[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 130 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3879-S3894]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                                Ukraine

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am on the floor today with Senator 
Jeanne Shaheen from New Hampshire to join in a colloquy regarding what 
is happening in Ukraine. This is the 20th time in so many weeks that I 
have come to the floor to talk about the illegal, unprovoked, and 
brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
  Today, I look forward to being with my colleague Senator Shaheen, a 
member of the Ukraine Caucus and someone with whom I have traveled to 
Ukraine and also to the border of Ukraine and Poland to meet with the 
refugees.
  Senator Shaheen is going to talk, I think, a little about how we got 
to where we are and what we do going forward. I was also recently made 
aware of the fact that we are going to take up the NATO ratification 
vote today. And this is to have the United States approve the addition 
of Sweden and Finland to the NATO alliance. This is great for the 
alliance. It is great for the United States. And I believe it is also--
otherwise, they wouldn't be interested--very good for the people of 
Finland and Sweden.
  They add a lot to the NATO alliance. They are militarily and 
economically in a position to be valuable contributors. They also, in 
the case of Finland, share the largest land border with Russia of any 
country. They have understandable concerns with what they see happening 
in Ukraine.
  I just believe it is very much in our national security interests and 
the interests of people I represent to have, in addition, even further 
strengthening of the NATO alliance through the addition of these two 
partners.
  Vladimir Putin thought he was going to split NATO apart when he began 
his invasion of Ukraine, I believe. And today, he is finding just the 
opposite has happened. NATO has come together in ways we have never 
seen. And we now have, again, the addition of two very strong members 
of NATO who are longtime allies of the United States and will add 
significantly to the NATO alliance.
  With regard to Ukraine, let's start with a little history. Ukrainians 
have faced adversity from Russia for hundreds of years. This is not new 
to them. Russia's oppression of Ukraine is not a 21st century issue. 
For 300 years, under the brutal rule of the Russian czars, Ukrainians 
were subjected to repeated efforts to stamp out their language, their 
culture, and their identity.
  In January of 1918, Ukrainians got their first taste of national 
freedom. While Russia was dealing with the chaos of the Bolshevik 
Revolution, Ukraine declared its independence from the Russian Empire. 
Unfortunately, this freedom was short-lived. Just a few years later, 
the Bolsheviks conquered Ukraine and subsumed it into the Soviet Union.
  As an unwilling member of the Soviet Empire, Ukrainians suffered 
horrific atrocities at the hands of their Soviet overlords. In 1932 and 
again in 1933, the Stalinist regime confiscated grain harvests across 
Ukraine and imposed a premeditated manmade famine against the people of 
Ukraine. This horrific atrocity is known as the Holodomor. Millions of 
men, women, and children were starved to death in a deliberate effort 
to break the Ukrainian nation's resistance to communist occupation. 
Stalin even ordered the borders of the country to be sealed to prevent 
anyone from escaping this manmade starvation and to prevent the 
delivery of any international food aid.
  In 2018, Senator Durbin and I introduced a resolution to commemorate 
the 85th anniversary of the Holodomor and to recognize the Commission 
on the Ukraine Famine's findings that the Holodomor was a genocide--no 
question.
  I am grateful to Senator Shaheen, Senator Tillis, and others who are 
in the Chamber today for cosponsoring that resolution. It passed in 
October of 2018 unanimously here in the U.S. Senate.
  The Holodomor failed to extinguish the Ukrainian people's identity, 
as hard as they tried, but it was not the end of the Soviet oppression. 
In the 1970s, the Soviet leadership imposed a crackdown on Ukrainian 
intellectuals and those with any sort of leanings toward independence 
or toward the West. The prisons and gulags became filled with Ukrainian 
political prisoners as the Soviet Union once again tried to assault 
Ukrainian identity.
  But then, in 1991, after years of oppression, Ukraine finally broke 
away from its Russian rulers for good. Ukraine declared its 
independence on August 24 that year, and in December, the declaration 
was confirmed by a referendum in which over 90 percent of

[[Page S3884]]

the Ukrainian people voted in favor of independence.
  This chart shows the amazing response of the people of Ukraine to 
that. Ninety-five percent of the people in the Kyiv area, as you can 
see, supported independence.
  By the way, Russians often say that Crimea really was not part of 
Ukraine. Well, more than half of the people in Crimea were for 
independence as well. But Russia's crimes against the people of Ukraine 
continue to this day.
  Last week, a video was circulated online of a Russian soldier 
torturing and mutilating a Ukrainian prisoner. Unfortunately, it is not 
an isolated incident. After this, the Ukrainian soldier was shot dead 
and dragged with a rope into a shallow grave by his Russian captors.
  We have all seen the pictures from Bucha--people assassinated, people 
with their hands tied behind their back. Elsewhere in Ukraine, a 
Russian missile attack struck a prison in Donetsk that was housing 
Ukrainian prisoners of war. This chart shows that prison and the fact 
that it was attacked by missiles.

  Many of these soldiers were involved in the heroic defense of the 
Azovstal steel factory in Mariupol. They held out for weeks against 
Russian assaults on the plant. At least 40 Ukrainian POWs, maybe more, 
were killed in this assault. These are POWs. These were soldiers who 
were lawful prisoners of war, supposedly protected by the Geneva 
Convention. Russia's murder of these POWs is a war crime. And Russia 
must be held accountable for this and all its countless crimes in 
Ukraine.
  But following its usual playbook, Russia is spreading massive amounts 
of disinformation regarding this incident and so many others. They 
claim that the Ukrainian forces killed these prisoners as a way to 
discourage other soldiers from surrendering.
  This, of course, is nonsense. Among other things, Ukraine needs the 
manpower. Why would they kill their own soldiers instead of getting 
them back in a prisoner swap that everybody assumed was going to 
happen? It makes little sense, but it has never stopped Russia from 
propagating lies to deflect blame from its own crimes. And, 
unsurprisingly, the Red Cross still has not been granted access to the 
site by Russia, which clearly needs more time to cover up the evidence 
of its involvement before they allow any kind of inspection. Let the 
Red Cross in.
  Those responsible for these atrocities must be held to account. This 
is one reason why Senator Shaheen and I last week cosponsored a 
resolution to recognize what is happening in Ukraine as genocide.
  Across the country, Ukrainian women and children have been subjected 
to indiscriminate Russian missile strikes and airstrikes. It has killed 
thousands of innocents; not combatants, noncombatants--children.
  A few weeks ago, I spoke about little Liza, a 4-year-old girl with 
autism who was killed by a Russian missile strike in Vinnytsia. When 
Ukrainian First Lady Olena Zelenska was in town a couple of weeks ago, 
she spoke about a 3-year-old boy who just learned how to use a 
prosthetic. Imagine that, an innocent 3-year-old boy who has been 
forced to learn how to use a prosthetic limb because of a Russian 
airstrike on civilian targets.
  These stories are hard to hear and hard to tell, but the world must 
know about them. This is the reality that all Ukrainians are facing. 
Unsurprisingly, the people of Ukraine are responding to these 
atrocities. A possible Ukrainian counteroffensive may be unfolding in 
the south, in the direction of Kherson. We have heard about this in the 
popular media.
  Kherson is here. It is near the Black Sea Port of Odesa. This 
southern part of Ukraine is incredibly important for Ukraine's economy, 
and Russia knows that.
  Remember, Kherson was the first major Ukrainian city to fall to the 
Russian forces after Russia's full-scale invasion began in February of 
this year. But now, Ukrainian soldiers are conducting missile strikes 
against Russian military infrastructure in the area to weaken Russia's 
defenses. They are also conducting limited ground attacks and 
liberating parts of this territory that Russia has illegally taken. You 
can see that in light blue.
  The significance of recapturing Kherson cannot be overestimated. It 
would undo one of Russia's earliest successes in the war. It is also 
important that Ukraine regain control of much of its Black Sea coast as 
possible. This is the Ukrainian economy's primary connection to the 
rest of the world. Russia, of course, has sought to capture this 
coastline in order to economically strangle Ukraine.
  We talked last week about what they are doing in Odesa. They finally 
decided they were going to let ships come out of Odesa, and they made 
an agreement that they would not continue to bomb Odesa and certainly 
not bomb any port facilities. Within 12 hours, they bombed port 
facilities in Odesa. That is how much the Russian commitment meant. But 
a ship finally has sailed from Odesa, and we hope many more will go.
  If Ukraine is successful in its efforts here in the south, it will 
undermine President Putin and his attempts to make a Russian victory in 
Ukraine, something that the Russians say is inevitable.
  While Ukraine is making progress in the south, Russia is laying the 
groundwork to try to annex occupied land, particularly in the east, in 
this area near Donetsk.
  Occupation means that the Russians themselves are distributing 
Russian passports, paying salaries in Russian rubles, and expediting 
Russian citizens for Ukrainian citizens. There are reports that Russia 
will stage a sham referendum in this area to try to legitimize their 
illegal annexation.
  Senior Kremlin officials have warned Russia will never leave areas of 
Kherson, in the south here, where Russian forces have been occupying 
the territory. Before the invasion, these cities were home to more than 
2.5 million Ukrainians in this area--2.5 million Ukrainians.

  One prominent Kremlin propagandist said:

       Ukraine as it was cannot continue to exist.

  This person continued.

       There will not be the Ukraine that we have known for many 
     years. It won't be Ukraine any longer.

