[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S515-S529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session for
the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 4, which the clerk will now
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Condoleezza
Rice, of California, to be Secretary of State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30
a.m. shall be allocated in the following order: The Senator from
Indiana, Mr. Lugar; the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden; the Senator
from California, Mrs. Boxer; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr.
Lieberman; the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid; and the Senator from
Tennessee, Mr. Frist; with the last 5 minutes reserved for the Senator
from Indiana or his designee.
The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have the pleasure and the honor to
commend the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice. Soon, the Senate will
carry out its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on
President Bush's nominee for the office of Secretary of State. We will
be participants in an historic moment that will reaffirm the Senate's
role in foreign policy and underscore the brilliance of the
constitutional design.
Last week, the Committee on Foreign Relations held exhaustive
hearings on this nomination. Dr. Rice fielded questions on dozens of
subjects for more than 10\1/2\ hours over 2 days. All 18 members of the
Committee took advantage of the opportunity to ask Dr. Rice questions.
At the hearings, she responded to 199 questions--129 from Democrats and
70 from Republicans. In addition, in advance of the hearings, members
of the Committee submitted 191 detailed questions for the record to Dr.
Rice. Members received answers to each of these questions. Thus, Dr.
Rice responded to a total of 390 questions from Senators. In American
history, few cabinet nominees have provided as much information or
answered as many questions during the confirmation process. She
demonstrated that her understanding of U.S. foreign policy is
comprehensive and insightful.
Our hearings and yesterday's floor action served not only as an
examination of Dr. Rice's substantial qualifications, but also as a
fundamental debate on the direction of U.S. foreign policy. This debate
was useful to the Senate and to the American people. Having the
opportunity to question a Secretary of State nominee is a key aspect of
Congressional oversight of any administration's foreign policy. Dr.
Rice enthusiastically embraced this function of the hearings.
In my judgment she is extraordinarily well-qualified to become
Secretary of State. Even Dr. Rice's opponents have taken the time to
admire her accomplishments and her qualifications. She is a person of
conviction, loyalty, integrity, and ability. As a result of her
distinguished service as National Security Advisor to President Bush
and her earlier assignments on the NSC, she is well known to many
Members of the Senate. We have observed her energy, her expertise, and
her devotion to this country. I appreciate the cooperation that she has
provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to me
personally.
I had the good fortune to visit Dr. Rice before she assumed the post
of National Security Adviser. Before President George W. Bush was
elected, I participated with Dr. Rice at Stanford University meetings
on foreign policy hosted by former Secretary of State, George Shultz.
Secretary Shultz, a close friend of many in the Senate, was an early
supporter of then Governor Bush. He recognized Dr. Rice's prodigious
talent and encouraged her leadership within the Bush foreign policy
team. At the Stanford University meetings, Dr. Rice demonstrated
analytical brilliance and broad knowledge of world affairs. During the
2000 Presidential campaign, she established a trusted relationship with
Governor Bush that has carried through in her work as National Security
Adviser.
The enormously complex job before Dr. Rice will require all of her
talents and experience. American credibility in the world, progress in
the war on terrorism, and our relationships with our allies will be
greatly affected by the Secretary of State's leadership and the
effectiveness of the State Department in the coming years. We recognize
the deep personal commitment necessary to undertake this difficult
assignment, and we are grateful that a leader of her stature is willing
to step forward.
Opponents of the nomination have focused primarily on individual
statements made by the nominee during her tenure as National Security
Adviser. I simply observe that Dr. Rice has spent 4 years in one of the
most intense crucibles of leadership imaginable. The scrutiny that
National Security Advisers must live under is unrelenting, and their
responsibility for foreign policy outcomes often is exceeded only by
the President, who makes the final decision. Dr. Rice has been in the
arena making tough decisions and answering tough questions on a daily
basis for 4 years. I do not remember any National Security Adviser who
did not have bruises to show for stepping into this arena. The
attachment of controversies to a National Security Adviser is
inevitable. Even as Senators scrutinize Dr. Rice's record, we must not
fail to recognize the level of sacrifice, courage, and discipline that
is required to be National Security Adviser. Her proven fortitude in
meeting these challenges and in sustaining herself physically and
mentally through the pressures of responsibility is impressive.
Dr. Rice is not just a survivor. Even under intense pressure, she has
performed her duties successfully with thoughtfulness, fairness, and
magnanimity. These are exactly the qualities that we want in our top
diplomat. And these qualities already have produced results. Dr. Rice
has contributed to numerous policy successes in the Bush
administration. These successes have involved issues as diverse as our
non-proliferation policies, our campaign against global AIDS, and
reform of our post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction
mechanisms. Befitting the role of National Security Adviser, she has
not been in the limelight claiming credit for successes. Instead, she
has performed without ego, while preserving the trust of the President.
This close relationship will serve her well at the State Department.
The Secretary of State serves as the President's top foreign policy
advisor, as our Nation's most visible emissary to the rest of the
world, and as manager of one of the most important Departments in our
Government. Any one of these jobs would be a challenge for even the
most talented public servant. The Secretary of State, at this critical
time in our history, must excel in all three roles.
[[Page S516]]
From my own conversations with Dr. Rice, I am confident that she
understands that the President's foreign policy can be enhanced in the
second term by a closer working relationship with Congress. In moving
to head the State Department, she understands that much of this
communication will depend on her. Last week's hearings were an
excellent start. Her attitude throughout these arduous hearings was
always accommodating and always respectful of the Senate's
Constitutional role in the nomination process. From the beginning she
made clear her desire to have a wide-ranging discussion of U.S. foreign
policy and to take all the questions that members wanted to ask.
If confirmed, it will be her duty to use the foundation of these
hearings to build a consistent bridge of communication to the Congress.
As legislators, we have equal responsibility in this process. We have
the responsibility of educating ourselves about national security
issues, even when they are not the top issues in headlines or polls. We
have the responsibility to maintain good foreign affairs law, even when
taking care of this duty yields little credit back home. We have the
responsibility to ensure that our first impulse in foreign affairs is
one of bipartisanship. And we have the responsibility to speak plainly
when we disagree with the administration, but to avoid inflammatory
rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or settle
partisan scores.
