[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 209 (Thursday, December 21, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8192-S8193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Democratic leader for
his remarks.
When I was speaking a few moments ago about national security, I had
made a suggestion to the administration that there is a national
security strategy that has been outlined and that the administration
reject the false choice between investing at home and engaging abroad
and make sure that they utilize our diplomatic and development toolkits
as much as if not more than they exercise our defense capabilities.
We have major challenges, and that is why I think it is important to
outline this morning some of those challenges and some of our responses
as we head into the new year.
Just for discussion purposes, I wanted to paint the picture of a
nation that--it doesn't describe one nation, but I think we can imagine
a country that fits this description or at least a number of countries
that might. Imagine a sovereign state, a member of the United Nations,
a nation whose leaders are singularly focused on staying in power and
who will do anything to remain in power, including undermining their
colleagues and erstwhile friends. In this country I am describing,
those who speak truth to power are dismissed, ridiculed, or, at worst,
treated as criminals. This particular country or profile of a country
looks inward, putting its domestic troubles first as its reputation in
the world declines. Out of fear of its near-peer competitors, the
country retreats from diplomatic engagement and doubles down on
military capabilities. Does this sound familiar? It might to some. It
may describe a number of countries in whole or in part.
Of course, there are a number of countries that fit this description.
Certainly, the dictatorial regimes that rule North Korea, Syria, and
Iran prioritize self-preservation over the welfare of their citizens.
In Russia and China, journalists and opposition leaders are regularly
silenced, jailed, or worse.
Here in the United States, we are going through an especially
turbulent chapter in the American story. As we celebrate the holidays,
we might be dreading the inevitable political debates with family
members or friends whose views differ from ours. However, in that
fictitious, oppressive country that I described earlier, you can't have
these debates, or you can try, but you won't last too long because the
authorities will come knocking.
That is what is great about our country. The United States is the
land of the free and the home of the brave, and I am reminded of that
every time I meet with servicemembers and veterans who are willing to
put their lives on the line every day to defend our inalienable rights
to criticize and to disagree with our leaders.
So what about this new strategy that the administration just outlined
this week? This new strategy states, in pertinent part, that ``America
possesses unmatched political, economic, military, and technological
advantages.'' That is what the strategy says, and that is certainly
true. But I think we should add a few other advantages, even
attributes, that are part of the American story, part of the American
advantage.
Certainly, our history of generosity sets us apart from the world, a
tradition of pluralism as well, the freedom to debate and dissent
without fear, the respect for the rule of law, and finally a culture of
innovation unmatched anywhere in the world. As I have said before,
Americans don't wait for the future; we invent the future.
Through the execution of its strategy, the administration has an
opportunity to invent the future of our Nation, as well as its role in
the world--a future where the American economy is firing on all
cylinders, where investments here at home lift up everyone, where our
researchers and manufacturers lead the world in the production of
cutting-edge technologies.
For the last 11 months, this administration has sent the world mixed
signals about what ``America first'' really means, from pulling out of
the Paris climate agreement, to threatening to walk away from NATO, to
hollowing out the State Department. I believe the strategy
implementation presents an opportunity to reverse that course. We
cannot turn away from the world and try to go it alone. We should ask
our allies, certainly, to pull their weight and pay their fair share.
Whether it is NATO or the counter-ISIS coalition, the United States can
always press our partners to do more, but not by threatening that we
will abandon these alliances or by creating any uncertainty about these
alliances. Simply put, we need partners to tackle some of the greatest
threats facing our Nation and the world.
Let's go through a couple of them.
North Korea is first on the list. The North Korean regime is
unpredictable and armed with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
and the means to deliver them. Just across the demilitarized zone are
tens of thousands of U.S. forces and our South Korean allies. Just
across the water are more
[[Page S8193]]
U.S. military personnel and our Japanese allies. This regime is a
significant threat--the North Korean regime. It is a threat exacerbated
by reckless ridicule, bombastic statements, and ill-considered tweets.
One miscalculation can be disastrous. The administration should
accelerate serious, sober diplomacy in lockstep with our allies. For
the New Year, let's agree to a new rule for all of us--both branches of
government: Leave the tweets for domestic policy only. Sound foreign
policy and security policy cannot be done in 280 characters.
Congress has offered the administration powerful leverage in this
circumstance in the form of several pieces of legislation. First, the
Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act passed this
summer, and the Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act is
pending before the Senate now. I support these tough, bipartisan
sanctions measures because I believe turning the economic screws,
coupled with genuine diplomacy, can yield results. In the New Year, I
urge the President to tone down the rhetoric and to empower the
Secretary of State and our senior diplomats to find a diplomatic path
toward a stable North Korea that doesn't threaten the United States or
our allies.
