-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the weekend, the Russian Federation held a Presidential election. And surprise, surprise, officials declared a landslide victory for President Vladimir Putin. By their account, Putin won a fifth term in office with a whopping 87 percent of the vote--the highest level of support in any previous elections.
This reminded me of a story--I think maybe true, maybe apocryphal--of a reporter who was traveling with a driver in Iraq in the run-up to the Iraq war. And as was typically the case in dictatorships, the report was that Saddam Hussein won 100 percent of the vote. And the reporter asked the driver, he said: Well, you have been with me; clearly, you haven't been able to go and cast your ballot. To which the driver responded: Well, I guess Saddam knew what was in my heart.
As implausible as that result was and as implausible as this result is, it is entirely predictable. After all, elections in Russia are unlike elections here in the United States or any other democracy.
In Russia, elections are carefully orchestrated by the Kremlin. The candidates are hand-selected. The results are predetermined. And the opportunity for change is nonexistent.
In short: Russia's elections are a sham. They are neither free nor fair, and it is no surprise that Vladimir Putin will continue to lead the corrupt and morally bankrupt Kremlin.
The result of this election was always guaranteed. And the only real question is: What comes next? What, if anything, will change with the start of Putin's new term in office?
Well, there is widespread speculation this could signal the beginning of a new military mobilization into Ukraine. The Kremlin has made a habit out of rolling out unpopular policies in the period after a Presidential election.
Following 2018, for example, the Kremlin raised the retirement age--a move that was deeply unpopular among the Russian people.
Putin even alluded to this new strategy when speaking to reporters in Moscow. He said:
All the plans we have created to develop Russia will certainly be carried out and their goals achieved.
He added:
We have come up with grandiose plans and will do everything to carry them out.
Well, this should be an additional warning sign that cannot be ignored by the United States or our allies. We are at a critical juncture in Russia's war against Ukraine, and more support is desperately needed.
It is in America's national security interest to help Ukraine because Vladimir Putin will not stop in Ukraine, just as he did not stop with the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014.
He will keep coming and coming and coming. And he doesn't have very far to go after Ukraine to encounter NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. And we have a treaty obligation with those countries under article 5 to come to the defense of any one of those countries that are attacked. So this is very close and near and dear to the United States' national security interests.
Over the past few months, the United States has provided Ukraine with unprecedented defense aid: Javelins, Stingers, grenade launchers, small arms, ammunition, and more.
A few weeks ago, the Senate passed a security supplemental that, among other things, provided additional support for Ukraine as it battles Russian forces. That legislation passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support. But it awaits action in the House of Representatives.
The Senate, as we know, is not a rubberstamp for the House, and the House is not a rubberstamp for the Senate. Neither Chamber is under any obligation to take up bills that originated in the other Chamber and pass them as is. But we also have a duty to address the biggest threats that our country is facing--one posed by Russia's aggression in Ukraine and in Europe, generally.
I am glad that our friends in the House are working on their own security supplemental. I appreciate the comments being made by the Speaker that we will not leave Ukraine hanging out to dry.
We know that the House is working on ideas that include a number of policies that were not part of the Senate's legislation. One of them is called the REPO Act--REPO for Ukrainians Act--which would repurpose seized Russian assets to help finance aid for Ukraine. It would shift some of the financial burden of supporting Ukraine from U.S. taxpayers to Putin and the Russian oligarchs, whose assets have been seized.
This is a bipartisan bill introduced by Senator Risch, the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; and it has been cosponsored by a quarter of all Senators, myself included.
Now, the House version of the bill was introduced by my friend and fellow Texan, Chairman Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee. And it has more than 75 bipartisan cosponsors. This is a smart and effective way to continue supporting Ukraine without sticking American taxpayers with the bill.
I am disappointed that these measures weren't included in the Senate supplemental, but I hope our colleagues in the House will pass this bill--the REPO Act--as part of their security supplemental.
I am also encouraged to hear that the House is likely to include language to extend the lend-lease authority. This authority was created, as pertains to Ukraine, by legislation I introduced with Senator Cardin, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, which became the law nearly 2 years ago.
