[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 62 (Thursday, May 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4951-S4969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         National Day Of Prayer

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would also like to bring to the attention 
of my colleagues an article from today's Washington Post. It was on 
page A-3 carried over to page A-6, and it worries me deeply because it 
goes to what I am fearful may have had some underlying and undercurrent 
effect on the events of the last several days. It seems to speak to the 
extent that we are dehumanizing and minimizing and casting this pall of 
accusation over an entire religious group in the world.
  Senator Biden pointed out in his remarks here this morning that 1.2 
billion people are observers of the Muslim faith.
  And today is a national day of prayer in the U.S. It began with a 
resolution adopted in the Truman administration in 1952 and has been 
followed every year since then. When Harry Truman signed the 
congressional resolution he called for ``a suitable day each year other 
than a Sunday to be set aside for common prayer.'' Every administration 
since 1952 has taken that day out of the calendar year to focus on 
common prayer. And it was under the Reagan administration that the 
first Thursday of May was set aside as the permanent day each year.
  I cannot tell you how disturbing it was to read in this morning's 
paper a quote from one of the organizers of this year's day of prayer. 
The quote was buried away, but let me read it, because it actually goes 
to the heart of what we are talking about. We are told here, this 
morning, that they would make ``no apologies'' in today's celebration 
of prayer ``about the exclusion of Muslims and others outside of the 
`Judeo-Christian tradition' from ceremonies planned by the task force 
on Capitol Hill and in state capitals across the country.''

[[Page S4959]]

  ``They are free to have their own national day of prayer if they want 
to,'' she said.
  Well, if you have that attitude about common prayer today, and you 
exclude religious groups from a national day of prayer, then what have 
we come to?
  I might point out as well, because the Presiding Officer will 
appreciate this--my wife pointed this out to me this morning--in Salt 
Lake City, Mormons have complained that they are not allowed to lead 
prayers during today's observance. I don't know how you have a national 
prayer day in Salt Lake City and exclude the Mormons from 
participating.
  But this sort of attitude where we are going to selectively choose 
religious groups that can be involved, and the particular reference 
here to the exclusion of anyone who might be of the Muslim faith, is 
troubling to me because it is that sort of an attitude that contributes 
to the dehumanization of people and casts aspersions on an entire group 
of people.
  Indeed, as we talk about what has occurred as a result of the actions 
of a few bad apples, I point out the story in today's newspaper because 
I think that the attitude of exclusion expressed in the story 
contributes to an environment, if you will, that somehow makes these 
abuses permissible in the minds of some--that somehow these people are 
undeserving of the kind of treatment that every other human ought to 
receive--particularly in the hands of a nation that prides itself on 
being governed by the rule of law and which respects individual rights.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article in today's 
Washington Post entitled ``Bush to Appear On Christian TV For Prayer 
Day'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Bush To Appear on Christian TV for Prayer Day

                          (By Alan Cooperman)

       President Bush's participation in a National Day of Prayer 
     ceremony with evangelical Christian leaders at the White 
     House will be shown tonight, for the first time in prime-time 
     viewing hours, on Christian cable and satellite TV outlets 
     nationwide.
       For Bush, the broadcast is an opportunity to address a 
     sympathetic evangelical audience without the risk of 
     alienating secular or non-Christian viewers, because it will 
     not be carried in full by the major television networks. 
     Frank Wright, president of the National Association of 
     Religious Broadcasters, said more than a million evangelicals 
     are expected to see the broadcast.
       Some civil liberties groups and religious minorities 
     charged that the National Day of Prayer has lost its 
     nonpartisan veneer and is being turned into a platform for 
     evangelical groups to endorse Bush--and vice versa.
       ``Over the years, the National Day of Prayer has gradually 
     been adopted more and more by the religious right, and this 
     year in particular there is such an undercurrent of 
     partisanship because for the first time they are broadcasting 
     Bush's message in an election year,'' said the Rev. Barry W. 
     Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation 
     of Church and State.
       The event's organizers denied that it amounts to a tacit 
     political endorsement.
       ``We're in an election year, and we believe God cares who's 
     in those positions of authority,'' said Mark Fried, spokesman 
     for the National Day of Prayer Task Force. ``But we're not 
     endorsing a candidate--just praying that God's hand will be 
     on the election.''
       The private task force, which operates from the Colorado 
     headquarters of the Christian organization Focus on the 
     Family, has encouraged the nation's churches to organize 
     potluck suppers and pipe the ceremony into their sanctuaries. 
     It will be taped in mid-afternoon in the East Room and re-
     broadcast during a three-hour, late evening ``Concert of 
     Prayer'' featuring Christian music stars and other 
     luminaries, such as Bruce Wilkinson, author of the best-
     selling ``Prayer of Jabez.''
       ``This feed is available to any network anywhere in the 
     world free of charge, but only religious networks have an 
     inclination to pick it up,'' Wright said.
       Fried said this year's theme is ``Let Freedom Ring.'' He 
     described it as the evangelical response to efforts to remove 
     the words ``under God'' from the Pledge of Allegiance and 
     keep the Ten Commandments out of public buildings.
       ``Our theme is, there is a small group of activists 
     unleashing an all-out assault on our religious freedoms. They 
     are targeting the Christian faith,'' he said.
       The National Day of Prayer has been celebrated every year 
     since 1952, when President Harry S. Truman signed a 
     congressional resolution calling for ``a suitable day each 
     year, other than a Sunday to be set aside for common prayer.
       Under President Ronald Reagan, the date was set permanently 
     as the first Thursday in May. Since the mid-1980s, the 
     ceremony has been organized by the nonprofit task force 
     headed by two prominent evangelical women: Vonette Bright, 
     widow of Campus Crusade for Christ founder Bill Bright, and 
     Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family founder James C. 
     Dobson.
       As in recent years, today's observances will begin with a 
     congressional prayer session on Capitol Hill in the morning, 
     followed by the afternoon ceremony at the White House. Under 
     President Bill Clinton, Bright said in an interview this 
     week, the White House observance was private and ``very 
     definitely lower key'' than under Bush, who has invited print 
     and television coverage each year.
       Although ``we were disappointed'' with Clinton's low-
     profile celebration, Bright said, evangelicals did not make 
     that sentiment public. ``We have as enthusiastically promoted 
     the Day of Prayer when Democrats were in office as when they 
     were not,'' she said, adding that any ``politicization'' of 
     the Day of Prayer ``would be so unfortunate.''
       Bright did not hesitate, however, to express admiration for 
     Bush: ``I don't think he has a political agenda of his own. I 
     think he's really trying to do what would please God.''
       She also made no apologies about the exclusion of Muslims 
     and others outside of the ``Judeao-Christian tradition'' from 
     ceremonies planned by the task force on Capitol Hill and in 
     state capitals across the country. ``They are free to have 
     their own national day of prayer if they want to,'' she said. 
     ``We are a Christian task force.''
       The White House press office and presidential adviser Karl 
     Rove's office did not respond to calls seeking comment on the 
     National Day of Prayer observances.
       Organizers said some Jewish rabbis, Catholic clergy and 
     mainline Protestants have been invited to the congressional 
     and White House ceremonies. But the exclusion of religious 
     minorities has led to protests in several cities.
       In Salt Lake City, Mormons have complained that they are 
     not allowed to lead prayers during the local observance.
       In Oklahoma City, the Rev. W. Bruce Prescott has planned an 
     interfaith ceremony on the steps of the state Capitol today 
     to protest the exclusively Christian ceremony inside the 
     building. ``As a Baptist preacher, it's hard for me to 
     protest prayer,'' he said. ``What I'd rather do is see if we 
     can't find a way to do it right.''

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to 
my time, I receive 10 minutes from Senator Harkin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, we are currently engaged in a fierce battle to salvage 
something, anything, from the administration's effort at regime change 
and reconstruction in Iraq. Each day, the costs in lives and dollars 
accumulate, as the Iraqi people become more restive and impatient. 
International and regional support for our efforts is eroding at a time 
when an international effort, as distinct from the administration's 
unilateral approach, may be the only effective way to change the 
political dynamic and allow us to avoid being trapped in a long, 
bloody, and uncertain conflict.
  Many Americans are asking how we came to this point. Some are asking 
why we must remain. The President has responded with a slogan: ``We 
must not waiver.'' What we need is a plan, a plan based on reality, not 
on ideology.
  The administration launched the preemptive attack on Iraq to counter, 
according to their claims, the overwhelming danger of Iraqi weapons of 
mass destruction and alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and 
terrorists. In the last year, no weapons of mass destruction have been 
found, and no strong link has been established between Saddam and 
terrorists. Ironically, today, there is no shortage of terrorists in 
Iraq. They have been drawn there not by Saddam but by his demise.
  Now, the administration returns to the subtext of its justification 
for preemptive action in the fall of 2002, the unalloyed evil of 
Saddam. That, of course, is a point beyond debate; indeed, a point that 
was acknowledged by all sides during the debate in the fall of 2002.
  When Secretary Wolfowitz testified recently before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, he continually reiterated the depravity of Saddam 
stressing, in his words, the ``density of evil'' that gripped Iraq 
under Saddam. Looking backward at Saddam will not help us find a way 
ahead today. Today, more relevant than the ``density of evil'' that 
gripped Iraq is the ``density of illusion'' that continues to grip the