We have the opportunity with the beginning of a new presidential term
to enhance the constructive role of Congress in foreign policy. We have
made an excellent start during the past week. I thank all 19 Senators
who participated in the Foreign Relations Committee hearings and all 22
Senators who have joined in the floor debate. I urge Members to vote in
favor of the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that
the quorum count equally against both sides of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is
allotted to the Senator from Delaware on the Rice nomination?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is allotted 20 minutes.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to support Dr. Rice's
nomination to be Secretary of State. I don't do it as fulsomely as I
rose to support the nomination of the previous Secretary of State. I
will explain why.
I believe the President of the United States is entitled to his
Cabinet unless the person he selects is so far out of the mainstream,
incompetent, clearly of questionable character, or, as some in the past
have been, dedicated to the express purpose of dismantling the very
agency to which they were being assigned, such as President Reagan--as
my mother would say, God love him--who wanted to do away with the
Department of Education and assigned two people to be the head of the
Department of Education for the express purpose of eliminating an
agency that I thought needed to remain, or in the special case when the
office calls for an unusually different relation, as the Attorney
General does. The Attorney General does not work for the President. He
is the people's lawyer. He is hired by the President, but he or she is
the people's lawyer and, in the worst of all cases, sometimes required
to investigate the President himself and in the best of cases is
required to interpret the constitutional laws of the land.
I very reluctantly voted against Attorney General Gonzales's
nomination to be Attorney General because I believe he has so wrongly
interpreted law on torture and did such great damage as a consequence
of that decision. There were significant consequences. There is a
fundamentally different relationship and a fundamentally different
constitutional obligation. It is his judgment that I question, and I
currently believe he should not be Attorney General.
Dr. Rice does not fit in any of those categories. I have known and
worked with her for the past 4 years. She is knowledgeable, she is
smart, she is honorable, and her relationship with the President is
essentially to be the public face of the President of the United States
here.
As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a
special responsibility to work with Dr. Rice, so I am going to vote for
Dr. Rice, but I am going to do so with some frustration and
reservations. Let me explain why. I have said this to Dr. Rice, so she
is not hearing this for the first time.
Last week, we gave Dr. Rice an opportunity to acknowledge the
mistakes and misjudgments of the past 4 years. The point is not to play
the game ``gotcha.'' It is not about embarrassing the President. It is
about learning from our mistakes so we do not repeat them. A second
term is also a second chance.
Instead of seizing that opportunity, Dr. Rice stuck to the
administration's party line: Always right; never wrong. It is as if
acknowledging mistakes or misjudgments is a sign of weakness. I do not
think it is. I think it is powerful evidence of strength and maturity.
But during the hearing, Dr. Rice claimed that my colleague, Barbara
Boxer, was impugning her integrity when she asked about her changing
rationale for the war in Iraq.
Now, I wish instead that Dr. Rice had acknowledged the facts. This
administration secured the support of the American people, and of
Congress, for going to war based on what it insisted was an imminent
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Now, when it turns out there are no such weapons, Dr. Rice and the
President claim the war was now about removing a dictator. I am glad
Saddam is gone. He deserves his own special place in hell, but removing
him from power was not the justification initially offered by this
administration to go to war. Again, it is an example of what Barbara
Boxer was talking about: a changing rationale for war. Why Dr. Rice
would not acknowledge that is beyond me.
Reading the resolution that Congress passed giving the President the
authority to use force if necessary, it was about ``disarming'' Saddam.
And reread the words of the President and other senior officials. In
speech after speech, television appearance after television appearance,
they left the American people with the impression that Iraq was on the
verge of reconstituting nuclear weapons. In fact, Vice President Cheney
said they already had them.
The administration left the American people with the impression, even
today, that Saddam had other weapons of mass destruction, and that he
was complicit in the events of 9/11 and that he collaborated with al-
Qaida--I assume collaborated with al-Qaida for purposes of the 9/11
attack. Back then the administration liked to claim that President Bush
never said Iraq was ``an imminent threat.'' Well, this is what he and
other senior officials did say. They referred to it as an ``immediate
threat,'' a ``mortal threat,'' an ``urgent threat,'' a ``grave
threat,'' a ``serious and mounting threat,'' a ``unique threat.'' And
it would be funny, the denial that they did not say ``imminent threat''
if it were not so deadly serious.
This is my point: Especially in matters of war and peace, we have to
level with the American people if we want not only to secure their
support but to sustain their support.
My poor colleagues are tired of hearing me say, for the last 2 years,
the following: No foreign policy can be sustained without the informed
consent of the American people. And this administration has been very
reluctant to keep them informed. Informed means all the information and
a truthful rendition of the balance of the information they have.
During the time I was criticizing President Bush for his assertions
about aluminum tubes and his administration's assertions about other
things, the press kept saying to me: Why won't you say the President is
a liar? He was not lying. But what the President did--he got the
intelligence, as we did on the committee. We can argue whether a
minority or a majority, but a significant number of the intelligence
assets in the U.S. Government said: We think those aluminum tubes are
or could be used for gas centrifuges. A significant number said: No,
they are not used for that. They are for artillery.
[[Page S517]]
Well, my criticism of the President was not that he, in fact, chose
to believe that portion of the intelligence community which said they
were used for gas centrifuge systems, which is needed to build a
nuclear capability and if you are going to use uranium; my problem with
it was, both he and Dr. Rice implied there was no dissent, that this
was the view of the intelligence community, when it was not. There was,
at a minimum, a significant dissent both in Energy and at the CIA, and
other places. So they did not lie. They chose to pick the portion--I am
not saying they did it for any reason other than they believed it, but
they chose to pick the portion of the intelligence community's
assessment which fit with their objectives, without ever mentioning,
acknowledging, or suggesting there was any dissent within the
intelligence community.
I love my colleagues now who keep saying: Don't blame it on Rice.
Don't blame it on Gonzales. Blame it on the intelligence community. I
think our former Director of the CIA is getting a bad rap here.
The fact is, we have to be honest with ourselves and the world;
otherwise, we are going to do terrible damage to our most valuable
asset, our credibility. After Iraq, it is going to be much harder to
rally the world to our side if we have to face a truly imminent threat
to our security from, say, Iran or North Korea.
