[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 201 (Monday, December 11, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7938-S7940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
America's Role in Global Affairs
Madam President, I wish to turn to a subject of great importance to
our national security. This morning's terrorist attack reminded all of
us that danger is never far away from our Nation's shores. While
details about the bombing in New York are still emerging, we already
know one thing for certain: This was an attack not only on the American
people but on the principles that we stand for. It was an attack on our
freedom and our very way of life.
The violence we witnessed this morning stands as a stark reminder
that America has many enemies. Overseas, animosity toward the United
States grows stronger as the world grows ever more chaotic, so today I
wish to speak on America's role in these turbulent times.
As the Trump administration works to return our country back to its
rightful role as the leader of a broken world, you will find my foreign
policy recommendations today to be not only intrinsically American but
also inherently good. My solution to the chaos that now grips the world
is the simple principle articulated by President Reagan over 30 years
ago in his ``evil empire'' speech. Addressing the National Association
of Evangelicals, he said these words:
America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good,
America will cease to be great.
To be sure, we find ourselves in a world very different from that
which President Reagan faced. Today, the structured diplomatic
environment we once operated in has come into question with the fall of
local governments in much of the Middle East. Global alliances, while
strong in the commitments and connectivity among member nations, are
weak in direction and long-term purpose. Political narratives of
states--once stable and predictable--must today compete with the
conversations being had on the streets and in the classrooms by those
with access to mobile phones and social media.
Since Reagan's time, the world has not only grown more complicated
but also more dangerous. The threat of state-on-state military
showdowns seems imminent--particularly with North Korea and Iran.
Where we had achieved military successes, we remain reluctant to
declare victory, as is the case with ISIS, and to deal with the most
intractable issues, such as the conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and
Iraq, we seem to rely on partner nations that often work at cross
purposes with our own objectives.
How has the United States engaged with this chaos? In many cases,
President Obama sought to ignore it altogether. Indeed, if his foreign
policy could be boiled down to two words, they would be these: ``Stay
out.'' The Obama administration spent the better part of 8 years making
disengagement a cornerstone of American foreign policy, captured by the
euphemism ``offshore balancing''--in other words, deferring to local
actors to manage regional problems.
The Obama doctrine offered easy answers to complex problems, but easy
answers are rarely the right answers, and a gradual U.S. withdrawal
from an increasingly chaotic world under President Obama only made
matters worse. Thanks to the hands-off approach of his predecessor,
President Trump inherited a truly unprecedented state of world
disorder.
Despite these great challenges, our ability to achieve good in the
world has not diminished. If we are to achieve good in the world--if we
are to restore peace and stability in these troubled times--then we
must first rediscover our purpose in global affairs. We must make an
honest assessment of where we have gone wrong in the past and how we
can improve in the future.
In our engagement with the world, we seem to have drifted far from
how we used to do things. The foreign policy of President Obama, for
example, chose to transact in one of two words: ``threats'' and
``interests.'' How big is the threat to national security that ISIS or
a nuclear Iran possesses? What is the U.S. interest in Syria? How do we
preserve American security and interests in the South Pacific? Under
this myopic approach, anything that didn't fit neatly into either a
threat or interest was of little importance. The foreign policy of the
Obama years put the United States in a short-term responsive mode, with
little capacity to ask about the future.
Rediscovering our purpose in the world requires us to look beyond
mere considerations of threats and interests. It requires us to
reconnect with our core values by making them central to our foreign
policy. Foremost among those values is promoting freedom. Freedom is
what we stand for as a nation. As President Reagan said:
America is freedom--freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. It's
fragile; it needs protection.
President Bush carried this tradition, squarely identifying the
perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as enemies of freedom. As he keenly
observed, what divided the United States from its adversaries was not
faith, not skin color, not gender or race, but hatred of America and
the freedoms it stands for.
President Bush did not mince words in describing exactly who our
enemy was. Following the 9/11 attacks, he described those who committed
the attacks as belonging to ``a fringe form of Islamic extremism that
has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim
clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of
Islam.''