[[Page S4960]]

administration and the Pentagon. The administration and the Pentagon 
stubbornly cling to illusions about the situation in Iraq. Let me 
suggest some of the most salient.
  For months, they have attempted to convince the world--and, perhaps, 
themselves--that Iraqi security forces were capable of making a 
significant contribution to establish order and to defeat the 
insurgency. No such capability exists at this time, and it may take 
years to train a competent and cohesive force that can assume the 
security role in Iraq that currently falls primarily upon the United 
States.
  For months, the Pentagon regaled us with charts showing the 
astronomical and rapid growth of Iraqi security forces from mere 
handfuls to hundreds of thousands. They repeatedly stressed the 
proportional decrease of the American presence as a sign of progress. 
All this was wishful thinking and political spinning.
  The last few weeks have revealed the fact that a significant number 
of Iraqi security forces are ill prepared, ill equipped, and 
unmotivated.
  A Washington Post article pointed out that on April 5, a new Iraqi 
battalion of several hundred Iraqi soldiers refused to join U.S. 
Marines in the offensive in Fallujah. In the south, police units as 
well as members of the Iraqi Civilian Defense Corps, equivalent to the 
National Guard of the United States, refused to engage Sadr's forces. 
MG Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division in Iraq, 
estimated that one in 10 members of the Iraqi security forces actually 
worked against the U.S. forces and 40 percent simply walked away from 
their post because of intimidation during the recent violence in 
Fallujah and in the south of Iraq.
  The Pentagon likely had indications of problems with these forces. 
Several months ago MG Karl Eikenberry was dispatched to Iraq to conduct 
a survey of Iraqi security forces. General Eikenberry is an extremely 
competent and experienced officer who played a key role in establishing 
the new national army in Afghanistan after Operation Enduring Freedom.
  For many weeks, I have been attempting to obtain this report to 
become informed and to inform my colleagues about the state of 
readiness of the Iraqi security forces. The Pentagon has been 
completely uncooperative. This lack of cooperation and respect for the 
responsibilities of Congress to perform oversight over the Department 
of Defense has been characteristic of this administration's approach 
throughout the conduct of operations in Iraq, and it has contributed to 
the predicament we find ourselves in today. Too often a small group of 
civilians in the Pentagon has displaced normal planning functions and 
instead, insulated from appropriate congressional oversight, has 
hatched plans for the occupation in Iraq that have proven to be 
misguided and inept. The formation of credible and effective Iraqi 
security forces is imperative, but not just because it reduces the 
burden and the threat to our forces. It is imperative we establish 
these forces because today our goals for Iraq are being thwarted by a 
climate of violence that affects every Iraqi and saps their willingness 
to commit to the reform of their country.
  We often see the violence in Iraq as those attacks against our 
forces. When we do, we miss the pervasive and disturbing violence that 
touches the lives of every Iraqi and, in a cruel irony, has many Iraqis 
comparing the order under Saddam with the chronic disorder under the 
United States.
  The following is an article, translated from Arabic, in the April 
25th edition of Al Manar, a newspaper from Baghdad:

       The Iraqi society has never known or, even in U.S. gang 
     movies, seen such acts of looting, robbery, and murder as the 
     current crimes taking place in Iraq today, which cause 
     newborn's hair to turn gray. The crimes have become so common 
     that hardly an hour passes without hearing that some people 
     are being plundered or a number of cars are being stolen. The 
     drivers of the new and expensive cars have become a target 
     for the thieves and burglars.
       Someone may think that such crimes occur in other places at 
     night; however, the strange thing is that in Iraq, they take 
     place during the day for everyone to see. In addition, the 
     numbers of these looting gangs have become very well known to 
     the ordinary citizens of Baghdad.
       A few days ago, my relative's car was stolen at gun point 
     in Baghdad, but he managed to escape without being physically 
     harmed or injured in the incident. Having recovered from the 
     shock a few days later, his friends advised him to meet with 
     a former gang leader who enjoyed considerable status and 
     reputation among the members of the other criminal gangs. 
     Having no other option, my relative went to see the guy who 
     promised to take him to the gangs operating in the zone where 
     his car was stolen.
       As promised, the man secretly took my relative to meet well 
     known gangsters where one of them congratulated him [my 
     relative] for his good luck because his car was stolen by a 
     gang ``that only steals cars but does not kill the owners; 
     otherwise, you would have been killed if it was another 
     gang.'' The strange thing is that most of the gangsters are 
     young boys between the age of 15 and 20 years.
       After several terrifying trips, my relative found his car 
     when tough negotiations began. He was asked to pay $500, a 
     special offer out of honor and respect for their repentant 
     comrade who brought him to get his car back.

  This true story is an example of dozens of other similar robbery, 
looting, and murder crimes taking place in Baghdad where stealing and 
murdering gangs have dramatically increased. Unless we are able to 
protect the people of Iraq from criminal gangs and from situations as 
illustrated in these comments in the newspaper, we will fail in our 
mission because we have a situation where the basic elements of order, 
the basic sense of safety and security have been completely eviscerated 
for a vast number of Iraqis.
  These are off the TV screens. But this is one of the constant 
drumbeats that is turning the people of Iraq to become resentful of our 
presence.
  The administration has also, together with the Pentagon, consistently 
underestimated the number of troops necessary for the successful 
occupation of Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld and General Franks adroitly 
planned the air and ground campaign that shattered the Iraqi army in a 
matter of days. They correctly judged our overwhelming technological 
advantages, together with the extraordinary courage and skill of our 
fighting forces, would quickly overwhelm the much larger Iraqi forces. 
But winning a swift victory over a conventional military force is not 
the same as successfully occupying a large country with a population of 
25 million.
  From the beginning, our forces, including international allies, were 
insufficient to physically and psychologically dominate the scene. The 
absence or limited presence of coalition forces in many parts of Iraq 
gave the insurgents opportunities to organize and the perception they 
could initiate hostile actions against our forces. One of the first 
clues I had suggesting a lack of adequate forces was the briefing I 
received last July from the 4th Infantry Division in Kirkuk on my first 
trip to Iraq. I was taken aback, frankly, to learn there were hundreds, 
if not thousands, of Iraqi ammo dumps. Many of them were totally 
unsecured while others had some security barriers but were not secured 
by military personnel. This was the case all over the country.
  Today munitions in these ammo dumps are being used to craft the 
improvised explosive devices that bedevil our forces. This is one 
example indicating additional troops could have been used effectively.
  Another indication of the insufficient number of coalition military 
forces is the proliferation of private security forces. Why is it 
necessary to have 20,000 armed private security guards in Iraq 
performing essential military duties? The answer is simple. We did not 
deploy sufficient military forces. These private security forces are 
generally highly trained professionals, typically veterans of our 
special operations forces. But their presence raises numerous 
questions.

  How, for example, do they coordinate with our military forces? What 
rules of engagement may they use? What is their legal status, 
particularly after June 30, when limited sovereignty is transferred to 
some Iraqi authority? I am still awaiting the answer to these questions 
from the Pentagon. Once again, my request has not been responded to 
promptly with detailed information or any information.
  Last September, Senator Hagel and I proposed an amendment to the 
supplemental appropriations bill to increase the size of our Army by 
10,000 soldiers. That is a necessary initial step to provide the 
manpower to continue to commit further forces to Iraq and to continue 
to meet the worldwide demands

[[Page S4961]]

