Graham and Blumenthal Hold Briefing on Terrorism

... the most autocratic atrocity-committing leaders in the world standing together, terrorist sponsors, this picture says it all. Russia deserves to be, in fact, it's deeply earned the designation to be a state sponsor of terrorism. So far as the practical consequences are concerned, yes, sanctions would be strengthened, and yes, there would be practical consequences. But in my view, this message to the world is as important in a moral sense as any practical consequence. Russia deserves to be in this small selective club of atrocity-committing killers, and Russia deserves to be designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. (01:12) So we're going to pursue this fight. It is bipartisan. We have other supporters. It is a priority for me having seen in very personal ways what Russia has done in Ukraine. We visited in Bucha, the site of the mass graves, women and children hands tied behind their back shot in the head. We have talked to prosecutors about Russia kidnapping children and indoctrinating them in Russia, taking them away from their loved ones and parents. We have seen firsthand the kind of terrorism that Russia has committed and sponsored around the world. I believe that the United States Senate has to take a stand.

Thank you. Well, if I were on the jury, guilty. You did a good job. Bottom line here, this is a moment in history that will be viewed decades to follow as consequential. What do you have to do to become a state sponsor of terrorism? People are falling out of windows right and left. Putin has been involved with the Wagner Group, which is an extension of the state, dismembering Africa. Navalny's death was beyond strange. Every form of opposition has been crushed in Russia. They use the benefits of the Russian state to support terrorism through the Wagner Group and other entities. Now Putin has entered into a defense agreement with one of the most notorious terrorist states on the planet. (03:07) We've lost deterrence. The fact that he would be bold enough to do a defense agreement with North Korea, as Senator Blumenthal said, one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet, means we have lost deterrence. What would it matter if we designated Putin's Russia a state sponsor of terrorism? It would be a morale boost to the people of Ukraine. It would make Russia even more of a pariah state that, if you wanted to do business with Russia after we make them a state sponsor of terrorism, you do so at your own peril. It would allow victims of Putin's barbaric behavior to access American courts through this designation. (03:49) To my friends at the administration, I've been working with you on Saudi and Israel. I will continue to work with you on normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's a big deal. But if you worry about being too provocative regarding Russia, stop worrying. Stop worrying. You're not too provocative. We need to up our game when it comes to Russia. The last really tool in the toolbox that we can use is a designation of making Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. I think there are only seven nations in the world that have this designation. And it does matter. It matters a lot. So I would urge Senate leadership to bring this bill to the floor for a vote. We've made Cuba a state sponsor of terrorism. We've engaged with Cuba. It doesn't mean you can't engage. It just means that they wear a label well deserved: Syria, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and now Russia. (04:47) I'll just end with this. Of all the people I've worked with on national security, Senator Blumenthal has been very consistent. He's a proud Democrat. But when it comes to standing up for democracy, when it comes to standing up to thugs, he's really second to none. I have a pending arrest warrant in Russia. I don't know how they missed you. You make me look like a choir boy. So the bottom line is we're not giving up. We're going to insist on a vote. The best thing we could do, I think, to shape the future is to label Putin a terrorist leader because he is. This would have enormous benefit in Ukraine, I think. So I look forward to being able to have a vote on our bill.

I want to just say about Senator Graham, he's not only been consistent, he's been passionate and inspiring in a way that John McCain was consistent and inspiring. I often think of John McCain at this moment and what he would think about a bipartisan partnership on this issue. For everybody in this room, think about what Russia has done to its journalists. If there were no other reason to cite the persecution of American journalists and journalists worldwide by Vladimir Putin and the Russian state, that would be my Exhibit B. Exhibit A is the partnership between Kim and Putin marching literally together, their country signing a military partnership hostile to the United States, hostile to peace and liberty and justice around the world. It's time for the Senate to take this stand.

Amen.

Any questions? Yep.

Senator Blumenthal, have you spoken with the Biden administration about this? Will you be sending them the text or anything like that? I know the TikTok bill, for example, the way the House worked that out, that was successful because they worked [inaudible 00:07:03]. Have you guys worked with the administration on the wording [inaudible 00:07:06]?

