[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 37 (Thursday, February 29, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1063-S1067]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                National Children's Dental Health Month

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today to recognize February as 
National Children's Dental Health Month. Since 1981, this month has 
given us the chance to acknowledge the importance of dental health for 
children, recognize the progress we have made on this front, and renew 
our commitment to ensure that all children in our country have access 
to quality, affordable dental care.
  Oral health is an aspect of health that is often overlooked, despite 
its critical role in the overall health of a person. As former U.S. 
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once said, ``There is no health without 
oral health.''
  In my state, like many others, we have witnessed firsthand the 
consequences of neglecting oral health in young people. One story that 
has shaped my view on this issue is that of Deamonte Driver, a 12-year-
old Prince George's County resident who tragically died in 2007 due to 
a lack of comprehensive dental services. Deamonte's death was 
particularly heartbreaking because it was entirely preventable. What 
started out as a toothache turned into a severe brain infection that 
could have been prevented by an $80 extraction. After multiple 
surgeries and a lengthy hospital stay, sadly, Deamonte passed away, 17 
years ago this month.
  Stories like this underscore the need for access to affordable oral 
health care for all Americans, particularly vulnerable and underserved 
communities.
  While trends over the past several decades show promising reductions 
in tooth decay among young children, tooth decay remains one of the 
most common chronic diseases of childhood. About 1 in 4 preschool 
children experienced tooth decay in primary teeth and at least one in 
six children aged 6 to 11 years experienced dental tooth decay in 
permanent teeth. It is also important to note that neglecting oral 
health at a young age increases the need for more advanced and 
expensive dental services, which are even less accessible than more 
standard types of dental care.
  There is a persistent pattern of oral health disparities, as children 
from lower-income and minority racial and ethnic groups generally 
experience more disease and have less access to treatment.
  Children from low-income households are twice as likely to have 
cavities, compared with children from higher-income households. 
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for 
children aged 2 to 5 years, about 33 percent of Mexican-American and 28 
percent of non-Hispanic Black children have had cavities in their 
primary teeth, compared with 18 percent of non-Hispanic White children. 
For children aged 12 to 19, nearly 70 percent of Mexican-American 
children have had cavities in their permanent teeth, compared with 54 
percent of non-Hispanic White children.
  In its most recent Oral Health in America report, the National 
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, one of National 
Institutes of Health, identified disparities as one of the primary 
challenges facing oral health in the United States. Last year, I held a 
hearing in the Senate Finance Health Care Subcommittee to focus on 
these issues. The hearing highlighted disparities in access to oral 
health care, which have persisted and have serious consequences for 
children, adults, families, and communities. I was proud to have Dr. 
Warren Brill, a distinguished pediatric dentist from Maryland who has 
long provided care to low-income children and provided valuable 
insights for our conversation, serve as a witness.
  Poor dental health can have lasting impacts on children. Tooth and 
gum pain can impede a child's healthy development, including the 
ability to learn, play, and eat nutritious foods. Children who have 
poor oral health often miss more school and get lower grades than 
children who have good oral health.
  While it might be easy to view oral health as an afterthought, it is 
clear that the issues resulting from a lack of care can have wide-
ranging, serious impacts, especially when access to care is a struggle 
from a young age. Poor oral health can contribute to severe outcomes 
like the tragic story of Deamonte while also manifesting in broader 
disparities across racial and ethnic groups.
  Since the loss of Deamonte, I am proud to say that we have made 
significant progress in improving access to pediatric dental care in 
our country and in my state. In 2009, Congress reauthorized the 
Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, with an important addition: 
a guaranteed pediatric dental benefit. Research shows that CHIP 
generally offers more comprehensive benefits at a much lower cost to 
families than private coverage.
  Additionally, the Affordable Care Act, ACA, has significantly 
improved access to affordable dental care for millions of Americans by 
requiring most insurers to cover essential health benefits. I was 
particularly pleased that pediatric services, specifically pediatric 
dental care, were identified as part of the ten categories of 
healthcare services included in the EHB package. As a result, pediatric 
dental insurance coverage is available for purchase on all State-based 
insurance marketplaces and the federal marketplace. The dental coverage 
offered through ACA plans in all States covers a minimum set of 
benefits to ensure children have coverage for essential dental 
services.
  Expansion of dental insurance coverage has enabled early intervention 
for more children from low-income households. Today, 9 in 10 children 
in the U.S. have dental insurance. Dental care is also a mandatory 
benefit in Medicaid for children since it is provided through the Early 
and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program. Still, 
research has found that although State Medicaid programs cover 
children's dental services, fewer than half of all publicly insured 
children get the recommended care.
  This figure demonstrates that there is more we can do to ensure 
children are receiving proper dental care. This effort is a priority of 
mine and an area where I believe we can make tangible changes to the 
lives of many Americans.
  For several Congresses, Senator Stabenow and I have introduced the 
Ensuring Kids Have Access to Medically Necessary Dental Care Act. Our 
legislation would eliminate lifetime and annual limits for dental care 
for children under CHIP. The bill would also require

