Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 130 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 130 (Wednesday, August 3, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3883-S3892]
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.