upon our Army. The Senate supported that amendment. Unfortunately, the 
administration vociferously opposed it. They claimed Iraq was just a 
spike and that in the months ahead, the Army could begin to withdraw 
forces.
  In January, they suddenly reversed this position and announced they 
would take steps to increase the Army by 30,000 soldiers by tapping 
into the supplemental appropriations bill. I am pleased the Pentagon is 
finally convinced we need more forces for our Army, but they still 
maintain this is a temporary emergency condition that is best funded 
through the supplemental appropriations process.
  The reality is, this condition is not temporary. If we are serious 
about succeeding in Iraq and meeting other demands throughout the 
world, we must admit this is a task that will take many years and a 
larger army for many years. We must provide for increases in end 
strength for our Army in the regular budget process, not the 
supplemental, by directing more resources to the Army from the other 
services or by increasing the overall defense budget.
  The administration and the Pentagon continually insist that we are 
being opposed by a small group of unrepentant holdouts from the former 
Baathist regime and an even smaller cadre of terrorists who have 
flocked to Iraq after the defeat of Saddam.
  This view dangerously misconstrues the growing resentment of the Iraq 
population to our presence and the very real possibility that many 
Iraqis will sympathize with the insurgents not because they agree with 
their political or religious views but because they see them as fellow 
Iraqis resisting a foreign occupation.
  Anthony Cordesman, a very prescient analyst at the Center for 
Strategic and International Studies, pointed out that ``it is important 
to note that an ABC poll in February found a large core of hostility to 
the Coalition before the tensions unleashed by current fighting, and 
that core involved many Shi'ites as well as Sunnis.'' And, as reported 
in a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll, ``only a third of the Iraqi people 
now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing 
more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate pullout 
even though they fear that could put them in greater danger . . .'' 
Although half the Iraqis who responded to the poll said that they and 
their families were better off now then under Saddam, 71 percent of the 
respondents when asked to classify the Americans as ``liberators'' or 
``occupiers'' chose ``occupier.'' The figure increases to 81 percent if 
you exclude respondents from the semi-autonomous Kurdish region. More 
startling is the fact that more than half the respondents outside of 
the Kurdish region ``say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at 
least some cases.''
  What might have begun as the desperate acts of diehards from Saddam's 
regime has rapidly morphed into a widespread resentment of the United 
States as ``occupiers.'' The insurgents have touched a nationalistic 
nerve that vastly complicates our efforts. Popular support is the 
critical element in political warfare, and the administration is 
squandering that support.
  The latest revelations of gross abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu 
Ghraib prison have further fanned the flames of resentment and anger. 
It is an aberration in the conduct of American soldiers, but its 
occurrence has confirmed in a very suspicious population the worst lies 
spread by our adversaries. In addition, these actions have poisoned our 
already strained relations with many countries and their citizens 
around the world.
  For months now, the Coalition Provisional Authority has been in 
power, and the administration touted that as an example of our 
reconstruction efforts. Frankly, I believe it has been dysfunctional 
from the beginning.
  The President vested the Department of Defense with extraordinary 
powers in the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Even before the 
initiation of military operations, the decision was made to exclude 
experts from the State Department from planning for the reconstruction 
and administration of Iraq. The task was given to a small group of 
ideologues in the Department of Defense. They relied on the self-
serving declarations of Chalabi and the exile crowd to assume away most 
of the problems that we later encountered in Iraq. Problems such as a 
dilapidated infrastructure an ancient rivalries between religious and 
ethnic factions were conveniently ignored as the ``neocons'' predicted 
that we would be welcomed with open arms in a country that was 
economically and culturally ready for a rapid transition to democracy.
  The institutional responsibilities for the transformation of Iraq 
were given to Ambassador Bremer and the Coalition Provisional 
Authority, the ``CPA''. And, in this regard, the record is one of 
confusion and ineptness.
  The decision to disband the Iraqi army threw thousands of desperate 
and dangerous individuals onto the streets of Iraq. Many of these 
individuals formed the heart of the insurgency that continues to attack 
our troops.
  The decision to eliminate the Baath party from the civic life of Iraq 
was quite correct in principle, but carried to such extremes that it 
alienated the Sunni community and provided additional fuel for the 
growing fires of resistance. To add insult to injury, the process of 
debaathification was placed under the control of Chalabi, a figure of 
immense distrust and dislike in Iraq.
  I first heard these complaints from our military commanders last 
November during one of my trips to Iraq. They complained that thousands 
of teachers were being excluded from schools at a time when there was a 
concerted effort to reopen schools throughout the country. These 
officers explained that membership in the Baath Party was obligatory 
for anyone who hoped to obtain a job like teaching in Iraq. Most of 
these individuals were motivated not by political impulses but by 
economic and career goals. Nevertheless, they were categorically 
excluded subject to the discretion of Chalabi. It was a situation that 
further antagonized the Sunni community. The policy has been belatedly 
amended but not after doing great damage.
  This episode also illustrates the gap between the CPA and the 
military commanders that actually were doing the work of rebuilding 
Iraq. The CPA existed in a security bubble in Baghdad disconnected from 
the field where Army division commanders and their staffs were taking 
pragmatic actions to restore services, rebuild communities and instill 
hope in the people of Iraq. The CPA added little to these actions 
except indecision that simply complicated the action of commanders on 
the ground.
  In the past few days, a revealing memorandum by someone who served in 
the CPA has surfaced that provided additional details illustrating the 
incompetence of the CPA. The anonymous author of the memo is a fan of 
Chalabi and is hopeful for success in Iraq. This makes his criticism 
even more telling.
  He describes the CPA as handling ``an issue like six-year-olds play 
soccer: Someone kicks the ball and one hundred people chase after it 
hoping to be noticed, without a care as to what happens on the field.'' 
My view is that the CPA quickly became a 30-day summer camp for 
``neocons.'' Subject-matter experts were displaced by ideological true 
believers who rotated in and out at a dizzying rate.
  The CPA installed the Iraqi Governing Council composed of 
representatives from the major factions and then allowed the Governing 
Council to pick ministers to run the major ministries, like Oil and 
Public Works. The result was nepotism and corruption. As the memo 
points out, ``both for political and organizational reasons, the 
decision to allow the Governing Council to pick 25 ministers did the 
greatest damage. Not only did we endorse nepotism, with men choosing 
their sons and brothers-in-law; but we also failed to use our 
prerogative to shape a system that would work . . . our failure to 
promote accountability has hurt us.
  I met with a member of the Iraqi Governing Council on March 17 in 
Baghdad. He explained to me the importance of the June 30 date. As 
Chalabi explained it to him, it is important because on that date they 
get to ``write the checks.'' I am sure there are competent and 
patriotic Iraqis involved in the Governing Council, but I am deeply 
skeptical of many, like Chalabi, who seem interested only in self-
promotion based on deceit and deception.
  Despite the institutional failings of the CPA, it has acquired some 
hard-

[[Page S4962]]

won experience. That experience disappears on July 1 as our new Embassy 
replaces the CPA. I fear that we will witness once again a lack of 
coordination and direction as a new team tries to organize itself in 
the complicated and unforgiving environment of Iraq. I was hoping to 
hear Ambassador Negroponte describe in detail the organization and 
policies that will guide the new Embassy. I didn't hear much.
  There are numerous questions. What is the status of contracts with 
the CPA, particularly contracts with security firms? Will American 
civilian contractors in Iraq be subject to Iraq law or United States 
jurisdiction? How will the Embassy be organized to avoid being 
``captive'' in the Green Zone in Baghdad? How will responsibilities be 
divided between the Department of State and the Department of Defense? 
I'm still waiting for good answers.
  We are in danger of repeating the mistakes we made a year ago. Once 
again, we are approaching a critical juncture without a plan, just a 
new set of players. And the clock is ticking.
  The administration is pinning most of its hopes for political 
progress in Iraq on the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi entity on 
June 30. In doing so, they confuse the difference between sovereignty 
and legitimacy. The new Iraqi entity--yet to be devised or to be 
fleshed out with Iraqis--may have some formal powers that may qualify 
it as a sovereign for the purposes of international law, but I doubt 
that the vast majority of Iraqi citizens will see it as a legitimate 
government. This new entity lacks the key components that people 
ascribe to legitimate governments. Legitimate governments are created 
by internal political forces, preferably by elections, and legitimate 
governments control their territory.
  This new entity will be a creation of the United States with the 
belated and uncertain participation of the United Nations, and this new 
government will exist because American military forces control the 
territory of Iraq.
  In a sense, the administration has already made June 30 both 
irreversible and irrelevant. Having held out the prospect of a 
transition to Iraqi rule on June 30, it is impossible to turn back. But 
on July 1, a prevailing sentiment in Iraq is likely to be 
disappointment and a sense that the United States has, once again, 
failed to carry out its word. This will further aggravate tensions, not 
diminish them.
  We can hope the participation of the United Nations will give us a 
reprieve from this fate, but the administration's disdain for and 
distrust of the United Nations suggests to me that the current 
arrangement of necessity will not be sufficient to truly give a sense 
of legitimacy despite recent efforts.
  The surest route to legitimacy is through elections, but we are far 
from that day. Indeed, that day may continue to recede. Recent polling 
in Iraq underlines a disturbing fact:

       Seventy-five percent of the Iraqis polled--that's the 
     largest percentage of people agreeing on virtually any 
     issue--say they would never join a political party and oppose 
     the existence of a political party.

