[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6734-6735]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT

  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, there is an ongoing debate in our 
politics today about the value of leadership around the world in the 
21st century. There is a view that seems to be gaining traction and 
favor--that our international engagement is one-sided, that our allies 
are free riders, that we contribute too much and get too little in 
return, and so why should we be involved in the world? These voices 
exist in both parties, and I would like to answer them today.
  I want to start by looking back at the last century, when the world 
emerged from the death and destruction of the Second World War. The 
United States could have decided after that war to wall ourselves off--
that after the loss of so many of our best and brightest, we had 
already paid enough for peace.
  Instead, our country became the driving force behind international 
order. We forged a series of strong alliances, led with moral clarity, 
and positioned our military strength strategically around the world. In 
doing so, the American people benefitted immensely as we helped to 
stave off the threat of another global conflict and oversaw decades of 
economic growth and the spread of democracy and freedom around the 
world. Then, like now, our people benefitted tremendously from our 
status in the world, even though our engagement was disproportional to 
that of other nations; in fact, we benefitted precisely because our 
engagement was disproportional to that of other nations.
  International engagement has never been a business deal. 
International engagement is not a transaction in which we give 
something tangible and receive something tangible in return. America 
has more to give to the nations we are helping, and that is one of the 
reasons why we have a responsibility to lead. It is written in the 
Bible: ``From everyone who has been given much, much will be 
required.'' But our leadership ends up paying dividends for the entire 
world, and especially for the American people.
  First of all, American workers and families benefit economically. 
International affairs have a bigger impact on the financial well-being 
of our people today than ever before. In our global economy, someone on 
the other side of the planet can now buy a product from an American 
with the tap of a finger. But when nations or entire regions are torn 
apart by war and by oppression, they become closed off, and economic 
growth in our own country is restricted as a result.
  If America were to fail to protect the openness of international 
waters, global shipping would be threatened and prices would rise for 
consumers on virtually everything. Similarly, if space and cyber space 
became threatened or restricted, global communications and commerce 
would suffer as well.
  Americans also see real benefits in terms of our safety at home and 
around the world. Without American leadership, regional order tends to 
break down, and then instability spreads. This opens up vacuums that 
are filled up by radicals, and those radicals always--irrespective of 
what we are doing or what we are not doing--target America, and they do 
so either to bolster their own prestige or for ideological reasons or 
often for both. As President Obama has found, leaving the Middle East 
doesn't mean terrorists stop trying to kill Americans. Our families, 
our homeland, and our men and women in uniform are less safe when 
America disengages from the world.
  We also benefit geopolitically when we help other nations. Think what 
Europe would look like if it had not been for America's moral and 
strategic leadership during the Cold War. Europe still faces many 
challenges today, mainly because of our neglect of the crisis in Syria, 
but for centuries prior, Europe was driven by conflict. European peace 
was thought to be impossible. Yet that is what NATO and other 
institutions have helped achieve with American support.
  What would Asia look like right now had the United States not helped 
it to rebuild after the Second World War. Look at the way that American 
leadership allowed South Korea to go from a poor country--a 
dictatorship--to a vibrant democracy and one of the largest economies 
in the world. South Korea is now a net donor to foreign aid and a 
crucial ally for us in a region that includes an aggressive China and a 
belligerent North Korea.
  Japan has gone from a country devastated by war and not trusted by 
its neighbors to one of the most peaceful societies in the world. It 
has also become a net contributor to global security through its 
military and humanitarian assistance programs.
  Then there is the Middle East. Whether we should continue to play a 
role there is a question that weighs particularly heavily on the minds 
of many Americans. I understand the doubts and frustrations. We have 
been involved in the region for decades. Nothing seems to be getting 
better, and despite our attempts to help, we watch on television as 
some celebrate our tragedies and burn our flag in the Arab streets.
  It is true that we cannot solve all of the region's problems, but we 
have an interest in what happens there, nonetheless. That interest is 
served by our involvement, not by our withdrawal. ISIS arose, in the 
first place, because of the political instability that exists in both 
Syria and Iraq, and that instability was created in part because 
President Obama withdrew or withheld American leadership at crucial 
moments.
  Failing to lead costs us more in the long-term than it saves us in 
the short-term, and we will continue to pay a steep price each time we 
fail to lead in the future.
  There are complex considerations to make regarding our engagement in

