Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 131 (Tuesday, September 23, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 131 (Tuesday, September 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11775-S11779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ATTACK ON SENATOR KENNEDY

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know we are still negotiating with
regard to the schedule for the course of the next hour or so. We will
ask for some additional time to respond to this attack on Senator
Kennedy. I believe this is getting to be a real practice here. I was
the brunt of similar criticism last spring. It seems as if anyone who
comes to the floor to express concern or to express his or her views on
Iraq is now the subject of attack.
Regardless of one's views, to impugn someone's patriotism, to
question the motives, to challenge the integrity is wrong. We ought to
have an opportunity to have an open, candid expression of views without
challenging----
Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DASCHLE. I am going to finish my statement and I will be happy to
yield to the Senator from Utah.
We ought to have an opportunity to have this open discussion and
expression of views without challenging the motives, the patriotism, or
the very right of any Senator to express him or herself. Senator
Kennedy did that. Many of us have done that now over the course of the
debate. We may ultimately come to different conclusions about what the
facts are or about the specific policies involving Iraq or our
involvement in the questions we are facing right now with regard to the
$87 billion. But I must say, let's keep this an open and fair
discussion of the facts, without always impugning someone's integrity
or personal motivation.
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah. I am told we only have
a couple minutes left. Until we reach agreement, I will yield at this
time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I asked unanimous consent that the
exchange between the Democratic leader and myself not be charged to
their time, if he would be willing to yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Does the Senator yield for
a question?

[[Page S11776]]

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Utah for a
question.
Mr. DODD. Under the circumstances the Senator from Utah has
described, this will not detract from the time?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. My question is very simple: I ask the Democratic leader
if at any time in my presentation did he find where I attacked the
motives, the patriotism, or the rights of the Senator from
Massachusetts? My intent was--and it is my belief that I stood up to my
intent--to challenge the accuracy of the statement of the Senator from
Massachusetts, never having made any reference to his motives, his
patriotism, or his rights. If the Democratic leader has instances where
I did that, I would appreciate it if he would point that out to me so I
can make the appropriate response.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was not on the floor when the
distinguished Senator from Utah spoke. I am relating not necessarily to
his comments specifically but to this general approach Members on the
other side seem to use any time one of those in the Democratic caucus
speaks out, expresses him or herself, raises concerns or in some way
criticizes this administration with regard to its policy in Iraq. There
is an orchestrated effort to attack those who criticize.