  Clearly, that is the Russian intent. Vladimir Putin has said his 
ambition is even more. It is to fully restore the borders of the old 
Soviet Union. We must make sure he knows that Ukraine in 2022 is not 
Ukraine of 1921, which the Russian Bolsheviks conquered and forced into 
the Soviet empire.
  We know how to help Ukraine to keep this from happening. It is to 
provide them what they need to defend themselves. We have recently 
provided Ukraine with what we call High Mobility Artillery Systems, or 
HIMARS. Many of us have been advocating for that. We are glad to see 
that there are some HIMARS now in the theater. These have been critical 
to the recent Ukrainian military successes.
  So this Congress has made a difference. We provided funding. We have 
gotten some equipment into the area that the Ukrainians need to be able 
to defend themselves and to have some sort of a level playing field 
with Russia's much bigger Army.
  Officials have said that with the help of these HIMARS, Ukraine has 
taken out Russian high-value targets and destroyed them and saved 
countless Ukrainian lives. These include ammunition depots and targets 
from long distances. HIMARS have also conducted many of these strikes 
in southern Ukraine, I talked about earlier, to make progress here in 
the Kherson area.
  Russians have similar long-range artillery that previously allowed 
them to fire on Ukrainian forces with impunity. They could sit back and 
fire and level cities and kill civilians and kill Ukrainian military 
personnel. But they couldn't be reached by the Ukrainians. Now the 
Ukrainians have taken themselves out of that danger zone because these 
HIMARS can balance the playing field and have that longer range and the 
accuracy they need.
  I think there are about 15 in theater now. There are also a few from 
Germany and a few from the UK. But they need more. They said they need 
40 to 50 and the munitions to be able to make them effective. That is 
something that we should be focused on. We should be focused on 
providing them, again, what they need to actually win this conflict.
  I believe we also have to continue to provide the Ukrainians with 
other weapons as well, including the Army Tactical Missile System, or 
the ATACMS. This missile, which can be

[[Page S3885]]

launched from the same HIMARS launchers that we have already been 
giving to Ukraine, has a longer range of 300 kilometers.
  In a war like this one that is increasingly becoming an artillery 
duel, range is a decisive factor. These missiles would allow Ukraine to 
turn the tables on the Russians, whereas Ukraine used to be outranged 
by the Russian artillery. With the ATACMS missiles, we would be able to 
help Ukraine be able to strike important Russian targets with impunity 
themselves.
  This is important because Ukraine is now using these weapons in this 
counteroffensive in Kherson. The Institute for the Study of War--a 
think tank here in Washington, DC--has said recently this offensive to 
take out Russia is in the works, and Ukrainians are using HIMARS to 
strike targets effectively 50 miles away. It is helping. We made a 
difference.
  Former security adviser to the Ukrainian Government Alexander Khara 
told Newsweek the state of Russian morale in the south means a 
counteroffensive ``has an excellent chance of success.''
  He continued.

       The Russians suffer from poor morale, logistical troubles, 
     and the horror of HIMARS.

  So the evidence is clear as to why we should continue to send them 
weapons they need to be able to not just survive but to win this 
conflict.
  By the way, we have hundreds of HIMARS in our stocks that are 
currently not with Active units. So we have the ability to help more.
  This war has now crossed over the 5-month mark. Since before the 
invasion began, I have come to this floor a number of times to talk 
about what needs to be done, as has Senator Shaheen, as have others. I 
have mentioned the fact that we sent billions in military aid and 
humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and that it is working. 
Particularly, as we see with some of these new weapons, it is making a 
difference.
  It will help these brave warriors and their most vulnerable 
noncombatants--the kids and the children--be able to survive and be 
able, in the case of the military, to be able to start making progress 
to push out the Russian invaders.
  Democrats and Republicans alike have sounded the alarm with 
bipartisan pushes and legislation to help Ukraine. We have urged--with 
success, by the way--that the United States cut off our own Russian oil 
and gas. We are now urging the Europeans to do the same.
  We have talked about the need for more weapons, for more sanctions, 
to remove all of Russia's banks' access to the global financial 
system--or the SWIFT system--to suspend our tax treaty with Moscow, to 
explore options to remove other tax benefits, and to remove access to 
the U.S. market.
  All of this is necessary, on the military side, the humanitarian 
side, the economic side, and the sanctions side in order to have a 
victory. I fear sometimes with regard to the military assistance that 
we have been doing too little, too late.
  We can't continue to do too little, too late. This is a struggle. It 
is a struggle between freedom and democracy and the right of self-
determination on the one hand and on the other hand, Russian aggression 
unprovoked, a brutal conquest, authoritarianism, and tyranny.
  President Putin's ambitions lie well beyond Ukraine. We must continue 
to show him the West continues to stand united. We need to show Ukraine 
the world stands with them. This is why it is so important that Sweden 
and Finland have chosen to join NATO, and we must support them in that.
  All this, by the way, transcends the political spectrum, and I have 
certainly seen that. Senator Shaheen and I have shown that in our work 
to aid Ukraine. It is not a political issue. It is not a Republican or 
Democrat issue. We are stepping up in support of our democratic ally 
together.
  As the fight rages on, the perseverance and self-determination of 
Ukrainians seem to grow even stronger. We have seen their resilience in 
the face of daily bombardments. We have seen their resilience in the 
face of Russia's broken promises when, counter to their commitments, 
Russia has attacked ports, as I said, and humanitarian corridors.
  The Ukrainian people are fighting for their homeland, for their 
families, for their freedom. It is impressive and inspiring to see what 
they are doing.
  The Senate is going to break for an August recess here in the next 
few days. Even though we won't be on the floor every week to continue 
to fight for the Ukrainian people, we will do so with our work back 
home, with getting more people engaged and involved in America to help 
on the humanitarian side. We will continue to promote the fact that the 
U.S. national security interest is served by helping freedom and 
democracy.
  I want to note something President Zelenskyy said recently in an 
address to the people of Ukraine. He said:

       Strategically, Russia has no chance of winning this war. 
     And it is necessary to hold on, so that even at the tactical 
     levels, the terror state feels its defeat. No matter what 
     happens and no matter what the occupiers' plans are, we must 
     do our job, protect our state and take care of each other.

  Let's help Ukraine finish this mission, protect their state, their 
democracy, and take care of each other. Let's give Ukraine the tools it 
needs to be able to do that. After these months of fighting and giving 
aid, the West must not falter during Ukraine's dire time of need. We 
must be there through victory for the Ukrainian people--victory for 
self-determination, victory for freedom.
  I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, my 
partner in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am really pleased to be able to come 
to the floor this afternoon to join my colleague from Ohio, Senator 
Portman. We twice traveled to Ukraine together. I have appreciated his 
leadership as cochair of the Ukraine Caucus and his advocacy for not 
only legislation to help Ukraine but also for these reports which 
weekly have kept the war in Ukraine in front of the American people, 
which is so important as we think about how we continue support in our 
public for what is happening in Ukraine and this fight that the 
Ukrainians are so courageously waging.
  I am also pleased to be here with my colleague Senator Tillis, who, 
along with me, cochairs the Senate NATO Observer Group, because we are 
going to be voting this afternoon on ratification of the accession of 
Finland and Sweden to NATO. Together, we led a bipartisan delegation to 
Madrid last month, which included three Democrats and four Republicans, 
and we were able to visit Helsinki and Stockholm on our way into Madrid 
to talk about just why it is so important that Finland and Sweden are 
joining NATO.
  I wanted to talk about both of these topics this afternoon because 
they are connected.
  As Senator Portman said, there is a reason why Finland and Sweden, 
after decades of maintaining neutrality, are looking at joining NATO. 
It is because of this unprovoked, brutal war by Russia against Ukraine. 
If they are successful in Ukraine, we don't know where that will end, 
so we need to make the connection for people.
  A year ago, no one would have thought that Sweden and Finland would 
have wanted NATO membership, but, of course, a lot has happened in that 
year.
  Vladimir Putin made one of the most consequential miscalculations in 
modern history. I think it is the biggest miscalculation in foreign 
policy since Hitler went into Russia in World War II. He went into 
Ukraine to wage this unprovoked, premeditated war upon the people of 
Ukraine. Part of his rationale was to talk about NATO and his 
opposition to Ukraine's joining NATO but also because he thought he 
would be able to stall the enlargement of NATO. He thought he would be 
able to split the NATO allies. In fact, just the opposite has happened. 
The global response to punish Putin for this war in Ukraine is 
unprecedented. Putin's barbaric campaign in Ukraine and threats to 
democracy around the world have resulted in the strongest iteration of 
NATO to date.
  And now here we are. The United States is about to welcome two very 
capable, very qualified and deserving members into the alliance, which 
will further strengthen our global coordination to preserve our rules-
based order.
  I have spoken before in this Chamber about the strong bipartisan 
support for

[[Page S3886]]

Finland and Sweden's NATO membership. When Sweden and Finland announced 
their intent to apply for NATO membership, Senator Tillis and I led a 
letter to President Biden that within about 24 hours was cosigned by 80 
of our colleagues, all pledging to support swift ratification of the 
accession protocols.
  Just last month, Senator Tillis and I led that delegation to Madrid 
to the NATO summit, and we did it at the request of both the majority 
leader, Schumer, and the minority leader, McConnell.
  When meeting with our allies and partners, we talked about our 
commitment to return to the Senate and to work hard to swiftly ratify 
the accession protocols, and we have done just that. We had hoped to be 
the first body to do that ratification. We are going to be the 22nd, 
which I think is very good news for NATO and for the effort to ensure 
that Finland and Sweden become members of NATO.
  On July 19, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which Senator 
Portman and I sit, unanimously voted in support of NATO's accession 
protocols.
  Today's vote is not just important for Sweden and Finland and for 
NATO, but it is also important for Ukraine, as Senator Portman laid 
out. The Ukrainian people are on the frontlines of a war for democracy 
and for our collective shared values--values that underpin the heart of 
the NATO alliance. Sweden and Finland's membership will bolster our 
efforts to hold Putin to account as he wages this war to eradicate 
Ukrainian culture.

