[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13575-13577]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to commend my friend and 
colleague, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, on the outstanding speech he 
delivered yesterday at the Jesse Helms Center in Wingate, NC. I share 
Senator Rubio's conviction that America is at our best in the world 
when we put our values at the center of our foreign policy, beginning 
with a commitment to the cause of freedom. Senator Rubio's thoughtful 
warning against the danger of withdrawing behind our borders is 
especially timely and important. He is absolutely right that, when we 
do not confront monsters like al-Qaida abroad, they will sooner or 
later come to threaten us here at home.
  I thank Senator Rubio for delivering such a lucid and visionary 
speech. His remarks reaffirm for me the critical leadership role that I 
am convinced he will play in this chamber, and in our country, in the 
years to come. His voice is an important one. I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Record Senator Rubio's remarks as prepared for 
delivery.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Senator Marco Rubio's Remarks as Delivered Tuesday, September 13, 2011

       Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. First 
     of all, thank you all for coming. I am honored and privileged 
     to be here. I'm impressed by the good work, by the way, that 
     the Helms Center is doing in teaching young people the 
     foreign policy principles that Senator Helms stood for. And 
     I'm honored by this opportunity to speak to you for a few 
     moments eight and a half months into my Senate career on what 
     I think is a historic and important moment in American 
     history. And I hope by the end of our time here together 
     tonight we'll all share that belief irrespective of where we 
     fall on the individual issues.
       I have come to deeply appreciate Jesse Helms' willingness 
     to fight for his views--particularly in foreign policy--and 
     his unwillingness to compromise on matters of basic 
     principle. That made him rare in Washington, and it also made 
     him influential. I want to read what a distinguished 
     journalist once wrote that it was ``his relentless, 
     unswerving application of conservative principles to 
     practically every issue'' is what ``made him a major player 
     in Washington and [in] national politics.''
       Jesse Helms was, in particular, an unswerving champion of 
     freedom fighters. When he was still a junior Senator, he and 
     a former governor of California--a fellow named Ronald 
     Reagan--they worked together to introduce a ``morality in 
     foreign policy'' plank to the 1976 Republican platform.
       Here is what it said, it said: ``The goal of Republican 
     foreign policy is the achievement of liberty under law and a 
     just and lasting peace in the world. The principles by which 
     we act to achieve peace and to protect the interests of the 
     United States must merit the restored confidence of our 
     people.''
       It also said that ``we must face the world with no 
     illusions about the nature of tyranny.'' And it pledged that: 
     ``Ours will be a foreign policy that keeps this ever in 
     mind.''
       Now, remarkably, this was controversial in the 1970s--the 
     era of detente, of defeat and of retreat. The idea of placing 
     morality at the center of our dealings with other nations was 
     derided by supposed sophisticates as unrealistic and 
     uninformed.
       But then Ronald Reagan took these words to heart and he 
     made them the center of his foreign policy--a foreign policy 
     that even his critics now admit was remarkably successful.
       President Reagan challenged the ``evil empire.''
       ``Tear down this wall,'' he demanded--and it came down. He 
     won the Cold War not by coddling dictators but by confronting 
     them--and by standing up for the principles that have defined 
     us since the formation of our great Republic.
       As I think about the challenges of the 21st century--
     challenges that range from upheavals in the Middle East to 
     the fiscal crisis back home--I am mindful of Ronald Reagan's 
     example and of Jesse Helms'.
       I am guided by their understanding that America's strength 
     lies in its ideals, and that if we are to make this century 
     another American century, we must be prepared to fight for 
     those ideals.
       Now, fundamentally, I believe that the world is a better 
     place when the United States of America is strong and 
     prosperous. Now, I don't believe that America has the power 
     or means to solve every issue in the world. But I do believe 
     there are some critically important issues where America does 
     have a meaningful role to play in resolving crises that are 
     tied to our national interests.
