[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3349-3351]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, when 47 Republican Senators signed a 
letter sent to the Ayatollah Khomeini, it was a letter that although 
supposedly instructive of the constitutional provisions of the 
separation of government in the United States, in effect, it was a 
letter to erode the negotiating position of the President of the United 
States and his administration in trying to reach an agreement to not 
have a nuclear weapon capability of building a bomb in Iran.
  I think history will show the strength of American foreign policy has 
always been bipartisanship when it comes to the interests of America as 
we look out and have to defend ourselves against our enemies. Indeed, 
Iran with a nuclear bomb would be one of the gravest threats to our 
national security as well as to our allies. It saddens me that we have 
come to the point where we are so divided that nearly half of the 
Senators, on a partisan basis, in this great institution of the U.S. 
Senate, would in effect try to cut the legs from underneath the 
President and his administration in trying to reach an agreement to 
avert a nuclear bomb.
  So much has been said about this issue, but one common theme runs 
throughout, and it is that people seem to know what the agreement is as 
it is being negotiated in secret. This Senator will reserve judgment. 
This Senator is also an original cosponsor of the bill we filed to have 
Congress weigh in on any future lifting of economic sanctions that have 
been imposed by the Congress, and this Senator feels that is an 
appropriate role, under the separation of powers, of our job as 
Congress. But when we see a major part, on a partisan basis, of our 
government try to undercut and kill the negotiations while they are 
going on at this very moment in Geneva, then that goes a step too far.
  I am saddened. I think about what this Senator would have done when 
the President was not Barack Obama but George Bush. I cannot imagine 
that I would have tried to undercut the President of the United States 
representing this country and trying, on matters of war and peace, to 
keep peace. We can disagree about the specifics, but we still have to 
honor the institution of the Presidency, and when it becomes matters of 
war and peace, then we have to unify. That is why I am so saddened that 
we have come to the point at which we appear to be so divided.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Florida for his 
comments and I echo those this morning.
  To the Presiding Officer and to the Members of the Senate, it was 70 
years ago this year, in this very Chamber, that the Republican Senator 
from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg, gave a speech which has been called 
the speech heard around the world. Here is how Senator Vandenberg 
opened that speech:

       Mr. President, there are critical moments in the life of 
     every nation which call for the straightest, the plainest, 
     and the most courageous thinking of which we are capable. We 
     confront such a moment now. It is not only desperately 
     important to America, it is important to the world. It is 
     important not only to the generation which lives in blood. It 
     is important to future generations if they shall live in 
     peace.
  This was after World War I and World War II, facing the Cold War and 
many challenges.
  Senator Vandenberg was no friend of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He 
was, in fact, the biggest thorn in the President's side. He opposed 
every New Deal program. He was bitterly opposed to U.S. engagement in 
Europe before World War II. He was the Nation's most famous 
isolationist and only moderated his stance after the bombing of Pearl 
Harbor.
  But 70 years ago Senator Vandenberg spoke on the floor of the Senate 
to warn his colleagues about what would happen if the United States of 
America allowed partisan politics to interfere in our Nation's 
leadership in the world. He later became the chair of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, where he coined the phrase ``politics 
stops at the water's edge.''
  Politics stops at the water's edge.
  His wisdom when it came to foreign policy--his understanding that for 
America to be strong, we must convey strength on the world's stage--
earned him a rare recognition, in fact, in this body.
  My colleagues will recognize this picture because it is a painting 
hanging in the room right outside this Chamber. I was honored to be 
there when it was unveiled--Senator Levin and myself--a few years ago. 
We are proud of this Republican Senator from Michigan. He has been 
given an honor that is shared by only a handful of Senators. In our 
Senate history, out of 1,963 Senators--men and women who have served--
only a small group have been honored with a painting, a portrait just 
outside this Chamber, and he is one of them.
  I can only imagine what Senator Vandenberg would say if he were alive 
today. How would he react to a letter signed by 47 U.S. Senators, all 
of his own party, addressed to the leaders--those we have called 
enemies--of Iran? How would he react to Members of the U.S. Senate 
empowering Iranian hard-liners--those whom we have called enemies time 
and time and time again--just to score political points against a 
President they do not like?
  To be clear, Senator Vandenberg loathed President Roosevelt, and by 
all accounts the feelings were mutual.