[[Page S1064]]

States to provide ``wraparound'' CHIP dental coverage, meaning CHIP 
would cover dental services for eligible children who are not enrolled 
in CHIP. Currently, if a child is eligible for CHIP but instead has 
coverage under a group health plan or employer-sponsored insurance, 
States have the option of providing dental-only coverage to this child 
through CHIP. This bill requires that dental coverage be offered.
  In recent years, dentists nationwide have seen a significant decrease 
in operating room access for dental procedures. This problem has 
primarily impacted children and adults with disabilities who are in 
need of urgent dental care and cannot access it in an office-based 
setting, necessitating care in an operating room. Earlier this 
Congress, Senator Blackburn and I sent a letter to the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services urging them to include the recently 
established code for dental surgical services in the 2024 Medicare 
Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System. Thankfully, the code 
was included in CMS's final rule to expand access to these critical 
procedures and shorten the waitlists to receive care under general 
anesthesia in operating rooms.
  While ensuring dental coverage for our young people is the most 
direct way to support their oral health, it is also important to keep 
in mind that providing dental coverage for adults also improves 
outcomes for their children. A 2021 study found that Medicaid adult 
dental coverage was associated with a reduction in the prevalence of 
untreated tooth decay among children after parents had access to 
coverage for at least one year. The study found that all children saw 
improvements in oral health, and non-Hispanic Black children 
experienced larger and more persistent improvements than non-Hispanic 
White children. A Medicaid dental benefit for adults would enhance the 
progress for children and provide much needed dental care and improve 
oral health outcomes for adults.
  That is why I am proud to have introduced the Medicaid Dental Benefit 
Act, which would extend comprehensive dental health benefits to tens of 
millions of low-income Americans on Medicaid. The legislation would 
provide States with a 100 percent federal match for the dental benefit 
for three years. This investment of federal funds would support states 
to set up or improve their dental benefit and assist in provider 
education and outreach efforts to better connect enrollees to oral 
health care.
  Oral health is a crucial part of overall health, and it should be a 
priority for Americans from a young age. Dental care should not be a 
luxury or reserved for the most privileged. Access to quality, 
affordable care is not only important in the fight against tooth decay 
and related complications, but also plays a valuable role in combatting 
the health disparities that plague our communities. As we recognize our 
progress on this issue, we must recommit to expanding access to oral 
health services. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.