In his use of the phrase ``Islamic extremism,'' President Bush was
not
[[Page S7939]]
afraid to call the enemy by its name, and neither were our Muslim
allies who joined us in the fight against terrorism. In the name of
political correctness, President Obama refused to use the words
``Islamic extremism,'' insisting instead on the vague expression
``violent extremism.''
This small but consequential change caused deep conceptual and
bureaucratic damage to our strategy and our institutions. Not only did
the Obama administration distract us from gaining understanding of who
the adversary is and the tools needed to fight and understand him, but
it also deemed irrelevant once-successful government programs on the
grounds that they did not adequately address this beltway term of
``violent extremism.'' Meanwhile, jihadist groups outpaced and
outmaneuvered Obama's sophistry by strategically embedding themselves
within local populations in Syria and Iraq, disguising themselves as
moderate and protective of local populations.
In place of the feckless foreign policy of the Obama years, I offer
instead of global policy defined by one word: ``purpose.'' With
purpose, we can look to the future and address the kind of legacy we
hope to leave behind. With purpose, we can define what it is we seek to
achieve in the world, where we can make a difference, and how we can
effect lasting change on a global scale.
Rediscovering our purpose in global affairs doesn't mean giving up
our focus on threats and interests. Quite the opposite, it means
ensuring that the way in which we address threats and interests helps
us achieve our ultimate goal--that of ensuring freedom in the world.
Today's world offers many opportunities to act with renewed purpose
in the defense of freedom. In Syria, for example, a collapsing ISIS
caliphate and a bloody civil war leave a traumatized population in
their wake. While a political solution for all of Syria seems remote,
we can work toward meaningful goals in the near term to help resettle
internally displaced persons. Although much of the country remains at
war, we should focus on helping the most vulnerable populations within
these pockets of promise--those neighborhoods in Northwest Syria and
along the Jordanian and Israeli borders. Within these pockets of
promise, we can change people's lives--and ultimately, the region--by
working with our local partners to build hospitals and schools with
modern curricula.
In Iran, too, we can make a difference. The President's recent
decision to decertify the Iran deal was itself a step in the right
direction. The Iran deal singlehandedly gave international legitimacy
to an enemy regime openly committed to the destruction of the United
States and its allies. This deal was indeed a bad one; its only
achievement, if it can be called such, was deferring the question of
when, not whether, Iran will be able to achieve a nuclear weapon. It
only hardened the hostile voices against the United States, allowing
them to build a case that those who oppose the deal are enemies of the
Iranian people. This assertion is plainly false. As the President noted
in his address to the United Nations, the good people of Iran want
change, and they are the regime's longest suffering victims.
The President now has the opportunity to act with renewed purpose in
the region, dealing a final blow to the Ayatollah's antics. Moving
forward, as we leverage military strength to disrupt the regime's
hostile activities around the world, we can also actively use
diplomatic channels to support the wishes of the Iranian people--to
promote their freedoms and to help them realize the opportunities their
government denies them.
Meanwhile, in North Korea, as we prepare for any scenario that might
await us, we must acknowledge our ultimate strategic advantage--our
allies. The greatest threat to Kim Jong Un is that he is completely
isolated from his neighbors and his people.
As we seek diplomatic approaches to deescalating the tensions, we
must ensure that it is the right kind of diplomacy with the right
message--a message about the future of the region and the future of a
new North Korea in that region. If Mr. Kim does not realize the need to
change his ways, then certainly he will get that message when he sees
the might of his neighbors working with the United States toward shared
objectives. That is the power of alliances, of strong and loyal
partnerships.
Even as we resolve to do good in these situations, we must remain as
vigilant and aggressive as ever in meeting the threats that no doubt
will continue to test us. The key will be to stand true to ourselves
and our allies. That is what we did when the President recognized
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week. That is what I sought to
do in my meetings with Prime Minister Theresa May and MI5 Director-
General Andrew Parker during my visit to the United Kingdom last month.
There, I highlighted the need to pass legislation to enable our two
nations to work more closely together in the fight against terror and
criminal activity.