       If we refuse to play our rightful role and shrink from the 
     world, America and the entire world will pay a terrible 
     price. And it is our responsibility to clearly outline to the 
     American people what our proper role in the world is and what 
     American interests are at stake when we engage abroad.
       At the core of our strength are the ``self-evident'' truths 
     of the Declaration of Independence: ``that all men are 
     created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
     Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,'' that government 
     exists to ``secure these rights'' and that it derives its 
     ``just powers from the consent of the governed.''
       These are not just our rights as Americans. These are the 
     rights of all human beings. Nurtured in thirteen embattled 
     colonies along the Eastern seaboard more than two centuries 
     ago, the blessings of liberties have since spread to more 
     than 100 countries around the world.
       Freedom's domain now stretches from Mexico to Mongolia. 
     Some of the world's democracies are ancient nations. Others 
     are

[[Page 13576]]

     more recent in origin. Some are poor. Others are rich. Some 
     are Christian. Others Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Confucian, 
     Hindu. All are united by their respect for certain 
     fundamental human rights--even if they do not always achieve 
     in practice the ideals they seek to honor. America should 
     take pride in knowing that so many of the freedom movements 
     we have seen around the world since 1776 draw their 
     inspiration from the courage and the words of our own 
     Founding Fathers.
       The honor roll of free countries does not yet include the 
     land of my parents or grandparents--Cuba--but that I believe 
     is only a matter of time. Because sooner or later, the tides 
     of freedom will wash against the shores of this island nation 
     that has been trapped for too long in a prison constructed by 
     Fidel and Raul Castro.
       Why am I so confident about the future? Because in our 
     time, we have seen how dictatorships have fallen and 
     democracies risen--even in the most unpromising surroundings.
       Just in the past year, in the Middle East--the region whose 
     governments have been most resistant to freedom--we have seen 
     the first stirrings of democratic upheavals. We do not know 
     how the Arab Spring will ultimately turn out, but it has 
     already proven one thing: that no faith, no ethnicity, no 
     region, and no people are immune to the fundamental desire to 
     control their own destiny.
       As dissidents and freedom fighters battle dictators around 
     the world, they look for support to the greatest democracy in 
     the world. And America must answer their call.
       We do not seek to impose our vision of government. We do 
     not insist that every nation must have a presidency, a 
     supreme court or a bicameral legislature. Nor do we have any 
     intention of using force to depose every despotic regime on 
     the planet.
       But we must do what we can to champion the cause of 
     freedom--not only with the power of our example but also with 
     our money and our resources, our ingenuity and our diplomacy, 
     and on rare occasion, when there is no good alternative and 
     when our national interest is clearly at stake, our armed 
     might.
       Without our commitment to the rights of man enunciated by 
     our forefathers, what are we? Just another big, rich country. 
     But when we champion our ideals, we gain moral authority--and 
     we gain physical security.
       You see, we may not always agree with our fellow 
     democracies, but seldom, if ever, do we fight them. The more 
     functioning democracies there are--``functioning'' being the 
     important quality--the easier we can breathe.
       States that do not respect the rights of their citizens 
     seldom respect the rights of their neighbors. They become 
     breeding grounds for all sorts of ills--from the trafficking 
     of humans and drugs to contagious diseases and famine, from 
     nuclear proliferation to terrorism--that threaten our own 
     security.
       Now some suggest that America should heed the famous words 
     of John Quincy Adams and go ``not abroad, in search of 
     monsters to destroy.'' The problem is if America turns inward 
     and ignores the monsters abroad, they are likely to come 
     here.
       It happened in 1917 when German U-boats torpedoed American 
     merchant ships.
       It happened in 1941 when Japanese aircraft bombed Pearl 
     Harbor.
       And it happened ten years ago when Al Qaeda carried off the 
     deadliest terrorist attack in history from a base in the 
     Hindu Kush. If we do not have the luxury of ignoring 
     developments in lands as remote as Afghanistan, then there is 
     no corner of the world from which we can safely turn our 
     backs.
