Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill we are on--the National Defense Authorization Act--by taking a look at the condition of the world today. This is an important time to do it, as we enter the end of this year and begin to look forward to the new year. We should take a moment to take a snapshot of the world and the threats that exist around us and the complexities in the world because I think they are directly on point as to what our military capabilities are going to need to be in the 21st century.

I note that the tendencies have often been on a number of occasions, even in my lifetime, where we have tried to take, for lack of a better term, what is known as a peace dividend--the end of the Cold War, for example, and then again after the events of 9/11--it is the idea that somehow the threats around the world and the challenges we face have somehow ebbed and it is time to nation build at home. I am always in favor of nation building at home. The problem is that today, now, in the 21st century more than ever, there is no such thing as a remote problem. There is no such thing as any issue that is of major importance abroad that doesn't somehow impact us here at home. This has always been true, but it has never been more true than it is today because of the global nature of our economy.

As we look around the world--and I want to take a brief moment to go over some of the parts of the world--we start to see what the need for American leadership is and the need for a strong national defense capability on the part of the United States and how important it is in this new global economy.

Let's begin by looking at the Middle East, the most troubled region of the world, and that has been true for a very long time. We begin by talking about the negotiations that are going on with Iran. Look, I would hope--we all do, I think--to wake up one day to the news that Iran has decided to walk away from sponsoring terrorism, that Iran has walked away from its desire to blow up Israel, that Iran has rejected the human rights violations it commits against its own people, and that they have abandoned their nuclear ambitions. We would all love to see that happen. That is the ideal outcome. It is also, frankly, the least likely.

The truth is, while we shouldn't root against the negotiations that are going on with Iran, we shouldn't be naive enough to believe they have a serious chance at success, and I say this for a couple of very different but simple reasons.

The first is because I think Iran looks at what has happened with North Korea--a country that barely has an economy; it is not even a country in the sense we think of, having a government. It is really an area of land run by a criminal syndicate. Iran has seen how North Korea, because it has a nuclear weapon, has been able to be immune to international pressures, up to a certain point. Then Iran looks to Libya and it looks to Iraq and it says: Look what happens to people who don't have nuclear weapons. So I am convinced the Supreme Leader wants that nuclear capability. Whether he will ever actually build the weapon--it may not be something they have decided yet, but the ability to build that weapon--I have no doubt that is what they want.

I have no doubt--and I believe the administration knows this to be true--that they have gone into these negotiations with a very clear objective; that is, we want you, negotiator, to get rid of as many sanctions as possible without agreeing to any irreversible concessions.

It is an interesting plan because their idea is to get rid of the sanctions, thinking they will do what they need to do in the short term--whatever that may be, as long as they are not irreversible--and at some point in the future they will restart the weapons program. It is going to be easier for Iran to restart the weapons program than it is going to be for the United States and the nations of the world to reimpose sanctions. So I think they have figured that out, and that is what their mandate has been. But even that has its limits because when we look to these negotiators--and there is a history of this, when we look to these negotiators--there have been times in the past when Iranian negotiators might have agreed to something at the table, but then they have to come back and pull the offer because when they take it to the Supreme Leader, he says no.

We have to understand that the Supreme Leader is an isolated individual. This is not a person who travels the world or interacts with other national leaders of other nations. This is a person who is an ideologue, a religious fanatic. And I don't care what the negotiators agree to or what the President of Iran agrees to, ultimately it is the Supreme Leader's decision. I hate to say this, but they are not going to agree to any sort of deal that is good for the national security of the United States. I believe that to be true, and we need to be prepared for that.

I hope one of the first items we take up in this Chamber in the new year, in the new Congress, will be a bill to require congressional authorization for any deal, and I think we should also consider putting in place sanctions for the day when that deal fails.

In the meantime, as we talk about those negotiations that are going on--and Iran has already acquired a concession on the part of the West that they
can leave in place some level of the infrastructure they need to enrich uranium and reprocess plutonium--they are still expanding their missile capability, they are still sponsoring terrorism all over the world, they are still deeply embedded and aligned with Shia militias in Iraq who pose a danger to the United States--and I will
touch more upon that in a moment--and they still have plans to one day destroy Israel. So we should not be naive about the situation with Iran, and I hope in the new year more clarity will come to that.

