[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 125 (Wednesday, October 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10474-S10476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, I was in Cleveland, OH--I got 
back in the early hours of this morning--to be present at the Vice 
Presidential debate between our colleague, Senator Edwards, and Vice 
President Cheney. It is an interesting responsibility and assignment 
that I had, along with several of my colleagues on the Republican side, 
to provide the so-called spin after the debate. You would think that 
voters could reach their

[[Page S10475]]

own conclusions about who said what and how they should vote, but there 
are many who line up in an effort to stress the important and strong 
points made by their candidate. That was my role last night.
  I am not going to presume to tell anybody who watched that debate who 
won or lost. I will point out two specific things that were said by 
Vice President Cheney that I believe demand some clarification. He said 
at one point in the debate that he had never met Senator Edwards. In 
fact, he said:

       In my capacity as Vice President, I am President of the 
     Senate, the presiding officer. I am in the Senate most 
     Tuesdays in session. The first time I met you [Senator 
     Edwards] was when you walked on the stage tonight.

  That is what Vice President Cheney said last night. You know, all of 
us forget from time to time when we have met someone. In this 
particular instance, the Vice President had forgotten that at least on 
two previous occasions he had not only met Senator Edwards but had been 
in very close contact with him. In fact, at the National Prayer 
Breakfast on February 1, 2001, Vice President Cheney acknowledged 
Senator Edwards, who was in the audience. They were at the same event. 
Then, at the swearing-in ceremony for Senator Edwards' colleague, 
Senator Elizabeth Dole, in 2003, in fact, Vice President Cheney was 
standing right next to Senator Dole and Senator Edwards.
  So to suggest that he never met the man last night--it turns out that 
he had a lapse in memory. It happens to us all. It is a rather 
incidental thing in the scheme of things but for the other lapse of 
memory the Vice President had last night. I listened to him say these 
words, and I could not believe it. He said:

       I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 
     9/11.

  I wrote that down and underlined it, saying I can't believe that, 
because I have heard him say repeatedly that there was a connection 
between 9/11 and Iraq that warranted our invasion of Iraq before we put 
together a broad and strong coalition to share in the burden. So with 
some research we find that at least on two occasions, and many others 
perhaps, the Vice President has forgotten again. This is what he said 
on December 2, 2002:

       His [Saddam Hussein] regime has had high level contacts 
     with al-Qaida going back a decade, and has provided training 
     to al-Qaida terrorists.

  That is a direct quote from Vice President Cheney, who said last 
night he had never suggested that connection.
  Then again, on January 22, 2004, on National Public Radio, the 
``Morning Edition,'' he said:

       I think there is overwhelming evidence that there was a 
     connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government.

  Those are his quotes. Last night, he denied them. I will tell you why 
he should have denied them. He was wrong. He was wrong then and wrong 
the other times he suggested the connection between Saddam Hussein and 
al-Qaida to justify our invasion of Iraq. In fact, the 9/11 Commission, 
a bipartisan commission, has dismissed that premise. The Senate 
Intelligence Committee, which I serve on, has dismissed that premise 
and said the intelligence community failed us when they made that 
suggestion. And here is the best part. On October 4 of this year, 
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in the President's Cabinet with the Vice 
President, said he had no hard evidence to link al-Qaida and Saddam 
Hussein. The Secretary of Defense said:

       To my mind, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence 
     linking the two.

  Why is this significant? It is significant for the same reason that 
the report that is about to come out today, ordered by this 
administration, a report prepared by the chief U.S. weapons inspector 
in Iraq, again says that there is no evidence of weapons of mass 
destruction. This administration is in denial when it comes to the 
reality of Iraq.
  Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator like to yield there?
  Mr. DURBIN. No, not until I have completed my statement; then I'll be 
happy to yield.
  This administration is in denial when it comes to the reality of 
Iraq. We have a Vice President who linked Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, 
and that has been debunked and dismissed by several sources, including 
his own Secretary of Defense, and an administration that still clings 
to this notion of weapons of mass destruction despite report after 
report of no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and they tell the 
American people that is why we had to do this; that is why we had to 
invade before we put together a coalition, that is why we had to send 
troops into combat before they had the necessary body armor to protect 
themselves, before the Humvee vehicles that our brave soldiers were 
driving in Iraq were protected with armor, before our helicopters had 
the necessary defensive equipment, we sent our troops into harm's way.

