEDEV EXCHANGE

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today greatly 
disturbed and upset, as are many Americans, by the comments President 
Obama made on Monday to outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at 
the nuclear security summit in Seoul, Korea. The exchange, which was 
accidentally recorded by a Russian journalist, suggests that President 
Obama's stance on missile defense will change after the November 
election. It implies that the President is willing to make more 
concessions to an authoritarian government that has caused Americans 
concern time and time again. It raises questions about what else might 
be hidden on the President's agenda if he secures a second term in the 
White House.
  Americans can view the recording themselves as President Obama tells 
Mr. Medvedev:

       On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this 
     can be solved but it's important for him [Putin] to give me 
     space.

  ``Him'' meaning former and future President Vladimir Putin. Mr. 
Medvedev responds by saying:

       Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. 
     Space for you.

  President Obama then goes on to say:

       This is my last election. After my election, I have more 
     flexibility.

  It is unbelievable and chilling that President Obama would make his 
election a factor in how he deals with an important national security 
issue that could have dangerous implications for America and its 
allies. Even the hint of compromising on our missile defense capability 
is reckless when the prospect of nuclear-armed missiles is a real 
and growing threat.

  Equally alarming is the looming question lingering over what the 
President actually means when he says ``more flexibility.'' The 
administration continues to press for resetting bilateral relations but 
fails to follow through on an approach that takes into consideration 
how Russia has not made good on its promises in the past. Simply put, 
we cannot trust the Russian Government to keep its word. We have no 
reason to believe that greater cooperation will come from giving the 
Russians what they want.
  The question now arises: How can we trust our own President not to 
say one thing before the election and yet do something entirely 
different afterwards? Let us not forget the Russian Ambassador vetoed 
two United Nations Security Council resolutions supporting the Syrian 
people, a move that prompted the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, 
Susan Rice, to say that Russia decided to stand with a dictator. 
Indeed, Russia seems comfortable standing beside a dictator.
  In addition, Russian officials rejected the idea of tougher sanctions 
against Iran despite a report from the International Atomic Energy 
Agency reinforcing concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Russia also 
voted against the United Nation's General Assembly resolution 
expressing concern over the ``violations of civil, political, economic, 
social and cultural rights'' in North Korea.
  Many of my colleagues and I have come to the floor on multiple 
occasions to express our concern with Russia's deteriorating rule of 
law and respect for human rights. This is not the kind of relationship 
President Obama promised when he pressed for passage of the new START 
treaty in late 2010 over strong objections from many of my colleagues. 
It sends the wrong signal to our allies throughout Europe who are 
worried about undue pressure from Russia. At the end of the day, better 
U.S.-Russian relations are not a foregone conclusion, and President 
Obama would be wise to remember that one-sided promises are not the 
means to get there. He should also not forget that the Constitution 
requires the advice and consent of the Senate on foreign policy 
decisions.
  Over the coming months the Senate will likely take up several issues 
related to Russia, and I look forward to having a frank discussion 
about the President's ideas and the President's intentions. Mr. Obama's 
comments in Seoul are only one instance of the President pledging to 
have more flexibility after election day, but they rightly cause us to 
speculate about what else he expects to do. Americans are right to 
wonder what other promises are being made that we do not know about.
  At the end of the exchange in Seoul, President Obama and President 
Medvedev clasped hands and Mr. Medvedev promised, ``I will transmit 
this information to Vladimir.'' In other words, but for the accident of 
an open microphone, the President's intentions would have been known by 
Mr. Putin, but not known by the American people. Mr. Medvedev's reply 
is a grim reminder of what happens when one person is able to seize 
unrestrained power, as Mr. Putin has demonstrated, and should be a 
lesson for all of us. It also should give all Americans pause as we 
approach this fall's election.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________