The second issue that directly touches upon our national security is the conflict between Iraq and Syria with regard to ISIL and the speed by which they have spread throughout two countries. Their goals are very simple. The goal of ISIL is to establish an Islamic caliphate that stretches from Europe--literally from Spain all the way through the Middle East, into India and Afghanistan, and in through north Africa. That is their very clear goal. They have said so. That is their plan, and it began in Syria, and it is spreading to Iraq. They made some pretty impressive gains before they started getting hit from the air. But even with that, they are the best funded and the best armed terrorist organization in modern history.

We already are beginning to see the spread of ISIL. One place to keep an eye on is Libya. They control an entire province in Libya. An affiliate of theirs, a group who has pledged allegiance to them, now controls an entire province in Libya, and here is what is dangerous about that. For a group such as this to prosper and grow, they need an ungoverned space. They need a piece of territory where no one is shooting at them, where no one is protesting their presence and they have no one to fight against them. That is why al Qaeda was able to grow so fast in Afghanistan--because the Taliban gave them that ungoverned space. That is why ISIL was able to grow so quickly out of Syria and into Iraq--because they were able to carve out an ungoverned space where the Syrian Government wasn't.

In Libya they have no one to fight. There is no functional government right now. There are no rival rebel groups to shoot at them. And they are going to use that ungoverned space to grow their capability. In fact, it would not surprise me, unfortunately, if in a few months, maybe a year, the hub of ISIL's activities is located largely in that province of Libya and beyond.

By the way, ISIL's presence isn't just a threat to Iraq and Syria; their immediate threat as well is to the Kingdom of Jordan, a critical U.S. ally. And if they are a threat to Jordan, they are a threat to Israel and, ultimately, to Saudi Arabia. They are a threat to Turkey already. They are a threat to Lebanon, and, as I said, they are present in north Africa as we speak. This is a very dangerous development, and it must be dealt with seriously.

We also can't anticipate the alliances that ISIL might make. We have to understand what is happening. As they make these gains--or supposed gains--they have also become very good at propaganda. They are convincing young, radicalized individuals--including here in the United States--that they are the preeminent jihadist group on the planet, that they are the most successful jihadist group on the planet, that they will inevitably succeed, and that they are an unsurmountable force. They are convincing people to abandon other groups and join them. They are convincing donors to stop giving money to other groups and give to them. We don't know what this is going to develop into, but we can foresee in the very near future where other groups begin to align themselves with them just to remain relevant.

By the way, as a side note, there is an additional danger to ISIL's spread, and that is that the other jihadist groups in the world, who are now losing donors and losing recruits, are now feeling an urgency to go out and carry out some spectacular attack, such as here in the homeland against American interests or air travel somewhere. They now have an interest in carrying out a spectacular attack because they need to do something to reattract donors and reattract members.

But back to my original point. The danger is that these new groups, in order to remain relevant and not lose their fighters, may decide they are going to pledge their allegiance to ISIL. The host of groups already exploring that are dangerous--the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Taliban in Pakistan, the Haqqani Network that is in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and there are other groups in north Africa as well that at least nominally have pledged some level of allegiance and support for what ISIL is doing. We need to keep an eye on this threat because a year ago, if I had stood on this floor and said we need to take ISIL seriously, no one would have known what I was talking about. That is how quickly this threat has spread, and we have no idea what it can morph into in the next few years, not to mention the next few months.

There is one additional point I wish to make. The city of Mosul has a university with a significant research capability, and one thing for us to be very cautious about is that ISIL is not using that university and its research capabilities to develop rockets or, God forbid, chemical weapons or even a dirty bomb. That is something to keep an eye on in the months and weeks to come. That is another example of the complex national security threats our Nation faces.