  If that is the case, the likelihood of a democratic Iraq is many 
years away.
  The administration's gravest illusion has been and continues to be 
that the United States can do it alone.
  Recent events show the necessity for significant international 
involvement, not unilateral action. The administration has made 
overtures to the United Nations, but, as I have suggested, these 
overtures smack more of political expediency than a new realization of 
the value of broad-based collective action.
  The monetary cost alone to the United States is staggering. We have 
spent $100 billion on the effort in Iraq with no end in sight. More 
importantly, we have lost 767 men and women of our Armed Forces. 
Indeed, according to an article in today's Washington Post, Yale 
economist William D. Nordhaus has estimated that the additional $25 
billion just requested for the war in Iraq will make it more costly 
than the inflation-adjusted expenditures of the Revolutionary War, the 
War of 1812, the Mexican-American war, the Spanish-American War, and 
the Persian Gulf war combined.
  These monetary costs are just a fraction of what we will end up 
paying. Each day we are accruing significant costs to recapitalize the 
equipment and materiel we are using up at alarming rates. The aircraft 
and the tactical and logistical vehicles will require massive overhauls 
and replacement. None of these costs are being adequately addressed in 
or outside the supplemental budgetary process or the regular budgetary 
process.
  Without broad-based international support, we will be unable to 
accomplish our political goals, and we will be hard pressed to sustain 
the billions of dollars necessary to sustain our effort in Iraq. As 
long as we dominate the military and political forces deployed to Iraq, 
we will be seen as occupiers serving our self-interest rather than a 
force to advance the interests of the Iraqi people.
  The administration has long maintained that Iraq is the ``central 
front'' in the war on terrorism. They are badly mistaken. The ``central 
front'' in the war on terrorism is the United States. The ultimate 
objective of our terrorist adversaries is to once again inflict a 
catastrophic attack against the United States. They are not distracted 
in this objective by Iraq. We should not be either.
  Today, al-Qaida and sympathetic terrorist cells throughout the world 
continue to plot to conduct an attack against the United States or the 
homelands of our allies.
  The insurgents that we are engaging in Iraq may hate us with the same 
intensity as an al-Qaida operative, but they have chosen a different 
path--a path of guerrilla war against our military forces and the 
citizens of Iraq. The majority are Iraqis motivated by specific 
grievances involving our presence in Iraq. The ``foreign fighters'' who 
are in Iraq are drawn by the desire to fight the infidel. They are 
temperamentally and technically much different than the plotters who 
attacked us on September 11. In contrast, there are still many al-Qaida 
and associated operatives who continue to plan stealthy attacks against 
Americans rather than seek out a guerilla war against our military 
forces. To assume we will lure these terrorists into Iraq and destroy 
them there is a dangerous misperception.
  Once again, the value of a truly international approach to the war on 
terror becomes more evident. The key element in this struggle is 
intelligence, not simply military might. This intelligence is not the 
province of one country, even a country with the resources of the 
United States. It is the sum of the collective efforts of many 
countries. To the extent we have alienated other countries or made 
their intelligence contributions more difficult, then we have 
diminished the key element in defeating those who continue to plot to 
strike our homeland.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time expired.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed an 
additional 5 minutes and that the other side be given an additional 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, considering all of this, it is alarming to 
see the inattention that the administration is paying to homeland 
security.
  What is also very disconcerting about the administration's view is 
that they see al-Qaida as an institution rather than an ideology. It is 
an ideology, and it is an ideology that is spreading in the Islamic 
world despite our huge efforts in Iraq, some might say even because of 
our efforts in Iraq.
  This ideological battle will not be won by military means alone. It 
will be won by providing Muslim populations around the world with a 
compelling alternative to the jihad as a means of enhancing their sense 
of empowerment and defusing their sense of frustration.
  Education and economic development spring to mind as ways to begin to 
counter the appeal of the jihad. Once again, our choice of massive 
military involvement in Iraq has constrained the resources that we can 
deploy throughout the Muslim world to directly challenge the ideology 
of al-Qaida through education and economic development. Here also is 
another example of where an international approach would have given us 
much more credibility and, potentially, more resources to advance this 
agenda of education and economic development.
  The administration entered Iraq with illusions, and they struggle 
today in Iraq because of these illusions. The unfolding crisis in Iraq 
can no longer tolerate illusion. It demands a realistic assessment of 
the risks and resources, and a pragmatic plan to prevail.

[[Page S4963]]

  The administration must develop a true plan for the war's financing 
with realistic numbers in a timely manner.
  The administration must commit more soldiers to the struggle in Iraq. 
This means increasing the overall end strength of the Army through the 
regular budget process.
  The administration must recognize that the struggle in Iraq is 
separate from the war on terrorism and that the war on terrorism 
requires more robust funding at home to protect America.
  The administration must recognize and admit that we are committed to 
a long and dangerous struggle in Iraq that will cover many years and 
cost many billions of dollars. The administration must seek to truly 
institutionalize our efforts in Iraq.
  A government that deceives its people may sustain itself for a while. 
Lincoln reminded us that ``you can fool some of the people some of the 
time,'' but a government that deceives itself is doomed to failure, and 
its policies are doomed to failure.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know we have a time limitation. I think 
I was allocated some time earlier. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is allocated 20 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I will support John Negroponte to be 
America's first ambassador to Iraq since the gulf war, and I will speak 
about it in more detail in a moment.
  First I want to say a few words about the larger issues of Iraq and 
the enormously important challenge we face at an enormously important 
time for our Nation. The stakes could not be higher for the safety of 
135,000 American soldiers serving in Iraq, for the future of Iraq and 
its 25 million citizens, for America's role in the world in the years 
ahead, and for America's own security in the weeks, let alone the 
years, ahead.
  For the stability of the entire Middle East, America's ambassador 
must convey to the new Iraqi government and the Iraqi people America's 
hopes for Iraq that it soon become a free, stable and prosperous and 
peaceful nation that respects the rights of its own citizens.
  We pray that mission accomplished has not become mission impossible. 
America's respect and reputation in the world have never been lower in 
the entire history of our Nation. Where do we go to get our respect and 
reputation back? Where do we go to bring a respectable end to the 
nightmare for America that Iraq has become?
  I worry that the actions of our Government may no longer keep America 
true to the ideals of the Nation's Founders so long ago.
  I hope the appointment of Ambassador Negroponte, a career diplomat, 
will mark a new beginning of serious American engagement in the real 
problems in Iraq.
  Too often, the Bush administration has been blinded by its arrogance 
on Iraq and refused to recognize the cold, hard truth about its failed 
policies. Time and again, the President has looked at events in Iraq 
through rose-colored glasses, ignored the administration's many 
mistakes in Iraq, and has failed to speak with candor either to the 
American or the Iraqi people.
  Ambassador Negroponte could not be entering this position at a more 
challenging time. The allegations of prisoner abuse have shaken the 
faith of the Iraqi people and the international community in the 
benevolence of the U.S. involvement in Iraq. The new ambassador must 
start to rebuild their trust.
  In his April 20, testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke at length about the 
human rights abuses under Saddam. Seven of the 23 pages of his prepared 
testimony addressed the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein.
  One of the goals of the U.S. occupation of Iraq should have been to 
herald a new day of human rights for the Iraqi people. Instead, many 
Iraqis are equating America's crimes to those committed by Saddam 
Hussein, using the same prison and the same torture rooms.
  There is no question that this is not the case. There is no question 
that Saddam's crimes were crueler and more horrific and more widespread 
by any objective standard.
  But the reports of torture by American soldiers, and the reports that 
these abuses took place at the direction of Army intelligence officers, 
CIA agents, and private contractors, are deeply damaging to our cause 
in Iraq and our reputation and interests in the world.
  Nobody questions the commitment and skill of the vast majority of our 
soldiers. They are performing admirably under extraordinarily difficult 
circumstances. I have no doubt that these despicable incidents are even 
more painful for them than they are for the rest of America. I am 
concerned, however, that allegations of prisoner abuse are not limited 
to this one Baghdad prison. GEN. George Casey has said that this 
military has conducted at least 25 criminal investigations into deaths 
and 10 criminal investigations into other allegations of misconduct 
involving detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Without a question, these reports of abuse strike at the heart of the 
moral argument for the administration's war in Iraq.
  It is clear that we need a full and independent investigation. The 
American people need the truth. Congress needs answers. There must be a 
full investigation and full accountability, including a comprehensive 
review of all detention and interrogation polices used by military and 
intelligence officials abroad, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and 
elsewhere.
  We need to know when the torture started, why was it kept secret for 
so long, and why we had to learn about it from the media. No one should 
be immune to questions, including the President.
  This is President Bush's war. It is the result of his radical 
doctrine of preventive war and American unilateralism run amok.
  President Bush has spoken frequently about the dignity and human 
rights of the Iraqi people, and he made it a major justification for 
the war.
  In the East Room of the White house on March 19, 2004, President Bush 
asked: ``Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be 
open?''
  In the Cabinet room on December 24, 2003, the day Saddam was 
captured, President Bush said:

       For the vast majority of Iraqi citizens who wish to live as 
     free men and women, this event brings further assurance that 
     the torture chambers and the secret police are gone forever.

  The President has failed the Iraqi people, and he has failed America. 
He has presided over America's steepest and deepest fall from grace in 
the history of our country.
  The buck stops at the Oval Office. The tragedy unfolding in Iraq is 
the direct result of a colossal failure of leadership. It is a failure 
of calamitous proportions. The President should apologize to the Iraqi 
people and accept full responsibility.
  In the wake of this tragedy, Ambassador Negroponte will face an 
uphill battle regaining the enormous ground we have lost in winning the 
hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.
  America's vision to rebuild Iraqi and provide new hope and 
opportunity was grand and noble, but we have not delivered on our 
promise. Far too many Iraqis have come to the conclusion that America 
is able, but unwilling, to meet their basic needs. The frustration with 
our unfulfilled promises is feeding into massive hatred for America and 
our soldiers, who are paying with their lives.
  Last fall, President Bush requested $20 billion in emergency 
reconstruction assistance from Congress to provide basic services for 
the Iraqi people. Congress wrote a large check to the Iraqi people, but 
the administration still has not delivered it.
  Ambassador Bremer spoke of the urgent need for this assistance in the 
Senate Appropriations Committee on September 22, 2003:


[[Page S4964]]


       This is urgent. . . . Most Iraqis welcomed us as 
     liberators. Now the reality of foreign troops on the streets 
     is starting to chafe. Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us 
     as occupiers and not liberators. This was perhaps inevitable, 
     but faster progress on reconstruction will help.