I am not saying that the Senator from Utah may have done so
specifically on the floor this morning. I will look forward to reading
his comments. But that is the approach. I think it is unfair. I think
it is unfortunate. It demeans the debate that we ought to be having in
the Senate about these important issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes fifteen seconds.
Mr. DODD. I yield myself 2 minutes.
I wish to quickly respond to my colleagues and friends on the other
side. I supported the President's request for authority in Iraq. I
believed at the time that was the right vote to cast.
But it is important to focus on the war issue and what is going on in
Iraq in the construction period, the economic and political efforts
there. There is growing concern, both here and abroad, that this is not
going well. We can spend all day debating about what our colleagues
said or didn't say, what their motives or intentions were, but that
diverts attention from what the debate ought to be; that is, we have a
request before us for $87 billion. We will have to vote on that in the
coming days. The American people want to know where we stand on that.
How is the money going to be spent? Where is it going?
Why are we losing a soldier a day it seems, or 10 are being wounded
every day? Why isn't the rest of the world joining us? What efforts are
being made? The President may be giving a speech right now at the
United Nations. Spending our time in this great deliberative body
arguing over what one of our colleagues said over the weekend in an
interview detracts from what ought to be the real debate, and that is
whether we are on the right track or the wrong track when it comes to
rebuilding Iraq, getting the government turned over to the Iraqi
people, getting international support for the efforts and how the
taxpayer money is going to be used.
Spending our time talking about what Senator Kennedy said--I think
his spirit reflects where many Americans are. You may not agree with
every word. That is not the point. We rarely agree around here on
speeches we give, but we ought to be debating how we get it right in
Iraq instead of spending time this morning arguing about whether or not
we agree or disagree with what our colleague said in an interview in
his home State. The American public wants to know what is happening in
Iraq, not what is happening in Massachusetts--not what one said but
what is the policy of this Government and what is the Senate saying
about it. That ought to be the debate.
Mr. President, I don't know if any of my colleagues want to be
yielded some time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, morning business has expired. I would ask
unanimous consent--and I do this with the greatest respect--that we,
the minority, be given the next 20 minutes and that the minority have
10 minutes to respond.
The reason I suggest that is that there has been a half hour here
directed toward one Senator. We think that we would, with the 7 minutes
we have been given and the 20 minutes that I am asking, be nearly
balanced--not totally balanced. In fact, it would still be out of
balance, with 40 minutes for one side and about 30 to respond to that--
in fact, 27. So I would ask unanimous consent that we be given the next
20 minutes; following that, the majority be recognized for 10 minutes,
still as if in morning business, and that the work of the Interior
appropriations subcommittee, the vote, plus the 10-minute speeches
prior to the vote, be set aside for 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator cannot suggest the absence of a
quorum until he gets time.
Mr. REID. I withdraw my unanimous consent request and note the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BURNS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. As to the unanimous consent request, for
clarification, after the 30 minutes that we have just allocated by
unanimous consent, there will be 10 minutes equally divided on the
Daschle amendment, after which there will be a rollcall vote. So
Members would know that at about 11:20 to 11:25 we will have a vote.
Mr. REID. That is true.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am not quite sure. What is the
parliamentary situation?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, if I could answer the
Senator from Vermont, we have 20 minutes now. The Republicans have 10
minutes. We will allocate that time as if in morning business. I would
be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to my friends on the other
side of the aisle who have come to the Senate floor this morning to
criticize the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy.
Last week, Senator Kennedy, speaking for millions of concerned
Americans, challenged the President and his advisers for misleading the
country about the war in Iraq.
Every Senator is free to disagree with the views of another Senator.
That is the nature of debate. But too often, officials in this
administration, and some of my Republican friends, have questioned the
patriotism, and the right to disagree, of those who criticize policies
they believe are fundamentally flawed.
Senator Kennedy has asked hard and important questions about a policy
that--contrary to what the American people were told to expect--has
already resulted in the loss of life or limb of hundreds of American
soldiers and is costing billions of dollars with no end in sight.
The reality is that since the fall of Baghdad, practically everything
the White House and the Pentagon predicted about Iraq has turned out to
be wrong. Yet you would hardly know it from listening to officials in
Washington who consistently give evasive and overly optimistic
assessments.
The administration's own shifting statements show that the threat
posed by Iraq was not what we were led to believe.
Just a few months ago, Vice President Cheney insisted that Saddam
Hussein had reconstituted nuclear weapons. No weapons of mass
destruction have yet been found.

[[Page S11777]]