                              S.J. Res. 60

  Madam President, we are shortly going to be voting on a motion by 
Senator Paul in regards to the F-16 sale to Turkiye. Recently, the 
administration noted an F-16 sale to Turkiye to modernize its F-16 air 
capacity.
  I understand my colleague from Kentucky's concern about President 
Erdogan's record. I share some of those concerns. The State 
Department's most recent human rights report on Turkiye found 
significant issues, including credible reports of: forced 
disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrests, and continued detention of 
tens of thousands of persons, opposition politicians, former members of 
parliament, lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists.
  In addition, Turkiye has targeted U.S. partners in the Kurdish-led 
Syrian Democratic Forces and supported Azerbaijan in its brutal war 
last year to conquer Nagorno-Karabakh.
  This is unacceptable, and I have not hesitated to make it clear that 
Turkiye needs to change course. I have consulted closely with the 
highest levels of the Biden administration about this transition over 
several months.
  I believe they share my concerns, and I believe we are making 
progress. And our former colleague Ambassador Flake is engaging 
regularly on these issues with the government in Ankara.
  So I want to be clear, my approval of the Biden administration's sale 
of the F-16 aircraft to Turkiye was not a decision I came to lightly as 
the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  It was contingent on Turkish approval of Sweden's NATO membership. 
That condition has been met. Turkiye's parliament ratified Sweden's 
NATO membership bid. This comes at a critical time.
  (Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.)
  President Putin is continuing his brutal war in Ukraine and 
threatening NATO and all of Europe. Given the stakes, not only is 
Sweden's membership vital to NATO, so is Turkiye's.
  Turkiye is a key to the defense of the southern flank of NATO. It is 
host to a major U.S. military presence. And Turkiye's F-16 fleet 
contributes to NATO, including in the Black Sea, which is critical to 
our national security.
  That is why it is in the national security interest of the United 
States and our allies for Turkiye to upgrade its aging F-16 fleet to a 
more capable model, a model that is compatible with the United States 
and NATO partners. That is exactly what this sale will do. It will 
usher in an important new chapter in our relationship with Turkiye.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject the resolution being 
offered by my friend from Kentucky and allow this sale to go forward. 
It is in our national security interest. It is in the security interest 
of our allies. It will strengthen NATO and strengthen our resolve 
against Russia's aggression in Ukraine.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, the United States and Turkiye have 
an important and complex relationship, and I have been repeatedly 
outspoken about my concerns regarding Ankara's actions under President 
Erdogan. These include President Erdogan's ongoing attacks against our 
Syrian Kurdish allies, his aggressive actions in the Eastern 
Mediterranean, and the role he played in supporting Azerbaijan's 
military assaults against Nagorno-Karabakh. The Biden administration 
recently briefed me on these issues and provided some answers around my 
concerns.
  Though I have been glad to see that President Erdogan has ceased the 
incursions by military aircraft into Greek airspace, the administration 
informed me that they continue to monitor this matter closely in order 
to encourage the ongoing dialogue between Greece and Turkiye. 
Additionally, I received assurances from the administration that it 
will continue to warn Azerbaijan against taking further military action 
against Armenia and that they will work with Turkiye to prevent any 
further escalation of that conflict. I remain deeply troubled by 
President Erdogan's attacks against the Syrian Democratic Forces--SDF--
in Northeast Syria; however, the administration assured me that they 
continue to voice their strong objections to these attacks, including 
the threat posed to U.S. forces working with the SDF, and reaffirmed 
their ongoing commitment to supporting this crucial partner, who has 
served as the tip of the spear in our campaign to defeat the Islamic 
State. The administration told me that they would more clearly 
communicate that commitment to the SDF to allay concerns that have been 
expressed about a reduced American commitment to our partnership.
  While Turkiye's ratification of Sweden's NATO membership was long 
delayed, it has been a welcome step forward and an important signal to 
the NATO community. I hope that this step indicates a broader 
realignment of Turkiye's actions with U.S. national security interests 
and serves as a platform upon which we can address these other 
lingering issues in the bilateral relationship. It is for these reasons 
that I will be opposing S.J. Res. 60, which would disapprove of the 
sale of 40 F-16s and other defense articles and services to the 
Government of Turkiye. I will continue to stay in regular communication 
with the administration regarding their assurances on these and other 
key issues. It is clear that we must keep a close watch on Turkiye in 
the weeks and months ahead; actions speak louder than words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

[[Page S1065]]

  

