Nomination of Peter Joseph Kadzik to be an Assistant Attorney General - Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I am coming to the floor today to talk about what is happening in Ukraine, but before I do that, I cannot help but--having heard some of the discussion before this from my colleague from Michigan and my colleague from Ohio--add to that discussion.

First of all, the President didn't even notify the chair of the intelligence committee and the ranking member of that committee. And I think it is clear why he didn't notify the chair of the intelligence committee. Because there was widespread opposition from the intelligence committee to transferring these five particular detainees, and that was made clear to the administration well before this prisoner swap was made.

Moreover, what I find not only shocking--that the chair and ranking member of the intelligence committee weren't consulted about this, but what made my jaw drop was when I learned that our commander in Afghanistan had not been consulted in advance about the impact on the ground of this particular prisoner transfer in terms of the five Taliban detainees--which, make no mistake, what our intelligence community has said is that these five detainees, the five Taliban dream team--on a scale of 1 to 10, how likely will it be that they get back in the fight against us and our allies and against our interests? Four of them, we were told, are a 10 out of 10 that they will get back into the fight. That is why these five detainees were designated as high-risk by the board that is supposed to review these issues and decide whether prisoners can be safely transferred out of Guantanamo or whether they should be indefinitely detained.

I just wanted to add that to this discussion because it is important to understand. I do believe we should bring our men and women home who have served our country, but these five detainees represent a real danger to us and our allies going forward, and that is why even the intel committee on a bipartisan basis didn't think this was a good idea.

The notion that the President couldn't trust, for example, the ranking member of the intel committee, whom I have great respect for, and the chairman of that committee, whom we entrust every day to hold classified information, to ask at least what the intel committee thought, I just think that is absurd, that they would have somehow put at risk our soldier in Afghanistan.

So I wanted to add that to the discussion. And it seems to me that if we really wanted to consult on the ground with our commander in Afghanistan, we would want to know from him in advance what he thought about putting the five detainees back in the battle space, regardless of what he thinks now about it because making a good decision means consulting the people who are knowledgeable about this in advance.

What worries me the most about this transfer is the fact that five out of the five are likely to get back in the fight, and we don't have a good record on this. The estimates are that 29 percent of those who have been detained in Guantanamo have either gotten directly back in the fight or we believe have gotten back in the fight against our interests or the interests of our allies. That is the national security concern about this transfer.

UKRAINE

I am here today to talk about the situation in Ukraine. As we look around
the world there is so much happening and so much which is of concern to our country, but today I would like to focus on Ukraine and what Russia is doing in Eastern Ukraine to interfere with the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, to interfere with their choice of how they want to conduct their country, the choices they have a right to make for their own country.

Of course, this began with the illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea, but it has not stopped there. It has continued in Eastern Ukraine, where essentially we have seen violence and turmoil in parts of Eastern Ukraine.

Make no mistake, the cause of that violence and turmoil in Eastern Ukraine is by the so-called separatists, and the cause is very clear: Vladimir Putin and Russia hold the key to that violence. They hold the key and are as responsible for that violence as they are responsible for the illegal invasion of Crimea.

In fact, I would say Vladimir Putin has operational control of what is happening. He could ask those separatists to stop what they are doing. He could stop giving them arms. He could stop giving them the things he has been giving them, including the capability of shooting down Ukrainian planes, giving them the capability of tanks and arms.

With everything the Ukrainian people are trying to deal with, what do they want? The Ukrainian people want to determine their own future. They want Vladimir Putin and Russia to butt out. They want Russia to respect their sovereign territory, and unfortunately none of this is happening.

I recently had the honor of leading a delegation to Ukraine to oversee the Presidential election last month. I had the chance to sit down and meet with the now-elected President Boris Plushenko in Ukraine.

I also had the chance to meet many people in Ukraine and see their elections firsthand. One of the events that was very inspiring to me was the first polling place I went to in Kiev. There was an older gentleman, probably in his seventies, who cast the first ballot of the day. As he cast his ballot, he said: ``For democracy.'' That was a very moving moment because that is what we saw throughout the polling places we observed in Ukraine. They had a very high turnout.