I've talked to the administration about this resolution. They are certainly sympathetic to the goals. We've worked on some specifics. We're going to continue to work with them. But I think it's time now for us to move forward. They understand that we may have differences of approach or opinion, and I think they respect us for what we're trying to do.

If I could just add, he's worked with the State Department, I've worked with the State Department. I don't think we're being provocative by labeling Putin a state sponsor of terrorism. I think we're being rational. I think the designation is earned and would matter. But after the defense agreement between North Korea and Russia, it is time for us to push back. Now is the moment above all other moments. So I would urge the administration, given what Putin has done yesterday, let's go all in designating his regime for what it is: a state sponsor of terrorism. Here's a general rule. Anybody that does a defense agreement with North Korea should be a state sponsor of terrorism.

Have you guys heard from the administration that this might be too provocative?

No.

Two questions for both of you. First, will you try to bring this up by unanimous consent if you can't get leadership to promise to [inaudible 00:08:29]? Second, are you both attending Netanyahu's address next month?

I will be at Netanyahu's address. I think we would be prepared to seek unanimous consent, but our preference would be to move forward in regular order and give the Senate a chance to vote on it as a whole. My hope is that time would permit it, but I think there is an urgency here that might prompt us to seek unanimous consent.

What he said.

Yeah?

Thank you. Are there specific sanctions that would kick in with this designation that are not currently in place right now? The second question is, whether Putin and North Korea say that he supports North Korea's ability to enhance their own defense capabilities, did you take that as an explicit endorsement of their nuclear program?

I think it is an endorsement of their nuclear program. I will tell you, again, I don't want to hold up the picture for a third time, but this photograph is not just outrageous, it is deeply scary because it signals cooperation not only against Ukraine but against the United States. I don't even need to go into the classified briefings that we've received to tell you how frightening the idea is that Russia would be lending its nuclear expertise to North Korea. Remember, Russia for years and years opposed North Korea getting exactly this kind of capacity, nuclear capacity because it was so frightened of what this madman might do. So I interpret it as an endorsement. That is one of the reasons why I think we need to use every tool available. If nothing else, let me just tell you what one practical consequence would be. Russia's sovereign immunity in our courts would be severely restricted and curtailed as a state sponsor of terrorism. There would also be consequences for sanctions enforcement and other results.

Senator Graham, a question for you. Have you had any conversations with former President Trump about supporting this?

No, I haven't. I've been trying to get the bill put together. It'd be a good question to ask him. Bottom line, just what Senator Blumenthal said, not only are they in a defense agreement with North Korea, they may be providing nuclear expertise to North Korea to increase their nuclear arsenal. Now, if that doesn't get you to being a state sponsor of terrorism, what would? Increasing the nuclear capability of somebody already on the state sponsor of terrorism list should just be an automatic inclusion of the country in question. (11:55) As to unanimous consent, I'd like the committee to have a first shot at this. But to me, this is one of the most important decisions our generation of politicians will make. Because if we made Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, it would change the momentum in Ukraine overnight. It would be a morale boost to the Ukrainians. It would make it hard for anybody to do business with Russia, and it would further isolate this regime. My hope is that the Russian people one day will be free of Putin and his cronies. They're suffering as much as anyone.

You haven't asked me, but I haven't been in touch with former President Trump either.

I'll have him call you.

If talking about Ukraine and European allies, they would not have [inaudible 00:12:38] on the language for sure, but they would have a question on when it could be possibly brought on the floor. Do you have any ideas of timing? The second question, Ukraine also right now calling for the administration to leave all the restrictions, to use American long-range missiles, ATACMS in particular, and how there were a lot of efforts to call on the administration to do that. Would you support to leave all the restrictions for the Ukrainian army to use American long-range missiles?

Well, I'll give you my view, which is I strongly support this resolution, as you've gathered from the passion that we've sought to communicate here, but it's no substitute for continuing military support to Ukraine. It's no substitute for-

Amen.