  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I rise today in respect to S.J. Res. 60, 
which, as I understand it, will be up for vote here fairly quickly. And 
I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 60. S.J. Res. 60, in essence, says 
that we would not keep the commitment that we have made to sell or 
refurbish the F-16 jets to Turkiye.
  I am not here to tell you that Turkiye is the best partner that we 
have had. Indeed, as former chairman and now ranking member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, I deal and have to deal with them 
regularly on a lot of issues. They are an ally in NATO. NATO, as we all 
know, is the strongest political and military alliance that has ever 
been created on the planet, and Turkiye is a member of that alliance.
  To be honest with you--and I tell them this face-to-face--they are 
not acting like a partner; they are not acting like an ally, and there 
are a long list of complaints that we have in that regard.
  This actually started with defense missiles that they wanted to buy, 
and we offered them the Patriot missiles, as we do to all of our NATO 
allies, and, indeed, instead, they chose to purchase Russian S-400 
missiles.
  At the same time, they had purchased, or were in the process of 
purchasing, four F-35 of ours--which everybody wants, understandably. 
But at the time that they bought the S-400s, I told them they can't 
have S-400s in the same country as F-35s. If they are going to do 
business with Russia, so be it, but there are consequences for that.
  So as a result of that, I put a hold on the F-35s, and I was followed 
by the other three corners and that hold was successful and the F-35s 
have not been transferred to Turkiye. And that was the fight we had 
with them over the S-400s.
  We have made them a number of reasonable offers to try to resolve 
this, but they have not accepted any of those offers, and the result of 
that is they still got the S-400s, and we still got the four F-35s, 
which are going to stay here until the S-400s leave the country.
  So the next thing that happened was they came to us and said, well, 
their F-16s were aging. They needed to be refurbished, and they needed 
a number of new F-16s.
  About that time, they decided to put a hold on Sweden and Finland 
entering NATO. And as we all know, Finland and Sweden really, really 
wanted to enter NATO shortly after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, 
and everybody in NATO agreed with that, with the exception of Turkiye 
and Hungary.
  Both used the accession to NATO by those two countries as a way to 
use leverage against other countries within NATO on some parochial 
disputes that they have. That is not the way you do business as an 
ally. When your allied, yes, you will always have issues that you have 
to deal with other allied countries, but you don't use the security of 
the whole. You don't use the good of the whole as a bargaining chip to 
try to get a leg up on those.
  So the result of that was for a long, long time, Turkiye held up the 
accession of those two countries into NATO. As a result of that, I held 
up the F-16 purchases that they wanted to make.
  Negotiations went on for a long time. We were made promise after 
promise. The promises were broken. But, finally, they did roll over 
earlier this year, late last year, and allowed the accession of both 
Sweden and Finland. The result of that was that we agreed that we would 
do what they wanted to do with the F-16s.
  This particular resolution, the S.J. Res. 60, really undoes that 
agreement, and I can fully understand Senators being upset with Turkiye 
for this and a long list of other complaints that we have. But a deal 
is a deal and we made this agreement and they kept their side of the 
bargain--admittedly not very timely, but they did keep their side of 
the bargain. And now Finland is in, and Sweden is about to come in so 
that will be the state of play.
  I would urge a ``no'' vote on this simply because it is imperative to 
the United States, when we give our word on something, that we keep our 
word, and so that is where we are.
  Having said that, I have urged Turkiye on a number of occasions to 
examine their conscience and really think about what their commitment 
means to NATO. That commitment to NATO all the rest of us have is very, 
very strong, and Turkiye and Hungary have not been behaving the way the 
rest of us in the coalition behave.
  One of the most troubling things to me is both of them hold hands 
with Putin under the table, and that is a very, very bad state of 
affairs as far as what is going on in Europe, as far as NATO's 
relationship with Russia, and just the overall situation.
  So although we have a lot of things to complain about with Turkiye, 
on this particular occasion, I am going to urge that we defeat S.J. 
Res. 60 and actually keep the agreement that we made regarding the F-
16s.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, what we have here is a clear case of quid 
pro quo. If Turkiye releases its hold on Sweden's membership in NATO, 
then Turkiye gets America's F-16s.
  You may remember the last time we had a famous case of quid pro quo 
here. Boy, everybody was all up in a lather, and they said that we had 
to impeach Donald Trump because it is a quid pro quo. Apparently, it 
depends on what the quid is and what the quo is.
  Quid pro quo, though, is actually more the norm than it is actually 
the exception. The speakers you have seen here today were adamantly 
against Turkiye and adamantly against them getting the F-35 because 
they possess a Russian defensive weapon system that may well allow 
exploitation and allow Americans to become more vulnerable.
  But now they are adamantly for it because it got Sweden into NATO. 
Thank God Sweden is in NATO. We can all rest easy.
  Rewarding Turkiye with the sale of $23 billion of F-16 fighters, 
though, has some repercussions, and we should think about it before we 
do it. I maintain that there are deep concerns about the sale as it was 
initially proposed in 2021, and I have maintained my opposition given 
Turkiye's dismal human rights record, its unreliable behavior as a NATO 
ally, and its disruptive military actions in the Middle East, the 
Caucuses, and the Eastern Mediterranean.
  Congress must not serve as a rubberstamp for President Biden's side 
deals. The quid pro quo to expand NATO should not come at the expense 
of rewarding the alliances most embarrassing member.
  President Biden pledged to center U.S. foreign policy on the defense 
of democracy and the protection of human rights. But Biden's own State 
Department issued a human rights report for Turkiye in 2022 which 
identifies significant human rights issues, including arbitrary 
killings, suspicious deaths of persons in custody, forced 
disappearances, torture, arbitrary arrest, and the continued detention 
of tens of thousands of persons, including opposition politicians, 
former members of Parliament, lawyers, journalists, human rights 
activists, and even an employee of the U.S. Mission.
  It doesn't sound like one of our best allies. The Human Rights 
Foundation of Turkiye, a nongovernmental organization operating out of 
Ankara, reports that some 1,130 individuals were subjected to torture 
and other forms of mistreatment while in custody or at extra-custodial 
places--meaning not jails, some, you know, out-of-the-way place that no 
one can see where the torture happens--and this sadly also includes the 
torture of children.
  In March 2023, it was reported a 14-year-old boy on his way home in 
southeast Turkiye was stopped by the police with no justification. He 
was subsequently abducted and subjected to torture. The police beat him 
with their guns and, according to the boy's lawyer, tried to force him 
to say: I am a Turk, a curse upon the Kurds. When he refused, the 
police instructed him to memorize the Turkish national anthem by the 
next day, threatening to shoot him if he failed to do so. The police 
then bound his hands and threw him into a swamp, before local 
villagers, hearing his cries for help, rescued him and brought him to 
the hospital.
  The State Department's report also identifies--our State Department--
identifies severe restrictions on the freedom of expression and 
assembly in Turkiye, violence and threats of violence against 
journalists in Turkiye, increased censorship, criminal liable laws, and 
unfortunately much more.
  Since 2014, it is estimated that more than 160,000 people were 
investigated