  Acting in good faith, the Congress approved this funding 3 weeks 
later.
  Despite the desperate need for reconstruction assistance in Iraq, the 
Bush administration has spent only a small portion of these funds. A 
mere 14 percent of the billions provided by Congress last October has 
been obligated for reconstruction projects. The administration has not 
clearly told the Congress how much has actually been spent. It may not 
even know.
  According to the most recent report to the Congress from the Office 
of Management and Budget: Nearly $3.6 billion was intended for public 
works projects, including nearly $3 billion for drinking water, but 
only $32 million has been obligated overall, and only $14 million has 
been obligated on drinking water; $443 million was intended for 
improvements in hospitals and health clinics, but the coalition 
government has obligated nothing.
  Mr. President, $300 million was designated for health care equipment 
and modernization, but nothing has been obligated and $90 million was 
designated to build and repair schools, but less than a quarter of it 
has been obligated.
  Our half-hearted attempt to take the face of America off the 
occupation will inevitably exacerbate Ambassador Negroponte's 
diplomatic challenges.
  Our proposal to transfer sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30th 
and take the face of America off the occupation is nothing more than 
that--a proposal. It's not even a real transfer of sovereignty.
  At the very time we are talking about transferring sovereignty, 
President Bush is developing a grandiose plan to build a super embassy 
in Baghdad, staffed by 1,000 Americans. We will still have 135,000 
American soldiers on the ground in Iraq for the foreseeable future.
  The new embassy's significance is clear. This administration wants 
Baghdad to be America's new colonial beachhead in the Middle East. As 
one American official said it will be just like ``Saigon, circa 1969.''
  By comparison, 147 Americans now work at the American Embassy in 
Afghanistan, a country with 4 million more people than Iraq; 500 
Americans work at the American Embassy in Egypt, a country nearly three 
times the population of Iraq; and 293 Americans work at the American 
Embassy in India, a country of 1.8 billion people.
  In fact, the administration is diverting funds intended for Iraq's 
reconstruction to support this Fortress America Embassy. According to 
an April 30th article in the Washington Post, $184 million has been 
reassigned from drinking water projects to pay for the operations of 
the U.S. embassy. Another $29 million has been reallocated from 
projects such as democracy building to the administrative expenses of 
USAID.
  And we wonder why the Iraqis hate us, why hatred for the American 
occupation continues to grow.
  We all have a stake in Iraq's success--the administration, the 
American people, the Iraqi people. Ambassador Negroponte has an 
enormous responsibility to ensure that our policy toward Iraq is based 
in reality and shaped by the facts on the ground.
  As the Ambassador embarks on this new assignment, he must not gloss 
over the truth, even if it is painful. He must speak with candor to the 
American people and the Iraqi people about America's objectives, our 
strategy, and our successes, and he must be equally candid about our 
failures.
  He would be wise not to follow in the footsteps of so many in the 
Bush administration who may have spoken candidly about the bleak 
situation in Iraq to the President in private, but who constantly 
sought in public to put a positive face on the clear failures.
  The stakes are high and the challenges are many. I wish Ambassador 
Negroponte great success and the best of luck. He will need both if 
America is to succeed in stabilizing Iraq, delivering on our promise of 
freedom and democracy, and bringing our troops home with dignity and 
honor. I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  Mr. REID. I request the time run equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Does the Senator 
from Iowa have a certain amount of time? And if so, what is that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has been allocated 20 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of John D. 
Negroponte to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. I understand and agree 
America needs a representative there, more so now than ever. We need 
someone in Iraq who has a sterling record, an unassailable record in 
terms of his or her support for fundamental human rights and for the 
rule of law, someone who has no blot on their career record of having 
been involved in the kind of abuses that have come to light recently in 
Iraq under our military jurisdiction.
  After the terrible revelations of the abuses under our watch at the 
prison at Abu Ghraib--more is coming to light in Afghanistan, and we do 
not know what is happening in Guantanamo--I believe nominating 
Ambassador Negroponte to this vital post would send entirely the wrong 
message. He is not the right person for this job at this time.
  Why do I say that? Ambassador Negroponte served as U.S. Ambassador to 
Honduras from October 1981 through May of 1985. During this time, Mr. 
Negroponte showed a callous disregard for human rights abuses through 
his tenure as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras. I speak of this from 
firsthand knowledge. I traveled to Honduras during this period and I 
visited one of the Contra camps along the border of Honduras and 
Nicaragua with then Ambassador Negroponte. At that time, there were 
many allegations that a so-called Battalion 316--which was supervised 
and trained by our CIA and by some of our military personnel--had been 
involved in some very egregious human rights abuses, including the 
disappearances of people, including the disappearance and alleged 
torture and murder of a Catholic priest.
  At the time of my visit to the camp with Mr. Negroponte, I asked a 
number of questions about Battalion 316 and the alleged human rights 
abuses. I was told there were no such human rights abuses committed by 
the Honduran military. It became clear to me I was misled, and quite 
frankly I was not given answers to my questions about the human rights 
abuses being committed by Battalion 316. I believe Ambassador 
Negroponte knowingly misinformed me and knowingly misinformed the U.S. 
State Department about gross violations of human rights in Honduras 
during his tenure.
  I refer to a series of articles written in the Baltimore Sun in 1995. 
A June 19, 1995 article was talking about Ambassador Negroponte.

       An ambassador, someone cynically once said, is sent abroad 
     to lie for his country. U.S. career diplomat John D. 
     Negroponte confused that with lying to his country. As U.S. 
     ambassador to Honduras during the early '80s, Mr. Negroponte 
     systematically suppressed reports to Washington describing 
     kidnappings and murders of political dissidents by a secret 
     unit of the Honduran army. Instead he was responsible for 
     false reports to Washington that portrayed the Honduran 
     regime as committed to democracy and the rule of law.

  I will read further from this article:

       Why should an experienced U.S. diplomat send false reports 
     to the State Department concealing damaging information about 
     the nation he was assigned to? Simple. For one thing, some of 
     his superiors wanted it that way. They weren't fooled. They 
     were part of a conspiracy to mislead Congress and the U.S. 
     public. The Reagan administration, which dispatched Mr. 
     Negroponte to replace an ambassador who was reporting 
     unwelcome facts, had an overriding policy objective in 
     Central America: to stop what it perceived as a threatened 
     communist takeover. Nothing else mattered.
       Mr. Negroponte later told a Senate panel he never saw any 
     ``convincing substantiation'' that the notorious unit was 
     ``involved in death squad type activities.'' If so,

[[Page S4965]]

     he outdid the three monkeys who saw no evil, heard no evil 
     and spoke no evil. The evidence was all around him, including 
     in his own embassy. A diplomat who tried to write a truthful 
     human rights report was ordered to remove the damaging 
     information. More than 300 articles about military abuses 
     appeared in the Honduran newspapers that year alone. Hundreds 
     marched through the capital in protests. A dissident Honduran 
     legislator personally appealed to Mr. Negroponte.

  I ask unanimous consent to have the articles from June 19, 1995, 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Baltimore Sun, June 19, 1995]

                    Hear No Evil, See No Evil . . .

