-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss American national security and the decisions that we must make to keep this Nation safe.

The Senate will vote today on whether to expand NATO by admitting Sweden and Finland. I intend to vote no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I want to say a word or two as to why.

Finland and Sweden want to expand NATO because it is in their national security interest to do so, and fair enough. The question that should properly be before us, however, is, ``Is it in the United States' interest to do so?'' because that is what American foreign policy is supposed to be about, I thought.

It is about American security, protecting American workers, defending American jobs, and securing American prosperity, and I fear that some in this town have lost sight of that. They think American foreign policy is about creating a liberal world order or nation building overseas. With all due respect, they are wrong. Our foreign policy should be about protecting the United States, our freedoms, our people, our way of life, and expanding NATO, I believe, would not do that.

Listen, we should tell the truth about the consequences of the decision that we are going to take today. Expanding NATO will require more U.S. forces in Europe--more manpower, more firepower, more resources, more spending--and not just now but over the long haul.

But our greatest foreign adversary is not in Europe. Our greatest foreign adversary is in Asia, and when it comes to countering that adversary, we are behind the game. I am talking, of course, about China. The communist government of Beijing has adopted a policy of imperialism. It wants to dominate its neighbors, dictate to free nations. It is trying to expand its power at every opportunity, and that includes power over the United States.

Beijing wants power over our trade, over our jobs, over our economy. They want us to come to them and beg for market access. They, ultimately, want to reign supreme as the world hegemon, the world's sole superpower.

And, listen, Chinese leaders have said it themselves. This is no mystery. Beijing wants a world in which the United States--and all other nations, for that matter--are forced to bow before China's might. It is their stated ambition.

This would be a world in which the Chinese Government and its proxies would touch every aspect of our lives, from Chinese goods dominating our markets, to Chinese propaganda flooding our airwaves, to Chinese money and influence corrupting American politics.

This would be a world in which China would be free to expand its use of slave labor and to double down on its global campaigns of repression. That is the world that Beijing wants, and the truth is we are not now in a position to stop them.

Let me say that again: The truth is we are not now in a position to stop them. That is a hard truth, but it is the truth, nonetheless, and the American people deserve to hear it. Our military forces in Asia are not postured as they should be.

The commander of our forces in the Indo-Pacific has testified to this on multiple occasions. We do not have the weapons and equipment we need in the region. We don't have enough advanced munitions. Sealift and airlift are far short of where they need to be. Attack submarines are some of the most important assets we have in Asia and Europe, but they are already in short supply and the fleet is sinking.

On top of all of that, we do not yet have a coherent strategy for stopping China's dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible invasion of Taiwan, and we are not committing the attention and resources we need to develop and implement that strategy.

Why aren't we prepared to do what we need to do in Asia? Well, because we have been distracted for too long--for decades--by nation- building activities in the Middle East and by legacy commitments in Europe.

So now, the choice is this: We can do more in Europe, devote more resources, more manpower, more firepower there, or--or--we can do what we need to do in Asia to deter China. We cannot do both. We cannot do both.

The Chief of Naval Operations recently testified that the joint force is simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts. That is the reality. Both the 2018 and the 2022 national defense strategies--which were developed, I might point out, by different administrations of different political parties--reached the same conclusion.

We have to choose. It is not enough to simply say that China is the pacing threat or to say that the risk to Taiwan is real. We must do something about it. We have to prioritize. We have to focus, and that means we have to do less in Europe in order to prioritize America's most pressing national security interest, which is in Asia, with regard to China.

Now, this isn't to say that the United States should abandon NATO, but it is to say that our European allies really must do more. They must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe and rely on U.S. forces for our nuclear deterrent and select conventional assets.

And this is not just so that America can focus on China, although that is of overriding importance to us. No, this is also about NATO's future. European allies have to step up now or risk leaving NATO exposed if the United States and our forces are pulled from Europe into a conflict in the Pacific.

Every European ally must make necessary investments now for today's threat environment or risk the worst, but NATO isn't doing that. Our European allies are far from where they should be. You know, NATO states agreed years ago, back in 2006, to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, but many NATO members still haven't met that pledge. Meanwhile, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe testified a few weeks ago that our allies need to spend more than 2 percent just to meet existing--existing--ground force requirements, which brings us back to Sweden and Finland.

Both countries are longtime NATO defense partners and strong opponents of Russian imperialism. Both occupy important geography. They are also advanced economies with capable militaries, and I respect all of that. But Finland and Sweden's admission would also bring distinct challenges. Sweden still isn't spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, and it doesn't plan to until at least 2028. Finland has announced a one-time defense spending boost, but it is not clear whether it will sustain those higher investments, which, again, are the minimum investments needed for NATO.

Now, some say we shouldn't worry about any of this. Some say Finland and Sweden can defend themselves and won't require anything through the United States or our NATO allies. But if that were true, why join NATO?

The truth is, both countries want NATO's help defending themselves. That is why they are applying for membership--and fair enough. But because so many current NATO allies have spent years underfunding their militaries, it will be the United States that will be asked to send forces to help defend Sweden and Finland in a time of crisis. Even absent a crisis, NATO expansion will mean more U.S. forces and U.S. firepower in Europe for the long term.

Now, if we want to make NATO stronger, the right course is to increase the amount that member states spend on their own defense--say to 2\1/2\ percent--and press our European allies to take primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense. But this administration--it is going in exactly the opposite direction. They had the chance to push for greater European military spending and investment at the recent Madrid summit. They didn't do it. Instead, the Biden administration has committed the United States to massive spending in Ukraine, far outpacing our European allies, even as they surged tens of thousands of troops into that region, apparently for good.

Now, some say expanding NATO will allow the United States to do less in Europe. I wish that were true, but how can it be when NATO is overdependent on American support right now? How would increasing NATO's security needs somehow magically enable the United States to do less? The fact is, NATO expansion will generate new requirements. Sweden has already asked the United States to increase its naval presence in the Baltic area, for example.

Now, make no mistake, expanding NATO means expanded obligations for the United States in Europe. That is the nature of a security commitment.

Some say we need to expand NATO in Europe to deter China in Asia. But China isn't going to be deterred by the number of our commitments in Europe; China is going to be deterred by our power to deny their imperial ambitions in Asia. That is it. That is the whole ball game.

We cannot strengthen our deterrent posture in the Pacific if we are sending more forces and resources to Europe to defend new allies. That is the bottom line.

Finally, some say we can't beat China by retreating from the rest of the world, but I am not arguing for retreat, and I am not arguing for isolation. What I am arguing for is an end to the globalist foreign policy that has led our Nation from one disaster to another for decades now. What I am arguing for is the return to a classic nationalist approach to American foreign policy, the one that made this country great; a foreign policy that is grounded in our Nation's interests and in the reality of the world as it is, not as we wish it was or not as we once hoped it would be.

In years past, NATO was a bulwark against an imperial Soviet Union. Today, the world's greatest imperial threat is in Asia, and the hour to address that threat is growing very late.

We owe the American people this truth. We owe them a clear accounting of facts. We owe them the courage to make tough choices. Today, I submit that means voting against expanding NATO and focusing where we must, to do what we must, to deter an imperial China. This isn't an easy vote, to be sure, but it is the right one for our security, for our prosperity, for our people, for our Nation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source