The Ukrainian people came out to vote in their elections so they could choose their President, not a President chosen by Vladimir Putin. They came out to vote for a President chosen by the Ukrainian people, and they did it despite what was happening in Eastern Ukraine. They did it despite the threats Russia made against their sovereignty and their country.

I think they did it in spite of Russia and to send a message, as a people, to say: We are going to determine our future. Vladimir Putin, you are not going to determine our future. I found it all inspiring.

Why does Ukraine and what happens there matter to the United States of America? First of all, if Russia believes they can go in and invade the sovereign territory of another country without consequences, what does that mean for the rest of Europe and the security of Europe? Unfortunately, we have seen history such as this before, where countries are invaded and other countries act in an apathetic fashion; there are no consequences as a result of that invasion.

The President gave a moving speech in Warsaw, Poland, on June 4 of this year, to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Freedom Day there. In that speech the President said:

Ukraine must be free to choose its own future for itself and by itself. We will not accept Russia's occupation of Crimea or its violation of Ukraine sovereignty.

It means increased support to help our friends such as Ukraine and Moldova and Georgia, all of which are watching what is happening in Ukraine and wondering: Will we be next if there are no consequences for the invasion of Ukraine? To help them provide for their own defense, our free nations will stand united so further Russian provocations will only mean more isolation and costs for Russia.

In fact, as I went to Ukraine to oversee the elections, the President had said--with those impending Presidential elections in Ukraine--along with Chancellor Merkel of Germany, that if the Ukrainian elections were interfered with, there would be more costs to Russia. Well, guess what. When I was there overseeing the elections in places such as Kiev, where we had a record turnout, the Russians continued to foment violence in the eastern province.

In Donetsk and Luhansk, the people there did not have the free right to vote and exercise their decisionmaking for the future of their country. Where were the costs for that? There were none imposed. In fact, the economic sanctions imposed by this administration have not had an impact on Russia.

In fact, their stock market is back to where it was before the sanctions, and at this point they feel they have gotten away with it because the economic sanctions we imposed prior to those elections were imposed on individuals and some minimal sanctions on sectoral, but very limited, and we have done nothing to actually support the Ukrainians in helping them to defend themselves.

What has happened since the President talked about the costs they would endure if they interfered with the election? Nothing happened even though the Russians continue to foment violence in the east.

Flash forward to the Warsaw speech in Poland, where the President said if there is further aggression by the Russians, there will be costs if they interfere with the sovereignty of Ukraine.

Guess what happened since then. Since that time, the developments have been absolutely shocking, and I think the Russians are trying to take advantage of what is happening in Iraq and other things happening around the world. They are thinking we will lose sight of their illegal invasion of Ukraine and what they are doing in Eastern Ukraine.

On June 12, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine reportedly acquired T-64 tanks and BM-21 rocket launchers from Russia. These are the types of vehicles--rocket launchers--Russia is supplying to their agents, essentially, in Eastern Ukraine. There have been tanks sighted. This is no grassroots movement. Tanks and rockets have all been provided by Russia to kill Ukrainian people who are trying to defend their sovereignty. This has all happened since the elections, adding on to the violence that was committed in Eastern Ukraine during the elections.

The President said there will be costs. There have been no costs for tanks and missile launchers in Eastern Ukraine. In fact, on June 14 pro-Russian separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport killing all 49 people on board in the deadliest unrest in months in Eastern Ukraine. This is the type of transport the Russians--the agents they backed--shot down.

In order to shoot down a plane such as this, they have to have the technology to do it, and guess who is giving them that technology. Russia. Yet there have been no costs to that because at this point the President has just talked. He has not imposed tougher sanctions on the economy of Russia nor has he provided the Ukrainian military with support.

This is what it looked like when they shot down those 49 people who were killed. The Russian agents and the separatists they are giving the arms to did this--shot down that plane, and this is the actual picture of that plane.