Our ally Israel--their struggles and their challenges are well documented. It begins with Iran. We have talked about the fact that single greatest threat facing Israel today is the prospect of a nuclear Iran and what it would mean to Israel's security in the long term. They face a very difficult challenge with the Palestinian Authority.

There was a poll I read about this morning that talked about a large majority of people--Palestinians--who believe it is morally right to kill Israelis, to kill Jews. I am not saying that I believe all Palestinians think that, but it bears noting what that poll found. It should not surprise us when the educational institutions of the Palestinian Authority--not to mention what is being taught in

Gaza--teaches people that not only is it right, it is heroic to kill Jews and to be an anti-Semite.

Then they are being pressured, including by this administration--Israel is--to enter into a peace agreement with these individuals, with those so-called leaders. How can you enter into a peace agreement with people who want to destroy you? How could you possibly enter into a peace agreement with an organization that wants to eradicate you? What are you going to negotiate--the terms of your destruction?

I don't know of any nation on Earth that wants peace more than Israel does. What do they have to gain from this constant conflict? How can you have peace with an organization, with a group that is committed to their destruction?

Instead of saying: Israel, your No. 1 problem right now is--we know what it is--the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon, this administration and some political leaders even in this Chamber believe we should be pressuring them that their No. 1 objective should be entering into some sort of peace agreement with an organization that wants to destroy them, that in some quarters won't even recognize their right to exist, an organization that harbors individuals who deny that Jews were ever present on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, which is absurd. Of course, I would just encourage them to do a little archeological research to confirm the longstanding Jewish presence in the region.

Suffice it to say that Israel is our strongest ally in the region. It is everything we wish the Middle East was--a prosperous, free enterprise economy, a stable democracy with a vibrant political process, and a loyal friend to the United States in international forums. I wish there were more countries in the world like that. We should do everything we can to support Israel and stop putting pressure on them because every time we put pressure on them on these things, we create daylight between the United States and Israel, we imperil their security, and we encourage their enemies to become even more aggressive.

The last point I will make about Israel: Let there be no doubt that there is a global effort to delegitimize their right to exist as a Jewish state. It has infiltrated throughout Europe, and we are starting to see it rear its ugly head in academia here in the United States. We should not let that stand. We should speak out against it and condemn it for what it is.

As if the Middle East were not complicated enough, we turn our focus to Europe and the threat Russia now poses. Interestingly enough, a year and a half ago, Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts, the Republican Presidential nominee, said that Russia was our most serious geopolitical threat in the short term. He was universally mocked by elitists and the press, even by some here in Washington--many here in Washington. It turns out he was right, as were many of us who were saying the same thing.

The truth is that Vladimir Putin many years ago concluded that the United States was a threat to Russia, many years ago concluded that he wanted Russia to be reestablished as a world power and that the only way he could achieve that was by confronting the United States and being seen as a counterbalance to the United States on the global stage, and we see that in place after place. In international forums, when it comes to Syria, on issue after issue Russia is against us because Putin believes it gives them relevancy on the global stage.

But there is a second issue and do not take this lightly. We don't spend all day obsessed about Russia. We don't spend all night thinking the Russians are going to invade us. But they do. There are leaders in the Russian Government who believe the United States wants to get into a military conflict with them, and they increasingly believe that now more than ever. We can see it in the military moves they are making. These are not just provocations. This is an all-out change to their defense posturing, to their defense theory, a defense theory that is increasingly looking like a Cold War one, a defense theory that is increasingly looking like they need to have the ability to prevent a U.S. first strike or to somehow be able to react to a U.S. first strike.

I know for us it sounds absurd that the United States would ever launch a nuclear attack against Russia. But there are Russian leaders at very high levels that believe that is plausible, and we are seeing it rear its head in every part of the world. Not a day goes by that there is not a report of a Russian intrusion here or a submarine appearing somewhere or an airplane--Russian bombers that have been intercepted by NATO or even the United States. These are not just provocations. They are muscle flexing.

This is a change in their defense theory, and it is a very dangerous change, not to mention the fact that I believe evidence now exists that Russia is in violation of multiple treaties they have signed with the United States, and there needs to be consequences for that.