  Putin's decision to invade Ukraine affirmed what we have long known--
that Vladimir Putin does not respect the distinct history, culture, and 
identity of the Ukrainian people. His view of history, of course, is 
false. It is distorted, and it is deadly. His unprovoked war in Ukraine 
is a manifestation of his delusional ideas and his blatant attempt to 
wipe Ukraine off the map of Europe. But despite the challenges to their 
sovereignty, for generations, the Ukrainian people have maintained 
their own traditions, their own language, and their own dream of 
independence.
  Putin is waging propaganda campaigns that seek to justify his goals 
to the Russian people. He has deployed deliberate, harmful rhetoric of 
``de-Nazifying'' Ukraine. He is pursuing a broader, maniacal agenda to 
eradicate everything Ukrainian--the land, the people, the language, the 
culture.
  We know that Russia established filtration camps in Russia and 
Ukrainian territory even before the February 24 invasion. Now reports 
are that there are over 1 million Ukrainians who have been forcibly 
relocated to Russia, including about 250,000 children--children who 
have been taken from their Ukrainian parents and sent to Russia.
  We need to call Putin's actions what they are. They are acts of 
genocide. After the horrors of the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, 
Yugoslav wars, the international community vowed to ``never again'' let 
such immense human tragedy happen on our watch.
  We must not let Putin accomplish his mission of destroying the 
Ukrainian people and dismantling the international rules-based order 
which has been in place for more than 70 years. We must hold him 
accountable because we know that if he is successful, Putin's 
Russification campaign is not going to end with Ukraine. Who will be 
next? The Baltic States? Eastern European countries? Romania? Poland?
  As Americans, we have a moral obligation to work with our allies to 
hold Putin to account, and I am proud that this body is doing just 
that. Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which 
Senator Portman and I are both members, introduced a resolution 
recognizing Russia's actions in Ukraine as genocide, but, of course, we 
must do more.
  Today's ratification vote is going to be another step in sending a 
message to both Vladimir Putin and the Ukrainian people that NATO is 
unified and that we are going to continue to support their efforts to 
push back against this brutal dictator.
  I hope that our colleagues will join us in celebrating today's 
important moment of NATO's enlargement from 30 to 32 members. This 
historic accession is a testament to the global commitment to not be 
bystanders amid a war that violates all international norms and seeks 
to destabilize our rules-based order. I hope that our remaining NATO 
allies will move swiftly to advance Sweden and Finland's NATO 
membership.
  Amid Russia's horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing against the 
Ukrainian people, we must recognize the importance of our shared 
transatlantic values to push back on Putin's dangerous and bloodthirsty 
war against Ukraine.
  Again, I am pleased that we are here to support both Ukraine and the 
ratification of Sweden and Finland into NATO. I am sure we will have a 
very strong bipartisan vote this afternoon, and I look forward to 
continuing to work with NATO and with our colleagues as we do 
everything we can to support the success of Ukraine against Vladimir 
Putin.
  I yield to my cochair of the Senate NATO Observer Group, Senator 
Tillis.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. TILLIS. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and colleague 
Senator Portman for his work and his focus on Ukraine, and I want to 
thank my friend and colleague Senator Shaheen. It has been a real 
pleasure once we started up the Senate NATO Observer Group after it had 
been dormant for some time. Who knew that it could have been more 
timely several years ago when we began that process?
  I was thinking--I have used this analogy before. I grew up in a 
family of six kids. We, even to this day, have our differences and 
disagreements. I have one sister I am pretty sure wouldn't vote for me 
if she lived in North Carolina. We are not ideologically aligned. But I 
know she loves me, and I know, when our family gets threatened, there 
is no difference between us.
  That is what Vladimir Putin saw on February 24. He saw the family of 
nations in NATO come together like he couldn't possibly have imagined, 
and he saw two nations, Finland and Sweden, after decades of being 
nonaligned, saying: Enough is enough. Now it is time to pick between 
good and evil. And evil is Vladimir Putin, and good is Western 
democracies--Western democracies like Finland and Sweden which respect 
the rule of law, which respect the rights of their citizens, which 
respect the free press, which invest in their military, and which will 
be a net exporter of security the day they enter NATO.
  As a matter of fact, they are already a very valuable asset to NATO. 
I have spoken with many of my colleagues in the Department of Defense, 
many people in uniform. They laud the relationship that they have with 
the military in Finland and Sweden. They work together on exercises. 
They know that Finland has a formidable ground force. They know that 
Sweden has a formidable navy that is going to give us added presence in 
the Baltics and added presence in the Arctic.
  The worst possible scenario that Putin never anticipated was a 
completely unified NATO and the addition of 830 miles--1,340 
kilometers--of NATO border right up against Russia. That is what he has 
gotten for his illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the blood of thousands 
are on Vladimir Putin's hands.

  Now I want to talk a little bit about Finland and Sweden, but I also 
have to start with that letter. I remember vividly, Senator Shaheen, 
when we were meeting with Swedish diplomats and the Defense Minister, 
and we were saying: What can we do to send a signal to the people of 
Finland and Sweden that the United States is absolutely supportive of 
their accession to NATO?
  And they said: Well, communications would be good.
  And we said: Well, we will do a letter.
  In 24 hours, we got 80 signatures. Now, the question would be, Why 
not the other 20? Quite honestly, we didn't take the time. Everybody 
that we went to signed on to the letter, but we thought it was 
important to get that communication out quickly.
  Today, we are going to see more than 95 Senators--I think even more 
than that--vote for ratification because they understand that Finland 
and Sweden are investing in their military. They understand that 
Finland is already at 2 percent and continuing to invest. They know 
that Finland has already put on order 64 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
  Why is that extraordinary? Finland is about half the population of my

[[Page S3887]]

State, North Carolina, about 5\1/2\ million people. They have on order 
64 Joint Strike Fighters. We have fewer than 200 in full operation here 
in the United States. If we, on a per capita basis, were to have as 
many Joint Strike Fighters as Finland intends to have, we would need 
more than 4,000.
  Now, let's talk about Sweden. Their industrial base is extraordinary. 
They have advanced fighter technology. They have advanced submarine 
technology. They have an industrial base that can be mobilized. They 
have an industrial base that is already developing platforms that are 
NATO interoperable.
  When they come in, they are not going to have to do some sort of NATO 
101. They are going to get to work. They are going to continue the work 
they are already doing.
  And, in Sweden's case, there are some members here concerned about 
burden sharing and hitting the 2 percent mark. When we were in 
Stockholm, we talked about this. When we met with the diplomatic and 
Defense Ministers, we talked about this. They are on their way. They 
are committed. Their government officials are committed to getting to 2 
percent funding, and thank goodness.
  Maybe that sends a message to some of our other NATO countries that 
they need to get up there. If anything, Ukraine has taught us that we 
have to be ready, and we have to be at that level of burden sharing.
  But I am not in the least bit concerned with Finland and Sweden 
meeting their target. They are going to do it, and they are going to do 
it on short order. I believe that Sweden will be there by 2027, early 
2028.
  So now, we have to move forward. Now, I am also being a little bit 
competitive. I am disappointed that we weren't the first nation, but I 
am also very optimistic. I am thrilled that so many nations have 
already recognized how valuable they will be as full-fledged NATO 
allies. So we are going to be 22nd, but we are doing it in record time. 
Everybody knows here that I describe this place as a ``Crockpot.'' It 
takes a long time to cook something in the U.S. Senate.
  For us to do this in less than a month is absolutely extraordinary, 
and I hope that the people of Sweden and the people of Finland 
recognize that that is because the U.S. Senate has full confidence in 
them. We welcome them readily, and we look forward to their accession. 
This step in ratifying the treaty is a great step. So I encourage all 
of our Members to consider voting for Finland and Sweden.
  The last thing I will leave you with is that there are some here who 
say: Well, we can't really worry about Russia. We have to worry about 
China.
  We have to worry about both, and NATO is worried about both. If you 
look at the strategic concept that came out of Madrid, you should also 
recognize that there were four countries from INDOPACOM that were at a 
NATO summit. They recognize that we have to look at China and recognize 
the threat. But they also recognize that we have an immediate threat in 
Europe, and we have to stand together.
  With NATO, I am very proud of how the partners came together, and 
with Sweden and Finland, I am going to be even more proud of our 
alliance when they are full-fledged members. And we are going to work 
as hard as we can as members of the Senate NATO Observer Group to make 
sure that the remaining countries follow suit quickly so that we can 
welcome both of these great nations into the greatest alliance that has 
ever existed.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss American 
national security and the decisions that we must make to keep this 
Nation safe.
  The Senate will vote today on whether to expand NATO by admitting 
Sweden and Finland. I intend to vote no, and I encourage my colleagues 
to do the same, and I want to say a word or two as to why.
  Finland and Sweden want to expand NATO because it is in their 
national security interest to do so, and fair enough. The question that 
should properly be before us, however, is, ``Is it in the United 
States' interest to do so?'' because that is what American foreign 
policy is supposed to be about, I thought.
  It is about American security, protecting American workers, defending 
American jobs, and securing American prosperity, and I fear that some 
in this town have lost sight of that. They think American foreign 
policy is about creating a liberal world order or nation building 
overseas. With all due respect, they are wrong. Our foreign policy 
should be about protecting the United States, our freedoms, our people, 
our way of life, and expanding NATO, I believe, would not do that.