How about terrorist groups around the world? Over the last 16 years,
the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and our homeland
security professionals have worked hand in hand to meet the rise of
terrorist groups head on. We owe the men and women in uniform a debt of
gratitude for tirelessly leading the coalition fight that has rolled
back ISIS's territorial gains. Implementing the administration's new
strategy and its call to fight terrorism at its source is not just
about the military fight. The United States should also lead the
international community in addressing the underlying issues that drive
terrorist recruitment and help to rebuild communities newly liberated
from terrorist control.
Think about this. More than 65 million people around the world are
displaced from their homes right now. There is no purely military
solution for this refugee crisis. A successful counterterrorism
strategy requires us to work with our partners for information sharing
and for contributions of development assistance.
Another trouble spot in the world is Syria. In Syria, the connection
between instability, displacement, and terrorism is clear. This
conflict has been raging for nearly 7 years. In the absence of U.S.
engagement on a political solution to this crisis, regional powers--
namely, Russia, Iran, and Turkey--have run the table, to the benefit of
the murderous Assad regime and at the expense of the Syrian people. The
United States has abdicated its leadership role and ceded control of
the outcomes to nations with interests often in direct conflict with
our own.
Recently, we learned that the administration will endorse a political
transition plan that leaves Bashar al-Assad in power for at least
another 4 years. This is unacceptable and dangerous. Assad is
responsible for terrible war crimes that led to the deaths of hundreds
of thousands of Syrians and the displacement of millions more. The
strategy outlined by the administration says: ``We will seek a
settlement to the Syrian civil war that sets the conditions for
refugees to return home and rebuild their lives and safety.''
I agree with that goal. Most people would agree with that goal, but
the administration has missed the bigger picture. We need a strategy
that pushes back on Russian and Iranian influence in Syria and
addresses the underlying grievances that led to the conflict in the
first place.
Let me move to Iran. The Iranian regime remains a powerful force for
instability in the Middle East, especially through its support of
terrorist proxies and militias. We know that the Iranians want to
maintain control of territory linking Tehran with Beirut. So they will
continue to act against U.S. interests in Iraq and Syria. Here, again,
Congress has offered powerful tools to the administration in the form
of the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act.
The nuclear deal with Iran is giving us an unprecedented visibility
on the Iranian nuclear program, but the multilateral diplomatic
channels built alongside that agreement have atrophied under this
administration. Every time the President threatens to walk away from
the Iran nuclear deal, he sends a clear signal to our allies and
adversaries alike: U.S. commitments are written in disappearing ink.
If the administration wants to get tough on Iran's nonnuclear bad
behavior, there are concrete steps to take today:
No. 1, work with our allies to step up maritime interdictions of any
illicit weapons traffic to or from Iran.
No. 2, push the Europeans to do more to combat the financial networks
that enrich the Iranian terrorist proxy, Hezbollah. My bipartisan Stop
Terrorist Operational Resources and Money Act, or the so-called STORM
Act, which is bipartisan, could help with that.
No. 3, begin diplomatic conversations with our allies about a
multilateral strategy to curtail the Iranian ballistic missile program.
All of these efforts take cooperation with our allies, which the
President makes harder every time he calls into question the future of
the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Finally, as to Russia and China, the new strategy by this
administration repeatedly describes Russia and China as our
competitors. Let me be clear. These countries are not our friends. They
actively work against U.S. interests. They are threatened by American
military dominance and economic power, and both are trying to game the
system to undermine our advantages.
China systemically, perniciously games the international trade system
to its advantage. I firmly believe American workers and industry can
outinnovate and outproduce any others in the world when the playing
field is level. Driven by similar motives, Russia has meddled in
elections across the Western world, trying to undermine confidence in
one of our most fundamental institutions of democracy. Again, there are
concrete steps the administration can take to counter these threats
from both China and Russia: No. 1, shore up our electoral systems and
help others do the same; No. 2, counter propaganda; No. 3, fight
corruption; and No. 4, get serious about holding trade cheaters like
China accountable.
Through engagement and cooperation, we can lead the rest of the world
away from the Cold War-era clash of major powers that Russia and China
want to create.
In conclusion, if this outline of some of the threats and challenges
posed seems like a tremendous challenge--a great challenge for our
Nation--it is because it always has been so. It has always been a
challenge.
President Truman once said:
America was not built on fear. America was built on
courage, on imagination and on unbeatable determination to do
the job at hand.
When faced with a challenge, whether it is Pennsylvanians or
Americans, we don't shrink inward. We step up. Our adversaries want us
to be divided and dispirited. These adversaries underestimate the
courage, the imagination, and the determination of the American people.
President Trump might see it differently, but as we close out 2017, I
see a world that needs American leadership more than ever. To
paraphrase President Kennedy, we should seek not a Pax Americana
enforced on the world by American weapons of war but a genuine peace
that makes life on Earth worth living. The American people are ready to
rise to that challenge. I hope the administration is too.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The majority whip.
____________________