Then, of course, as part of that strategy they believe they need strategic depth, which means they need all the countries that border them, especially the former Soviet Republics, to be in their camp. They don't want anyone near them turning toward the West. The best example of that is what is happening in Ukraine.

What is happening in Ukraine is easy to understand. As Ukraine turned westward, Russia said that was unacceptable; they invaded Crimea and took it, and they are now engaged openly in a conflict with Ukraine that is, by the way, an outrageous one.

First of all, Russian troops have entered Ukrainian territory. Maybe they were disguised as something else, but Russian troops have made incursions into Ukraine territory and carried out combat operations against the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

The Russians are supplying the Ukrainians with weapons and armored vehicles.

They will claim: No; these armored vehicles are armored vehicles we seized, and they are clever about the armored vehicles they supply them with. They are only supplying them with armored vehicles that look like the ones the Ukrainians already have in their current stockpiles. But they are arming, equipping, and training Ukrainian separatists, and their goal is to achieve one of two things:

Their first objective, plan A, is to force Ukraine, because of the pressure they are putting on them through these separatists, because of the economic levers they hold on a very fragile Ukrainian economy through energy and exports and so forth--their first objective is to force Ukraine into a federation system of government; basically, a system of government that gives those eastern provinces and areas more autonomy because that would keep the country sufficiently divided so it can never turn toward Europe and the West.

If that doesn't work, however, then plan B that they are perfectly comfortable with is to freeze the status quo, to basically freeze the current conflict as the status quo for the long term. After the next 15 or 20 years, there will be armed and trained separatists, supported by Russia, carrying out combat operations against the Ukrainian Government in the eastern parts of the country.

Plan A is the federation; plan B is to freeze the status of the current conflict. That is the reality we are facing.

What is interesting is here is what Russia is banking on. They are banking on the sanctions which have been imposed will not be sustained; that eventually, after a couple of years, Europe will say: OK. It is time to accept what has happened and move on and that sanctions will be lifted. In fact, that is what Putin is probably

telling his inner circle and the people around him: Don't worry. We are going to get through this. These sanctions will eventually be lifted off of us, and everything will be back to normal.

But those sanctions are hurting right now. I would hope those sanctions don't fall apart. I would hope the European nations understand what a direct threat this poses to them if Russia could just invade a country and take it over. But time will tell.

I think a strong American leadership is critical. I think a reinvigoration of NATO is critical. That is why it is so important that we focus on our defense capability.

But that is Putin telling everyone around him: Don't worry about these sanctions. They are going to be gone in a while. We will get through this.

Interestingly, to give some insight into Putin, the inner circle around him, the elites who are closest to him, they are being shielded from the impact of these sanctions to a certain point. In fact, one of the people, Igor Sechin, who was specifically sanctioned by the sanctions that were passed here and in Europe--he actually convinced Putin to indict an energy rival of his, take his property and his assets, and give it to Igor Sechin as compensation. That is how cynical this has become.

So the elites that surround and are closest to Putin, they are being protected by the impact of the sanctions. Everybody else is paying a terrible price, not the least of which are the people.

I also think there is clear evidence that Putin is increasingly isolated in terms of whom he listens to, whom he takes advice from, and whom he consults with, and it is going to have a devastating impact on Russia. Next year their economy is predicted to contract. Yet despite this--just to give a true indication of where Russia is headed and to give insight as to where we should be headed--contraction of their economy, despite the collapse of oil prices which has been devastating to their economy, Putin just announced budget cuts throughout every part of their government except for one--the one part of the budget they are holding harmless--military spending. I hope that gives some insight as to where they are heading.

My last point on Russia is they are increasingly present in the Western Hemisphere. They are actively seeking lease agreements in Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba to be able to have naval assets and aircraft stationed in our own backyard, in the Western Hemisphere.

Let's talk about Asia for a moment, another place that poses some very significant national security and military implications for the United States.

