[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 184 (Tuesday, November 7, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5374-S5375]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          American Leadership

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have had no shortage of reminders in the 
last couple of years that we continue to live in a dangerous world.
  Vladimir Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine, increased Chinese 
belligerence, and Hamas's October 7 attack, enabled by Iran, are all 
powerful reminders of the fact that there will always be malign actors 
in this world who must be confronted. These events are also a powerful 
reminder of something else, and that is the need for American 
leadership on the global stage.
  Nature abhors a vacuum, and if the United States and other free 
countries don't lead, other countries will fill the void--countries 
like Iran, Russia, and China.
  I don't need to tell anyone that all three of these countries have 
been flexing their power in recent years and seeking to expand their 
footprint. Iran, as Hamas's recent attack so pointedly reminded us, is 
supporting terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East: Hamas, 
Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis in Yemen, Shia 
militias that are attacking U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria. And the list 
goes on. Nor is Iran confining its sphere of activities to the Middle 
Eastern countries.
  Iran has provided Russia with weapons to use in its war on Ukraine, 
and it is helping Russia to build its own drone-manufacturing facility 
to dramatically increase Russia's drone supply.
  Russia, of course, is currently providing the world with a clear 
illustration of its imperial aspirations in its war of aggression in 
Ukraine. And Putin has made it clear that his ambitions don't end 
there. He is also occupying territory in Georgia and seemingly working 
on asserting Russian influence in Moldova and the Balkans.
  And as for China, whether it is increasingly aggressive threats 
against Taiwan, efforts to expand its military and economic hold over 
the Indo-Pacific, menacing U.S. military aircraft, or sending a spy 
balloon across the United States in an attempt to gather information on 
sensitive military sites, China has made it very clear that it is set 
on expanding its power--and woe to anyone who gets in its way.
  And it is backing up its determination with an aggressive military 
buildup that has seen the Chinese military outpace the U.S. military in 
modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles.
  So it is abundantly clear that bad actors are flexing their power. 
And, as I said, our response to that must be a renewed commitment to 
American leadership internationally.
  Now, American leadership doesn't mean attempting to fix every 
country's problems or to get militarily involved in every conflict 
around the globe. We neither can nor should attempt to become the 
world's policeman. But that doesn't mean that we should retreat from 
the global stage or confine our focus to one or two areas.
  There is a lot that we can do while not attempting to play global 
policeman or to solve every conflict. In the first place, we can and 
should project the kind of strength that makes bad actors unwilling to 
tangle with us--or with our allies. That means first, and foremost, 
having a strong military prepared to meet and defeat any threat, backed 
up by resilient supply chains. But it also means things like a strong 
economy and developing our energy resources so that we don't have to 
depend on hostile countries or hostile areas of the world for oil.
  Military and economic strength is a powerful deterrent. But it is not 
enough. We also have to engage on the global stage. We need to build 
and maintain relationships with allies, support free nations, and stand 
against hostile actions by hostile countries.
  The stronger the bonds of free nations and the more united our 
response to belligerent countries, the less scope these countries will 
have for their aggression.
  The world stage is going to be dominated by someone. And when free 
countries abdicate a leadership role, malign actors are likely to end 
up controlling the playing field.
  Some might suggest that the United States should only engage globally 
when events directly and immediately affect us. But, unfortunately, 
that thinking often involves underestimating just how much we are 
affected by world events, even those that are not a direct and 
immediate attack on U.S. interests.
  Some, for example, would question our continued support for Ukraine.

[[Page S5375]]

Well, I question what will happen if we don't support Ukraine. 
Withdrawing American support for Ukraine could very well end up with a 
victorious and newly emboldened Putin on the doorstep of four former 
Soviet satellite states--now NATO members whom we are bound by treaty 
to protect.
  If Putin wins in Ukraine, it is not hard to imagine him viewing 
incursions into one or more of these former Soviet states as a good 
idea. And given our treaty obligations--and the imperative to prevent a 
Soviet Union 2.0--it is not hard to imagine American troops being drawn 
into the resulting conflict.
  Supporting Ukrainians' efforts to defend themselves against Putin's 
war of aggression is a way of preventing a conflict that would require 
a far greater commitment from the United States--not to mention warding 
off a likely catastrophic economic fallout in Europe from a wider war, 
which would take a heavy toll on American businesses and consumers.
  Furthermore, there is little question that a Russian victory in 
Ukraine would embolden not just Putin but other malign actors--notably 
China.
  If Russia is successful at taking over part or all of Ukraine, why 
shouldn't China think it can successfully take over Taiwan? We should 
be supporting Ukraine--not just because peoples fighting for freedom 
against tyranny are worthy of support, but because supporting Ukraine, 
like supporting Taiwan and Israel and other free countries, is in our 
national interest.
  We should support Ukraine with an endgame in mind. Saying we will 
back Ukraine ``for as long as it takes,'' as the President likes to 
say, is noble. But not being intentional about the resources we send 
risks prolonging this war without advancing toward that end state.
  We can't expect Ukraine to tread water indefinitely. And I am hopeful 
that the arrival of M1 Abrams tanks, longer-reaching ATACMS missiles, 
and soon--soon--F-16s, while too late to meaningfully contribute to 
Ukraine's summer counteroffensive, will enable Ukraine to make new 
battlefield gains.
  The Senate will soon take up a supplemental spending bill to address 
defense issues. And any such bill should promote security abroad by 
providing support for our allies--specifically, right now, Ukraine, 
Israel, and Taiwan.
  And after three successive years of recordbreaking illegal 
immigration at our southern border, we should make sure that any 
supplemental also focuses on building up our security here at home by 
tightening security at our borders, in addition to addressing military 
priorities like ramping up munitions production.
  Senators Graham, Lankford, and Cotton have produced a substantive 
plan to help secure the border and stem the historic level of illegal 
migration under this President's watch. And we should take up their 
proposal to address this essential aspect of our national security.
  We can't solve every problem or bring peace to every conflict around 
the world. But the United States can be a powerful force for good, if 
we are willing to lead. And we should use our strength and influence to 
contain evil actors and advance peace and freedom around the globe. 
Failing to do so may have consequences for our national security now 
and long into the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Kansas.