[[Page S1066]]

for insulting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and more than 
35,000 went to trial.
  Imagine if it were a crime in the United States to criticize the 
President how many people would be in jail.
  Of these trials, 12,881 individuals were convicted and 3,625 people--
including 10 children--were sentenced to prison.
  While Erdogan is imprisoning men, women, and children for insulting 
him, he is openly praising Hamas.
  So these people come to the floor and they say: Oh, we were against 
giving the planes to Turkiye before we were for giving them. And we 
don't like that Turkiye gives to Hamas, but we are playing real 
politics here because we want Sweden in NATO, and whether Turkiye gives 
money to Hamas, we are going to turn a blind eye. That, to me, is a 
quid pro quo not worth taking.
  After Hamas's brutal October 7 attack on Israel, Erdogan defiantly 
claimed: Hamas is not a terrorist group; it is a liberation group.
  Do you think we should be sending our best weapons to a country that 
said, after one of the worst terrorist activities in modern history, 
October 7, Hamas is not a terrorist group?
  Should we be sending our prized F-16s to a country that says Hamas is 
not a terrorist group; it is a liberation group--mujahideen--waging a 
battle to protect its lands and people? No. They went to a concert and 
killed young people, and we are going to send our weapons to them? Why? 
Because we made a quid pro quo. We got Sweden in NATO, so we are going 
to look the other way with Turkiye giving money and support to Hamas.
  This is the type of government we want to send our weapons to? 
Shouldn't the United States require countries to reflect our values 
before we send them billions of dollars' worth of advanced weapons? 
Shouldn't we demand that a NATO ally in particular at least respect the 
rule of law and basic human rights? President Biden certainly doesn't 
seem to think so.
  The United States cannot proudly proclaim human rights to be at the 
center of our foreign policy while it arms a country that commits gross 
violations of human rights.
  I also remain deeply concerned about the negative strategic 
implications of this proposed sale given Turkiye's reckless military 
actions in recent years.
  Just last October, a U.S. F-16 shot down a Turkish combat drone in 
Syria that was operating dangerously close to U.S. forces. Ironically, 
this sale provides Turkey with 40 brandnew F-16s and modernizes an 
existing fleet of 79. We are giving them the weapons system that we 
just used to shoot down their drone.
  Why was a Turkish drone operating so close to U.S. troops? It was 
targeting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces, whom we have 
supported for years to fight against ISIS. Turkiye views the Syrian 
Democratic Forces as terrorists, so in the eyes of our NATO ally, our 
partners in Syria are their enemy and legitimate terrorists.
  Does something seem a bit confusing here? They are shooting against 
people we consider to be our allies in the war against ISIS. They have 
drones up close to us, so we have to shoot down their drones. And we 
are sending them our modern planes and updating their fleet. The 
American taxpayers are paying to arm and train these Syrian Democratic 
Forces, and the Biden administration is giving Turkey advanced fighter 
jets that will inevitably be used to shoot and kill these same people. 
This utter lack of strategic foresight has unfortunately become 
commonplace in Washington foreign policy.
  This was also not the first time that U.S. forces were threatened by 
Turkiye's reckless military actions in Syria. In November of 2022, a 
Turkish drone strike on Syrian Democratic Forces put U.S. soldiers at 
significant risk, leaving the Pentagon to call for an ``immediate de-
escalation.''
  In October 2019, U.S. forces came under Turkish artillery fire which 
sources claimed was a deliberate effort to push American troops away 
from Syria's northern border. The shelling was purportedly so severe 
that U.S. personnel considered firing back in self-defense.
  This is our ally. We are sending these people F-16s who have been 
shooting at us and shooting at our other allies.