The same goes for the way Dr. Rice answered my questions about
training Iraqi security forces. Time and again, this administration has
tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has
well over 100,000--as high as 120,000; or I think there was even a
higher number offered--of fully competent police and military. They
don't say fully competent; they say trained.
Now again, it is like that story I have told. We Catholic kids go to
Catholic school. We learn to go to one of the Sacraments in the
Catholic Church, Penance. You go to confession. They explain to us that
when we go to confession, we should confess all our sins. My nuns told
me the story about Johnny, who said to the priest: Bless me father for
I have sinned. I stole a gold chain. And he failed to tell the priest
that attached to that gold chain was an antique gold watch. He did not
lie. He stole the chain. But when you say what you did, you should say
all of what you did.
Failure to acknowledge, as my grandfather used to say, the ``hull''
of it, failure to do that is, at a minimum, misleading--at a minimum,
misleading. That is what has happened here.
So 120,000 troops trained. There may be 120,000 people who we put
uniforms on--and I will not go through it in the limited time I have; I
will submit for the Record the facts as I believe them based on talking
to our military and police trainers--but the real question is, How many
American forces doing the job of policing the streets, going after
insurgents, guarding the borders, whatever functions we are now
providing, how many of those could be replaced with an Iraqi now? I
think the number is closer to somewhere between 4,000 and 18,000.
Now, the good news--when I asked the question, I thought she would
say we have made mistakes. We went for quantity not quality. We realize
we had to fundamentally change our training programs. We brought in
General Patraeus, who is a first-rate guy. He is well underway of doing
that--which he is--and we are going to get it right. But, no, we have
120,000 trained forces out there.
Well, the fact is, we are months, if not years, from reaching the
target we need of putting uniformed soldiers, uniformed cops, and
uniformed National Guard with Iraqi uniforms into Iraq.
The bottom line is, we should focus on real standards, not raw
numbers. To my mind, there is a real simple standard. An Iraqi soldier
and policeman should be considered fully trained when he or she is
capable of doing the job we are now asking an American young man or
woman to do. How many meet that standard today? Nowhere near, as I
said, 120,000. In my judgment, it is closer to 14,000 total. Army
trained is probably closer to 5,000.
So last week's hearing was a chance for Dr. Rice to wipe the slate
clean with the American people and with our allies. I wish she had
seized it.
This is not about revisiting the past. It is about how Dr. Rice and
the administration will meet the challenges of the future.
I notice, in the defense of Dr. Rice, I no longer hear on the floor
disagreements--I don't want to get him in trouble--disagreements with
the position taken by my friend, the chairman of our committee, or by
my friend, Mr. Hagel, or Mr. McCain, or myself, or others. I do not
hear people saying we have conducted this postwar policy very well. I
do not hear anybody defending that. They are now saying, which is good:
Hey, wait a minute, I guess we have made mistakes.
Why the administration cannot do that is beyond me. They are not up
for reelection again. It would seem to me it would be a way to coalesce
support.
In my judgment, America faces two overriding national security
challenges in this new century. First and foremost, we must win the
struggle between freedom and radical Islamic fundamentalism. Secondly,
we must keep the world's most dangerous weapons away from its most
dangerous people.
On the latter point, the man we owe the greatest debt of gratitude to
on making progress on that score is my friend and colleague, Senator
Lugar, and former Senator Nunn. Senator Lugar is the guy who is
following up on this and the guy forcing us all to face the reality
that much more is needed to be done.
To prevail, we have to be strong. We also have to be smart, wielding
the force of our ideas and ideals together with the force of our arms.
Today, after a necessary war in Afghanistan and an optional war in
Iraq, we are rightly confident in the example of our power. But we have
forgotten the power of our example.
Foreign policy is not a popularity contest. We must confront hard
issues. Sometimes they require us to make hard choices that other
countries do not like. But above all, they require American leadership,
the kind of persuasion that brings along others to our side.
We have been having a tough time doing just that the past few years.
So despite our great military might, in my view, we are more alone in
the world than we have been in recent memory. As a result, we are much
less secure than we could or should be.
That is because virtually all the threats we face--from terrorism, to
the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to rogue states that flout
the rules, to endemic and pandemic diseases--cannot be solely met by
the unilateral use of force.
I had hoped to hear from Dr. Rice how she planned to help rebuild
America's power to persuade, and to restore our Nation's respect that
it once enjoyed. For she said, now is the time for diplomacy.
Parenthetically, I think diplomacy was needed 4 years ago. I am happy
now is the time for diplomacy.
I also had hoped to hear her ideas for contending with a series of
problems the administration has put on the back burner but whose pots
are boiling over, such as the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran,
the dangerous backsliding of democracy in Russia, and the genocide in
Sudan, to only name a few.
Over the past few years, North Korea has increased its nuclear
weapons capacity by as much as 400 percent. It may now have as many as
eight nuclear weapons to test, hide, or sell to the highest bidder.
Dr. Rice told us it is ``unacceptable'' for North Korea to have these
nuclear weapons, but she did not tell us what that meant or how the
administration proposed to stop this growing threat.
Over the past few years, the reform movement in Iran has been crushed
and the regime has accelerated its own nuclear program. There may be
nothing we can do to persuade Iran not to develop these weapons by
diplomacy, but our European allies are trying through a combination of
carrots and sticks. They believe they cannot succeed, though, unless
the United States engages directly in this effort.
I asked Dr. Rice whether we should be a party to a deal in which the
Iranians agreed--if there was a way to verify--that they would stop
their attempts to build a nuclear weapon and end their missile program.
She said: Well, we have a lot of other problems with Iran.
Of course we do. But our No. 1 problem is the growing danger they
will develop nuclear weapons. Our best chance
[[Page S518]]
of stopping that is to work with the Europeans in showing Iran it can
get more if it does the right thing, and what it risks if it does not.
But we are sitting on the sidelines, in my view. Nothing Dr. Rice said
gave me confidence we are really going to get on the playing field.
Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. BIDEN. Over the past few years, President Putin has reversed the
course of democratic development and the rule of law in Russia. The
administration has been largely silent. How can we be so concerned
about the advancement of democracy in the Middle East and so
unconcerned about the regression in Russia?