  Listen, we should tell the truth about the consequences of the 
decision that we are going to take today. Expanding NATO will require 
more U.S. forces in Europe--more manpower, more firepower, more 
resources, more spending--and not just now but over the long haul.
  But our greatest foreign adversary is not in Europe. Our greatest 
foreign adversary is in Asia, and when it comes to countering that 
adversary, we are behind the game. I am talking, of course, about 
China. The communist government of Beijing has adopted a policy of 
imperialism. It wants to dominate its neighbors, dictate to free 
nations. It is trying to expand its power at every opportunity, and 
that includes power over the United States.
  Beijing wants power over our trade, over our jobs, over our economy. 
They want us to come to them and beg for market access. They, 
ultimately, want to reign supreme as the world hegemon, the world's 
sole superpower.
  And, listen, Chinese leaders have said it themselves. This is no 
mystery. Beijing wants a world in which the United States--and all 
other nations, for that matter--are forced to bow before China's might. 
It is their stated ambition.
  This would be a world in which the Chinese Government and its proxies 
would touch every aspect of our lives, from Chinese goods dominating 
our markets, to Chinese propaganda flooding our airwaves, to Chinese 
money and influence corrupting American politics.
  This would be a world in which China would be free to expand its use 
of slave labor and to double down on its global campaigns of 
repression. That is the world that Beijing wants, and the truth is we 
are not now in a position to stop them.
  Let me say that again: The truth is we are not now in a position to 
stop them. That is a hard truth, but it is the truth, nonetheless, and 
the American people deserve to hear it. Our military forces in Asia are 
not postured as they should be.
  The commander of our forces in the Indo-Pacific has testified to this 
on multiple occasions. We do not have the weapons and equipment we need 
in the region. We don't have enough advanced munitions. Sealift and 
airlift are far short of where they need to be. Attack submarines are 
some of the most important assets we have in Asia and Europe, but they 
are already in short supply and the fleet is sinking.
  On top of all of that, we do not yet have a coherent strategy for 
stopping China's dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible 
invasion of Taiwan, and we are not committing the attention and 
resources we need to develop and implement that strategy.
  Why aren't we prepared to do what we need to do in Asia? Well, 
because we have been distracted for too long--for decades--by nation-
building activities in the Middle East and by legacy commitments in 
Europe.
  So now, the choice is this: We can do more in Europe, devote more 
resources, more manpower, more firepower there, or--or--we can do what 
we need to do in Asia to deter China. We cannot do both. We cannot do 
both.
  The Chief of Naval Operations recently testified that the joint force 
is simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts. That is the 
reality. Both the 2018 and the 2022 national defense strategies--which 
were developed, I might point out, by different administrations of 
different political parties--reached the same conclusion.
  We have to choose. It is not enough to simply say that China is the 
pacing threat or to say that the risk to Taiwan is real. We must do 
something about it. We have to prioritize. We have to focus, and that 
means we have to do less in Europe in order to prioritize America's 
most pressing national security interest, which is in Asia, with regard 
to China.

[[Page S3888]]

  Now, this isn't to say that the United States should abandon NATO, 
but it is to say that our European allies really must do more. They 
must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe 
and rely on U.S. forces for our nuclear deterrent and select 
conventional assets.
  And this is not just so that America can focus on China, although 
that is of overriding importance to us. No, this is also about NATO's 
future. European allies have to step up now or risk leaving NATO 
exposed if the United States and our forces are pulled from Europe into 
a conflict in the Pacific.
  Every European ally must make necessary investments now for today's 
threat environment or risk the worst, but NATO isn't doing that. Our 
European allies are far from where they should be. You know, NATO 
states agreed years ago, back in 2006, to spend at least 2 percent of 
GDP on defense, but many NATO members still haven't met that pledge. 
Meanwhile, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe testified a few 
weeks ago that our allies need to spend more than 2 percent just to 
meet existing--existing--ground force requirements, which brings us 
back to Sweden and Finland.
  Both countries are longtime NATO defense partners and strong 
opponents of Russian imperialism. Both occupy important geography. They 
are also advanced economies with capable militaries, and I respect all 
of that. But Finland and Sweden's admission would also bring distinct 
challenges. Sweden still isn't spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, 
and it doesn't plan to until at least 2028. Finland has announced a 
one-time defense spending boost, but it is not clear whether it will 
sustain those higher investments, which, again, are the minimum 
investments needed for NATO.
  Now, some say we shouldn't worry about any of this. Some say Finland 
and Sweden can defend themselves and won't require anything through the 
United States or our NATO allies. But if that were true, why join NATO?
  The truth is, both countries want NATO's help defending themselves. 
That is why they are applying for membership--and fair enough. But 
because so many current NATO allies have spent years underfunding their 
militaries, it will be the United States that will be asked to send 
forces to help defend Sweden and Finland in a time of crisis. Even 
absent a crisis, NATO expansion will mean more U.S. forces and U.S. 
firepower in Europe for the long term.
  Now, if we want to make NATO stronger, the right course is to 
increase the amount that member states spend on their own defense--say 
to 2\1/2\ percent--and press our European allies to take primary 
responsibility for Europe's conventional defense. But this 
administration--it is going in exactly the opposite direction. They had 
the chance to push for greater European military spending and 
investment at the recent Madrid summit. They didn't do it. Instead, the 
Biden administration has committed the United States to massive 
spending in Ukraine, far outpacing our European allies, even as they 
surged tens of thousands of troops into that region, apparently for 
good.
  Now, some say expanding NATO will allow the United States to do less 
in Europe. I wish that were true, but how can it be when NATO is 
overdependent on American support right now? How would increasing 
NATO's security needs somehow magically enable the United States to do 
less? The fact is, NATO expansion will generate new requirements. 
Sweden has already asked the United States to increase its naval 
presence in the Baltic area, for example.
  Now, make no mistake, expanding NATO means expanded obligations for 
the United States in Europe. That is the nature of a security 
commitment.
  Some say we need to expand NATO in Europe to deter China in Asia. But 
China isn't going to be deterred by the number of our commitments in 
Europe; China is going to be deterred by our power to deny their 
imperial ambitions in Asia. That is it. That is the whole ball game.
  We cannot strengthen our deterrent posture in the Pacific if we are 
sending more forces and resources to Europe to defend new allies. That 
is the bottom line.
  Finally, some say we can't beat China by retreating from the rest of 
the world, but I am not arguing for retreat, and I am not arguing for 
isolation. What I am arguing for is an end to the globalist foreign 
policy that has led our Nation from one disaster to another for decades 
now. What I am arguing for is the return to a classic nationalist 
approach to American foreign policy, the one that made this country 
great; a foreign policy that is grounded in our Nation's interests and 
in the reality of the world as it is, not as we wish it was or not as 
we once hoped it would be.
  In years past, NATO was a bulwark against an imperial Soviet Union. 
Today, the world's greatest imperial threat is in Asia, and the hour to 
address that threat is growing very late.
  We owe the American people this truth. We owe them a clear accounting 
of facts. We owe them the courage to make tough choices. Today, I 
submit that means voting against expanding NATO and focusing where we 
must, to do what we must, to deter an imperial China. This isn't an 
easy vote, to be sure, but it is the right one for our security, for 
our prosperity, for our people, for our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The senior Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I rise today in support of Finland 
and Sweden's application to join NATO. I give my strong support to this 
application.
  I disagree heartily with our colleague from Missouri. I know you 
know, Madam President, having worked on this issue, as I have--having 
visited these countries, we know how important they are to Minnesota 
and Wisconsin.
  Minnesota has a special bond with the Kingdom of Sweden and the 
Republic of Finland, and at the core of this bond, at the core of the 
bond between our country and these countries, is shared values--values 
of democracy, values of freedom.
  Yes, we have challenges--of course we do--in Asia, but I happen to 
believe that when you are a great power like the United States of 
America, you can do two things at once.
  Let's look at what these countries add to our security by joining 
NATO.
  First of all, Finland is over 2 percent of their budget on military. 
Sweden is increasing their budget on military. Both nations have 
professional militaries. They have strong and transparent economies, 
and mostly they believe in human rights--in freedom, in liberty, and 
equality. They believe in democracy.
  I will note specifically that Finland has added an extra $2.2 billion 
in defense spending this year. Greece and Poland and Lithuania and 
Latvia and Estonia and Slovakia and Croatia and the United Kingdom--
above 2 percent.
  So let's get the facts straight here, and let's talk about what these 
countries will add to our security.
  We are at an unparalleled moment in history. Since Vladimir Putin's 
cruel, unjustified invasion of Ukraine, people all over the world have 
been waking up out of a 2-year plague, out of a slumber, to realize 
just how fragile our democracy is.
  We realized it here in this building when, not so long along, 
insurrectionists invaded this Chamber. We didn't just sit back and say: 
Well, there goes our democracy. We stood up. We stood up, Democrats and 
Republicans, in this very Chamber.
  When President Zelenskyy of Ukraine took to the streets the minute 
that this invasion started and looked at a video camera and said: We 
are here, he was saying that to his own people to give them the courage 
to stand up against the inhuman barbarism of a dictator, but he was 
also saying it to the rest of the world.
  We see it on Ukraine's frontlines, where everyday people took up arms 
and are taking up arms to protect their country. It sent a warning shot 
to tyrants around the world who believe that free democracies are just 
up for grabs. Ukrainians have shown their true colors in bright blue 
and yellow, which just happen to be the colors of Sweden. They have 
shown their true colors, and they are showing the world what courage is 
all about.
  Having been in the last group of Senators from this Chamber who met 
with leaders in Ukraine just a few weeks before the war started, I can 
tell you

[[Page S3889]]

this: The people of Ukraine want to choose their own destiny, and the 
moral flame they have lit across the world will not be doused.

