[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 123 (Monday, October 4, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10293-S10294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, many Americans watched the debate between 
the President and Senator Kerry last week. It was a huge audience, and 
I think that is encouraging because this is a very important election. 
Very important decisions will have to be made by the American voters. 
As always, the issues they were debating are very critical--foreign 
policy issues, the war on terrorism, the situation in Iraq.
  My thoughts now, as I have thought all year, are that this is a time 
for America to have a sure and steady hand at the tiller. There are a 
lot of difficult situations around the world. There are a lot of 
important decisions that must be made and commitments have been made 
that must be honored. Of course, one of the greatest commitments of all 
is the commitment we made to the men and women in uniform--men and 
women serving all over the world, including Afghanistan and Iraq. We 
don't need an uncertain trumpet at a time such as this. We don't need 
to be undermining or questioning the job they are doing.
  Let me emphasize that I don't question anybody's integrity on that, 
and I know everybody supports our troops. But what we say has 
consequences. We need to be particularly careful when it comes to 
foreign policy.
  There were a few times last week when I wanted the President to jump 
in and make a challenge or a strong statement. But I know he didn't 
because the President of the United States has to think about what it 
would mean if he was critical in a debate like that about the United 
Nations or of a particular country such as, say, France. He withheld 
the criticism.
  But we do need consistency and credibility as we go forward with the 
war on terrorism, as we deal with the situation in Afghanistan, and as 
we move toward elections in Iraq. I believe we are doing the right 
thing now by going in and taking out some of the insurgents and 
strongholds in Samarra, and I presume we are going to take some similar 
actions in other parts of Iraq so the people of Iraq can exercise that 
great right of freedom, the right to vote.
  But the areas where I thought more should have been said are three. 
First, with regard to North Korea and other parts of the world, Senator 
Kerry says we need to have the broadest possible coalition; that we 
should have a summit; we should have done more at the United Nations; 
we should have done that, this, or the other. But when it comes to 
North Korea, we should have bilateral negotiations between the United 
States and North Korea. That was tried in the last administration. I 
thought they deserved credit for making a valiant effort. I met with 
former Secretary of Defense Perry, who negotiated with the North 
Koreans a couple of times. He talked about what they were trying to do. 
But the fact is, it didn't work; they were cheating.
  Now, the President has been saying let us exercise patience. Let us 
bring in the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Russians, the Japanese, a 
coalition, a discussion group of six. That makes sense to me.

  Why a broad coalition in other parts of the world, but when it comes 
to North Korea and a very dangerous situation, we want it to be just 
between the United States and North Korea, bilateral? Why don't we take 
advantage of the interests of our friends and neighbors in that region 
and the Chinese, who certainly have a vested interest in what happens 
in North Korea? Nobody wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons and 
the ability to deliver them--certainly not the Chinese, the Japanese, 
or the South Koreans. They are right there.
  I think the President is pursuing the right course when it comes to 
North Korea.
  Another area I have taken an interest in--and I know the Senator in 
the Chair, the Senator from Nebraska, has looked at this and worked on 
it and worried about it--and that is this question of nuclear 
proliferation and what we do about the nuclear weapons and the nuclear 
materiels the Russians have.
  There is a program called Nunn-Lugar that is working to try to deal 
with that problem. Senator Kerry says we are not doing it fast enough; 
that what we are doing would take 13 years, and he could condense it to 
4 years. Well, that may be easy to hope for or to say, but you have to 
make it happen. There is another party in this deal, and they are 
called the Russians. They have something to say about proliferation.
  Would I like to see us do it faster? Should we perhaps put more money 
in this area? Yes. But the administration has been working in this 
area. The funding has gone up, and I think it is very important that we 
do it in such a way that we can make sure the money is going for what 
it is supposed to; that the money is not siphoned off into corporations 
that do not do the job and enrich themselves.
  You can only do so much credibly in a specified period of time. You 
need to think about that. You need to work with the Russians.

[[Page S10294]]

  That is why a delegation of us went to Russia earlier this year. That 
is why we have a delegation coming from Russia early next year 
continuing the dialog between the Senate and the Russian Federation 
Council.
  One of the areas we talked about most with the Russians is this 
particular area. I know Senator Lugar has worked hard on this issue. 
Senator Lugar goes to the sites. He doesn't just talk to the officials; 
he looks at the sites to see what has happened.
  Again, I think there was a problem with what Senator Kerry was saying 
that was not sufficiently challenged. I am sure it will be challenged 
over a period of time. But the area that really stood out the most to 
me was this question of globalization of the war on terrorism. The 
President raised the question: What does that mean? Are you talking 
about the United Nations? Are you talking about an organization that 
for 12 years and 13 resolutions talked tough and didn't do anything? 
Are you talking about an organization that was supposed to be watching 
over the Oil for Food Program for the Iraqis that wound up enriching 
people all over the place and some of our so-called allies being 
involved, or corporations in those countries being involved in that 
program in a fraudulent way?
  Is that what he was talking about? Or was he talking about the 
Germans and French?
  That is where the President exercised discretion in his comments. But 
I have to be more specific. Remember the French? They were the ones who 
had their Foreign Minister aggressively fighting what we were trying to 
do at the United Nations by flying all over the world, including to 
Africa, to specifically try to get people, or nations on the Security 
Council at the United Nations, not to be supportive of the broadest 
possible coalition.

  So when he talked about a broader coalition, again, you need to ask 
yourself who is he talking about? Is he talking about just the Germans 
and the French?
  I also believe there was a problem with diminishing the coalition 
which has been helpful--the Brits, the Italians, and the Spanish--until 
there was a change in administrations--and the Australians. How could 
you leave out the Australians and the Dutch? And the list goes on and 
on.
  They may not have hundreds of thousands, but they do have hundreds 
and in some cases thousands. They are doing the job, they are part of 
the coalition, and we should not diminish the sacrifice they are making 
with their presence but, more importantly, with their men and women. So 
I think when we talk about globalization, we need to be very careful.
  The President's primary responsibility has to be to the American 
people. Can we work with other nations? Can we work to have the 
broadest possible coalition? Can we work with all the international 
organizations? Yes. The President cannot ever cede the responsibility 
for making the decisions and making decisions for the American people 
to some other entity or to some other country.
  I think the debate last week was telling. It was of concern to me 
because of some of the approaches that were suggested by Senator Kerry.
  I hope the American people will look at this very carefully. This is 
a time for a sure and steady hand, a time for consistency and 
credibility. President Bush has exhibited all of those traits.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

                          ____________________