The President gave a powerful, eloquent inaugural address about
expanding freedom around the world. Every American shares that ideal--
it goes to who we are as a people, to our experience, and to our
interests.
The question isn't the goal, it's how you achieve it. I wonder if the
President plans on bringing a signed copy of his address to President
Putin when he meets with him next month. I fear that in Russia and many
other places, the gap between the administration's rhetoric and the
reality of its policies is only going to get wider.
At the same time, we have gotten little in return for turning a blind
eye to Russia's regression. One of the most important programs to
protect America' security--the effort to help Russia account for,
secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction and related materials--
has become mired in redtape that the two Presidents need to cut
through.
Finally, in Darfur, Sudan we have watched a terrible tragedy unfold.
Militia supported by the government have killed as many as 100,000
civilians and chased as many as 2 million from their homes.
Four months ago, before the Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary
Powell rightly called it genocide. Since then, the situation has gotten
even worse. Yet we heard virtually nothing from Dr. Rice about what the
administration and Congress can do, now, to stop this slaughter and to
help African allies develop their own peacekeeping capacity.
Let me end with something hopeful that Dr. Rice talked about: putting
diplomacy back at the center of America's foreign policy.
That effort is long overdue. Be that as it may, I strongly agree with
Dr. Rice that this is the time for a new diplomatic offensive with old
allies, rising powers, and even hostile regimes.
But our diplomacy has to be sustained. It has to do as much listening
as it does talking. And it has to use all the tools at our disposal.
Our military might is critical. It gives credibility to our
diplomacy. And it gives us the most powerful tool in the world to act,
if necessary, against dictators who are systematically abusing the
rights of their people, or against regimes with no democratic checks
that are harboring terrorists and amassing weapons of mass destruction.
But there are many other critical tools that have atrophied under
this administration--our intelligence, our public diplomacy, our
alliances, international organizations, treaties and agreements,
development assistance, trade and investment. We need to wield them
with the same determination with which we use force--even if it can be
frustrating and even if the payoff takes years, even a generation.
That is what we did after World War II. That is why we prevailed in
the Cold War.
Now, faced with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges, we
must recapture the totality of America's strength.
Mr. President, I will conclude by suggesting that we are now faced
with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges than we were in
World War II, and we have to recapture the totality of America's
strength.
Above all, we have to understand that those who spread radical
Islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction, although they
may be beyond our reach and there is no choice but to confront them and
to defeat them, there are still hundreds of millions of hearts and
minds around the world who practice Islam who are open to American
ideas and ideals, and we have to reach them.
Dr. Rice says she is going to make diplomacy her primary task. I will
work with her in that effort.
One of my colleagues said--by the way, I want to note parenthetically
that I think it is totally appropriate for Senator Dayton and Senator
Kennedy and my friend from California to say what they have said, to
take the positions they have taken. It is consistent with the facts as
they see them. They choose to view one side of the coin. I am viewing
the other side of the coin.
One of my colleagues said he is voting his notion that this is going
to get worse. I forget the exact phrase my friend from Massachusetts,
Senator Kerry, used. Well, it reminded me of a comment by Samuel
Johnson who described second marriages as the triumph of hope over
experience. Well, I may be guilty in this second term of choosing hope
over experience, because my experience thus far with this
administration on foreign policy has been very disquieting. My hope is
that the new--and I suspect she will be; I hope she will be confirmed--
the new Secretary of State will, in fact, play a role in trying to
change that policy, engage in diplomacy, and use the totality of our
strength, which includes our ideas and our ideals, as well as our
military power.
I reserve whatever time I may have and thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Under the previous order, the
Senator from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I want to begin today by again thanking Chairman Lugar
and Senator Biden, our ranking member, for a very fair debate on the
nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. I know these
votes usually go overwhelmingly for the nominee. The last time there
was any vote against a nominee, I think the most votes were Kissinger
at 7 votes. So I know that what I am doing is not about winning a vote;
it is simply about telling the truth as I see it and other Members
telling it as they see it.
At the end of the day, when Senators vote, some will be very
enthusiastic about the nominee and feel very good about their vote.
Others will be a little anxious. I sense with Senator Biden, he
certainly has anxieties over it, but he is very hopeful. And knowing
Joe Biden as I do, that definitely fits his character because I think
he gave Condoleezza Rice opportunity after opportunity after
opportunity to set the record straight, to level with the committee.
Senator Biden was not on the floor yesterday, but I kind of replayed
his give and take with future Secretary Rice on the issue of how many
troops were trained, and he was literally begging her to please be
candid. It is interesting because after that give and take, which was
picked up by the news media, Ambassador Negroponte came into it and
said: Clearly, there are not 120,000, but there are more than 4,000.
All this dancing around is not academic because, as Senator Biden
clearly stated and as we all know, our exit strategy in Iraq is based
upon the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves certainly. We all
are working toward that day, but we can't do it if we are not going to
be honest about how it is going, and we can't help the administration
if they don't level with us as to how things are going.
I found it interesting--and this has nothing to do with this
particular nomination--that the White House Chief of Staff called those
of us who wanted to debate this ``petty.'' I saw one clip of him saying
that the two Senators--he didn't mention the names--who were trying to
get this nomination to the Senate floor and have some time to talk
about it were ``small.'' I don't think he was talking about my height.
That is showing such a disrespect to the American people, as we go
around the world trying to bring democracy. It is something we all want
to do. We may have different ways of going about it, but we want to do
it. How do we stand tall if we don't uphold our Constitution? Our
Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play a strong role
in the selection of these very important and powerful positions.
Well, thanks to Senators Lugar and Biden, we have done that. I am
glad.
[[Page S519]]
The reason I am going to be voting no is clear to anyone who has
followed this debate. I asked Condoleezza Rice a series of questions in
five different areas. I gave her every opportunity to correct the
record. I asked her about her statements that the aluminum tubes Saddam
was buying could only be used for nuclear weapons, and she talked about
the mushroom cloud and frightened the American people at a time when we
know she had the information that there was a very strong dispute going
on in the intelligence community and that, in fact, she had known in
2001 about this issue. She refused to budge.
