-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this week concluded the latest act in a familiar play on the world stage. It goes something like this:

First, Russia commits acts of aggression and pounds Ukrainian military and civilian targets with overwhelming force.

Then Western observers urge their leaders to equip Ukraine's defenders with decisive countermeasures.

Then, setting aside the fact that Russia is demonstrably more likely to escalate in the face of weakness than in strength, the Biden administration refuses, citing unsubstantiated fears of--you guessed it--escalation.

Next, precious opportunities for Ukraine to seize the advantage over Russian invaders come and go.

Then, after months of dithering, the Biden administration provides belated assistance or permission to use more advanced or longer range weapons on the battlefield.

Finally, administration officials brag to the media about the decision and pretend that it is not months--months--late.

In earlier acts of this tired production, the administration dragged out the authorization of HIMARS, fighter jets, and long-range artillery, to name just a few.

History will record hesitation, indecision, and cowardice as the hallmarks of this administration's Ukraine policy from the beginning.

This time, if recent press reports are true, Ukraine at long last has permission to use long-range American ATACMS weapons systems against military targets in Russia. Some of our colleagues might be conflicted about this development. I would ask them, would helping Taiwan or the Philippines defend themselves in the event of Chinese aggression be provocative? Was it escalatory to help equip the United Kingdom to defend itself against Nazi aggression before America's entry into World War II?

Needless to say, Ranking Member Wicker and I have urged the administration to authorize ATACMS strikes against Russia for months. Starting a full 6 months ago, so has the Speaker of the House. So has a chorus of policymakers on both sides of the aisle who understand that maximizing Ukraine's leverage over Putin's forces will be critical to the resolution of the conflict.

It is too early to tell just how much the Biden administration's needless delays have allowed Russia to move weapons they use to strike Ukraine's cities out of range of the ATACMS or let Russia's North Korean mercenaries take over. But one thing is certain: In Europe, as in Asia and the Middle East, the next Commander in Chief will inherit a world of threats made worse by the Biden administration's hesitation and half measures.

Next year, it will fall to the Republican government the American people elected this month to shore up America's position in the face of very real and directly linked threats to our interests. After 4 years of proposed net cuts to defense spending, it will fall on us to start investing seriously in the sort of hard power to contend with the coordinated efforts of Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China.

Consider just the most recent evidence of overlapping aims of the world's authoritarians. Reports this week indicate that in operations against Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israeli forces have uncovered caches of modern Russian weapons--the same sort of caches on which another butcher relied further east in Syria.

Russia and Iran are strategic partners. Russia is using Iranian drones against Ukraine. It is not a mystery how these weapons made their way into terrorist hands.

So in the wake of an administration that squandered leverage over the world's most active state sponsor of terror, tied the hands of a sovereign democracy in the face of neo-Soviet imperialism, browbeat a close ally fighting to restore its security against savage terrorists, and met the looming aggression of our greatest strategic adversary with a toothless climate diplomacy, we have our work cut out for us.

Of course, an executive branch allergy to deterrence and the exercise of hard power is not our only challenge. Even after January 20, we will still have to contend here in the Senate with efforts to weaken America's commitments to our friends and constrain the authorities that keep our adversaries on their toes.

This week, we will deal with exhibit A: resolutions from the senior Senator from Vermont to ban lethal arms sales to Israel.

I could lay out yet again why Israel deserves the time, the space, and support to restore its security and why the aftermath of the deadliest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust requires moral clarity, but instead I would like to take the case Senator Sanders made in the pages of the Washington Post yesterday and respond to just a few of its most outrageous assertions.

Our colleague began by characterizing Israel's response to the horrors of October 7 as ``all-out war against the Palestinian people.'' There is indeed a side in this conflict waging all-out war, but it is not the sovereign democracy that issues evacuation warnings before striking targets, knowing the terrorist combatants will escape along with civilians. No, the side waging all-out war is the one for whom civilian casualties are the end goal--the side that butchered, raped, and kidnapped Israeli civilians and continues to use Palestinian civilians as human shields; the side that pilfers humanitarian aid intended for its own citizens. Recognizing this distinction isn't just important to the discussion; it ought to be the price of admission.

Let's take another of our colleague's effort to blame Israel's war on an ``extremist government.'' Well, I suspect that would be news to the large shares of Israeli citizens across the political spectrum who have called for even more extensive operations against Hamas and Hezbollah, to the opposition leader who criticized IDF retaliatory strikes against Iran as not sufficiently aggressive, or to diverse members who have served in Israeli's war cabinet and made consensus decisions about the conduct of a war thrust upon them by genocidal terrorists.

How about another of his claims--that Israel is ``becoming a pariah nation condemned by governments around the world.'' This one has a shred--a shred--of truth to it, but the hounding condemnations of the Jewish State are hardly news.

Since 2015, the United Nations has adopted 156 resolutions condemning Israel. By comparison, the Iranian regime that chants for Israel's extermination has attracted similar condemnation 8 times--156 condemnations of Israel; 8 of Iran--while the Syrian regime responsible for slaughtering its own citizens received 11 condemnations. Some might suggest these figures say more about the U.N. and the scourge of anti- Semitism worldwide than about Israel.

Frankly, if Israel is becoming ``a pariah nation'' specifically since October 7, it is because this attack on Jews unleashed a new wave of emboldened anti-Semitism all across the West. And I worry that my colleague's misplaced criticism only provides cover for disgusting anti-Semitism right here in our own country, most visibly on university campuses.

Our colleague, for some reason, seems to take the U.N. very seriously. He points out that ``U.N. bodies have called for an end to the arms shipment fueling the conflict.'' Could it be that the senior Senator from Vermont wants us to get serious about Iran's pipeline of support to terrorist proxies? Guess again.

But as long as we are discussing international organizations, the best way for the U.N. to prevent ``fueling conflict'' would be to stop putting genocidal terrorists on its payroll. As long as I have anything to say about it, not a single taxpayer dollar will foot UNRWA's bills.

Our colleague's case is a maze of internal contradictions. Reasonable people have no need to grapple with it point by point. Those who mourn senseless human suffering should have no trouble assigning blame to the terrorists who exploit civilians, schools, hospitals, and mosques as cover. Those who seek peace should know better than to pretend we can achieve it with such savages holding power.

This week, obviously I hope the Senate will reject the Senator's resolutions outright.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source