[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.

                          ____________________