       An ambassador, someone cynically once said, is sent abroad 
     to lie for his country. U.S. career diplomat John D. 
     Negroponte confused that with lying to his country. As U.S. 
     ambassador to Honduras during the early '80s, Mr. Negroponte 
     systematically suppressed reports to Washington describing 
     kidnappings and murders of political dissidents by a secret 
     unit of the Honduran army. Instead he was responsible for 
     false reports to Washington that portrayed the Honduran 
     regime as committed to democracy and the rule of law.
       Why should an experienced U.S. diplomat send false reports 
     to the State Department concealing damaging information about 
     the nation he was assigned to? Simple. For one thing, some of 
     his superiors wanted it that way. They weren't fooled. They 
     were part of a conspiracy to mislead Congress and the U.S. 
     public. The Reagan administration, which dispatched Mr. 
     Negroponte to replace an ambassador who was reporting 
     unwelcome facts, had an overriding policy objective in 
     Central America: to stop what it perceived as a threatened 
     communist takeover. Nothing else mattered.
       Each year, U.S. embassies report on human rights abuses and 
     the State Department passes the information on to Congress. 
     Nations that consistently violate human rights are barred 
     from receiving U.S. military aid. By ignoring the clear, 
     unavoidable evidence that Hondurans were being kidnapped, 
     tortured, raped and murdered by a special unit under the 
     command of the army chief of staff, the Reagan administration 
     was able to boost military aid to Honduras from $3.9 million 
     in 1980 to $77.4 million four years later.
       Mr. Negroponte later told a Senate panel he never saw any 
     ``convincing substantiation'' that the notorious unit was 
     ``involved in death squad type activities.'' If so, he outdid 
     the three monkeys who saw no evil, heard no evil and spoke no 
     evil. The evidence was all around him, including in his own 
     embassy. A diplomat who tried to write a truthful human 
     rights report was ordered to remove the damaging information. 
     More than 300 articles about military abuses appeared in 
     Honduran newspapers that year. Hundreds marched through the 
     capital in protests. A dissident Honduran legislator 
     personally appealed to Mr. Negroponte.
       In the last of four articles resulting from a 14-month 
     investigation, Sun reporters Ginger Thompson and Gary Cohn 
     quote liberally from the 1982 and 1983 human rights reports 
     on Honduras. Each quotation is matched by persuasive evidence 
     it is a shameless lie. Even the Honduran government has now 
     acknowledged the atrocities. But not Mr. Negroponte, the 
     hard-line cold warrior who considered Henry Kissinger a 
     softie on Vietnam.
       Now ambassador to the Philippines, Mr. Negroponte has 
     refuse to respond to questions repeatedly directed at him by 
     The Sun. But he can't ignore pointed questions from President 
     Clinton, whose personal representative in Manila is Mr. 
     Negroponte. Despite the State Department's support of Mr. 
     Negroponte, the president can't possibly want someone of this 
     ilk representing the U.S. abroad.

  Mr. HARKIN. Ambassador Negroponte's reports to his superiors in the 
State Department resulted in the Congress being misled as to the scope 
and nature of gross human rights violations that were committed by 
Battalion 316, an elite U.S trained unit of the Honduran military 
involved in some of the worst human rights abuses in Central America.
  In a letter to The Economist in 1982, Ambassador Negroponte wrote, it 
is simply untrue that death squads have made appearances in Honduras.
  This is from our Ambassador to Honduras at the very time death squads 
were openly operating in Honduras under Battalion 316. Yet he said it 
is untrue that they have made an appearance in Honduras.
  We now have history. We now know Mr. Negroponte was not telling us 
the truth.
  From 1981 to 1984, over 150 people disappeared in Honduras, including 
an American priest, Father James Carney. His body has never been 
recovered. All indications at that time pointed to Battalion 316. There 
had been reports that they interrogated him and he was severely 
tortured and killed. I am not suggesting Ambassador Negroponte was 
responsible for Father Carney's disappearance. What I am saying, 
however, is Ambassador Negroponte turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to 
the human rights abuses in Honduras during his watch. During that 
period, Ambassador Negroponte was in very close contact, perhaps almost 
on a daily basis, with GEN Gustavo Alvarez, the Commander in Chief of 
the Honduran military, and the architect of Battalion 316.
  For Ambassador Negroponte in 1982 to say it is simply untrue that 
death squads have made appearances in Honduras--this is going to be our 
Ambassador to Iraq at this time?
  In 1989, during a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, on his nomination to be Ambassador to Mexico, Ambassador 
Negroponte was questioned about the human rights violations by this 
elite battalion which became known as Battalion 316. His response was 
that he had ``never seen any convincing substantiation they were 
involved in death-squad type activities.'' Yet, as a Baltimore Sun 
article pointed out, the evidence was all around him, including in his 
own embassy. A diplomat who tried to write a truthful human rights 
report was ordered to remove the damaging information, and Mr. 
Negroponte was the Ambassador at that time.
  Mr. President, the Baltimore Sun, in 1995, devoted a series of 
articles on what happened in Honduras and what happened in terms of Mr. 
Negroponte's involvement at that time. For the benefit of those who 
might want to read the Record and catch up on Mr. Negroponte's past and 
what he did while he was Ambassador to Honduras, I commend these 
articles to them.
  Mr. President, I think it should be clear to all of us why human 
rights questions and concerns should be at the forefront of today's 
debate and why someone with the background of Mr. Negroponte is not the 
right person to send to Iraq, because it is going to come out, it will 
come out about Mr. Negroponte's involvement with Battalion 316. It will 
come out about Mr. Negroponte's efforts in Honduras to suppress 
information Congress needed at that time. It will come out that Mr. 
Negroponte was untruthful to his superiors at the State Department. It 
should be clear to us why he should not go there at this time.
  We are shocked and shaken by the pictures of abuse against Iraqis at 
the hands of U.S. personnel. Our image as a country is at stake. But it 
is not just our image, it is the very essence of our Nation, our 
fundamental respect for human rights, our fundamental respect for the 
dignity and worth of each individual, the essence of what we are trying 
to tell the world, that we are for freedom, that we are for individual 
liberties, that we oppose torture in all its forms. There is no reason 
why people should be tortured in prisons, and we should not be involved 
in it.
  The photographs we have seen also have a personal association for me. 
When I first saw these pictures, I was taken back in time--34 years to 
be exact--to 1970, July of 1970, when I was a staff person in the House 
of Representatives, and I was sent with a commission to Vietnam.
  We had heard all these reports about these tiger cages in which 
people were brutally tortured, killed. Our State Department denied 
their existence, our military denied the existence of them; these were 
all just Communist conspiracy stories.
  Well, I had heard enough about them and others had heard enough about 
them that I began to look into it, and because of some luck, because of 
the courage of Congressman William Anderson of Tennessee, 
and Congressman Augustus Hawkins of California, a young man by the name 
of Don Luce, and the bravery of a young Vietnamese man who gave us the 
maps on how to find this prison, we were able to uncover the notorious 
tiger cages on Con Son Island.

  Fortunately, I had a camera. Fortunately, I had a hidden tape 
recorder. Because when I came back and we reported on this, we were 
told they were not that bad. Well, then LIFE magazine published my 
pictures and the world saw how bad they really were. North Vietnamese, 
Vietcong, and civilian opponents of the war in South Vietnam were all 
bunched into these tiger cages, in clear violation of human rights, 
fundamental human rights, and in clear violation of the Geneva 
Convention. We had been asking the North

[[Page S4966]]

Vietnamese to abide by the Geneva Convention in terms of their 
treatment of our prisoners in North Vietnam. Yet, here we were 
condoning, supervising, the very same kind of abuses of people, in 
clear violation of the Geneva Convention.
  Well, then I was told, well, as to what these people were telling 
me--because the interpreter was pro-Communist--that he was telling me 
the wrong things, because I did not speak Vietnamese, you see. I did 
not speak Vietnamese, and they said the person interpreting for me had 
a bias toward the Communists, so I could not believe what I was being 
told. So they sent another group over to hear all these glowing 
reports. What they did not know at the time is that I had a hidden tape 
recorder. No one knew that except me. I tape recorded everything that 
was said.
  I was fired from my job. I was told I would never again work in the 
U.S. Congress because of my actions in letting these pictures out and 
telling the truth about what was happening on Con Son Island. I was 
brought before a congressional committee and was charged that what I 
was reporting was false because I did not speak Vietnamese, and that my 
interpreter was a well-known ``Communist sympathizer.'' But I had my 
tape recorder and I taped everything that was said.
  I turned it over to the Library of Congress to transcribe, and they 
transcribed every single word. Not only what I had been saying was 
confirmed, but there was even more on the recording that was not 
interpreted for me, more evidence of the cruel, torturous conditions in 
these tiger cages, how people had been tortured and killed, and how we, 
the U.S. Government, had provided not only the funding but the 
supervision for these prisons.
  So when I saw these pictures from Iraq, it brought back Con Son 
Island and the tiger cages. I thought we had learned our lesson. Yes, 
war is not a nice thing. War is terrible. But that is why we have 
Geneva Conventions. That is why we have these international treaties. I 
thought we learned after Con Son and the tiger cages that we ought not 
to be involved in those things, that we ought to make sure whoever runs 
these prisons, whoever has charge of prisoners of war, treats the 
prisoners according to the Geneva Convention. Yet here we are back 
again--34 years later--and we see the same kinds of things happening in 
this prison.
  I do not know who took those pictures. I read in the paper today it 
was a young man and that he may be in some serious trouble. Well, 
whoever took those pictures, I want them to know they have a friend and 
an ally in this Senator from Iowa. I will do whatever I can to ensure 
that no harm in any way comes to them, that they are able to speak out 
without fear of any reprisal about what they saw and what went on in 
those prisons.
  We have to let the sunlight in--the best disinfectant. Let's show it 
for what it was. Let's show what happened there. And let's tell the 
world, once again, that we are going to make sure we have in place 
policies, programs, things that will never let this happen again.
  The lead editorial in this morning's Washington Post made it very 
clear when they said:

       Beginning more than two years ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to 
     overturn decades of previous practice by the U.S. military in 
     its handling of detainees in foreign countries. His Pentagon 
     ruled that the United States would no longer be bound by the 
     Geneva Conventions; that Army regulations on the 
     interrogation of prisoners would not be observed; and that 
     many detainees would be held incommunicado and without any 
     independent mechanism of review. Abuses will take place in 
     any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions helped create 
     a lawless regime in which prisoners in both Iraq and 
     Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured, and 
     murdered--and in which, until recently, no one has been held 
     accountable.