       The fanatics who orchestrated the attacks of 9/11 were 
     nurtured in lands that knew no freedom, in countries where, 
     for too long, the people's pursuit of happiness had been 
     subordinated to the rulers' pursuit of power. A lack of 
     economic, social and political opportunity helped to create 
     the conditions that enabled a radical few--deluded by 
     demented doctrines of hate--to commit mass murder simply to 
     make a statement.
       The form of the threat was relatively novel: We were 
     attacked not by another nation-state but by a band of 
     terrorists who took shelter in a failed state. But this 
     threat--like the threats of Nazism, fascism, and communism--
     comes from a sick and failed ideology.
       With Osama bin Laden's recent demise, the founder of Al 
     Qaeda joined a long list of tyrants--Adolf Hitler to Saddam 
     Hussein--who have experienced for themselves the righteous 
     wrath of a democracy bestirred from its peaceful pursuits.
       I applaud President Obama for ordering the raid that 
     finally brought Osama bin Laden to his just fate. I applaud 
     the President, too, for his stirring words in support of 
     reformers in the Middle East. I only wish that he had shown 
     more commitment to the cause of freedom. He has been slow and 
     hesitant, and we have missed some significant opportunities 
     to alter the strategic landscape in America's favor. And the 
     President's failure to lead has served to magnify the damage 
     done to U.S. interests.
       For example, in the summer of 2009, the young people of 
     Iran took to the streets to protest against mullahs that had 
     consigned them to poverty, while squandering oil riches to 
     build nuclear weapons and support foreign terrorist groups. 
     The President was so intent on negotiating with Iran's 
     tyrants that he did little to help its people. As the Green 
     Revolution fizzled, protesters demanded to know, ``Obama, are 
     you with us or against us?''
       This year, the Administration did come to the aid of the 
     people of Libya, but only after weeks of hesitation that 
     allowed Moammar Qaddafi--an anti-American criminal--to get 
     back on his feet and resume slaughtering his own people.
       Then it took another four months before the President was 
     willing to recognize the Transitional National Council as the 
     rightful government of Libya. And even then, the 
     Administration refused to commit the resources and make the 
     tactical decisions that could have shortened this conflict.
       The regime was so lacking in popular support that it 
     finally fell, but the fact that the war dragged on so long 
     has, at a minimum, raised the costs of reconstruction and 
     lengthened the toll of the dead and wounded.
       An anonymous presidential adviser justified this by 
     claiming that it was part of a deliberate strategy to ``lead 
     from behind''.
       We could see the same doctrine in effect in Syria where the 
     President waited a full six months after the start of a 
     popular uprising--six months that Bashar Assad and his goons 
     spent indiscriminately slaughtering their own people--before 
     calling for Assad's removal. And even then, the 
     Administration refused to recall our ambassador or impose the 
     entire list of sanctions that some of us in Congress had been 
     pressing for.
       Now the President's defenders suggest that it was right not 
     to get more involved because they worry about the 
     consequences of turmoil in the Middle East. I've often hear 
     it said that: ``Better the devil you know.'' We should be 
     concerned about what will come next in places like Egypt that 
     have been American allies.
       I can understand why President Obama hesitated before 
     finally withdrawing our support from Hosni Mubarak, which I 
     believe, under the circumstances, was the right thing to do. 
     But it is hard to see why we would hesitate in the case of 
     Iran, Syria or Libya--all avowed enemies of America. It is 
     hard to imagine a ruler worse than Ahmadinejad, Assad or 
     Qaddafi, and easy to imagine that their successors might be 
     much more amenable to our interests.
       Even in countries such as Egypt, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, 
     we simply do not have the luxury of endorsing the status quo.
       Instead of tying our fate to discredited dictators, we 
     would be better advised to build constructive alternatives. 
     That's what Ronald Reagan did when he pushed Ferdinand Marcos 
     out of power in the Philippines in 1986. The following year 
     he did the same thing when he helped push a military ruler 
     out of power in South Korea and supported the transition to 
     civilian rule. Today, South Korea is one of the world's 
     freest countries--and one of the richest. Yet only forty 
     years ago, it was poorer than North Korea and nearly as poor 
     as Syria. Its transformation shows what is possible when free 
     people are allowed to harness their full potential.