I asked her about her continual statements that al-Qaida and Saddam
were close. It was not true. At the time she made those comments, the
State Department itself put out a very important map--this was 1 month
after 9/11--saying that in fact there was no al-Qaida whatsoever in
Iraq. They were nowhere in Iraq. She refused to budge.
I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
I asked Dr. Rice about my concerns in five areas. I don't fault the
President for picking someone who believes in this war, who helped him
in her position. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with the
lack of candor that continues to come from Dr. Rice.
As recently as a few months ago she wrote a letter which resulted in
a very important amendment in the Intelligence bill being stripped from
that bill. This was a bill by Senators McCain and Lieberman, and this
provision was written in part by Senator Durbin. It was an antitorture
provision. She opposed it. She wrote that she opposed it. When I asked
her about it, she denied that she opposed it, when she had opposed it
in writing.
I know there are other Senators coming to the floor of the Senate and
saying this argument doesn't hold because she made statements that came
from faulty intelligence. If that were the case, I would have no
problem with Dr. Rice. Everybody knows there was faulty intelligence.
But she continues to put out these misstatements. As a matter of fact,
in front of the committee, if one listened closely, she muddied the
waters even more. So I gave her the chance to clear it up, and she
didn't. That is bad for the Senate. It is bad for the American people.
Dr. King said--and I often repeat it--our lives begin to end the day
we become silent about things that matter. This debate mattered.
Responsibility matters. Accountability matters. It matters when you
give someone a chance to correct the record that is replete with half-
truths and misstatements, and they don't take that opportunity.
Dr. Rice is a role model. She is smart. She is intelligent. She is
qualified. She is loyal to this President. I don't question any of
that. All of that makes everyone proud. The fact is, it would have been
very condescending and inappropriate to have someone as skilled as Dr.
Rice before a committee, someone as involved in setting the course of
this war as Dr. Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee, and not
ask her the kind of questions we all did.
I don't know whether we will have two votes against this nominee or
four or seven or eight. I really don't know because I haven't asked one
colleague how they are going to vote. This has not been the point of
what I have done. I have simply tried to say that holding people
accountable is important, that this war matters, that we need to look
at the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them, so we don't send
our young people into another war based on hyped-up rhetoric and half-
truths.
I thank my colleagues all and again say to my chairman how much I
appreciate him. I look forward to moving past this on to the other work
of our committee and the other work of the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the Senate floor to
announce my support for the nomination of Dr. Rice to be our Secretary
of State and explained why I thought she was more than qualified to
take on this critical position at this critical stage in our Nation's
history. In the time and the hours that followed, several of my
colleagues came to the floor and announced that they would not support
this nomination and explained why. I wanted to return very briefly this
morning to simply say that I considered the arguments made against her
nomination and they do not alter my conclusion that Dr. Condoleezza
Rice is more than qualified to be Secretary of State at this time in
our Nation's history.
Some of the criticisms of the administration's policy, particularly
post-Saddam in Iraq, I agree with. Others about Dr. Rice personally, I
vehemently disagree with. But as I see our role here in advising and
consenting, the question is not whether we agree with everything the
nominee has ever done or said but whether the nominee is qualified to
be Secretary of State. This nominee is more than qualified.
Implicit in this, of course, is that the President has won the right,
by virtue of his election, to have around him people who have his
confidence. This nominee certainly does.
Secondly, I want to make a statement about how I read the criticisms
that have been expressed. They are all about the past, either about
past behavior of Dr. Rice or, more particularly, about past
administration judgments or actions with regard to foreign policy
generally and particularly about the war in Iraq. I want to make clear
that I don't hear criticisms about where we are now or where we should
go in the future. It is important that the American people understand
that but more important that our friends and foes in Iraq, throughout
the Islamic world, and the world generally understand that. There is
not substantial dissent in the Senate of the United States about the
policy we are following in Iraq today. It is to train the Iraqis to
better secure themselves. It is to give them the opportunity, which
they will exercise bravely and I believe successfully this Sunday, to
elect their own leaders. It is to invest in their own economic well-
being so they can create a model within the Arab world of not only a
self-governing state but a modernizing state connected to the modern
world.
I have listened to my colleagues who oppose this nomination, and I
have spoken to them off the floor. I want to make clear to people
around the world, there is not a single one of these colleagues who
wants us to cut and run from Iraq. There is not a single one of these
colleagues who does not fully support our troops there. I want our
troops to understand that. There is not a single one of these
colleagues who is not supportive of the election this Sunday and
hopeful that people will turn out in large numbers. There is no
question about which side we are on. We are on the side of the people
of Iraq, struggling bravely for a better future, and we are against
that minority there, composed largely of leftovers from Saddam Hussein
and foreign terrorists associated with al-Qaida, who are killers,
murderers, fascists, who want to stop 25 million Iraqis from having a
better life.
Finally, if my colleagues believe that Condoleezza Rice is not
qualified to be Secretary of State of the United States, then, of
course, they must vote against her. But if they are--I hate to use the
word ``just''--just upset about some of the things this administration
has done in Iraq, but if they believe otherwise, that what we are doing
now is all we can do to make the situation better, then I appeal to
them to vote for Dr. Rice. Give her the benefit of the doubt. In some
sense, give the President the benefit of the doubt that I believe the
Constitution entitles him. Give America's national interests the
benefit of the doubt. Give our soldiers fighting in Iraq the benefit of
the doubt.
This nominee has the President's confidence. I want people around the
world to know--and I hope with a resounding vote--that though there are
disagreements about what the administration has done in regard to our
Iraq policy and other elements of foreign policy, that in the final
analysis we are together. We are together for what we are pursuing,
which is the successful conclusion to our involvement in Iraq and to
the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world.
I thank the Chair and urge a strong vote for Dr. Condoleezza Rice to
be our next Secretary of State.
[[Page S520]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair please recognize Senator Domenici.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar for finding time
for me to express my views to the Senate and to those who might be
listening or viewing the Senate proceedings.
I say to Senator Lieberman, I appreciate very much the broad scope of
his statement with reference to America and the world, and I thank him
for stating his views, which are my views, and I think the views of an
overwhelming number of Senators--77 of them who voted for us to proceed
with this approach to Iraq.
I think we all know our intentions, regardless of what some may say,
are good and that the objective is that something good happen for the
people of Iraq and for America and the world.