  Russia's unprovoked aggression in Ukraine has changed how we think 
about the world's security. That is why I strongly support the decision 
of these two great democracies, Sweden and Finland, to join the most 
important and defensive alliance in the world--NATO.
  When President Biden met in May with Finnish and Swedish leaders 
about their application to join NATO, he said the people of Sweden and 
Finland--he said to them that they ``have the full, total, and complete 
backing of the United States of America.'' We supported that. The 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations echoed its support with an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote just last month. Our leaders support this 
pact.
  By joining NATO, allies made a sacred commitment to one another that 
an attack on one is an attack on all. The only time in history this has 
been invoked was after 9/11, when the United States was attacked, and 
all our allies rallied to our side. As Americans, we have never and 
will never forget that.
  In June, we celebrated the anniversary of the end of World War II in 
Europe. NATO was formed in the wreckage of World War II. When President 
Truman signed the North Atlantic Treaty, he expressed the goal of its 
founders ``to preserve their present peaceful situation and to protect 
it in the future.'' And for decades, it has been crucial to upholding 
that peace.
  Now, 73 years later, NATO is as important as ever, and the recent 
decisions made by our great friends, the great countries of Sweden and 
Finland, are a testament to the continued promise of this alliance.
  As Swedish Prime Minister Andersson said in May:

       With Sweden and Finland as members, NATO will also be 
     stronger. We are security providers with sophisticated 
     defense capabilities.

  That is correct.

       And we are champions of freedom, democracy, and human 
     rights.

  That is correct.
  As Finland's leaders, President Niinisto and Prime Minister Marin, 
also said:

       NATO membership would strengthen Finland's security. As a 
     member of NATO, Finland would strengthen the entire defense 
     alliance.

  I had the honor of being on a panel at the Munich Security Conference 
with President Niinisto, and I saw firsthand his commitment to the 
democracy in Finland and to the democracy all over the world.
  Finland and Sweden are already among our closest partners on a range 
of issues. They are already important contributors to the international 
community, including in the United Nations, the Organization for 
Security and Co-operation in Europe, and other international 
organizations.
  Finnish and Swedish troops have already served shoulder to shoulder 
with U.S. and NATO forces in Kosovo, in Bosnia.
  In 1994, Sweden and Finland joined NATO's Partnership for Peace 
program, strengthening our official relationship and coming one step 
closer to being a full-fledged NATO member.
  NATO, Finland, and Sweden have partnered together on securing the 
Baltic Sea region through regular conversations and exercises--a 
practice that will be even more important now.
  In 2018, Finland, Sweden, and the United States signed a trilateral 
agreement to deepen defense cooperation and promote security in 
Northern Europe.
  Both Finland and Sweden are already working in coordination with the 
United States and other allies and partners to support brave Ukrainians 
standing up to Vladimir Putin.
  Sweden has responded to Russia's bombing of maternity hospitals with 
millions of dollars of support and helmets and body shields, as well as 
billions for the refugees flowing from Ukraine. Finland has sent 
military aid, including thousands of assault rifles and 70,000 ration 
packages, and has offered millions of dollars in humanitarian aid.
  Both nations also have the potential, as I noted, to bring huge 
assets to this alliance, not, as my colleague from Missouri implied, to 
somehow make things harder. Are you kidding? Maybe he hasn't seen these 
countries. I have.
  Finland, after fighting its own territorial wars with the Soviet 
Union, has a reserve force of 900,000 strong. Sweden has built its own 
fighter jets. Both countries recently announced upcoming expansion and 
reform of their militaries.
  As the Arctic region, which holds increasing importance for U.S. and 
European security, sees encroachments from Russia and China--may I add 
to my colleague from Missouri--Sweden and Finland are poised to help 
NATO confront these challenges.
  I am here to give my full support for Sweden and Finland entering 
NATO. As we made clear, we stand with Sweden, we stand with Finland, 
and we stand with democracy.
  Russia's war in Ukraine--a full-scale, unprovoked, and premeditated 
war against a sovereign and democratic country--has changed Europe and 
the world, but it has also demonstrated the importance and resilience 
of our transatlantic alliance. We have all witnessed the bravery of the 
Ukrainian people as they fight for their lives, and we are proud to 
stand with them.
  This is about the future of political freedom, economic freedom, 
technological freedom, and, yes, democratic freedom.
  Finland and Sweden taking the step of NATO membership will not only 
strengthen their own security but the cause of freedom in Europe and 
around the world.
  I would say, when things are tough, we keep our friends closer, and I 
believe that this strong NATO and the inclusion of Sweden and Finland 
will actually help us with the rest of the world, not just with this 
conflict in Ukraine.
  So I ask my colleague from Missouri, who is not here right now, to 
consider that as we look at our alliances and how we deal with China. 
We must strengthen our trade alliances. We must strengthen our military 
alliances. Certainly, including Finland and Sweden as a member of NATO 
is one big positive step.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, today, the Senate exercises one of our 
unique and most important constitutional responsibilities: debate and 
ratification of a treaty.
  The NATO accession treaty for Sweden and Finland is the most 
consequential kind of treaty because it commits America to the mutual 
defense of another country. We commit, along with our NATO partners, to 
come to Sweden's and Finland's defense if they are attacked, just as 
Finland and Sweden will come to our defense if we are attacked. It is a 
weighty matter, indeed.
  I want to explain why, if one honestly considers all the 
circumstances and weighs all the evidence, I don't believe this is a 
close debate at all.
  If Finland and Sweden join NATO, the alliance will unquestionably be 
stronger. The risk of war and of America being dragged into war will 
decrease in Europe, and Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war of aggression 
against Ukraine will backfire in another significant, lasting way.
  I note at the outset how unusual this moment is. Finland and Sweden 
are historically neutral countries. Sweden has refrained from joining 
military alliances since the days of Napoleon. Once Finland obtained 
independence a century ago, it also charted a course of neutrality, 
even after the Soviet Union invaded Finland during World War II.
  Now these historically neutral countries have petitioned to join 
NATO. Why? Sweden and, especially, Finland have always lived closer to 
the bear's den, and thus had a different relationship with Moscow than 
we do. But now the Russian bear is rampaging, mauling a sovereign 
country on its borders that is not in the ranks of NATO. Finland and 
Sweden naturally want to avoid Ukraine's fate. They concluded, 
reasonably enough, that there is strength in numbers, and they are 
right about that.
  If I were sitting in Stockholm or Helsinki, I would want to join 
NATO, too. But we are here in the United States Senate. What matters to 
us--what should matter to us--is what is in it for us. Much as we may 
esteem the Finns and the Swedes--and we should; they are great people--
we need allies who enhance our common defense, not ones

[[Page S3890]]

who detract from it, allies who can pull their own weight and then 
some.
  Military alliances are not charities, but Finland and Sweden aren't 
charity cases. They bring into NATO their well-trained and well-
equipped militaries, technologically advanced economies, and vital 
geography.
  In particular, Finland is a country of warriors, with a long and 
proud tradition, to put it bluntly, of fighting and killing Russian 
invaders. In 1939, Russia launched an unprovoked war of aggression--odd 
how Russia keeps doing that--against Finland, in what has become known 
as the Winter War. Few observers gave small Finland a chance, but the 
outnumbered and outgunned Finns shocked the world--not least Stalin and 
the Russian communists--by matching the Red Army blow for blow.
  Ever wonder where the term ``Molotov cocktail'' comes from? The Finns 
gave it to us. What they lacked in anti-tank weapons, they made up in 
grit and courage. Finnish soldiers rushed Soviet tanks and dropped the 
bottle bombs inside them, and they named the cocktail after Russia's 
deceitful Foreign Minister for good measure.
  Then there is the legendary sniper Simo Hayha, who killed an 
estimated 500 Russian soldiers, among the highest number of confirmed 
sniper kills ever recorded in combat. He entered into the history books 
better known by his well-earned nickname, ``White Death,'' which also 
happens to be what every Russian general to this day fears from another 
tangle with the Finns.
  The Finns also haven't forgotten the lessons of the Winter War. Still 
today, every adult Finnish man must fulfill a period of national 
service. Almost all of them choose the military. Finland has a 900,000-
man reserve it can draw on in times of crisis and can field an army of 
280,000 when fully mobilized. Finland's reserves are larger than the 
reserves of France, Germany, and Italy--combined.
  Finland has firepower in addition to manpower. According to scholars 
at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Finland has one of 
the strongest artillery forces in Europe, with more rocket launchers 
and howitzers than France, Germany, or the United Kingdom. It has a 
strong fleet of fighter jets and plans to buy 64 American-made F-35s by 
the end of the decade.
  For its part, Sweden is an economic and industrial powerhouse that 
will add muscle to the alliance. The Swedish Navy is an effective force 
with advanced warships and submarines. The Swedish firm Saab produces 
some of the world's finest fighter aircraft, radar systems, and 
weapons. In conjunction with the British, the Swedes manufacture the 
NLAW anti-tank missile, which is second only to the Javelin in killing 
Russian tanks in Ukraine. I would also add that the Swedish firm 
Ericsson, along with the Finnish firm Nokia, are among the world's few 
alternatives to China's Huawei for advanced 5G telecommunications 
hardware.
  Finally, I should note that Finland and Sweden, unlike too many of 
our European allies, are putting their money where their mouths are 
when it comes to their defense. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, 
Finland boosted defense spending by 70 percent and will spend more than 
2 percent of its total economy on its military this year. Sweden is in 
the middle of doubling its defense spending and plans to reach that 2-
percent goal no later than 2028.
  For these reasons alone, Finland and Sweden are not only worthy 
additions to the alliance but, indeed, will become two of the strongest 
members of the alliance from the moment they join.
  But that is not all. They also add key geographic advantages to our 
alliance.
  First, the Swedish island of Gotland is an unsinkable aircraft 
carrier in the middle of the Baltic Sea--fewer than 200 miles from the 
Russian exclave and military base in Kaliningrad. He who controls 
Gotland controls the Baltic, which is why Russia tried to seize Gotland 
in the 19th century and why Sweden garrisoned the island during the 
Cold War. In the event of a conflict with Russia, NATO forces on 
Gotland could prevent the Russian Navy from transiting the Baltic Sea 
freely or from resupplying Kaliningrad by sea. Gotland-based forces 
would also make it easier to relieve the Baltic States by sea and air 
in the event of a Russian invasion.
  Second, Finland controls the northern shores of the Gulf of Finland, 
through which Russian ships must pass to reach St. Petersburg, Russia's 
second largest city. Our NATO ally Estonia already controls the 
southern coastline of this long and narrow waterway that is not even 30 
miles wide at its smallest point. By adding Finland to the alliance, 
Russian naval operations through the gulf would become even more 
difficult.

