[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.
____________________