Having said that, I have been dismayed to hear--not everyone on the
other side--but some use words such as ``liar,'' to use words as to
this nominee--Condoleezza Rice--that called her a liar, implied she was
a liar, who implied the President intentionally misled. I would like to
zero in on that for a minute and those who have been putting forth that
accusation--I am not talking about those who oppose the war. I am
talking about those who say the policy was fraught with intentional
misleading information about weapons of mass destruction.
I want to step back and say to my fellow Senators and those
listening: What if today we were considering for Senate approval
Secretary of State Colin Powell? Just think with me. He is the nominee.
He is being reconfirmed for Secretary of State. What would the Senators
who were here talking about Condoleezza Rice or our President
intentionally misleading, being a liar, implying they had information
they withheld, what would they say about Colin Powell?
On a certain day, Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations.
Remember that day? February 5, 2003. I remember it. I think millions
and millions of people remember it: maps, overviews, a firm statement
by him about weapons of mass destruction. Now I ask: Where did he get
his information? Was he lying? Did he mislead the American people? Was
he intentionally trying to force upon us a policy that was not based
upon what he said but that those facts were dreamed up? I believe that
neither Senators nor the people of America would believe he was not
telling the truth.
My point is, he got his information from exactly the same source that
our President did, that the Prime Minister of Great Britain did, that
all leaders at that point did, that we the Congress did. The President
did not get his information from someplace in the sky, nor did Colin
Powell. There was only one source: the accumulation of intelligence by
the United States intelligence-gathering institutions. They told our
President, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell what was going on, and
they all said, what? That there were weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, and that Saddam was a danger--an exceptional danger--because he
had weapons of mass destruction.
Frankly, I believe there are those who have become partisan on this
issue, and I almost would say, and should say, extremely partisan, who
have become totally political on this issue and totally personal. There
is no evidence whatsoever that Colin Powell lied, that he was
misleading us, that Condoleezza Rice was a part of a policy to mislead
the American people, nor that the President was. They all had the same
information. One would not think that from what we have heard on the
floor. One would not think that as you hear those who want to deny her
this nomination.
Frankly, that argument does not wash. It is not consistent with
reality. It is dreamed up. It is political. It is for no other reason
than to insert false and untrue information and facts into this
discussion. She deserves the nomination.
The President did not intentionally mislead. Those who oppose the war
ought to say it and quit exaggerating and being political and personal
about their attacks.
Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, and I yield the floor.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I take very seriously the United States
Senate's responsibility to provide advice and consent for the
President's nominees. Generally, I believe that the President of the
United States should be allowed to have the people he chooses in his
cabinet to implement the policies he has been elected to put in place--
providing they are qualified to do the job. The vote should not be
about the ideology of the nominee--that decision is up to the
President--but rather about the nominee's ability to perform the job.
Condoleezza Rice certainly has the academic training and the
professional credentials to be Secretary of State. She is bright,
articulate, and well versed in diplomatic procedures. She works
extremely hard, is dedicated to her job, and is very close to the
President. In many respects, she was the natural choice to succeed
Secretary Colin Powell.
But, I am afraid there is a showstopper here. As National Security
Advisor, Ms. Rice has been one of the most public faces of this
administration's policy in Iraq. She has been the public face of this
administration's crusade to generate American support for an invasion.
In her effort to do this, Ms. Rice has made many of the most
categorical statements on Iraq, claiming that we had evidence that
Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam
had ties to the al Qaeda terrorists, that we were threatened by a
mushroom cloud from Iraq, or a little vial that Saddam might give to
terrorists to poison us. Over and over again, Ms. Rice has used every
shred of evidence she could find, even evidence that the CIA urged her
to retract, in order to make the case that Iraq was a direct and
immediate threat to the United States.
We now know that most of the intelligence information that led the
President to conclude Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States
was wrong. Not only have no weapons of mass destruction been found in
Iraq, but no evidence has surfaced of any recent attempt by Saddam to
develop these weapons. No ties with al Qaeda have come to light.
Ironically, it now appears that since the U.S. invasion, terrorists
groups are enjoying a surge in recruitment and have even set up
training camps in Iraq. Hatred of America's actions in Iraq has surged
throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Condoleezza Rice is not solely
responsible for this dangerous turn of events, but she is inextricably
linked to this policy, and refuses to admit that any mistakes have been
made by this administration.
A hallmark of the administration's Iraq policy has been a refusal to
work with the international community. President Bush preferred to go
it alone rather than be hampered by the constraints of the United
Nations or make the concessions necessary to form a broad coalition.
Ms. Rice was a prime spokesperson for this policy. She repeatedly
justified the doctrine of preemption and defended the wisdom of going
it alone, even if it meant losing the support of our closest allies.
She was the public face of this policy of contempt for the role of
diplomacy.
The Secretary of State is America's second most visible face to the
world. If he or she is to be effective, the Secretary must be seen as
truthful, forthright, and respectful of other nations. The hallmark of
this administration's foreign policy has been its willingness to
distort information in the service of its political objectives, and its
failure to tell the truth. It has viewed other nations as either naive
or cowardly if they have disagreed with our policy. Ms. Rice has been
the public face of this policy and this ``modus operendi''. Nothing
could be more detrimental to her ability to be a successful Secretary
of State.
I have said all along that this war is wrong, that the
administration's rationale for this war was faulty, and that the
consequences of this war may be very detrimental to our national
interest and our national security. Unfortunately, it looks like these
observations are proving correct.
More than 1,370 American soldiers have died in this war, and over
10,000 have been wounded, many of them maimed for life. Countless
thousands of Iraqis have died--we will probably never know how many.
Their country has been devastated, and as of now, it
[[Page S521]]
appears this Sunday's elections are unlikely to bring about any
resolution of the internal strife. Civil war is a real possibility, and
today it is hard to see how progress is going to be made toward the
administration's goal of stability in Iraq.
Condoleezza Rice has been a lead architect of our Nation's failed
foreign policy and of the war in Iraq. Therefore I believe she is
severely handicapped in her ability to be America's chief diplomat and
the chief architect of America's effort to resolve these problems. This
administration has not hesitated to play loose with the truth and show
contempt for international opinion. These are not the tools of
successful diplomacy, the primary responsibility of the Secretary of
State.