  Third, the Danish Straits would also become, in effect, NATO waters. 
Russia's Baltic Fleet must pass through this strategic chokepoint to 
get in or out of the Baltic. Denmark, a NATO ally, controls the 
southern and western portions of the straits. Sweden controls the 
northern and eastern shores. By adding Sweden to the alliance, we 
further complicate Russia's naval operations.
  Fourth, the 800-mile border of Russia and Finland rightly complicates 
Russia's war planning and defense in the event of conflict. In fact, 
this border would more than double the amount of border that Russia 
must defend. Finland will also threaten Russia's major military 
installations in the Kola Peninsula, where Russia's largest and most 
advanced naval forces are positioned to break out into the Atlantic and 
threaten the United States.
  So aside from their military strength and economic power, Finland and 
Sweden also allow us to turn the Baltic into a NATO lake, bottle up 
Russia's Baltic Fleet, cut off its isolated military base at 
Kaliningrad, and expose Russia itself to much greater risk in the event 
of a conflict.
  All things considered, then, one might contend that Finland and 
Sweden are the strongest candidates to join NATO since its origin in 
1949. We will soon see that most Senators agree, when we vote later 
today.
  And, really, how can one disagree? After all, the last countries to 
join NATO, Montenegro and North Macedonia, were each approved by the 
Senate with only two ``no'' votes. Those countries brought their own 
case for accession to NATO. But let's be honest. Who can deny the much 
stronger cases for Finland and Sweden, countries that are far larger 
and far more capable and far more strategically situated?
  It would be strange indeed for any Senator who voted to allow 
Montenegro or North Macedonia into NATO to turn around and deny 
membership to Finland and Sweden. I would love to hear the defense of 
such a curious vote.
  But since some observers have criticized their bid for membership, 
let me address those arguments now.
  The most basic argument isn't really directed at Finland or Sweden, 
but at NATO itself. Some critics say America shouldn't pledge to 
protect countries halfway around the world, but these critics are seven 
decades too late. We are already treaty-bound to defend more than two 
dozen nations in Europe. Whether we support this treaty today or not, 
we will still be treaty-bound to defend those nations. So the real 
question today is whether adding two capable and strong nations to our 
mutual defense pact will make us stronger or weaker. The evidence I 
have shared demonstrates that adding Finland and Sweden will indeed 
make it stronger, more likely to deter Russian aggression and to defeat 
Russian aggression, should it come.
  Next, some opponents contend that admitting Finland, in particular, 
is a liability because the United States would be committing to the 
defense of its 800-mile border with Russia. This argument is both 
alarmist and backward. It is alarmist because Russia hasn't attacked a 
NATO member in its more than 70-year history, even as it has attacked 
many non-NATO countries. Given the Russian Army's pitiful performance 
in Ukraine, they will be in no shape to break with that record any time 
soon. And of all European nations, Finland is probably the least likely 
to be attacked by Russia after the searing trauma of the Winter War. 
``White death'' is a strong deterrent.
  Moreover, these critics are thinking about this issue backward. As I 
said earlier, it is Russia that has to worry about its long border 
should it attack our allies. NATO is a defensive alliance. It always 
has been, always will be. Neither Finland nor any other NATO country 
has any plan or desire

[[Page S3891]]

to invade Russia. But should Russia ever be tempted to attack NATO, the 
Finnish border creates nearly insurmountable war-planning dilemmas for 
the Russian general staff. To borrow what U.S. Grant told his 
commanders about Robert E. Lee, rather than worrying about what Russia 
might do at Finland's border, Russia should be worried about what NATO 
would do if Russia attacks us. Putin seems worried, after all. He 
blustered and threatened consequences if Sweden and Finland sought NATO 
membership, but he meekly acquiesced once they did.
  Still, other critics say our main strategic focus should be on China, 
not Russia. I agree. China is the greatest long-term threat to the 
United States, but admitting Finland and Sweden to NATO enhances our 
common defense, especially our defenses in Europe. A NATO that is 
stronger militarily, economically, and geographically in Europe is a 
NATO that needs to lean less on American power. We ought to welcome 
strong, capable allies in Europe who can free up the American military 
to focus more on the Pacific theater. That is doubly true when those 
allies have key companies, like Ericsson and Nokia, that can also help 
us beat China in the global technology race.
  Others have objected that the majority of NATO members are currently 
failing to pay their fair share toward our common defense. I agree here 
too. I am tired of freeloading, grandstanding friends. But how is that 
a criticism of Sweden or Finland? As I said, Finland already pays its 
fair share, and Sweden has charted a clearer path there than have many 
current NATO members, and both nations are doing so for a reason more 
durable than diplomatic sweet talk--perceived danger.
  Some claim that expanding NATO will provoke Russian aggression, but 
the fact is, NATO expansion is the result, not the cause, of Russian 
aggression. Countries are banging on NATO's door because of Russia's 
behavior. Indeed, Russian aggression is the cause of today's debate. As 
I mentioned earlier, Sweden and Finland have long histories of 
neutrality. Vladimir Putin's violence toward his neighbors has now made 
that neutrality untenable in their minds.

  Finally, a few critics of NATO expansion love to quote the words of 
George Washington's Farewell Address. It is true our first President 
warned against ``permanent alliances,'' and he recommended ``as little 
political connection as possible'' with other nations. That advice was 
well-suited for a young, weak Republic in 1796. Yet Washington didn't 
stop writing where these critics stopped reading. That great statesman 
foresaw a future when America would gain strength, stand up, and assert 
itself.
  Washington continued:

       With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain 
     time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent 
     institutions, and to progress without interruption to that 
     degree of strength and consistency, which is necessary to 
     give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes.