We talked about my International Communications Privacy Act, which
would create a clear legal framework for law enforcement officials who
access data relevant to criminal investigations stored in other
countries. We also spoke about legislation to implement the U.S.-U.K.
data-sharing agreement, which would give law enforcement in our two
countries reciprocal rights to access data stored in the other country
under certain prescribed circumstances. I told the Prime Minister and
the Director-General that I believe these two pieces of legislation are
closely linked and that I am actively looking for vehicles to move them
forward.
This is precisely what President Reagan meant when he welcomed Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher to Washington upon assuming the Presidency:
Our two countries are ``kindred nations of like-minded people and must
face their tests together. . . . [For indeed], the responsibility for
freedom is ours to share.''
It is when America realizes its purpose--to do good in the world by
defending freedom--that our greatness will be known. As we bring
ourselves out from the margins of international affairs and piecing
together the broken shards of that world order we have worked for
decades to shape, let us help the administration and the country
rediscover the purpose we were destined to pursue. Only then, and only
together, will we be able to make America and the world great again.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I rise today in support of the nomination
of Steve Grasz to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. One
of the most important things this Senate has done this year and will do
for the remainder of the year--and, in fact, well into 2018--is to
consider nominees to the Federal courts.
When I talk to Nebraskans, I constantly hear from women and men who
tell me that the No. 1 issue they care about when they vote for
President is the judiciary. Nebraskans want judges who understand that
judges are not lawmakers. Nebraskans want judges who understand that a
lifetime appointment isn't designed to do politics. Nebraskans want
judges who understand that the courts are to uphold the laws fairly and
impartially.
My colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee agree with those
Nebraskans from townhalls and coffee shops and Rotary clubs. In the
Judiciary Committee, we have worked to advance a record number of
judges who know exactly that. We are looking for thoughtful men and
women of integrity. That is why it is a pleasure today, it is an honor
today, to come to the floor in support of Steve Grasz.
Steve is a Nebraskan through and through. He is a fifth-generation
Nebraskan who grew up on a family farm--walking beans, raising sheep
and pigs, branding cattle. When he was a young man, life in the
Nebraska Panhandle taught him hard work. He then moved east to Lincoln,
where the University of Nebraska taught him the law.
Steve graduated at the top of his class and then put his law degree
to work serving his fellow Nebraskans. He served as the chief deputy
attorney general for our State for nearly a dozen years. Steve's job
was to represent the people of Nebraska in court. That means he was
bound by the law and by his professional duty to defend our laws,
including our State's ban on the gruesome procedure known as partial-
birth abortion.
In his role in the Nebraska AG's office, he litigated multiple cases
in
[[Page S7940]]
front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Nebraska Supreme Court, and the
U.S. Eighth Circuit, to which he has now been nominated by President
Trump. Every time he represented us in court, Steve did so with
integrity, with humility, and with decency. That is just what
Nebraskans do.
Steve bleeds Husker red, but he is now ready to put on a judge's
black robe. He knows that judges in America don't wear red or blue
partisan jerseys. He knows that policy preferences, whether his or
anyone else's, have no role in how a judge applies the law. He knows
that, in his courtroom, two things matter and only two things--the
facts and the law.
Anybody who wants to ensure that Steve will approach his job as a
judge without partisan or ideological bias should listen to the words
of hundreds of Nebraskans who have spoken out in support of Steve's
nomination.
Democrat Ben Nelson, Nebraska's U.S. Senator from 2001 through 2013
and, before that, our Governor for 8 years, offered this testament to
Steve's fitness for office:
I first got to know Steve when I served as Nebraska's
Governor and he served as our state's Chief Deputy Attorney
General. . . . With me as a Democrat and him as a Republican,
we sometimes found ourselves disagreeing on policy;
nevertheless, I quickly learned that Steve was the kind of
consummate professional who is capable of putting whatever
personal views he may have aside when appropriate in his
capacity as a public servant. . . . If Steve is confirmed, I
fully expect him to follow the law and the facts in each case
because I know his loyalty is first to the rule of law,
rather than to any personal views he holds on matters of
policy. He possesses first-rate legal skills and a
respectful, even-keeled temperament, key ingredients in the
making of a good judge. As a Nebraskan, I hope our state has
the opportunity to benefit yet again from Steve's public
service in this new role.