Last week, Secretary Powell said the use of chemical weapons against
the Kurds was the justification for a preemptive war 15 years later. As
much as I admire and respect the Secretary, that is grasping at straws.
For months, the White House and the Pentagon tried mightily to draw a
connection between Saddam Hussein and the attack against the World
Trade Towers. Last week, the President belatedly conceded that there
was no link.
Vice President Cheney said our troops would be treated as liberators.
I am sure that most Iraqis are grateful that Saddam Hussein is gone. I
am too. But it is clear the Iraqi people increasingly don't want us
there.
We should all be concerned that when our soldiers--who have performed
so bravely--are ambushed and killed, there seems to be increasing
jubilation in the streets, and not just by the remnants of Saddam's
regime.
Then, there is the issue of cost. Five months ago we passed a wartime
supplemental with $2.5 billion for reconstruction in Iraq. At the time,
we were told that was all that U.S. taxpayers would be asked for this
year. That, we have learned, was a gross miscalculation.
Former-OMB Director Mitch Daniels said the total cost would be
between $50 and $60 billion. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz said:
We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own
reconstruction, and relatively soon. The oil revenues of that country
could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next
two or three years.
We now know those predictions were wildly off the mark.
We are also paying other countries to support us. The State
Department's own documents show that since April, the United States has
provided almost $4 billion to coalition partners, other nations who
supported our efforts in Iraq, and allies in the region. This does not
include billions of dollars in loans.
Now the President wants another $87 billion for Iraq. Within a year,
we will have spent far more than $100 billion, and it is clear that the
administration will be back for many more tens of billions of dollars
before next year is out.
We don't have this money in the bank. It is red ink. We are headed
for a $1 trillion deficit, which will fall squarely on the backs of our
children and grandchildren. That could very well be our most lasting
legacy.
We are spending all this money in Iraq, but there is no supplemental
to help the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs
here at home. There is no money to fix our dilapidated public schools.
There is no money for health care for the millions of Americans who
lack health insurance. None for low income housing for Americans living
in poverty.
I hope my Republican friends who have rushed here to defend the
President's preemptive war and his policy of nation building, are also
concerned about how much it may cost, how long it may take, and how
many American troops may be needed in the years to come. They should be
asking these questions too.
We cannot continue to drift along, spending more than $1 billion a
week, with no plan other than business as usual, no realistic time
table, every week another four or five Americans killed or wounded, and
the growing resentment of the Iraqi people.
It is long past time to abandon the same old ``go it alone''
strategy. We need to get the international community involved. We need
to work towards bringing our soldiers home sooner rather than later.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank very much the Senator from
Vermont for his comments. I think I will simply add that the vast
majority of the American people agree with him. I appreciate very much
his contribution to this discussion.
Teddy Roosevelt once said:

To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President or that we are to stand by the President right or
wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile but it is also
morally treasonable to the American public.

There has to be open dialog, candid discussion about the
extraordinary ramifications of many of the issues that are confronting
us relating to Iraq, or we will be morally treasonable.
The President has requested an additional $87 billion in money for
Iraq over the next several months. Requesting the money is no
substitute for a plan, and the President has no plan. In fact, we don't
know where the money has gone so far. There is little accounting of the
billion dollars a week that we are currently sending to Iraq--$1
billion a week, with very little if any transparency with regard to
that commitment.
Now the President is saying he wants $87 billion more. General
Anthony Zinni recently spoke to a group of Marine officers, and here is
what he said:

[Our troops] should never be put on a battlefield without a
strategic plan, not only for the fighting--our generals will
take care of that--but for the aftermath and winning that
war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if
we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of
planning? Almost everyone in this room, of my
contemporaries--our feelings and our sensitivities were
forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the
garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore
never again would we do that. We swore never again would we
allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again? And
you're going to have to answer that question, just like the
American people are. And remember, every one of those young
men and women that don't come back is not a personal tragedy,
it's a national tragedy.

You cannot say it any more powerfully than that. That was not some
politician. That wasn't one of our elected Senators. That was General
Anthony Zinni, who knows a great deal about sacrifice and about what it
is to go into circumstances like this without a plan.
So I think it is incumbent upon us to ask the questions: Where is the
plan? What will it cost? Why can't we get better international support?
How long will our troops be there? When will they come back? What level
of cooperation are we getting from the Iraqis themselves?
If you read the papers in the last couple of days, we are not even
getting full support from the Iraqi Council.
I think it is critical, especially in these days before the
supplemental is brought before the Senate floor, that the level of
debate, the questions that we have a right to ask, are asked and
answers are given. Where is the sacrifice, you might ask, when the
average tax cut for those at the top 1 percent is $238,000 this year?
Where is the sacrifice for those who benefit the most?
We are asking a lot of sacrifice from our soldiers. We are asking a
lot of sacrifice for those veterans who come back. Then we tell them we
are not going to give them the full measure of support in the budget
for the health care needs they have once they are here? You see the
bumper stickers: ``Support Our Troops.'' What happened to our veterans?
Why don't we see the same bumper stickers with some advocacy, some
recognition of the need to support our veterans, too? But it is not in
the administration's budget. We are told we can't afford it. We are
told they have to just suck it up and sacrifice. The sacrifice is not
being borne equally, and that is what many of us have been asking a
long time--why not? Why not?