It was rooted in the same principle as President Roosevelt's Lend- Lease Act in World War II, which allowed the United States to supply Great Britain and other allies with military resources.
President Roosevelt recognized how critical it was to support Great Britain, which lacked what it needed to protect its people and to fend off German aggression. He famously vowed to transform the United States into the arsenal of democracy and worked with Congress to get the Lend- Lease Act passed to achieve that goal.
The original Lend-Lease Act was signed into law in March of 1941 and allowed the United States to supply its allies with resources at a critical moment during World War II.
Later that year, Winston Churchill said the bill ``must be regarded without question as the most unsordid act in the whole of recorded history.''
The circumstances we find ourselves in today are not the equal of March 1941, thank goodness. But they could be. In fact, the circumstances today look eerily similar to the circumstances in 1939 when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia for many of the similar reasons that Putin claims he has a right to invade Ukraine.
If the world had stood up to Germany then, we may have avoided global calamity and prevented the loss of millions of innocent lives.
The lessons of the past must inform the present. And I believe we have a duty to exercise our role--America's unique role--as the arsenal of democracy to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and to prevent further spread of military aggression and Russian desires to restore the Soviet Union, which is what Vladimir Putin said: The failure of the Soviet Union in 1991 was the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the last 100 years.
You know, I have thought about that and contrasted that statement with the fact that Russia lost between 20 and 30 million people in World War II. Putin says the failure of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical tragedy in the last 100 years; and he must mean a greater tragedy than the loss of 20 to 30 million Russians.
That is how he thinks. And he wants to restore that golden age for the Soviet Union. And so he will not stop with Ukraine.
Given the aid provided by Congress over the past couple of years, the Biden administration hasn't relied on the lend-lease authority to aid Ukraine, but that doesn't mean it isn't needed now.
Ukraine is willing to fight. President Zelenskyy is willing to lead the Ukrainian people in that fight. But it needs additional assistance from the United States and our NATO allies to fend off this Russian invasion.
Ukraine's arsenal is shrinking by the day. It is rationing its artillery shells and its other ammunition, and it has asked the United States for additional help.
Now, there are different points of view, but there is broad bipartisan agreement that America should continue to support Ukraine. But there is also a growing concern over the cost of that assistance. I understand that. That is a concern that I share, which is why I introduced the modern Lend-Lease Act in the first place. Because lend- lease is not a blank check, it gives the administration the option to lease or rent defense articles to Ukraine. It would allow us to answer Ukraine's call to provide more of what they need and ensure it is done in a more fiscally responsible way.
The weapons the United States and our allies have provided thus far have allowed Ukraine to punch above its weight against the Russian Army. But one thing the Russian Army is capable of doing is to engage in a war of attrition, simply to wear down the opposition, both militarily and politically.
But Ukraine has punched above its weight against the Russian Army, but it can't do so without ammunition and without defense articles. Additional American assistance is vital to Ukraine's success in this war, and we need to reauthorize the lend-lease authority as soon as possible.
This legislation was attempted to be added to our security supplemental, and, for some reason, it didn't make the cut. But I hope now that our colleagues in the House will pass a security bill that includes both the lend-lease extension and the REPO Act and send that bill back here to the Senate without further delay.
The future of Ukraine is at stake, but that is not all. The rest of the world is watching to see how the United States and our NATO allies respond to a power-hungry dictator. If the United States fails to support Ukraine in this pivotal moment, other authoritarian governments will take note. America's response to this war will likely affect Iran's calculations when it comes to Israel and its other proxies that it supports throughout the Middle East, being the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. And it will also figure into China's calculations when it comes to Taiwan. If they see the United States respond with passivity, they can expect to be met with the same level of weakness when these other autocrats and dictators act.
We cannot allow America's global leadership to be diminished in this way because it is dangerous. This isn't a status symbol or something that we want to be able to brag about. This is about our own safety and our own national security, and that comes from strength. As Ronald Reagan said, peace comes through strength.
The tyrants and the madmen around the world must see the United States and our allies with strength, and a strong security supplemental is one key to demonstrating that strength and that commitment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source