... long-range artillery ATACMS and air defense in very practical, strategic terms. We need to heighten our military support during this absolutely critical time for Ukraine as it seeks to defend itself against a Russian counteroffensive and prepare for its own military action hopefully early in 2025. We should permit, very explicitly, Ukraine to attack targets in Russian-controlled territory that may be behind the lines. I've endorsed for some time the authority that Ukraine needs to attack Russian command centers, supply depots just as they are attacking infrastructure in Ukraine. We need to give Ukraine that authority for longer-range targets.

I think Senator Blumenthal has to go real quick. We'll take one more question. But to answer, we're trying to open up another front. What have we learned? Putin could care less about how many Russians die in his misadventure. He could just kill young Russians in perpetuity, I don't think it changes the behavior. But intel tells us that he does care about his money and his ill-gotten gain. The REPO Act, where we're going after sovereign wealth assets of Russia to try to seize them to help the victim of Ukraine, is having an effect. This would open up yet another front. If we made Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, it opens them up to litigation in American courts. It makes it harder for anybody to help him. To me, this summer and fall should be about more, more military capability. It should be also about more aggressive action toward their economy and the way they do business in Russia.

We'll take one more question.

[inaudible 00:15:29] for the timing, when the bill might be brought on the floor? Do you see any ideas when this take months or two or three?

I think predictions on time are pretty hazardous around the United States Senate. I'm not going to make a prediction-

We'll do it-

... but sooner rather than later.

We'll do our best right away. This would be the last question because you've got to go, right?

[inaudible 00:15:53] for you. Please [inaudible 00:15:54] your position on the idea of including women in the draft to the NBA [inaudible 00:15:58]?

That's not the subject of the debate today.

One more. Yeah?

Have you guys spoken with your colleagues in the House to make sure that this bill does make it to the president's desk if this passes through the Senate?

I would be the last person in the world to say I've done a scientific poll among members of the House, but I can tell you there'd be very strong bipartisan support. We just went on a trip to Normandy, profoundly moving. I led a delegation of about 20 senators. Senator Graham and I were there. I will tell you, I was moved by the speeches. I was affected profoundly by talking to those veterans. They're a hundred years old now. They lived through D-Day. Walking the beach in Normandy, Omaha Beach where those soldiers landed in eight feet of water and then had to cross three football fields, flat no cover, when they were under a hail of mortars and machine guns, that kind of courage was a moment in time. (17:22) We need to have the same kind of courage here. I talked to members of the House who also went to Normandy for that trip. If we can summon the courage of that kind of moment for this resolution, but as Senator Graham said so well, for countering Russia as it imperils democracy now, just as Hitler did then, we will pass this resolution, but we will do more. This resolution is no substitute for the seizure of assets. It's no substitute for providing arms. It's no substitute for the United States galvanizing the world against North Korea, Russia, Iran. Democracy is under siege and assault. This is not just words on a piece of paper. This is a statement of moral intent.

We'll wrap it up with this. Just to imagine for a moment, if you voted against this resolution, if you had a chance to vote, look what you'd be endorsing. You would be saying, "Well, that's not enough, the dismembering of a sovereign nation, the mass rape of women, the kidnapping of children, providing nuclear capability to North Korea, for God's sake, the dismemberment of countries in Africa, on and on and on." I know Representative McCaul is very interested in this. But I would say to any member of the House and the Senate, if you give Russia a pass here given all Putin has done, then we've lost deterrence. (19:16) If this is not enough, I mean as of yesterday, if there was any doubt about who Putin is in terms of a terrorist state, he just entered into a defense agreement with North Korea, for God's sake, and pledging to help their nuclear program. If you can forgive all that, then you will shine in history all the wrong ways. If you could go back in time and learn from the mistakes of the '30s where people apologized and wrote off, "Hitler's just wanting this and not that," not understanding who they were dealing with, they do not age well, those decisions back in the '30s. I'm telling you right now, if you let Putin get away with this latest misadventure, you will not age well in history. Thank you.

Thank you all.

Where are you guys about the [inaudible 00:20:05] space and in the gallery?

He calls it early on.

[inaudible 00:20:11].