[[Page 3350]]

Senator Vandenberg was no model of bipartisanship himself. He was not 
at all what we would call a moderate in his time. He may be considered 
a moderate today, but at the time he was extremely partisan as a 
Republican, and he was very prominent. He disagreed with the 
President's policies relating to Japan, but he didn't send a letter to 
the Emperor of Japan undermining the foreign policy of the President of 
the United States. He disagreed with the President's policies relating 
to Germany, but he did not send a letter to the chancellor of the Third 
Reich expressing his disagreements with the President of the United 
States.
  To be clear, one of the great things about America is that we can and 
should and must disagree with the President when we disagree with 
directions and policies. But when war hangs in the balance--and 
specifically when nuclear war hangs in the balance--should Members of 
the U.S. Senate be in a position of publicly undermining the President 
of the United States to our enemies? I do not believe Senator 
Vandenberg would have become pen pals with a group of extremists whose 
stated goal is ``death to America.''
  It is shocking, dangerous, and deeply troubling to me that 47 Members 
of this body decided to throw away 70 years of wisdom to stand on the 
side of the Ayatollahs and the most extreme voices in Iran.
  When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, I voted no. I voted 
against his policies. I spoke out publicly about my concerns about that 
war, but I never would have sent a letter to Saddam Hussein undermining 
the President before that war happened.
  The chairs of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairs of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, and the chair of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee at that time all opposed President Bush's invasion 
of Iraq, but none of them penned a letter to Saddam Hussein.
  I do not have to wonder what Senator Vandenberg would have thought 
about all this because he told us. He told us 70 years ago in this very 
room when explaining how partisanship and division would undermine our 
efforts in Europe.
  Senator Vandenberg said:

       It must mean one for all and all for one; and it will mean 
     this--unless somewhere in this grand alliance the stupid and 
     sinister folly of ulterior ambitions shall invite the enemy 
     to postpone our victory through our own rivalries and our own 
     confusion.

  So I urge my colleagues to hear the words of the Republican Senator 
from Michigan, Arthur Vandenberg. I urge them to stop the politics at 
the water's edge.
  We are talking about the possibility of a nuclear Iran. We all agree 
that must not happen. We all agree that must not happen. We all agree 
that must not happen. We must stand together with the smartest, most 
effective strategy to make sure that does not happen. That is even more 
reason why this is not the time nor the place to score political points 
against the President of the opposite party. This is deadly serious for 
the United States, for Israel, and for the world.
  As the Senate saw fit to give Senator Vandenberg a place of high 
honor, reserved for only a few Senate leaders, just a few steps from 
here in the U.S. Capitol, I hope my colleagues will hear and take heed 
of his words now.
  He said:

       We cannot drift to victory. We must have maximum united 
     effort on all fronts. . . . And we must deserve, we must 
     deserve the continued united effort of our own people. . . . 
     politics must stop at the water's edge.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Flake). The assistant minority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, let me commend my colleagues Senator 
Nelson from Florida and Senator Stabenow from Michigan for their 
statements. Senator Nelson spoke from his heart and spoke for many of 
us on both sides of the aisle who feel this letter sent by 47 Senators 
undermines the efforts of the President of the United States to avoid a 
nuclear Iran and to avoid a military response.
  I particularly want to thank my colleague Senator Stabenow from 
Michigan for recalling that moment in history which any student of the 
Senate knows was something that made a difference in the foreign policy 
of the United States of America for 70 years. It is seldom that any of 
us comes to the floor and thinks that our speeches will be remembered 
for 70 minutes, but 70 years later Arthur Vandenberg, Republican of 
Michigan, set a standard for foreign policy which has guided our 
country since. At a time of deep political division after World War II, 
this self-described isolationist and extremely conservative enemy of 
the New Deal stood and called for unity when it comes to foreign 
policy. His admonition that politics should stop at the water's edge 
has largely guided us.
  When we look at all the controversies that have ensued since then--
think of the Vietnam war and what was going on in this body during that 
war, the deep divisions between Democrats and Republicans, those who 
were against the war and for the war. Yet there was never, ever 
anything like we have seen with this letter sent by 47 Republican 
Senators.
  I am glad it didn't occur then, even though I had deep misgivings and 
trouble with the Vietnam war in its execution. I would have had to have 
been reckless to endorse an idea that our Nation, through its Senate, 
would reach out to the Vietnamese during the course of that war, when 
so many lives were at stake and so many lives were lost.
  So here we are today--a letter sent by 47 Republican Senators. We 
have talked about the impact of that. Reflect for a moment on the 
impact of that letter on our allies who are sitting at the table in 
Geneva, our allies who joined us in imposing the strictest sanctions in 
history on Iran to force them into negotiation, our allies, sitting 
with Secretary Kerry and representatives of our government, who must 
look at this letter from 47 Republicans and say: Why are we wasting our 
time? What they are saying is no matter what we do--because no 
agreement has been announced--no matter what we do, the Republican 
Senate is going to reject it. That is what the letter says.
  It goes on to say--and this is a little bit of chutzpah according to 
the New York Times. The Senators signing the letter go on to remind the 
Ayatollah, who is not term-limited, that they have 6-year terms and may 
be around for decades--decades--and basically say to the Iranians: 
Don't even waste your time thinking about negotiating.
  It is not a waste of time because the alternatives are absolutely 
horrifying. The alternative of a nuclear Iran would be a threat not 
only to the Nation of Israel and many other Middle Eastern States and 
countries beyond, in Europe and other places, but it would invite a 
nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The ending is totally 
unacceptable and unpredictable.
  So is it worth negotiating? Is it worth trying to find a way to avoid 
a nuclear Iran? Of course it is. Should the negotiations fail--and they 
might. I hope not because of this letter, but they might--then what do 
we face; bringing Iran to its knees with more sanctions? Whom will we 
call on for these sanctions? Whom will we turn to and say: Will you 
join us in a more strict sanctions regime? The very same allies who sat 
at this table and saw this letter from 47 Republican Senators saying to 
them: Don't waste your time; we have the last word when it comes to 
Iran.
  I don't believe the Republican leadership was thinking clearly when 
they signed on to this letter. I don't think they understood the 
gravity of their action. They certainly were premature, at the minimum. 
We don't have an agreement. We are days away from understanding whether 
there is a possibility of an agreement. Yet these 47 Senators have 
basically said: Don't waste your time; we are not going to accept it no 
matter what it is.
  This is a sad outcome. Similar to the Senator from Michigan, I was 1 
of 23 who voted against the invasion of Iraq. I never dreamed for one 
minute of sending a letter to Saddam Hussein before that vote 
instructing him about