I talked about North Korea earlier. I think it bears repeating. North Korea doesn't have a government. It is a nation or is a territory governed by a criminal syndicate run by an insane and erratic leader--but an insane and erratic leader with nuclear weapons, an insane and erratic leader who is developing long-range missile capabilities, and an insane and erratic leader that may end up overestimating his military capabilities, miscalculating, and
trigger a dispute with South Korea that could quickly escalate and implicate the United States, which has a very strong and important military and defense agreement arrangement with South Korea and our allies in the south. It bears watching.
Let's focus for a moment on China. First of all, we cannot ignore their aggressive territorial claims against both the Philippines and Japan. Interestingly, they picked on the Philippines first, a nation that doesn't have much of a military to speak of. This is the first nation they have gotten into a sort of conflict with, but they have them also with Japan and with Vietnam, and they have been pretty aggressive about it. To understand that, we have to understand a little bit about history.

For thousands of years, China was the dominant nation in that region. For them, the last 200 years is an aberration, and their increasing assertiveness is an indication that they believe it is time to go back to normal, which is their dominance of the region. Their dominance, by the way, doesn't mean they are going to invade these countries and take them over. They are not going to invade the Philippines. They are not going to invade Japan.

What they believe is that all these countries should be tributary stakes, that all these countries should fold underneath China's leadership, that all these countries should recognize China is big and they are small, and they should listen to China's directives and orders.

So we see the silk road initiative. We see them trying to come up with an alternative to the other global institutions that have served the world so well since the end of World War II. They want to displace the United States and the global order that existed since the end of World War II with their own order, run by China to China's advantages, and that

begins with territorial claims.

The next time you have a chance to see in some Chinese passports, they have a map that indicates the nine-dash line. The nine-dash line is what they think the world looks like in terms of territories. If we look at what that means, they basically believe the entire South China Sea is their territory. That is why they have made these aggressive moves against these islands. Let me tell you how the strategy works.

They send fishermen to these areas to fish or others to exploit resources. The other countries send out their coast guard to defend it. They send out their coast guard or navy to push back. They basically show you: Even if you wanted to fight against us, there is nothing you can do about it.

Eventually what they want these nations to conclude is: There is no point in fighting China because we can't win. The United States is not going to come to our defense. So we might as well cut a deal with them and accept their dominance.

That is their plan, slowly but surely to change the facts on the ground, to assert themselves, to convince these other countries there is nothing they can do about it. They can't count on the United States anymore, and eventually these countries will say: Fine, China. We will do whatever you want and cave. That is their plan and they are carrying it out.

They have also shown their true colors in Hong Kong. When the agreement was signed to turn Hong Kong over from the United Kingdom to the Chinese, one of the things that was important in that agreement was autonomy; that Hong Kong couldn't have its own foreign policy, but it could have its own domestic system of government autonomous from the Chinese system.

But now things have changed. Now the Chinese basically want to have veto power over who can run for office and who can lead Hong Kong. In fact, the criteria they have established is: You have to love the nation. But I will translate what that means: You have to love the Chinese Communist Party and do what they want you to do. So this is an important development that we need to keep an eye on.

Beyond that, going back to military affairs for a moment--because we are on the NDAA--just look at what China is doing in its military expenditures: dramatic increases in military expenditures, the true nature of which we don't know because China doesn't pass a budget like ours for public knowledge. We know what they have spent, but we don't know how much more they have spent than what they have declared. But we can tell you they are developing anti-access/anti-area denial weapons, anti-access weapons. They have tested supersonic missiles fired off their ships designed to penetrate U.S. missile defense.

Here is why they develop these: They want us to know that if we were to somehow encroach upon these territories, if there was a conflict in Asia and the United States responded militarily, the Chinese can destroy one of our aircraft carriers. The Chinese could destroy one of our expensive naval capabilities. That is what they want to be able to prove to us. What they hope the calculation will be is that the United States goes: Look. If one day China invades Taiwan, there is nothing we can do about it because we are not going to lose two aircraft carriers over a conflict.

So that is why they are investing so much in these denial capabilities.

They are also investing in space warfare, the ability to blow up our satellites because they know how dependent American national security is on having technological advantage. So China is racing to militarize space. It is a very serious threat to keep an eye on.