       This is the change that we must encourage in the Middle 
     East. Now unfortunately the views of some of the protestors 
     distasteful. I certainly condemn the anti-Israel sentiments 
     uttered by protest leaders, and I can understand why many 
     Israelis are alarmed by the recent turn of events.
       Israel is one of America's closest allies in the world, and 
     our closest and most reliable friend in the Middle East. It 
     is a shining bastion of democracy, liberty, and opportunity 
     in one of the most blighted parts of the world. But the naive 
     strategy of trying to appease Islamist extremists like Iran, 
     and turning our back on Israel, will only embolden our common 
     enemies and weaken the prospects for peace--and for democracy 
     itself.
       For the sake of peace, and out of principle, the United 
     States must strongly affirm its commitment to Israel, not 
     just in words but in deeds.
       At the same time, the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, 
     Syria, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern lands are in the 
     streets because they want a better life for themselves and 
     their children. They aren't asking for the imposition of a 
     Taliban-style rule. They are asking for the ballot box and 
     for economic opportunity. And if their desires are fulfilled, 
     they will move closer to Thomas Jefferson's vision of the 
     world than Osama bin Laden's.
       That is why I am so concerned that the Administration may 
     let this historic opportunity pass. I am glad that the 
     President is trying to bring along our allies. But our allies 
     would be the first to tell you that nothing important or 
     difficult happens without American leadership. Unfortunately, 
     that leadership has been missing at a critical juncture 
     during the last few years.
       Most recently, for example, it has been suggested that the 
     advice of military commanders in Iraq be completely ignored 
     in favor of a dramatic troop drawdown that even Iraqis say is 
     too drastic.
       It's a reminder that, in our republic, elections have 
     consequences not just at home, but all over the world. 
     Because while previous generations of leaders--and even some

[[Page 13577]]

     I serve with today--have stood up for unpopular but necessary 
     measures, even at the risk of losing elections, others are 
     simply too willing to do what is politically self-serving. 
     America, and the entire world for that matter, needs resolute 
     leadership in this era of historic but volatile 
     transformation, particularly in the Middle East--and 
     particularly in Iraq.
       Beyond the Middle East, in our own hemisphere, a 
     combination of narco-trafficking networks, anti-American 
     strongmen, and the increasing penetration of Iranian 
     influence is raising dangers of a special kind. Individuals 
     like Hugo Chavez, who have no business running anything in 
     the first place much less a country, have worked strenuously 
     to build a bloc of countries to work against U.S. interests--
     and at great risk to great friends like Colombia.
       Again, the Administration has missed easy opportunities to 
     stand with our allies, for instance, through free trade 
     agreements. We cannot continue to ignore or be complacent 
     about Latin America, nor can we relegate our friends in the 
     region to anything less than high priority partnerships for 
     us to continue nurturing.
       After all, the security of our democratic society depends 
     on the success of liberty in our own hemisphere. The fight 
     against drug and human trafficking, and the infiltration of 
     Islamist terrorists requires the success of economic and 
     political freedoms--and of the rule of law--in Latin America. 
     We must be more vigilant--and more decisive--in defending our 
     interests in our own hemisphere.
       And by the way, the notion that we should ``lead from 
     behind'' would have been incomprehensible even to the 
     Democrat who preceded President Obama. In his second 
     inaugural address, President Bill Clinton said that ``America 
     stands alone as the world's indispensable nation.'' That is 
     as true today as it was in 1997.
       If America refuses to lead, who will combat international 
     outlaws? Who will stop terrorists and weapons proliferators? 
     Who will deal with the Iranian and North Korean nuclear 
     programs? The rising disorder in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia? 
     The growing challenge from China which seeks to dominate East 
     Asia, but won't even let its own people use Google?