So I look forward to the coming days where we can have an all-out
debate. Many of us will be presenting alternatives, amendments to this
request by the President. We will have more debate about that matter. I
know there are other Senators who wish to be recognized and to speak in
the time that we have remaining.
I yield such time as he may wish to the distinguished Democratic
whip.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. REID. I ask Senator Dodd be given the last 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in baseball you have seen the teams pile
onto each other. That only happens on one occasion, generally, in
baseball, which I understand quite well. One of the pitcher's weapons
is to throw a ball inside, and that happens all the time to keep the
batter loose. But you never throw at someone's head. That, in effect,
is what happened here, and that is why we have had the Senators
rallying here because, in effect, someone threw a ball at the head of
one of our Senators, and that is not right.
I appreciate very much Senator Dodd, whom we all know is a close
personal friend of Senator Kennedy--I

[[Page S11778]]

would expect nothing less--defending his close personal friend. But he
also defends the institution itself. He is in the process not only of
defending his close personal friend but the institution.
As we have said, people who deliver a message that this
administration doesn't like are attacked. There is no better example of
that than Senator Daschle, who has been attacked personally with TV ads
being run against him in his own State by people who are just voicing
the administration's line. There have been many other ways he has been
attacked.
When it comes to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure--the electric grid,
the water supply, the highways--I think there are a number of questions
that need to be answered for the American people. People may not have
liked how Senator Kennedy phrased his objection to what has gone on and
what is going on, but he said it. He raised issues. Let's not attack
him; let's talk about the issues.
I have some questions. What are the assumptions underlying the
President's request for $87 billion, and how many months for
reconstruction will it cover? Why haven't we done more for Afghanistan?
That is a question I have. What is the best case scenario for
international contributions? What will the administration request next
year? What is going on with Iraqi oil revenue, which we were led to
believe would pay to rebuild the country? What happened to their seized
assets?

Another question is, Why is the contracting process less transparent
than U.S. law requires, and which companies are profiting from these
contracts? What is the status of the Iraqi Army and the police?
The American people deserve answers to these questions. That is why
Members of Congress, including decorated Members such as Congressman
Murtha and Senator Hagel, have been raising these and other questions.
No one should question their patriotism. They are doing their duty just
as Congressman Murtha and Senator Hagel did when they wore the uniform
of the American military.
No one should dream of questioning the patriotism of Senator Kennedy,
who has served the body for four decades. He doesn't have all the
answers of what is going on in Iraq, but he has a right to ask
questions. The responses to his questions, unfortunately, have all been
too familiar. Whenever someone has the temerity to criticize the
actions of this administration, the response is a personal attack.
A former Member of this body, Senator Max Cleland, was the first to
recognize the need for the Department of Homeland Security. But he
didn't agree with every detail of the administration's plan for that
Department. So this man was attacked and his patriotism was questioned
during the 2000 Presidential race. Even Senator McCain, who served 7
years in a prisoner of war camp in Vietnam, was attacked because he did
not agree with the President on every issue.
The list goes on. It should trouble any of us when Americans feel
free to raise questions about the policies of their Government and then
are criticized. What troubles me is when those questions go unanswered
and personal attacks take place.
I have asked questions about today's plan in Iraq because my ultimate
concern is the protection and safety of our troops. I will do anything
I can to support our troops in every way possible. They will get every
dollar they need for security and ongoing military operations. But I
don't want to give Iraq a blank check, while our children get a bounced
check for education, while our efforts to rebuild our own roads and
power grids go begging.
The President has the responsibility as commander in chief to bring
the international community together and rally our allies behind a
comprehensive plan that will complete our mission in Iraq. We cannot
continue to fight a war without a plan for victory.
Mr. President, we have a lot of questions. It has nothing to do with
one's patriotism. We have a right to ask these questions. I say to the
administration, please don't attack the person who asked the question.
Answer the question.
I yield whatever time I have remaining to the Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 4 minutes 45
seconds.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, the Democratic leader
and the Democratic whip, Senator Reid, for their comments, and Senator
Leahy for his comments as well.
As I said a few minutes ago, I voted to give the President the
authority to use force. Others didn't. I respected that decision but
reached a different conclusion. I am just concerned when I hear the
debate shift, as it has this morning, from what we need to be doing in
Iraq to get this right, to those who take a different position or
question the motivations that led us to this particular point. By the
way, going back looking historically, the comments Senator Kennedy
made--whether you agree or disagree with them, and I don't think they
ought to be the subject of the debate; the debate ought to be about
Iraq--go back to January 19, 2002, and Karl Rove, Chief of Staff of the
White House addressing the Republican National Committee. I quote him
while speaking to that group. According to the Washington Post story,
his top political advisor said this:

. . . Republicans will make the President's handling of the
war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win
back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's
midterm elections.
We can go to the country on this issue because they trust
the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and
strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting
America.

He goes on to say:

The second place we should go to the country is on
protecting the homeland. We can go to the country confidently
on this issue because Americans trust the Republican party to
do a better job of keeping our communities and families safe.

That is the top political advisor to the President in January of 2002
suggesting that in fact we can make this a partisan issue. You may not
like the statements of Senator Kennedy, but there is a genesis here
that could draw a conclusion that there have been political
motivations.
My view is simply, look, to spend this morning debating what one of
our colleagues said on an interview someplace detracts from what ought
to be the subject of debate: how do we get it right in Iraq? That ought
to be the common challenge. We have a major request of $87 billion in
front of us and there are legitimate questions being raised about how
to do this, how to get this right. We ought to be spending our energy
and time and that of our staffs on organizing and debating and
discussing how we can get this right as a coequal branch of Government,
constitutionally charged with the conduct of foreign policy. This body
deserves--in fact, its history and the country demand that we do a much
better job of focusing on the foreign policy matter before the Nation
and the world, getting about the reconstruction, and getting the
political and economic questions right in Iraq, and taking our time to
debate what one Senator says seems to be, quite transparently, an
effort to divert the attention of the country and the media to one of
our colleagues rather than the far larger issue, and that is whether we
are going to go further into debt without paying for these additional
moneys that are deserved for our military, certainly, and questionably
on the reconstruction effort.

My hope is we can move away from the debate of what one colleague
says and start talking about what needs to be done to get this
situation in Iraq on the right track.
Certainly, if you go back and look at the history, as I said earlier,
the suspicions that the administration was motivated in part by
politics are rooted in the fact that the top political advisers of this
administration have made the case to their own party faithful that in
fact part of their motivations are to look at gaining political favor.
It was a great disappointment then because there was a sense of unity
in the country about fighting terrorism together, getting homeland
security right together, and certainly getting Iraq right together is
what we ought to talk about. There are legitimate issues. Why are we
not getting the international support? Where will the money come from?
Are we going to get ourselves further into debt? How are our needs at
home going to be addressed? How are we going to get the Iraqis back in
control of their country?

[[Page S11779]]

These are the questions we ought to be working on--not whether some
colleague made a statement you disagree with and that we organize
ourselves in a structured response to that, rather than take the time
we ought to in order to get a situation that the American public wanted
to know more about, which is a deep problem that is getting worse. The
longer we fail to address it and try to divert attention to other
matters, it does a great disservice to our men and women in uniform and
to the American taxpayers.
Mr. President, I hope any further debate about what one colleague
says would be confined to how we can get the Iraq situation on the
right track and how we are going to spend the bulk or a good part of
the $87 billion on the reconstruction phase of Iraq.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

____________________