A couple more points on the military. I will close by talking about the Western Hemisphere. The Western Hemisphere poses its own set of challenges as outlined earlier.

Let's start with Venezuela. We took up a bill this week on Venezuela. It was an important bill and I am glad we passed it. It is on the way to the President's desk. It sanctions human rights violations.

The Government of Venezuela is not an ally of the United States. They vote against this country in every international forum they can. They actively undermine U.S. national security interests. They are serial human rights violators at home, and we passed a bill that is going to sanction the human rights violators. The President has indicated he is going to sign it, and I think they are going to have a real impact.

But Venezuela is headed for catastrophe. This is a rich country, by the way, headed toward economic catastrophe. Basic goods such as toothpaste and toilet paper are unavailable in Venezuela. The Venezuelan economy today resembles the Cuban economy. By the way, there is no embargo against Venezuela. It just shows socialism doesn't work. They have run out of things to give away.

It is not a democracy. Venezuela is no longer a democracy. They have something called the National Electoral Commission, and they are actively, as we speak, trying to replace people not loyal to the government on that commission with people loyal to the governing party.

The second thing I predict you are going to see is that the current President of Venezuela, Maduro, is going to move up the elections to July or June of this year because he knows the longer this crisis goes on, the less and less popular the government party is going to be. So I predict that the Venezuelan elections are going to be moved up, but I also predict financial disaster.

In fact, here is a curious thing that we received calls about in the last few days. Venezuela is now begging the Petrocaribe nations, the Mercosur nations, and the Alba nations to buy Venezuelan products. In fact, they are going to the Petrocaribe nations and saying: Instead of paying us back in cash, you can pay us by buying our products.

There is going to be a financial disaster in Ven[Page: S6676]
ezuela. The price of oil and its collapse is not helping them.

What I predict is not just financial disaster but severe depression, and I predict that in the year 2015 we are going to see severe human rights violations, severe repression on the part of the Maduro Government and everything that goes with it, all the impact that it is going to have on the region. It is something we need to be beginning to think about because that will lead to mass migration into Colombia and into the United States. That is going to lead to instability in the region that could potentially lead to armed conflict between the professional armed services of Venezuela and the Cuban agents who now for all intents and purposes run the Cuban Government.

Talking about Cuba--a nation I talk a lot about because my parents came from there--I live in a community of people who came from there and had to leave for a free economy.

Let me begin by saying that Alan Gross is still a hostage. Alan Gross committed no crime. He did nothing wrong. He is a hostage in a Cuban prison, a hostage the Cubans are holding because they want to exchange him for five Cuban spies convicted in the courts of the United States. Alan Gross is not a spy. All he wanted to do was help a small Jewish community in Cuba, and for that he was jailed. It is outrageous. It shows the true nature of this government.

We shouldn't be surprised. They still detain as a matter of course innocent people who disagree. Every Sunday they beat up and harass the Ladies in White, which is a group of mothers who have sons in jail or fathers who have been killed or husbands who have been killed or jailed, who every Sunday march and dress in white to protest the government, and every Sunday the government thugs come after them. It is shameful that the people know this and look the other way, but that is the reality that is happening every single day in Cuba. It is still going on. It is the most repressive government in the Western Hemisphere and one of the most repressive governments in the world.

They are also a violator of international agreements. We know for a fact that a ship going through the Panama Canal from Cuba to North Korea was carrying equipment and material in violation of the U.N. sanctions on North Korea. The U.N., which is not an easy place to get to condemn Cuba, found the exact same thing. And our response to that has been nothing--absolutely nothing. The Cuban Government assisted North Korea in evading U.N. sanctions, and we have done nothing about it.

On the contrary, we have people who are saying: Let's lift the embargo and normalize relations--which leads me to a point directly related to this, which is the nomination of Tony Blinken that is before this Senate. I would use every procedural method available to me to ensure that this Senate will have to take as long as possible to confirm him, and I will tell you why. On three separate occasions I asked Mr. Blinken: Is your government going to ignore U.S. law and unilaterally change policy toward Cuba? And he would not answer my question. So until I get a clear answer on that, I intend to hold his nomination as long as the rules allow me to.