       The world counts on America. And whether we like it or not, 
     there is virtually no aspect of our daily lives that is not 
     directly impacted by what happens in the world around us. We 
     can choose to ignore global problems, but global problems 
     will not ignore us.
       Yet our ability to lead is threatened. It's threatened not 
     by any external foe, but rather by our own fiscal woes.
       This year, the national debt surpassed the size of our 
     economy and it will continue to grow unless we get it under 
     control.
       Now, I am a strong advocate of cutting unnecessary and 
     wasteful spending, but the defense budget is not the biggest 
     driver of our debt--it accounts for roughly twenty percent of 
     our annual federal spending. By contrast, entitlement 
     programs swallow more than half the budget and they are the 
     main drivers of our debt.
       The Pentagon already faced sharp cuts. During his last two 
     years in office, Secretary of Defense Gates cut or curtailed 
     procurement programs that, if taken to completion, would have 
     cost $300 billion. This summer, the President and 
     congressional leaders agreed to cut another $350 billion from 
     the defense budget over the next ten years.
       Those cuts by themselves alone are worrisome enough but 
     what is more worrisome is what's looming: In the worst case 
     scenario, if the so-called Debt Super Committee doesn't reach 
     any deal at all, the Pentagon could stand to be slashed by 
     more than $1 trillion over ten years.
       Our new secretary of defense--himself is a well-known 
     budget hawk--has warned that cutbacks of this scale would 
     have a ``devastating effect on our national defense.'' I can 
     but echo Leon Panetta's words.
       The American armed forces have been one of the greatest 
     forces of good in the world during the past century. They 
     stopped Nazism and Communism and other evils such as Serbian 
     ethnic-cleansing. They have helped birthed democracies from 
     Germany to Iraq. They have delivered relief supplies, and 
     performed countless tasks in service to our nation.
       All they have ever asked for in return is that we provide 
     them the tools to get the job done--and that we look after 
     them and their families. They have never failed us in our 
     time of need.
       We must not fail them now. We must maintain a strong 
     national defense.
       Foreign aid is also an important part of America's foreign 
     policy leadership. While we certainly must be careful about 
     spending money on foreign aid, the reality is that it is not 
     the reason we have a growing debt problem.
       If it is done right, and when done in partnership with the 
     private sector and faith-based community, foreign aid spreads 
     America's influence around the world in a positive way. Let 
     me give you an example: the Bush Administration's program to 
     provide HIV medicine to Africa has not only saved lives, it 
     has increased America's influence across the continent. These 
     are allies in the future that can be our partners, not just 
     in our political struggles on the world stage, but in 
     economic trade. And a world where people are prosperous and 
     free to grow their economies and pursue their own dreams is a 
     better world for all of us.
       I began by quoting the words of Jesse Helms and Ronald 
     Reagan. In closing, let me recall the great words of one of 
     the most important Democrat leaders of the 20th Century--
     Harry S. Truman. In 1951, speaking to the New York Avenue 
     Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., this is what he 
     said:
       ``I have the feeling that God has created us and brought us 
     to our present position of power and strength for some great 
     purpose. It is not given to us to know fully what that 
     purpose is. But I think we may be sure of one thing. And that 
     is that our country is intended to do all it can in 
     cooperating with other nations to help create peace and 
     preserve peace in the world. It is given to us to defend the 
     spiritual values--the moral code--against the vast forces of 
     evil that seek to destroy them.''
       There are still vast forces of evil seeking to destroy us. 
     The form of the threat has changed since Truman's time. But 
     evil remains potent--and America remains the strongest line 
     of defense, often the only line of defense.
       I pray that we will continue to find the wisdom and 
     courage--and resources--to act effectively in the defense of 
     our moral code--the same code that we share with all 
     civilized people. The world needed a strong America in 
     Truman's time. And if this is to be another American Century, 
     the world needs a strong America now.
       Because freedom cannot survive without us.
       Thank you so much for having me. May God bless all of you 
     and may God bless our country. Thank you.

                          ____________________