  We have gained, since Washington's time, the command of our own 
fortunes. One of the pillars of our strength in modern times is our 
network of allies and partners in the Old World. These beachheads and 
lodgments of freedom help us keep the awful power of modern war at a 
distance. Finland and Sweden are two such nations. They have asked to 
join our mutual defense alliance, and they are worthy partners.
  I urge my colleagues to grant their request, ratify this treaty, and 
welcome two more strong beachheads and lodgments into the North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, to the speaker who has just finished 
speaking, before he leaves the floor, he and I share the same initials, 
TC, and in this case, we share the same views on an important issue. It 
is great to have the TCs--the Tango Charlies--speaking from the same 
hymn book.
  On a lighter note, some of the conversation here today is pretty 
serious. This is a serious matter, but I want to make it, maybe, a 
little bit lighter.
  I am reminded today of the words of Harry Truman, our former 
President, who used to say that the only thing new in the world is the 
history we forgot or never learned. The only thing new in the world is 
the history we forgot or never learned.
  I want to take, if you will--as Presiding Officer knows, every 
Tuesday, we have our caucus lunch, and the Republicans have theirs. 
Unfortunately, we don't dine together enough. But, at our caucus lunch, 
we have a history moment or a history minute--maybe a minute or 2. It 
is always one of the highlights, frankly, of the time we spend 
together. And I want to just look back a little bit in time as we take 
up, today, an issue that is right before us.
  As it turns out, the first Swedes and Finns came to America about 384 
years ago. They themselves were from a place called Kalmar, Sweden. At 
the time, as we have heard from others who have spoken, Sweden and 
Finland were the same country. There was no Finland. All the Finns 
lived in Sweden, and they continued to live in Sweden for a good long 
time. I think the Swedish lived--1809. In 1809, the Swedish rule over 
Finland officially came to an end, and Finland separated from Sweden.
  But when the two ships, the Kalmar Nyckel and the Fogel Grip, set 
sail from what was then Sweden, across the Atlantic Ocean toward the 
Western Hemisphere, they got close to land and ended up sailing north 
into what later would become the Delaware Bay. They sailed further 
north into what would become the more narrow channel of the Delaware 
River. They continued to sail. They didn't go as far up as what is now 
Philadelphia, but they came across an uncharted river that went to the 
west. It was kind of a left turn off the Delaware River to the west. 
They sailed for about a mile, maybe a mile and a half.
  They decided that they would put down their anchors, and there was a 
bunch of rocks--big rocks--along the side of that river. They put down 
their anchors and declared that spot to be the colony of New Sweden. It 
is what is now Wilmington, DE--the colony of New Sweden. They raised 
their flag and said: This is where we are going to make our stand.
  That was, I think, maybe the first European colony, at least in my 
State, that was created. Later, it was taken over, I think, by the 
Dutch and then by, maybe, the British. But, initially, it was the 
Swedes and the Finns who colonized that spot.
  Delaware has one of the newest national parks in America, and it is a 
different kind of national park. It tells the story of Delawareans who 
were involved in the earlier history of the settlement of our country 
in leading up to the ratification of the Constitution on December 7, 
1787, which took place in Dover, DE, our State capital, and Delaware 
became the First State. For 1 whole week, we were the entire United 
States of America. Then we opened it up and let in Maryland and 
Pennsylvania and 47 or so more, including Wisconsin. I think, for the 
most part, it has turned out pretty well. We have had some bumps in the 
road as the Presiding Officer knows.
  The colony of New Sweden was in place for probably about 20 or 25 
years. Then the Dutch took over, and then the British sort of took over 
the region in 1664. When the Dutch created the colony of New Sweden in 
what is now Wilmington, DE, they also built a church. They built what 
is now known as Old Swedes Church. We have got a lot of churches in 
this country and a lot of different faiths. The Old Swedes Church is 
believed to be, maybe, the longest continuously serving church in 
America.
  How is that for history?
  It is part of our national park that we created. We had somebody 
working on it for years, and we created it a decade or two ago. Old 
Swedes Church is still there; it is still doing the Lord's work.
  This is a beautiful, beautiful picture. This is the Kalmar Nyckel at 
full sail. This is one of two ships that brought the Swedes and Finns 
to America--all 384 years ago. This is the Swedish flag over here, and 
this is the Delaware flag over here. The Kalmar Nyckel literally has a 
permanent place to be maintained and anchored along the Christina 
River.
  I went to the Biden Station this morning to catch the train to come 
down here, as I do most mornings. If I had just not gotten on the train 
and

[[Page S3892]]

had headed down the river for about a mile, I would have come to this 
ship right on the Christina River. It has set sail many places around 
the world. It is really the ship that represents our State, which used 
to be the colony of New Sweden.

  We all get to meet people from different places around the world, and 
I have been privileged to meet a lot of Swedish Americans. It turns out 
that there are more Swedish Americans than there are Swedes in Sweden. 
Let me say that again. There are now more Swedish Americans than there 
are Swedes in Sweden. There are a bunch of them, and they contribute to 
our country and certainly to our State in many, many different ways. I 
work a lot on economic development and always have as Governor and even 
now, and some of the finest businesspeople I have ever met are Swedes, 
of Swedish extraction.
  I have a funny story, if I could. Every 25 years, the King and Queen 
of Sweden come to revisit the colony of New Sweden, and we have a big 
celebration for a couple days right along the banks of this river, the 
Christina River. By the way, all those years ago, when the first Swedes 
and Finns came ashore, they named the Christina River after their child 
Queen, who at the time was--you won't believe it--12 years old, 12 
years old. Imagine peaking at the age of 12 and becoming a Queen or a 
King. Of course, the Christina, that river, is named after her.
  I like to point out to women who are named Christina--I tell them 
that their heritage, their name, actually goes back to all of those 
years when the first Swedes and Finns came here and helped to settle 
our country.
  Anyway, once every 25 years, the King and Queen of Sweden come to 
visit us. In 2013, King Carl XVI and Queen Silvia of Sweden came to 
Delaware for several days. We had a huge celebration on the banks of 
the Christina River, and I had the privilege of sitting next to the 
Queen during dinner. It was a big banquet with hundreds of people in 
black tie. It was a beautiful evening with great music and wonderful 
speeches. And she and I just had a delightful time talking over dinner.
  We talked about the arts. I like films, and I believe the Presiding 
Officer is a big film buff. One of my early favorite directors is 
Ingmar Bergman, a Swede, who made great films for many, many years. We 
talked about his films and the films that actually touched our lives 
and helped shape our lives. We talked about music. We talked about 
music.
  I said to the Queen of Sweden: Your Highness, I don't know where I 
got this, but for some reason, I make the connection between you and 
the singing group ABBA.
  Now, Ingmar Bergman is one of the greatest film directors of all 
time. ABBA, a Swedish singing group, is, I think, maybe the top-selling 
singing group in the history of the world. They actually still record 
from time to time.
  But, anyway, I said to Queen Silvia: Is there any connection between 
ABBA and you and your husband? Is there?
  She said: Well, there is.
  I said: Well, what is it?
  And she said: The night before we were married in Sweden, there was a 
huge celebration and a concert, an outdoor concert, with tens of 
thousands of people.
  She said: The headline group for the concert was ABBA.
  I said: No kidding? Did they sing?
  And she said: That was the night they debuted the song ``Dancing 
Queen.''
  It is, maybe, one of the best pop songs I have ever heard. I won't 
say that we sat there and hummed a few bars, but maybe we did.
  We have a lot in common with the Swedes and the Finns. We share a lot 
of likes and, really, very much appreciation, if you will, of the arts 
and of film, including music. We are a country that prides itself on 
our free enterprise system, but we know how to do it with a heart. So 
do the Swedes.
  Look up the term ``no-brainer.'' You won't find it in the dictionary, 
but if you look up the term ``no-brainer,'' it would say: this vote 
today and the issue that is before us.
  Why in God's name wouldn't we want the Swedes and Finns to join us 
together?
  Lisa Blunt Rochester is our Congresswoman. We have only one. She is 
our Congresswoman. In Delaware, she has a saying that she talks about: 
Sticks tied together can't be broken. Sticks tied together can't be 
broken.
  With one stick--phew--you are going to break it; but if you pile a 
bunch of them together, you can't break them. The same is true here. 
The same is true here. The admission of Finland and the admission of 
Sweden into NATO makes that band of sticks even stronger and that much 
harder to break.
  I am just delighted that we have an issue where there has been a fair 
amount of dissension in these Halls, and I am delighted that we have 
something, I think, we can all pretty much--almost all--agree on. It is 
a good thing, and it will be good for our country. It is going to be 
good for Sweden, and it is going to be good for Finland. I think it is 
going to be good for our planet. Those of us who are privileged to live 
in what used to be the colony of New Sweden couldn't be happier, and we 
are delighted to celebrate.
  To anybody who is listening who says: Well, you know, I have never 
been to a national park in Delaware, well, we want you to know that we 
have one and that it is a great one that runs from one end of the State 
to the other. If you start up north, get off the train and walk about a 
mile, you will be at what used to be the home place, the starting 
place, of the colony of New Sweden.
  With that, I think I have done enough damage here today. I yield to 
the fellow from Alaska. I don't know if he has spent a lot of time on 
ships or boats. I spent a few years as a Navy guy, but the marines 
spend a lot of time at sea. They take rides in our boats. We are on the 
same team. I usually say we wear different uniforms, but we are on the 
same team.
  And, on this, we are on the same page, and it is great to be here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is always good to follow my friend 
from Delaware, Navy Captain Carper, who is a Vietnam vet, a naval 
aviator--the whole works. It is an honor to serve with him on the EPW 
and other committees. So thank you to my good friend from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 5192

  Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5192 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Sullivan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5192.

  The amendment is as follows:

          (Purpose: To provide a declaration to the Protocol)

       In section 2, strike paragraph (6) and insert the 
     following:
       (6) Support for 2014 wales summit defense spending 
     benchmark.--The Senate declares that all NATO members should 
     spend a minimum of 2 percent of their Gross Domestic Product 
     (GDP) on defense and 20 percent of their defense budgets on 
     major equipment, including research and development, by 2024, 
     as outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration.

  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, after World War II, European leaders 
looked to the United States to help heal a fractured world and to help 
provide safety against increasing communist Russian aggression. As 
Winston Churchill said:

       There I sat with the great Russian bear on one side of me 
     with paws outstretched and, on the other side, the great 
     American Buffalo.

  Well, the Buffalo prevailed, NATO prevailed, and the world's most 
successful and enduring military alliance was born.
  In 1949, the Senate ratified the NATO treaty by a vote of 82 to 13. 
President Truman was quoted at the signing ceremony of the NATO treaty 
by saying:

       In this pact, we hope to create a shield against aggression 
     and the fear of aggression . . . For us, war is not 
     inevitable.

  He continued:

       Men with courage and vision can still determine their own 
     destiny. They can choose slavery or freedom--war or peace. . 
     . . The treaty we are signing here today is evidence of the 
     path they will follow.

  That was when President Truman signed the first NATO treaty.
  And, indeed, since the formation of NATO, no world wars have broken 
out, no country that is a signatory of NATO

[[Page S3893]]

has been invaded by another country's military forces. In fact, the 
only time NATO's article V--which is the pillar of the alliance, which 
states that an attack on one is an attack on all--was invoked was 
actually after the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11. Our allies 
came to our help to ensure Afghanistan wouldn't harbor terrorists, and 
we appreciate that help. We appreciate it deeply from our NATO allies.
  NATO, however, is more than just a military alliance. It is a group 
of countries with shared values and beliefs and a commitment to the 
principles of democracy. All of this, in addition to the military 
alliance, is the heritage of NATO.
  President Ronald Reagan summed it up succinctly in a speech to our 
NATO allies in 1983:

       What do the Soviets mean by words like democracy, freedom, 
     and peace? Not, I'm sorry to say, what we mean.