I would like to make one more point about Cuba. In addition to being the ally to every tyrant on the planet--from Assad, to Iran, to Qadhafi before he fell and died--by the way, Cuba is the home of a significant number of Medicare fugitives, people who have come to the United States and stolen money from Medicare. That is a subject for another day, but Medicare fraud in South Florida is rampant. It is out of control. In fact, law enforcement officials in South Florida will tell you that if you are only willing to steal $200,000 a month, they will never catch you. An inordinate number of people are coming from Cuba, stealing from Medicare, and then when they are about to get caught, they go back to Cuba with all that money. There are numerous Medicare fugitives in Cuba. It is hard to believe that they came here and were able to mount such operations so quickly without

assistance from somebody.

Now we see signals from the White House that we are going to invite Cuba--that we are open to them being invited to the Summit of the Americas--the Summit of the Americas is a forum for democracy, not for 20th-century relics such as the Cuban Government. And now there is talk of unilateral policy changes. I want us to change policy toward Cuba, but the first step that has to happen is from the Cuban Government. They have to change first.

Let me tell you what would happen if we lifted the embargo on Cuba tomorrow. What would happen is what is happening now with China. We passed a bill today out of Foreign Relations on the issue of Hong Kong, and I am getting phone calls in my office from American companies that do business in China that are saying: Hey, why don't you guys drop that? What they are really saying is: Hey, why don't you guys drop that? It is bad for the deal we have going with the Chinese.

That is the same thing that will happen. If we lift the embargo, American companies will become invested in whatever deal the regime gives them, and they will come to DC and lobby on behalf of the interests of that regime without any interest of the freedom and liberty of the Cuban people.

I will fight with all the marrow in my bones against any sort of unilateral change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

From a military perspective, Cuba is not a benign country, although they don't have the military they once had. In fact, there have been open source reports that Cuba is looking to restart, with Russian cooperation, an intelligence-gathering station in the city of Lourdes in Cuba whose sole purpose is to collect intelligence against the United States, particularly Southern Command in South Florida. So as we look at the NDAA, that is something to keep in mind.

I would close with four points that we should think about as we get into the new year and we debate this bill on national security and national defense.

The first is this: We should stop confusing tactics with strategy. We had a debate today in the Foreign Relations Committee about authorizing the use of military force. Everyone wants to debate tactics: Should it be 3 years or 1 year? Should we have ground troops or no ground troops? Should we define the geography of where it is and where it isn't?

Tactics are not the same thing as strategy, and time and again around the world with many of these problems, this administration has not articulated a strategy. They are telling us what we are tactically doing. We are doing airstrikes, imposing sanctions. But they don't tell us what the strategy is. What is the strategy behind all these things? The strategy should be clear.

We are in favor of a world that is free and a world that is prosperous, where more people than ever live in a prosperous middle class so they can buy the things we sell and invent and innovate and make and the services we offer. We want there to be peace and prosperity throughout the world, and we believe the best system for that is an international order that respects human rights and democracy and freedom and the dignity of every individual. That is our overlying aim, and of course the security of the United States is deeply tied to all of this.

In each region of the world, we would have a strategy--a strategy that, because it is backed up by strong national defense, tells our partners in Asia that we are here for the long haul. And not only are we here to pivot to Asia, we have something to pivot with through our military capability that tells NATO: You still do have a purpose, and that purpose is to ensure the territorial integrity of the nations of Europe; a military strategy that tells our partners in the Middle East: We stand with you, and we will do what we need to do to defeat radical jihadists and prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. So that is important.

The second thing is that we have to spend money on these things. The sequester cuts to the military are unsustainable. At a time when the world has gotten more complicated, where the threats that this Nation faces have gotten more complicated and more difficult to deal with than ever before, we are severely cutting back our military spending in an unsustainable way. In fact, no one believed that the budget cuts we are facing in the military now were realistic or sane, for that matter. That is why they put them in that bill I voted against--because they thought these budget cuts were so bad, they would force them to actually do something about the debt. They underestimated the willingness of this Congress to do bad things, because those cuts are here to stay, and we have the smallest Air Force and Navy at least since the end of World War II, while our potential adversaries are ramping up military spending and their military capabilities.

