[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Page S1813]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Foreign Policy

  Mr. President, now, on another matter, runaway inflation and historic 
tax hikes aren't the only signs that President Biden's budget was 
crafted in fantasyland. And, amazingly, yesterday, even as the Biden 
administration was proposing the biggest tax hikes in American history, 
that wasn't even the biggest problem of the day.
  Most of President Biden's press conference yesterday focused on 
seemingly major inconsistencies between his public remarks on foreign 
policy and the actual policy of his administration. A few days ago, 
President Biden seemed to dramatically change American policy toward 
Putin's regime during a major international speech before White House 
staff walked back his comment. Yesterday, the President suggested he 
was just sharing his personal moral view, not speaking in his 
policymaking capacity.
  We are talking about the Commander in Chief here.
  Another time recently, the President seemed to suggest that if Russia 
violated international law and used chemical weapons in Ukraine, the 
United States would respond ``in kind.'' Again, his staff had to 
quickly explain what the administration actually meant.
  The United States does not maintain a chemical weapons stockpile for 
use. To the contrary, we are working hard to safely dispose of many 
decades-old munitions.
  I know a lot about that. Throughout my career in Washington, I have 
worked to ensure the stockpile of chemical munitions at the Blue Grass 
Army Depot in my State are safely but surely disposed of.

  But the head-scratching gaffes don't stop there. After spending weeks 
gratuitously listing all the things America would not do, such as 
deploy troops into Ukraine, President Biden in Poland seemed to tell 
American troops they would soon be seeing the bravery of Ukraine's 
resistance firsthand in person. Again, the White House claimed the 
President was not actually changing policy.
  The troubling inconsistencies go beyond isolated gaffes. The 
confusion appears to run deeper. For months, White House officials 
repeatedly insisted the President and his administration were focused 
on deterring Russian escalation against Ukraine. They repeatedly 
stressed how the threat of sanctions would serve as a deterrent against 
further invasion.
  But last week, with the world watching, President Biden shockingly 
claimed he never thought or intended that sanctions would actually 
deter Putin. This leaves unanswered the question of what he thought 
they would achieve.
  The wild swings between the administration's overly cautious, almost 
skittish official posture and the President's emotional freelancing is 
becoming dizzying.
  As NATO allies scrambled to help Ukraine fight back, the President 
refused to authorize a transfer of fighter jets. The administration 
strangely and unjustifiable felt if we merely facilitated--
facilitated--such a transfer, it could be too provocative. But we are 
supposed to brush it off when the same President seems to actually call 
for regime change in Russia? Facilitating the transfer of some old 
fighter jets is too provocative, but remarks like that are just 
speaking from the heart?
  Sadly, mixed messages and confusion have been one of the only 
consistent threads running through this administration's foreign policy 
from the very start. The White House chafed against clear warnings from 
its own military advisers about how quickly Afghanistan could fall 
after U.S. withdrawal. They stood by the President's assertion that 
``there's going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted 
off the roof of an embassy of the United States,'' until that exact 
scene happened in Kabul.
  With respect to both the Taliban and Putin, the administration has 
said repeatedly they think that the fear of becoming international 
pariahs will actually constrain their actions--as if these regimes 
cared a lick about global PR.
  At the risk of repeating what I and many others have said for years, 
despots can't be shamed into conforming to polite international 
society. You can't check lawless violence with finger wagging.
  We know what deters aggression: American strength and American 
clarity. That is what deters aggression.
  I have just explained how American clarity has been in too-short 
supply. But, unfortunately, the Biden administration also seems 
unwilling to plan and invest in long-term American strength.
  Even under the administration's wildly--wildly--optimistic 
projections about inflation, their budget proposal would only flat-fund 
our Armed Forces. In the best case scenario, they want American defense 
to just tread water, nowhere near the robust real growth that 
bipartisan experts say we need to modernize and keep pace with both 
Russia and China.
  And in the more likely event that Democrats don't magically have 
inflation plummeting in just a few months, then President Biden's 
policy would amount to an actual cut--cut--to our defense spending, 
ramping down American military funding while China ramps theirs up.
  China is building for the battlefield of the future. Iran continues 
funding terrorists and plowing forward with nuclear development. 
Russian aggression is actively challenging our capacity to keep 
ourselves and our partners armed.
  And the Biden administration sees this as a moment to ease off the 
gas?
  That could not be more mistaken.
  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. THUNE. Mr. 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.
  The Republican whip.