  There is also the fact that Turkiye--and this is not an insignificant 
fact--Turkiye bought the S-400 air and missile defense systems in 2019 
from Russia despite strong U.S. protest. That decision prompted the 
Trump administration to remove Turkiye from the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter Program.
  At that point, the leadership on the Republican and the Democratic 
side were opposed to the F-35 Program. They have now only switched 
their minds because of the quid pro quo. They have been given 
membership for Sweden, they salivate over making NATO bigger, and they 
do that in exchange for now sending these weapons to Turkiye.
  But there are concerns that the S-400 could expose classified F-35 
stealth capabilities to Russian intelligence gathering.
  You see, when you have missile defense, you are gathering defense on 
the plane that is flying towards you. If you own both the planes and 
the defense system, you can coordinate with them to learn more about 
the vulnerabilities of the planes that might be attacking your defense 
system. The same is true with the F-16.
  So this is strategically and militarily, No. 1, a huge cave-in to the 
Turks, but it actually puts our soldiers and our pilots at risk because 
now we are exposing the F-16, one of our planes, to the S-400, the 
Russian weapons system, and allow the intermatching of the two, and 
this will inevitably put our pilots more at risk.
  The risk of the S-400 serving as a Russian Trojan horse to compromise 
NATO's most advanced stealth fighter was clear to everyone in the 
alliance, but Turkiye proceeded nevertheless. President Trump 
subsequently imposed sanctions on Turkiye's defense procurement agency, 
which the Biden administration has kept in place.
  Nobody has really reversed themselves and said Turkiye is behaving 
and deserves a plane because they have switched course. Everybody is 
just saying Turkiye gets what they want because Turkiye used a form of 
extortion. You can call it ``quid pro quo''--that sounds better than 
``extortion''--but basically Turkiye said: We are not going to let 
Sweden into NATO unless you give us more planes.
  It looks like extortion works. This actually reinforces bad behavior. 
What will Turkiye do the next time they want something? They will 
simply act like a bad ally and hold up something we need in order to 
get something they want.
  So both the Trump and Biden administrations don't trust our supposed 
ally Turkiye to keep the F-35 capabilities secure, but now we are 
giving them the F-16. Perhaps Congress should examine some of the ways 
in which Turkiye has used F-16s recently.
  The Armenian Ministry of Defense claims that on September 29, 2020, 
in support of Azerbaijan's war to conquer the Nagorno-Karabakh region, 
a Turkish F-16 shot down an Armenian Su-25 attack aircraft in Armenian 
airspace. Turkiye has stood closely by its Azerbaijani ally in its 
efforts to subjugate the region, providing combat drones, military 
equipment, training, and, if we are to believe the Armenian Government, 
direct combat support.
  So the planes we give to the Turks, the F-16s, are actually being 
used in another war with Armenia. I have not heard of any debate on 
which side of that war we are supposed to be on--Azerbaijan or 
Armenia--but your weapons will be going in the middle of that war as 
well.
  The war in 2020 and Azerbaijan's subsequent military operation in 
2023 killed thousands and created a humanitarian disaster, forcing more 
than 100,000 people to flee--more than three-quarters of the population 
of that region.
  Turkiye also continues to be an unreliable ally within NATO. Not only 
did Turkiye blackmail the alliance by delaying Sweden's NATO bid to 
extract concessions, the Turks continue to regularly threaten Greece, 
another NATO ally. In 2022, Turkish fighter jets and unmanned aerial 
vehicles violated Greek airspace more than 10,000 times. President 
Erdogan continues his hostile rhetoric, threatening to hit Athens with 
missile strikes and claiming that Turkish forces may land in Greece 
``suddenly one night.'' It sounds like the unstable ramblings of a 
leader who

[[Page S1067]]

doesn't deserve to have our most advanced fighter jets.