  Replace the word ``Soviet'' with ``Russia,'' and the sentiment, 
unfortunately, holds true today. We see the antithesis of these 
democratic values and shared beliefs of NATO being played out in real 
time before us in the streets of Ukraine, where Vladimir Putin is 
leading a brutal assault on Ukraine--Russia's democratic neighbor--and 
committing atrocities, horrible atrocities, against the brave people of 
that country.
  As both Presidents Truman and Reagan remarked, members of the NATO 
alliance are like members of the same house in the same family--the 
house and the family of democracy.
  So, today, the U.S. Senate will welcome the nations of Sweden and 
Finland into the NATO family. Like any family, we may not agree on 
everything, but when it is most important, we will have each other's 
back. That is the essence of NATO and the core reason for its success.
  Neither Russia nor any other country will be able to invade Sweden or 
Finland, now that they have become members of NATO, without its NATO 
allies coming to their support.
  Of course, Finland has experienced the Russian invasion. In 1939, 
where, without the help from other nations, its greatly outnumbered 
brave Finnish army fought off over 1 million Russian forces for 3 
months. But that won't happen again to Finland. It won't happen to 
Sweden. They won't be alone now.
  We welcome these countries' commitment to freedom and their advanced 
professional militaries, which will make NATO stronger.
  To Finland and Sweden, no longer will you be working with NATO. You 
will now be working in and part of the greatest defense alliance in 
history. So welcome to these great countries.
  As Churchill once said:

       There is only one thing worse than fighting with allies, 
     and that is fighting without them!

  I strongly support the inclusion of these two great nations, Sweden 
and Finland, into the NATO alliance. Important occasions like this are 
also an opportunity to reflect on the obligations of membership, not 
just for these new NATO members but for all NATO members.
  And on the heels of the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea in 
2014, the heads of state and representatives of the then-28 member 
countries who made up NATO attended a very important summit, a NATO 
summit, in Wales. There, they agreed upon a common goal for all NATO 
members that they would spend a minimum of 2 percent of their gross 
domestic product on defense by 2024. This 2 percent of GDP NATO defense 
spending goal has been strongly supported for decades by American 
administrations, both Republican and Democratic: Presidents Bush, 
Obama, Trump, and now President Biden.
  At the time, in 2014, of the NATO summit in Wales, 10 of the 28 
members of NATO met that 2-percent guideline. Now, 8 years later in 
2022, of the 30 NATO country members, we only have 8 of those 30 
meeting that 2-percent threshold.
  I have a chart here. It lays out the 2-percent goal: who is above it, 
who is below it. It is many other countries besides the ones that are 
listed there. But the bottom line is, since Wales and that important 
commitment, there has not been much progress in NATO on this shared 
goal and commitment.
  Now, I am a very strong supporter of NATO and a very strong supporter 
of the U.S. military, and I want NATO to endure for decades to come. 
But alliances can't endure if shared commitments and shared burdens are 
not met. This is particularly true for democratic alliances like NATO. 
There must be a sense among the citizens of such countries that all are 
pulling their weight for the collective defense of the alliance, for 
the collective defense of each other.
  So as I mentioned at the outset, I am calling up an amendment to the 
resolution. My amendment is to make this commitment clear. It is to 
announce the U.S. Senate's expectation for all NATO members: the United 
States, existing members, and now new members--expectations on what has 
already been agreed to by each NATO country and its citizens.
  The amendment is simple. It states the following:

       The Senate declares that all NATO members should spend a 
     minimum of 2 percent of their Gross Domestic Product . . . on 
     defense and 20 percent of their defense budget on major 
     equipment, including research and development, by 2024, as 
     outlined in the 2014 Wales Summit Declaration.

  That is it. It is a simple amendment, and I hope it can pass in the 
next hour by voice vote.
  Let me conclude with this: A robust, expanded NATO with Finland and 
Sweden as new members is needed now more than ever, especially given 
the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia. We need to fully understand 
the broader implications of this invasion. We have entered a new era of 
authoritarian aggression, led by Russia and China's dictators, who are 
increasingly isolated and dangerous, driven by historical grievances, 
paranoid about their democratic neighbors, and willing to use military 
force and other aggressive actions to crush the citizens of such 
countries. These dangerous dictators, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, 
are increasingly working together to achieve their aggressive goals.
  We must wake up to the fact that this new era of authoritarian 
aggression will likely be with us for decades. We need to face it with 
strategic resolve and confidence. The United States has extraordinary 
advantages relative to the dictatorships of Russia and China, if we are 
wise enough to utilize and strengthen them: our global network of 
allies, our lethal military, our world-class supplies of energy and 
other natural resources, our dynamic economy, and, most important, our 
democratic values and commitment to liberty.
  Xi Jinping and Putin's biggest weakness and vulnerability is that 
they fear their own people. We should remember this and exploit this in 
the months and years ahead. NATO, as an alliance, encompasses so many 
of these powerful comparative advantages: a lethal military, a global 
network of allies, dynamic economies, and the power of democratic 
values and the commitment to liberty.
  We should all welcome and celebrate the addition of Finland and 
Sweden to the NATO alliance, but we should also use this moment to 
recognize the seriousness of the authoritarian threats on the rise all 
over the world and recommit ourselves, all NATO members, to our 
obligations of collective defense, moving forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, first of all, I want to applaud the 
Senator from Alaska for his comments. I agree completely with his 
statements, and I think his amendment making it clear that we expect 
the 2 percent to be honored by all member states is something that we 
all should welcome and agree to.
  I thank you for your leadership. I also thank you for how you have 
articulated the importance of NATO to our national security.
  NATO is a transatlantic security partnership that has served our 
national security interests so well for so many years since the end of 
World War II.
  Today, we are going to have a chance to vote to expand the NATO 
alliance by adding Finland and Sweden. I hope all my colleagues will 
support that.
  I will point out that Finland already exceeds the 2 percent that 
Senator

[[Page S3894]]

Sullivan is talking about, the percentage of their GDP that they are 
spending on defense. So I think this is another reason why we have 
countries that we want to add to the alliance. We have 30 strong now. 
This will even be stronger with Finland and Sweden being added to the 
NATO alliance.
  But what is unique about the two countries that we will have a chance 
to vote on in a few moments is that they give us added value to our 
alliance. They make our alliance stronger. It is in our national 
security interest to include Finland and Sweden. They add value 
militarily and economically to this alliance.
  The geostrategic location of these two countries is critically 
important to our national security. Just think for a moment about the 
threats to the Baltic nations that we have seen by Russia--Estonia, 
Latvia, and Lithuania. Think about where Poland has been threatened 
because of Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
  Adding Finland and Sweden will help us round out the security 
alliance necessary to provide the security that we need. Both of these 
countries are already committed to interoperability with the NATO 
alliance. They are already familiar with how NATO's process and 
procedures are utilized.
  So we have two countries that are ready from day one to be active 
participants in the alliance. They both participate in regular 
participation and training exercises with NATO and U.S. forces. Both 
Sweden and Finland have done that. They have contributed troops. Sweden 
has contributed troops to NATO-led operations in Kosovo, to 
Afghanistan, to Iraq. So we have countries that have already stepped up 
to help us in security and now will be a formal part of the security 
alliance.
  They will add, also, a dimension that is important for us in regards 
to winter warfare. The cold response winter warfare exercises have been 
participated in. Finland has the arctic capabilities that will be 
critically important to us as we move forward. So we are adding value 
to the NATO alliance as well as expanding the number of countries.
  I want to mention one other area: cyber and misinformation. We have 
two countries that have been very active in being victimized by the 
misinformation campaign by Russia. Sweden has a Psychological Defence 
Agency that they created in 2016 that is going to be important for us. 
As we know, Mr. Putin uses every weapon in his arsenal, including 
misinformation, in order to try to bring down democratic states. We 
know that in Sweden's case, they are already taking decisive action to 
counter the misinformation. Finland has an anti-fake-news initiative, 
which is actually fascinating. They recognize that Russia is trying to 
invade their country through misinformation, and they have an active 
way of defending against it. So, as I said earlier, we have two 
countries that will add value to the alliance.
  The timing here couldn't be better. We have stood up an international 
resolve to support Ukraine in the invasion by Russia. Expanding NATO at 
this moment is a clear message to Mr. Putin that we stand with the 
democratic countries of Europe and we are prepared to expand our NATO 
alliance to guarantee their protection.
  So these two stalwart, democratic nations, Finland and Sweden, have 
been robust partners to the United States and Europe on countless 
fronts. They have provided humanitarian aid to many countries in need, 
including Ukraine during the unprovoked invasion by Russia. Combined, 
Finland and Sweden provided over $120 million in military and 
humanitarian aid to Ukraine between February and June of 2022.
  These two nations have also shown a commitment to democratic 
governance, ranking third and fourth respectively on the global 
Democracy Index of 2020, according to an economist group. So we have 
two of the leading democratic states.
  Finland and Sweden have proven time and time again that they have the 
defense capabilities and commitment to democracy in Europe to make them 
essential NATO allies. The Senate must act now to bolster this global 
peace and security by voting in favor of Finland and Sweden's accession 
to the North Atlantic Treaty. I urge my colleagues to do that.