Then there is Deborah Gilg, who was President Obama's choice to be
U.S. attorney for the District of Nebraska, who served in that office
from 2009 through 2016. She wrote glowingly to our committee of Steve:
Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty,
impeccable integrity and dedication to the rule of law. He
possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and
always acts with respect to all that interact with him. . . .
Without a doubt, he would be a tremendous asset to the bench
as he demonstrates excellence in all that he does.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
October 31, 2017.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: I
write to you today to express my strong support for the
nomination of L. Steven Grasz to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I have no doubt that Steve
possesses the skills, character, and temperament necessary to
make him an excellent member of that court.
I first got to know Steve when I served as Nebraska's
Governor and he served as our state's Chief Deputy Attorney
General. During his nearly twelve-year tenure in that senior
position, Steve won my respect by putting his considerable
skills to work as an effective legal advocate for our state.
With me as a Democrat and him as a Republican, we sometimes
found ourselves disagreeing on policy; nevertheless, I
quickly learned that Steve was the kind of consummate
professional who is capable of putting whatever personal
views he may have aside when appropriate in his capacity as a
public servant. He was an asset to our state, and Nebraskans
benefitted from having such a capable and thoughtful
professional in public service. Today, he is unquestionably
one of the foremost appellate lawyers in the state, making
him an obvious choice for this seat on our federal appeals
court.
If Steve is confirmed, I fully expect him to follow the law
and the facts in each case because I know his loyalty is
first to the rule of law, rather than to any personal views
he holds on matters of policy. He possesses first-rate legal
skills and a respectful, even-keeled temperament, key
ingredients in the making of a good judge. As a Nebraskan, I
hope our state has the opportunity to benefit yet again from
Steve's public service in this new role.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson,
United States Senator for Nebraska, 2001-2013.
____
Time Health,
Omaha, NE, September 19, 2017.
Re L. Steven Grasz.
Chairman Chuck Grassley,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein,
Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington, DC.
I am writing to enthusiastically recommend Steve Grasz for
the vacancy on the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. I have known
Steve since 1991 when he became Chief Deputy Attorney General
for the State of Nebraska. At that time, I was the elected
County Attorney and/or appointed County Attorney for several
Western Nebraska rural counties. I relocated to Omaha in 2002
and in 2009 I became the U.S. Attorney for Nebraska until
March 10, 2017. At present, I am the Vice-President, Chief
Operating Officer and General Counsel for Time Health, a
healthcare management corporation. I should also mention that
I am a Democrat and it is with great confidence that I
recommend Steve.
Steve has always enjoyed a reputation for honesty,
impeccable integrity and dedication to the rule of law, He
possesses an even temperament well-suited for the bench and
always acts with respect to all that interact with him. I am
confident that he is well-versed in legal principles, has
keen legal analytical skills and outstanding oral and written
skills. Without doubt, he would be a tremendous asset to the
bench as he demonstrates excellence in all that he does.
Finally, I think it is important to have a jurist that has
an agricultural background and understands that not all
things legal revolve around urban areas. He still owns land
in Western Nebraska and quite clearly is a product of and
proud of his agricultural roots.
I look forward to your support of his nomination.
Sincerely,
Deborah R. Gilg,
Vice-President and General Counsel.
Mr. SASSE. Madam President, Steve's reputation for honesty and
integrity and decency have earned him bipartisan support across
Nebraska.
I am a bit sad in that, when I got here to Washington, this
nomination took a bit more of a partisan turn before the committee.
Happily, we have the chance to do the right thing here in the full
Senate tonight and return to a bipartisan tone. I hope that my
colleagues will listen to the broad array of Nebraskans of all
ideological and partisan views and support Steve's nomination tonight.
Thank you.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.