[[Page 3351]]

the politics of America. It turns out that in the history of the Senate 
that has rarely, if ever, occurred.
  I hope now that those 47 Republican Senators will reflect on their 
actions and reflect on the impact it will have. I hope the American 
people understand the President is embarking on a very difficult and 
delicate mission to try to negotiate a verifiable end to the nuclear 
arms race in the Middle East and specifically to end nuclear capability 
in Iran. He may not achieve it, but I respect him for trying. He is the 
Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He is the elected 
leader of our Nation. Though many in this Chamber cannot accept it, he 
is the President of the United States, and he deserves our respect.
  I respected President George W. Bush, even when I disagreed with him 
on his policies on Iraq, and we should expect nothing less of the loyal 
minority when it comes to this President as well.
  I conclude by saying the Senate has an important role to play. But 
the President's role, speaking for the United States--trying to avoid a 
nuclear Iran, trying to avoid a military conflict, another war in the 
Middle East--is something that should not be undermined for political 
ambition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to completely align myself with 
views of the distinguished Senator from Illinois. This isn't a case of 
who can score political points for the evening news broadcast. We are 
talking about potentially the lives of millions of people. We are 
talking about the possibility of a cataclysmic mistake that could 
create havoc long after any of us has left this body. I have had the 
honor of representing Vermont in the Senate beginning at the time when 
Gerald Ford was President.
  We have had Presidents I have agreed with--in fact, with every 
President there have been things I agreed with and with every 
President, Democratic or Republican, there have been things I have 
disagreed with. But one thing I have always done when there are such 
negotiations going on, I am willing to talk to the President privately, 
but I am not going to state my position, for or against, publicly. We 
can only have one person negotiating for the United States. Can you 
imagine if everybody who wanted to rush to the cable news shows to get 
on TV were to say, well, here is our negotiating position--and we are 
going to force the President to leave the negotiating table? What do 
you think those countries that joined us in imposing multilateral 
sanctions would do?
  Many of those countries that joined us are doing so at great economic 
cost to themselves, but they responded--when President Obama went to 
each of them and asked: Will you join us in imposing sanctions, they 
agreed. That made the sanctions far more effective. If they think we 
are not serious, they are going to be very tempted to ask: Why should 
we join you in supporting sanctions in the future? If the United States 
were alone in supporting sanctions, no matter what those sanctions are, 
it would not create any real pressure on Iran.
  Have we not made enough mistakes in the Middle East? I remember some 
who said we must go to war in Iraq because it would protect Israel or 
because they had nuclear weapons or because they had weapons of mass 
destruction. None of that was true. None of it. I remember people 
stopping me on the street, angry that I voted against the war in Iraq. 
They said: We heard Vice President Cheney say they have nuclear 
weapons. I said: There are none.
  The senior Senator from Michigan, in quoting Arthur Vandenberg--he 
was no fan of Franklin Roosevelt, quite the opposite, but he did say, 
as we were going into World War II, ``politics must stop at the water's 
edge.'' That has been the view in my own State of both Republicans and 
Democrats.
  Let's stop rushing for the cameras and potentially hurting the 
Senate, potentially hurting the country. Let's think about what is best 
for the country.
  I see the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on 
the floor, so I will yield the floor so he can speak.

                          ____________________