Therefore, sadly, for the first time in my Senate career, I must cast
my vote against a Cabinet-level nominee. I will vote no on the
nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I speak today in response to some things
I have heard a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say
about Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I want to set the record straight and
express my full support for her confirmation.
Dr. Rice is without question one of the most qualified people ever to
be chosen as Secretary of State. She is more qualified to be Secretary
of State than all 100 Senators are for their jobs.
It is not surprising to me that I have not heard any of my colleagues
question Dr. Rice's qualifications. She is one of the most well-rounded
foreign policy experts in the nation, having spent some 25 years in
Government, the private sector, and academics.
In Government, she has served three Presidents, including service at
the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the
Pentagon. As National Security Advisor, one of the most important
foreign policy positions in our Government, she has been a key
architect of our Nation's response to terrorism and threats abroad.
Since she joined the Bush administration as National Security Advisor,
this administration has reached an agreement with Russia to reduce
nuclear weapons, successfully achieved the return of our military
personnel from China when their plane was taken hostage, engaged North
Korea in multilateral talks to end their nuclear weapons program,
launched an effort to fight AIDS around the world, and freed millions
of people living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
In addition to her Government service, Dr. Rice has spent time in the
business world where she gained the management experience needed to run
an organization as large and diverse as the State Department. She has
served on numerous corporate boards, and was the top budget official at
Stanford University when she served as Provost.
While I do not think that academic achievement alone qualifies
someone for a job as important as Secretary of State, there is no
question Dr. Rice has proven her intelligence, knowledge, and hard work
through her academic career. She has three degrees, including a
doctorate, in Government and foreign policy. She has written numerous
books and articles on national defense and foreign policy topics. And
while serving as Provost at Stanford, she was also the top academic
officer of that prestigious university.
Rather than questioning Dr. Rice's qualifications, the few Senators
who have come to the floor to speak against her are simply playing
politics. I fear the Senators I listened to all day yesterday are
acting out of bitterness from the rejection of their ideas and
candidates at the polls last fall. They are attacking Dr. Rice in a
continuing effort to tear down our great President and to tear down his
policies that are bringing freedom and democracy to those who have
never experienced it. Worse yet, I fear some of my colleagues are
attacking Dr. Rice to paint a false picture of her because they believe
she may one day seek elected office, or even be an opponent at the
ballot box.
Well, I have no such concerns about Dr. Rice, and I have no problems
supporting her. Late last year I had the pleasure to sit down with Dr.
Rice and discuss her vision for our foreign policy and the State
Department. I was impressed by how clearly she discussed the war on
terrorism and our involvement in the Middle East. We are involved in an
effort to bring freedom, democracy, and individual rights to a region
of the world that has never known any of those things. Dr. Rice
understands that those changes will not happen in just a few months or
years. It will take decades, if not generations, to see the Middle East
transform into a peaceful and stable region. The next few years are
critical to that effort, and I believe Dr. Rice is the right person to
lead our relations with Middle Eastern nations as well as all nations
around the world.
Mr. President, I am confident the Senate will overwhelmingly confirm
Dr. Rice, and I wish her well. She has a huge task ahead of her,
including bringing accountability to the United Nations and getting to
the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal, and I hope this body will be
responsive to her needs as she works to promote freedom and our
national security.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the vote on whether to confirm
Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State is a difficult decision. The
administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any
reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstatements, and
misjudgments. From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were inadequately
prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few troops and an
inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq. Today, we are reaping the
consequences of those decisions with continuing tragic losses of
American and Iraqi lives, a full-fledged insurgency in Iraq and a lack
of security and stability in many areas. In fact, the National
Intelligence Council, the CIA's own think tank, recently stated that
Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the prime international terrorist
haven--a deeply disturbing result of our problematic policies.
In her role as National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice was a member of
the team responsible for our flawed Iraq policy. She made several
misleading statements about the presence of weapons of mass destruction
in the lead up to the war. And in the almost 2 years since the Iraq
invasion, the flawed policies on Iraq have not been corrected. Indeed,
Dr. Rice has tremendous difficulty in even admitting error though
obvious errors abound. In addition, $18 billion has been appropriated
for the reconstruction of Iraq, but only a tiny percentage of that
money has actually been spent because of the violence in Iraq.
Although I profoundly disagree and deeply regret how this war has
been conducted, my concern has less to do with Dr. Rice and more to do
with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. The
fact is that the President was reelected, and, though I was strongly
opposed to his reelection, he was reelected nonetheless. I do not
believe, however, that accountability ends with an election. We are all
public servants, including the President and his team, and we are all
therefore accountable to the public for our achievements and mistakes
on a continual basis. We are also accountable to the future and to
history.
So while I, and many of my colleagues, have strong concerns about her
role in the development of a flawed Iraq policy, an overwhelming
majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including a large
majority of committee Democrats, voted in favor of forwarding her
nomination to the full Senate. While many of my Democratic colleagues
on the committee, including the ranking member, share my concern over
her role in our Iraq policy, they think it worthwhile to give her a
chance in this new role. That judgment, from Senators who had the
opportunity to probe and question Dr. Rice on her qualifications, tips
the balance in favor of voting for Dr. Rice's nomination to be
Secretary of State, in my mind.
I am hopeful that Dr. Rice's background and training will enable her
to serve as Secretary of State with distinction and that she will carry
the lessons of our policy failures in Iraq with her as she leads the
Department of State. She does have the President's ear and I hope she
will use her role to direct the President's attention to addressing our
frayed alliances in Europe, our relationships with Latin America, our
policy toward Russia, nuclear proliferation around the world,
especially in Iran and North Korea, personal sustained attention to new
opportunities
[[Page S522]]
for lasting security and peace in the Middle East, problems and
opportunities posed by China, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan and to
lead the world's efforts to address the global crises of AIDS and other
diseases, environmental degradation, poverty, education and health care
in the developing world, and human rights.
As National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice's role was to advise the
President. The Secretary of State has a different role as the Nation's
chief diplomat. Dr. Rice's proposed appointments to senior positions
within the State Department are well-qualified experienced personnel.