  The Bush administration saw an urgency based on wrong information. 
Today, neither the President nor Vice President will accept the reality 
that they were wrong. How can you make a policy in America to make it 
stronger unless and until you accept the reality?
  Last night, Vice President Cheney could not accept the reality that 
he was wrong linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and the President cannot 
accept the reality that there were no weapons of mass destruction. In 
fact, now the report says the best they can find was a desire to build 
weapons of mass destruction. Is that what it takes to justify a 
preemptive attack on a country, that its leader may desire to create a 
weapon that could threaten us? I certainly hope the standard would be 
much higher.
  If you look at the record--I listened to the Senator from Minnesota 
who talked to us about domestic issues--it is hard to imagine that they 
are going to make an argument on the Republican side that this has been 
a successful administration when it comes to domestic issues.
  Just take a look at private sector jobs. Under President Clinton, 
20.7 million private sector jobs were created; under President Bush, we 
lost 1.6 million private sector jobs. You have to go back 70 years 
through Democratic and Republican Presidents to find such a failure in 
the creation of jobs. But this administration clings tenaciously to the 
notion that their economic policy is the best.
  I see the Senator from Delaware. How much time do I have remaining in 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Chair advise me when I have 1 minute remaining?
  Let me also talk about our fiscal situation. When we talk about the 
need for more money for education, more money for health care, tax 
credits for small businesses to provide health insurance, tax 
deductions for families to help pay for college tuition, we find we are 
in a difficult position to even consider it. Why?
  Here is the chart that tells the story. Take a look at this. As 
President Clinton left office, there was a $236 billion surplus in the 
Federal Treasury. Today, under President Bush's leadership, there is a 
deficit of $422 billion, the largest deficit in the history of the 
United States.
  We have our hands tied when it comes to doing things to help American 
families get through this tough time when they see the cost of 
gasoline, the cost of health care, and the cost of college tuition 
going up, while their personal incomes are not increasing.
  Take a look, as well, at the specifics when it comes to real 
household income for families in America under President Bush. It 
declined by $1,535, 4 years of President Bush; real family income down 
$1,500.
  Now take a look at the cost to families. Under President Bush's 
leadership, the cost of family health care premiums has gone up $3,599. 
When Senator Edwards turned last night to Vice President Cheney and 
said, I don't think America can take 4 more years of this, this is what 
he is talking about. Real family income is declining and the cost to 
families for the necessities of life is increasing.
  What we are finding out over and over is that families are not better 
off. We have seen household income go down under the Bush 
administration, gasoline prices up 22 percent, college tuition costs up 
28 percent, family health care premiums up 45 percent. That is the 
harsh reality of the cost of

[[Page S10476]]

living for working families across America.
  When Senator Edwards confronted Vice President Cheney last night with 
those realities, what the Vice President said was, Well, we certainly 
hope everyone can find a job. Hope is not enough. You need a policy 
that does not reward the wealthiest in America with tax cuts, but that 
instead helps working families deal with the realities of the costs of 
life.
  The Vice President and the President are wrong. They are wrong in 
their policies and some say resolute, I say perhaps too resolute, in 
sticking with the policy that has failed.
  We are in a position where we need new leadership. We have that 
opportunity, and last night's debate showed the sharp contrast between 
the projected programs and hopes and policies of the Kerry/Edwards 
ticket as opposed to the harsh realities of the programs we have seen 
over the last 4 years.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 
minutes and the Senator from Delaware have 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I object to that request. If the Senator from Alaska is 
going to address me, I would like to have 5 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will not yield to me, I will not yield to 
him. I want 5 minutes and the Senator from Delaware wants 5 minutes. 
Does the Senator object?
  Mr. DURBIN. I object, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. I 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that, under the order 
that is now before the Senate, we on the minority side have about 3\1/
2\ minutes remaining; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Delaware be 
given 5 minutes and the Senator from Alaska be given 10 minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I object. I only want 5 minutes, and I want to be able 
to respond to the Senator from Illinois. He would not yield to me. I 
see no reason why I should yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Senator Carper has 3 minutes now. There is no unanimous 
consent request pending now, is there?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the time situation?
  Mr. REID. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
Senator from Delaware is recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I cannot hear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The Senator from Delaware.

                          ____________________