  Last August, Mesut Hakki Casin, an adviser on security and foreign 
policy to Erdogan, claimed that ``the Mediterranean Sea belongs to us, 
and no one should even think about raising a sword against us there. 
They [Greece, Cypress, and their allies] better not forget this.''
  These are the people banging the drums for war with another fellow 
NATO ally that we are sending these weapons to. Without a hint of 
remorse on their side, they just held us hostage over Sweden. Sweden 
gave in. Quid pro quo. You get your jets.
  These statements from Turkiye sound more like the bombastic threats 
from North Korea's dear leader than a NATO ally.
  Do we really think giving Turkiye more fighter jets will modify their 
behavior? Actually, withholding them was the only chance of modifying 
their behavior. This sale will only embolden Turkiye to continue its 
disruptive actions at the expense of American interests and regional 
stability. What do we get in return? Greater risk to U.S. troops in 
Syria, instability in the Caucasus, continued threats to Greece, and 
the privilege of defending Sweden.
  While NATO is supposed to be a collective security agency, the 
reality is that if Sweden were ever attacked, it would be American 
forces doing the majority of the fighting--unless anyone truly thinks 
Turkish F-16s will come to their aid.
  The $23 billion sale is reckless. It fails to advance the security of 
the American people and does nothing to alter Turkiye's immoral human 
rights record, its unruly behavior within NATO, or its irresponsible 
actions in the Middle East, the Caucasus, and eastern Mediterranean. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in support of the joint resolution of 
disapproval to reject this disastrous deal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to respond for up 
to 2 minutes, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RISCH. Mr. President, first of all, I want the record to be 
absolutely clear. This is not a gift to Turkiye; this is a sale to 
Turkiye. They are going to pay for the munitions they are going to get, 
the aircraft they are going to get.
  As I stated when I started out, Turkiye is very, very less than a 
desired or good ally in the current NATO framework, and certainly, as I 
said, we have a long list of complaints with them.
  One thing I think that I would disagree with my good friend from 
Kentucky--the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO was a huge, huge 
matter. It wasn't something that was just a parenthetical thought. It 
added 800 miles of direct border against Russia, which is what NATO was 
created to push back against. And the same thing with Sweden. Sweden 
has a very, very robust defense system itself.
  With all due respect to my friend from Kentucky, I wouldn't put this 
in the vein or argument that we are going to come to the defense of 
Sweden. Sweden is going to come to the defense of NATO and in a very, 
very robust way.
  Yes, we wanted them, and yes, that is exactly why I withheld the F-16 
sale and refurbishment--so that we could get those two. It was 
extremely important.
  Also, my good friend has reiterated some human rights violations that 
this country has. I would remind my good friend that Russia does the 
same thing. I have a resolution that came out of the Foreign Relations 
Committee that is on the floor that reiterates all those human rights 
and condemns Russia for those exact human rights things that my good 
friend reiterated, but he has a hold on it. There is one hold on that 
piece of legislation, and it is from the Senator from Kentucky, which I 
would respectfully request that he lift.
  In any event, I am not here to defend Turkiye or the other things 
that they do. What I am here to do is to defend the importance of NATO, 
the importance of adding Finland and Sweden to NATO, and the fact that 
negotiations are the way these things get done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. The difference between Russia and Turkiye is no one is 
offering to sell F-16s to Russia. I am not for selling F-16s to Russia; 
neither am I for selling F-16s to Turkiye.
  This is a clear case of quid pro quo. All of the folks who are now 
for it were against it just months ago. The reason they have changed 
their opinion is they have been given something. Turkiye extorted us. 
Turkiye said: If you want Sweden to be in NATO, you have to give us 
these planes.
  So they gave up Sweden in exchange for getting the planes. It doesn't 
change any of the facts. The facts are these: Them having F-16s and 
Russian S-400s allows them to steal some of our technology, to match 
the technology of our fighter jets against a Russian defense system and 
potentially give that to Russia.
  This is a problem. It has been a problem. It hasn't changed. These 
are the same problems that opponents of this were mentioning over and 
over and over again. That is why for 2 years they have been opposed to 
this. They have flipped. They have sold their opposition to Turkiye for 
admission for Sweden. It is a quid pro quo. It is a trade.
  They made a trade, but publicly they will have to acknowledge they 
made a trade and they think somehow it is more important to sell these 
planes to Turkiye than it is to protect the integrity of the technology 
of these planes against Russian military systems.

                          ____________________