At this point what is the State Department's response? What has our administration said? We are highly concerned about the new Russian efforts to support the separatists. We are very concerned. If they don't deescalate, there will be additional costs.

How many times will our President and the State Department say there will be additional costs if the Russians do anything further? How many times will the Russians again shoot down Ukrainian planes by giving these arms to their agents and their separatists? How many more Russian tanks have to cross the Ukrainian border before we will impose such costs?

Words don't mean anything to someone such as Vladimir Putin, and he knows we keep talking and not acting, so he can keep shooting down their planes. He can make sure the tanks roll over the border--the Russian tanks. This is not a grassroots movement. They have tanks and rocket launchers to shoot down aircraft. This is a subversion where the Russians are also trying to repeat the playbook of what happened in Crimea to further take over the rest of Ukraine, and it is time for us to back up our words with actions.

What kind of actions are we talking about? We are talking about legislation we have offered in the Congress. I have worked with Senator Corker and others on legislation that will impose tougher economic sanctions on Russia and will make a difference to them and their economy. We have financial sector sanctions, energy sector sanctions, military sector sanctions--sanctions that will send the message that, yes, this will hurt your economy if you don't respect the sovereignty of another country or if you continue to escalate the violence by providing not only tanks but also rocket launchers and shooting down planes of the Ukrainian people.

When I had the chance to meet with the new President of Ukraine, he had a request of us. First of all, he wants to make sure we are tougher than we have been on Russia in terms of economic sanctions so Russia doesn't continue to invade their territory and, not only that, so they don't go into other countries in the region. We need to use the economic tools at our disposal so we are forced to use military tools down the line. We have economic tools this administration is not using to impose costs on Russia and to back up the words of our President rather than continuing to look the other way when tanks roll in and airplanes are shot down.

What else can we do? The President asked me about supporting their military. No one wants to send a U.S. troop to Ukraine. No one wants to send our people to fight their battle, but this is what he asked of us: The former Russian-backed President gutted our military. Can you help get us some basic things for our military--body armor, communication equipment, night vision goggles, in addition, antitank and anti-aircraft capability.

What would that do for them? They could defend themselves from the tanks. They could help push back against their planes from being shot down. So what they want is the ability and the help to defend themselves.

Why should we give it to them? We should give it to them because not only is it the right thing to do so they can help defend themselves and we can push back against the Russian invasion in their country, but it is the right thing to do because we were a signatory to the Budapest memorandum.

In 1994, Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. They gave up their nuclear weapons under the Budapest memorandum that the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia signed. Russia has violated this agreement because the agreement required all parties to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine and the agreement required us to respect not only their sovereignty, but they expected some security assurance because they were giving up their nuclear weapons by signing this agreement.

We haven't even given them antitank, anti-aircraft equipment so they can defend themselves after they gave up nuclear weapons. What other country in the world is ever going to give up their nuclear weapons when we are not even going to impose tough economic sanctions on a country that has been invaded. We have not even given them basic military equipment when they were invaded.

I would argue, in looking at this playbook, no rational country is going to give up their nuclear weapons again in such an agreement if we don't actually follow through in what our President said, which is: There will be costs if the Russians continue to invade the territory of Ukraine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. AYOTTE. In summary, I do not expect us to go alone. I would ask our European partners to step up too. It is a shame that the French will continue their recent sale to the Russians to give them further capability of the Mistral class amphibious assault ships. So shame on the French for that because Europe is threatened by the Russian aggression here, and I not only expect our country to follow through, but our allies should be held accountable to follow through as well.

Ukraine matters. We cannot continue to look the other way as Russia thinks they can invade another country without consequences. We can make a difference in this Congress. I urge the President to follow through on his words; otherwise, do not say it if you were not willing to back it up, Mr. President.

The Ukrainian people deserve our support. They love America. All they want is to determine their own future instead of Vladimir Putin determining their future for them.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source