[[Page 6735]]

every region, but I believe a world without sustained American 
engagement is not a world any of us want to live in. This idea shared 
by prominent voices in both parties--that America is such a weak nation 
that we cannot afford to be engaged in the world--is one of the biggest 
lies ever told to the American people. Just because our government 
leaders are weak does not mean America is weak.
  No American wants to live in a world where Vladimir Putin sets the 
agenda or ISIS holds us hostage to their demands. Yet this is the world 
we are heading toward as political leaders continue to embrace 
America's decline.
  Defense spending is currently at roughly 3.3 percent of our budget, 
compared to 14 percent at the height of the Korean war. Our Army is on 
track to be at pre-World War II levels. Our Navy is already at pre-
World War I levels, and our Air Force has the smallest and oldest 
combat force in its history. These are the results of specific policy 
choices made by politicians right here. It is no accident that the 
result has been more conflict around the world and less American 
influence.
  I saw firsthand on a recent trip to Iraq how our men and women in 
uniform around the world are doing their best to keep us safe with 
limited resources. We put them in an untenable position. They are asked 
to maintain our global commitments, fight ISIS and other terrorist 
groups, and deter countries such as Russia, Iran, North Korea, and 
China. They and our country deserve better.
  ``Spend less abroad so we can spend more at home'' has become a 
common refrain among leaders in both parties. It is used to excuse cuts 
to the military and our presence around the world. The truth is that 
the defense budget is not the primary driver of our debt. It is our 
entitlement programs. Every time we try to cut a dollar from our 
military, it seems to cost us several more just to make up for it.
  In addition to investing in our strength, we must apply that strength 
in a way that respects our values and supports our economic interests.
  Americans deserve a foreign policy we can be proud of. But for the 
last 8 years, we have had a Commander in Chief who praises and appeases 
dictators to promote the illusion of peace. Some in my party have now 
adopted a similar approach. They may claim to represent different 
ideas, but both emanate from the same notion--that Americans are too 
tired, that America is too weak, and that we are too much like the rest 
of the world to stand up to tyrants, so we should just cut deals with 
them instead.
  This is not only morally wrong, but it is contrary to our interests. 
Whenever our foreign policy becomes unhinged from its moral purpose, it 
weakens global stability and it forms cracks in our national resolve. 
But whenever freedom and human rights spread, partners for our Nation 
are born. We must restore America's willingness to state boldly what we 
stand for and why. Just as Reagan never flinched in his criticisms of 
the Soviet Union, we must not shy away from demanding that China allow 
true freedom for its 1.3 billion people or boldly stating that Vladimir 
Putin is a corrupt thug. Nor should we hesitate in calling the source 
of atrocities in the Middle East by its real name--radical Islam. We 
should always stand with Israel, and we should not abandon the cause of 
freedom in our own hemisphere and allow cruel and immoral dictatorships 
in Cuba and Venezuela to be absolved of their crimes.
  The world needs America's moral and military strength just as much as 
our people and our economy do. No other nation can deter global 
conflict by its presence alone. No other nation can offer the security 
and benevolence that America can. No other Nation can be trusted to 
defend peace and advance liberty.
  America cannot avoid its role as a global leader. But we also know 
America cannot be tasked with protecting the world on its own. It will 
take an international order of free nations with free economies to do 
so. We must work with like-minded allies whenever possible and 
encourage them to do their part, but no other nation has the ability to 
organize or lead such a coalition if we fail to do so.
  That is why I will continue to make the case for an engaged America, 
no matter who becomes our next President, no matter how the political 
winds may blow. Our safety and our prosperity depend on it. The ideal 
of America depends on it. That was true last century, and it is even 
more so today.
  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING Officer. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________