  I agree with those who want a full investigation. I believe we should 
investigate. But I don't want to see this just pinned on a few soldiers 
at the bottom. Yes, they have to be held responsible, too. No military 
person has to follow an illegitimate order of anyone placed in 
authority above him or her. These were illegitimate orders. If they 
were ordered to do such things, who gave those orders? Who supervised 
it? How far up the chain of command did it go?
  The bottom line is, the Constitution of the United States puts a 
civilian in charge of our military. It is that civilian, by his or her 
actions, statements, policies, programs, that filter down to that 
private, that sergeant out in the field. Mr. Rumsfeld, because of his 
actions and his statements and his policies during his tenure as 
Secretary of Defense, is ultimately responsible. That is why I have 
called today for his resignation. If he doesn't resign, the President 
of the United States should dismiss him forthwith.
  Seeing no one else asking for time on the floor, I ask unanimous 
consent that I have an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Because of what has happened, and for our country, we 
speak of patriotism a lot, patriotism of our brave soldiers and airmen 
and seamen in Iraq and around the world, the patriotism of those in our 
country who fight for justice, fight for those less fortunate. 
Patriotism takes on a lot of different forms. I think Mr. Rumsfeld has 
to show some patriotism. He has to put the good of his country above 
his own self-interest and his own self-esteem. It is time for him to 
recognize that we need a new Secretary of Defense to change the 
policies and the programs that Mr. Rumsfeld instituted, that, as the 
Washington Post editorial said, led to this kind of a situation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial in the Washington Post 
this morning, May 6, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 6, 2004]

                     Mr. Rumsfeld's Responsibility

       The horrific abuses by American interrogators and guards at 
     the Abu Ghraib prison and at other facilities maintained by 
     the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan can be traced, in 
     part, to policy decisions and public statements of Secretary 
     of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. Beginning more than two years 
     ago, Mr. Rumsfeld decided to overturn decades of previous 
     practice by the U.S. military in its handling of detainees in 
     foreign countries. His Pentagon ruled that the United States 
     would no longer be bound by the Geneva Conventions; that Army 
     regulations on the interrogation of prisoners would not be 
     observed; and that many detainees would be held incommunicado 
     and without any independent mechanism of review. Abuses will 
     take place in any prison system. But Mr. Rumsfeld's decisions 
     helped create a lawless regime in which prisoners in both 
     Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured 
     and murdered--and in which, until recently, no one has been 
     held accountable.
       The lawlessness began in January 2002 when Mr. Rumsfeld 
     publicly declared that hundreds of people detained by U.S. 
     and allied forces in Afghanistan ``do not have any rights'' 
     under the Geneva Conventions. That was not the case: At a 
     minimum, all those arrested in the war zone were entitled 
     under the conventions to a formal hearing to determine 
     whether they were prisoners of war or unlawful combatants. No 
     such hearings were held, but then Mr. Rumsfeld made clear 
     that U.S. observance of the convention was now optional. 
     Prisoners, he said, would be treated ``for the most part'' in 
     ``a manner that is reasonably consistent'' with the 
     conventions--which, the secretary breezily suggested, was 
     outdated.
       In one important respect, Mr. Rumsfeld was correct: Not 
     only could captured al Qaeda members be legitimately deprived 
     of Geneva Convention guarantees (once the required hearing 
     was held) but such treatment was in many cases necessary to 
     obtain vital intelligence and prevent terrorists from 
     communicating with confederates abroad. But if the United 
     States was to resort to that exceptional practice, Mr. 
     Rumsfeld should have established procedures to ensure that it 
     did so without violating international conventions against 
     torture and that only suspects who truly needed such 
     extraordinary handling were treated that way. Outside 
     controls or independent reviews could have provided such 
     safeguards. Instead, Mr. Rumsfeld allowed detainees to be 
     indiscriminately designated as beyond the law--and made 
     humane treatment dependent on the goodwill of U.S. personnel.
       Much of what has happened at the U.S. detention center in 
     Guantanamo Bay is shrouded in secrecy. But according to an 
     official Army report, a system was established at the camp 
     under which military guards were expected to ``set the 
     conditions'' for intelligence investigations. The report by 
     Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba says the system was later 
     introduced at military facilities at Bagram airbase in 
     Afghanistan and the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, even though it 
     violates Army regulations forbidding guards to participate in 
     interrogations.
       The Taguba report and others by human rights groups reveal 
     that the detention system Mr. Rumsfeld oversees has become so 
     grossly distorted that military police have abused or 
     tortured prisoners under the direction of civilian 
     contractors and intelligence officers outside the military 
     chain of command--not in ``exceptional'' cases, as Mr.

[[Page S4967]]

     Rumsfeld said Tuesday, but systematically. Army guards have 
     held ``ghost'' prisoners detained by the CIA and even hidden 
     these prisoners from the International Red Cross. Meanwhile, 
     Mr. Rumsfeld's contempt for the Geneva Conventions has 
     trickled down: The Taguba report says that guards at Abu 
     Ghraib had not been instructed on them and that no copies 
     were posted in the facility.
       The abuses that have done so much harm to the U.S. mission 
     in Iraq might have been prevented had Mr. Rumsfeld been 
     responsive to earlier reports of violations. Instead, he 
     publicly dismissed or minimized such accounts. He and his 
     staff ignored detailed reports by respected human rights 
     groups about criminal activity at U.S.-run prisons in 
     Afghanistan, and they refused to provide access to facilities 
     or respond to most questions. In December 2002, two Afghan 
     detainees died in events that were ruled homicides by medical 
     officials; only when the New York Times obtained the story 
     did the Pentagon confirm that an investigation was underway, 
     and no results have yet been announced. Not until other media 
     obtained the photos from Abu Ghraib did Mr. Rumsfeld fully 
     acknowledge what had happened, and not until Tuesday did his 
     department disclose that 25 prisoners have died in U.S. 
     custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Accountability for those 
     deaths has been virtually nonexistent: One soldier was 
     punished with a dishonorable discharge.
       On Monday Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman said that the secretary 
     had not read Mr. Taguba's report, which was completed in 
     early March. Yesterday Mr. Rumsfeld told a television 
     interviewer that he still hadn't finished reading it, and he 
     repeated his view that the Geneva Conventions ``did not 
     precisely apply'' but were only ``basic rules'' for handling 
     prisoners. His message remains the same: that the United 
     States need not be bound by international law and that the 
     crimes Mr. Taguba reported are not, for him, a priority. That 
     attitude has undermined the American military's observance of 
     basic human rights and damaged this country's ability to 
     prevail in the war on terrorism.