My third point is directly related to national defense and national security. We cannot continue to try to erode our intelligence-gathering capabilities. The threats we face around the world are real and they are significant. They are threats from nation states such as Russia and China. They are threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. They are threats from nonstate actors such as al Qaeda and ISIL. They are threats from transnational criminal groups who steal the personal data of Americans and who could potentially conduct other cyber attacks against our infrastructure.
These threats are real, and I hope the day will never come, but if it does and if another major attack occurs here in the homeland--perhaps one even worse than 9/11--the first question people are going to ask will be, Why didn't we know about it and why weren't we able to stop it? And the answer cannot be because we took apart our intelligence-gathering capabilities, because we took down our ability to identify these threats, and we took them down because of conspiracy theories,

because we have people running around telling people that all their phone calls are being listened to, that all their cell phone calls are being tracked. That is false. That is categorically and patently false. That is not true. Yet we are prepared to dismantle our ability to acquire information that could prevent those sorts of attacks.

By the way, these are intelligence capabilities that also give us a strategic advantage over potential adversaries and intelligence-gathering abilities that also inform our diplomacy. Yet there are people advocating taking that apart. In fact, just today we had someone come to the floor of the Senate and divulge classified information on the floor of the Senate. Unprecedented, outrageous, irresponsible, and unacceptable.

Last but not least, we have to truly believe with all our hearts that the world is a safer and better place when America is the strongest military power in the world. No nation is perfect. Ours never has claimed to be. But I know of no nation that has used its power more benevolently than we have. It is Americans who have sent their sons and daughters abroad to fight for the freedom and liberty of other people. It is America that has gone abroad to fight against communism and radical Islam and nazism and Imperial Japan and other threats to human dignity and the survival of mankind, and we did so without taking a single inch of territory. We didn't turn Iraq into the 51st State. We didn't turn Afghanistan into a U.S. territory.

This is a nation that, after we defeated Japan and Germany in World War II, helped to rebuild those countries. Today they are among our strongest allies. This is the country that, even after a ceasefire in the Korean war, still stands so many years later on the frontlines of South Korea protecting her freedom and territorial integrity to a point where South Korea--a nation that just two decades ago was a beneficiary of global aid--is now a donor; a country that has gone from having an economy smaller than North Korea's to now having one of the top 10 economies in the world. This is the Nation that did that.

We are not perfect, but I challenge you to find another nation in human history that has used its military power for the good of mankind more than we have. The world knows that too. When you talk about national defense, it is not just about bombs and bullets.

Let me close with a story I picked up earlier this year when I traveled to Asia. I went to the Philippines, an area badly hit by the storm last year. This area was devastated. These people were already poor to begin with, and the typhoon made things even worse.

I got to speak to some of the people. I asked them: When did you finally know there was hope? Was it when the humanitarian aid groups showed up or when the U.N. got here? When was it that you finally thought that there is hope here?

A gentleman turned to me and said: Do you know when I knew there was actually some hope? When I woke up one morning and looked to the horizon and there was a U.S. aircraft carrier. That is when I started to believe that maybe we are going to make it, maybe things are going to be OK.

That aircraft carrier didn't stay long, but it stayed long enough to make a difference in those early days after that storm, and it stayed long enough to give people hope. It is the same aircraft carrier they saw off the coast of Haiti after the terrible earthquake. It is the same aircraft carrier they saw off the coast of Japan after they had a nuclear accident. That is also America's military power. That is also what we have done with our national defense capabilities.

We have not been perfect, but America has been a source for good in the world. No nation in the history of mankind has ever done more good for the planet and for the people of this Earth than we have, and we should be proud of that. Now is not the time to dismantle that capability. The world needs a strong America today and now more than it ever has.

With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source