  Mr. HARKIN. We are all upset about what happened. Our country was 
founded on the principles of democracy, the inalienable rights of 
individuals. We were right to condemn Saddam Hussein for his state-
sponsored torture in Iraq. We are right to condemn anyone, whether it 
is in Uganda or those who led the Rwandan massacre, the generals who 
now run Burma, or those who set up the Soviet gulags during that long 
cold war where so many were tortured and killed by the Soviets. We have 
always been right to speak out against those and to do what we can to 
uphold the inalienable rights of individuals. We are not perfect. No 
country is; no individual is. But our obligation is to make sure that 
when this country makes a mistake, we right it. We don't try to cover 
it up. We don't try to excuse it. We bring it out, show it for what it 
is, and then institute policies, programs, procedures to make sure that 
human rights abuses under our watch will never happen again.
  The bravery of our men and women in Iraq, under intolerable 
conditions, is a source of pride to all of us. As Senator Kennedy said, 
what has happened with these pictures, these terrible human rights 
abuses, I believe, has to pain our wonderful young men and women in 
uniform more than it pains us. Most of them, I am sure, are as abhorred 
by this as we are. I know they are wondering how something like this 
could have happened. It has to be demoralizing for our military as it 
is demoralizing for us. That is why 34 years ago, when the pictures of 
the tiger cages came out, it led to reforms. I believe it helped lead 
to the end of that terrible conflict in Vietnam and brought our troops 
home.
  I hope these pictures, as awful as they are, about what happened in 
the Abu Ghraib prison, will now provoke us to act, to straighten out 
the system, to make sure this does not happen again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used his additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I believe that our President has to apologize to the 
Iraqi people. He went on television yesterday. As I understand from all 
the articles I read, he gave a slight slap on the wrist to Secretary 
Rumsfeld and said he still supported him. I am sorry. Sometimes it 
takes a big person to admit wrong and to apologize. I believe that is 
what we need to do for the Iraqi people, to let them know, not by words 
but by deeds, that this does not reflect who we are as a people. We are 
better than that. We are bigger than that.
  Because of what has happened, because of the pall this has cast over 
our involvement in Iraq, for those reasons and for the history of John 
Negroponte and what he did during his tenure in Honduras during a time 
of gross violations of human rights, he should not be the highest 
ranking diplomat in Iraq. I suppose the skids are greased for him to 
get this appointment. But I don't think there are too many here who 
remember Mr. Negroponte and what he did in Honduras, but I don't 
forget. I don't forget what happened there. I don't forget that Mr. 
Negroponte was one of those individuals closely aligned with General 
Gustavo Alvarez and Battalion 316. I don't forget that it was Mr. 
Negroponte who turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the human rights 
abuses in Honduras at that time.
  So to send Mr. Negroponte to Iraq would send entirely the wrong 
message at this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
under the quorum call be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to speak for 5 minutes using the time that Senator Levin had.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, at 5 o'clock we are going to vote on 
whether to confirm Mr. Negroponte to be our Ambassador. I want to make 
clear a couple of points. I voted against Mr. Negroponte for the very 
issues Senator Harkin talked about in his history when he was in Latin 
America, during what I believed to be a massive coverup of human rights 
abuses, which was very troubling. When Mr. Negroponte went there, there 
was a meeting with him and I said: You are now in a new job, and 
although I am not voting for you, I want to work with you. We did work 
together on a treaty banning child soldiers. He worked very well with 
us on that. There were times when I called him to talk about issues of 
concern and he was very accommodating.
  I am going to vote for him today to give him another chance at a job 
that is so dangerous and so worrisome, because we have a policy in Iraq 
that is not working. He is willing to go there. I give him tremendous 
credit for that and I give credit to his family. I also think his ties 
with people in the United Nations, as we try to get more nations 
involved, could be helpful. I am not sure, but it could be helpful.
  I want to express my reservation, now that we see on the agenda of 
the United States of America one of the worst scandals I think we have 
seen in a very long time--this prison scandal, which has such enormous 
ramifications. As one of my colleagues said, it has undone a thousand 
gestures of kindness and goodness our troops have demonstrated to the 
Iraqi people and to the people of Afghanistan.
  People say, Senator, you should not vote for Mr. Negroponte because 
now we have this other human rights scandal. Well, I feel Mr. 
Negroponte knows we are watching everything now. America has a way of 
getting to the truth. The other day I made a speech about making sure 
that truth will not be a casualty of this war. We need to know the 
truth. I can tell you, I have never seen anything uglier.
  When the press came to me and asked how I am going to vote for Mr. 
Negroponte, I said I want to give him this opportunity. I also feel we 
ought to be looking to the Commander in Chief right now.
  It isn't Mr. Negroponte who is responsible for what has gone on here. 
It

[[Page S4968]]

is, in the end, the Commander in Chief, and I wish this Commander in 
Chief would do what others of both political parties did and step up to 
the plate and admit it. We all make mistakes. God knows I have made 
many. We do not like to admit them because it shows our fallibility, 
perhaps our lack of wisdom or experience. But in the end, you have to 
do that.
  There have been so many mistakes made since this Iraq situation 
turned into the nightmare that it is--and let me put it right on the 
table because I do not come to this table without a certain point of 
view. I did not vote to go it alone in this war. I worried about going 
it alone in this war. Now we have to ask ourselves, whether we voted 
for it or against it, what do we do now? Of course, that is the 
important question. And what mistakes have been made? There are so many 
mistakes.
  The military campaign was brilliant.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for an additional 2 minutes per side, and I will 
finish up. Excuse me, I ask if I can have an additional 5 minutes from 
leader time, and then I will finish up.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, 5 minutes?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, and I will be done.
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I see Senator McCain here, one of our 
heroes in America. He is my chairman and friend. I went over to him one 
day--I don't know if he remembers this. I was so worried about this 
war, and he said something that turned out to be true. He said: It will 
be over in 2 weeks. He was right, in essence. It was maybe a little 
longer. That first military campaign was brilliant. And I said: But, 
Senator, I am worried about how many we are going to lose.
  He said: It's going to be OK, Barbara.
  He was right. But there wasn't a plan in place after that, and we all 
know that. Yet when the President was asked by the press, Did you ever 
make any mistakes, couldn't he think of that one?
  Dick Lugar, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator 
Biden, Senator Hagel, Senator Kerry, Senator Dodd, Senator Chafee, 
myself, and others on the Foreign Relations Committee came together and 
said: Where is the plan? We said that before the first shot was fired. 
So that was a mistake.
  Then when the President landed on the carrier and he said major 
combat was over, ``Mission Accomplished'' behind him, that was a 
mistake.
  Then when the world said--after that moment, we had them in our hands 
that day, the whole world when the President landed on that carrier: 
Can we help you in Iraq? The President said: If you did not go in with 
us, you cannot rebuild; you are not getting anything. So the spoils of 
the war were not going to be shared with anyone except those who went 
into Iraq. It was a mistake in the end. We would have had everyone in 
there with us. It would have been different.
  When the United Nations building was blown up, an opportunity to say 
then and show leadership that this has turned into a war against terror 
and the terrorists are here now--and by the way, they were not before. 
We know that from State Department documents. They are there now. We 
had an opportunity to say: United Nations, you have been attacked; come 
with us. We did not do that.

  Now this horrific vision in these prisons. I heard one commentator 
say: What about the vision of the Americans who were slaughtered and 
hung on the bridges? Yes, sickening, horrifying, hellish. We cannot go 
down that road because this is America.
  When I was growing up, I knew America was different. This editorial 
that ran today in the Washington Post opened up my mind because I did 
not call for anybody's firing. I think the Commander in Chief is 
responsible, and he has to decide who he is holding responsible. This 
is an interesting editorial. It said, When did the trouble start? It is 
when Don Rumsfeld, and I assume with the permission of the President, 
said: We are not going to pay any attention to the Geneva Convention. 
None of these rules are going to apply. And now what has happened?
  We don't know all the details, but if it is true, and we do not know 
that yet, what we see in the paper--and these are real photographs--I 
do not know that for sure, but if it is true, what we are seeing is 
something that has stained this country, that has burdened this country 
and scarred this country, that has undermined everything in which we 
all believe, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens. It does not 
matter what party; it is about America.
  I think it is mistake after mistake after mistake after mistake after 
mistake. What do we do now? I think Joe Biden has great ideas on that. 
He says the Iraqi people have to want democracy as much as we want it 
for them. I do believe it is time to test that. We are sending our 
people into a caldron. We cannot keep going down this course. We have 
to modify it and change it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from California be allowed 2 additional minutes to finish up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, as usual, my friend is very generous of 
spirit.
  Stay the course, modify the course, change the course--we need to 
change the dynamics of this. Some have suggested tearing down the 
prison. I think that might be an excellent idea to show our remorse, 
our sorrow, and our outrage. They say a picture is worth a thousand 
words. These pictures say terrible things, and we by our actions have 
to undo those pictures.
  My understanding is that a lot of these people who were conducting 
themselves in this atrocious fashion were kids. They were never 
trained. They did not understand. They were told: Just do whatever you 
have to do to get people to talk.
  I do not know if that is all true. We will get to the bottom of it. 
But one thing I do know is, you do not stay on a course when it is not 
working. We have lost over 700 of our beautiful people, some young, 18, 
19, some 30, 40 years old leaving behind children. Some 3,000 plus have 
been wounded. And why doesn't Paul Wolfowitz know these numbers? What 
is wrong with him that he doesn't know these numbers? It is wrong. 
These are lives. These young people are not just some faceless, 
nameless cutout of a soldier.
  Mr. President, I am so filled with sadness. Every time I come to the 
Senate floor to read the name of Californians who have died--I know 
they are the best.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. My word to them is: You are the best, and we will get to 
the bottom of this.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator McCain for his generosity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from California. I do 
remember our conversation. I also remember she and I discussed the fact 
that the post-conflict era was going to be extremely difficult. She 
made a very balanced statement today, and I thank her for that as we 
all go through this very difficult time in the history of our country.
  Mr. President, we will be having a hearing tomorrow with Secretary 
Rumsfeld, and after that hearing, a lot of us, I hope, will be better 
informed, not just members of the committee, but others will be better 
informed as to the dimensions of this terrible situation which we have 
seen so graphically demonstrated on the abuse of human rights.
  I also am convinced again that the sooner we get this issue resolved 
and move forward and make sure it never happens again, it is very 
important because we have to go about the business of winning this 
conflict. We cannot let this terrible situation, as tragic as it is, 
divert us from our purpose of winning this conflict which we cannot 
afford to lose. We have plenty of time to debate and discuss that in 
the future.
  I also would like to comment on my friend John Negroponte. I have 
known John Negroponte ever since he was ambassador to Mexico, where he 
did an outstanding job. He has held a broad variety of positions in 
both Republican and Democrat administrations. I believe he will perform 
admirably in the

[[Page S4969]]

position for which the President of the United States has nominated 
him.
  There probably would have been a lot less discussion about Mr. 
Negroponte's qualifications if it had not been for the difficulties we 
are experiencing in Iraq at the moment, but I would also point out it 
also lends some urgency to getting this highly qualified, patriotic 
American in position as we prepare to turn over the government of Iraq 
to the Iraqi people, which I think all of us are in agreement should be 
done as quickly as possible.