I am hopeful that Dr. Rice's statements during the recent hearings in
support of reaching out to allies, public diplomacy and building
coalitions will be more than words, but instead describe a genuine
effort to ensure that our country leads the world though its strong
alliances, values and example.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that we have had a few more days
to consider and hours to discuss this nomination. Some have suggested
that we should have simply ``voice voted'' Dr. Rice's nomination so she
could be confirmed in time for the inauguration. Senators are here to
advise and consent, not rubber stamp for the White House's convenience.
We needed this extra time for debate. The Secretary of State is the
chief foreign policy adviser to the President and fourth in the line of
Presidential succession. And, like some other Senators, I was
disappointed by Dr. Rice's testimony before the Foreign Relations
Committee last week.
I had hoped that her testimony would demonstrate the kind of
forthright, objective analysis that I believe we need in a Secretary of
State. Unfortunately, it did not. I share the serious concerns
expressed by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry, and I commend them and
other Senators for voicing them.
I have not been impressed with Dr. Rice's performance as National
Security Adviser. Strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment have
been far less evident at the National Security Council during her
tenure than I would have liked.
I also believe that she has not always been forthright with Congress
or the American people. She contributed to the exaggerated public
statements, false information in the President's State of the Union
speech about Iraq's supposed attempts to acquire nuclear material, and
the selective declassification of intelligence, which helped to create
an atmosphere of hysteria that led us into war in Iraq. She and others
created the false--the false--impression that Iraq posed an imminent
threat to the United States.
These were serious failures, made worse by Dr. Rice's unwavering
advocacy and support for the administration's policies that have cost
the lives of over 1,300 American soldiers and an estimated 100,000
Iraqis, many of them noncombatants.
It has alienated our friends and allies and convinced many of the
world's Muslims that we are at war with Islam itself. It led to the
atrocities at Abu Ghraib. It has added $200 billion to the Federal
deficit and at the rate we are going that is only a down payment.
There are now 150,000 American troops, many of them National Guard
and Reserve, bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq that has become a
haven for terrorists.
Yet Dr. Rice refuses to own up to the Administration's failures. When
confronted with her own glaringly inconsistent statements regarding
weapons of mass destruction which were the primary justification for
the war, she responded that the question unfairly impugned her
integrity.
She had an opportunity to reassure her detractors, and believe me
there are many in my State of Vermont, when she testified last week.
She declined to do so, and that was disappointing and frustrating to
those of us who want her to succeed in her new position.
My vote in favor of Dr. Rice is difficult to explain. It is more the
product of a belief than a cold analysis of her record. I believe that
Dr. Rice is capable of learning from her mistakes and changing her
ways. That she will rise to this new challenge. That she can be a good
Secretary of State.
The other major reason I am voting in favor of Dr. Rice's nomination
is that I am the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee.
In this capacity, I have a responsibility to work with the Secretary of
State, on a daily basis, to tackle a full range of international issues
critical to the United States and the rest of the world: AIDS and other
global health issues, human rights, the United Nations, terrorism, the
environment, women's rights, poverty, corruption, to name just a few.
By voting for Dr. Rice's nomination, I am sending a clear message: I
want to get this important working relationship started on the right
track. I hope that my vote will be a step towards a more constructive
U.S. foreign policy. After all, it is these policies that ultimately
impact the lives of billions of people around the world.
During the first term, the Bush administration dug a deep hole:
relationships with our oldest allies are badly strained, Iraq is a
mess, and our own country is badly divided.
We need to come together as a Nation to deal with these and many
other problems. But coming together does not mean ignoring valid
criticism, embarking on a policy that pleases only one side of the
aisle, and accusing those opposed of being un-American or unpatriotic.
Criticism and dissent are the essence of democracy, the essence of
patriotism.
Coming together means genuine consultations with members of both
political parties, and policies which reflect a range of views even if
they do not fit into preconceived ideologies.
As I said, I hope that my vote here today will, in some small way,
help begin this process. I hope it will allow us to get back to the
real practice of the Vandenberg rule--that politics end at the water's
edge--and away from the slash and burn politics practiced during the
first term of the Bush administration.
I hope that Dr. Rice will meet me half way. I want to work with her
on the many pressing issues that concern both Democrats and
Republicans, including the issues of freedom and human rights that the
President spoke of in his inaugural address that are so important not
only to Americans, but to people everywhere.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Dr. Condoleezza
Rice to be our next Secretary of State. I am pleased to echo the
sentiments of many of my colleagues--Dr. Rice's accomplishments are
inspirational, and she sets an amazing role model for young people in
our Nation today.
We are considering a person for Secretary of State with an impressive
educational resume, a person who has lived through some of the most
trying eras of our history and who represents the best of America. Dr.
Condoleezza Rice is more than well qualified to be Secretary of State.
She served 6 years as the Provost of Stanford University. Under
President George H. W. Bush, she was Director and Senior Director of
Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and
a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
With her experience the last 4 years as National Security Adviser to
President Bush, she comes prepared for this position like no other
person could. She knows our President and his foreign policy and
national security issues. She will arrive at a new job with a full
understanding of the President's plan for our chief diplomat.
I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Rice during her tenure
as National Security Adviser. In 2001, Dr. Rice played an instrumental
role in the Senate's passage of S. 149, the Export Administration Act
of 2001, a bill I introduced in 2000. S. 149 was a strong bill that
would have modernized our national export control system for dual-use
items and technology. The bill, which required a risk-based analysis of
proposed exports and emphasized transparency and accountability,
garnered vocal support from the President, the Secretaries of Defense
and State, and our National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleeza Rice. The
support of Dr. Rice underscored the strength of the bill's national
security provisions. Unfortunately, Congress failed to pass S. 149 into
law before adjourning the 106th Congress.
As such, I look forward to working again with Dr. Rice in her new
capacity as Secretary of State on issues related to export controls. In
her new role, I believe she will be a leader within the interagency
process on dual-use
[[Page S523]]
exports, as well as an effective leader for the Office of Defense Trade
Controls, ODTC, which administers the International Traffic in Arms
Regulations, ITAR, and maintains the munitions list--a list of items
controlled for defense purposes. Dr. Rice's experience on the National
Security Council has well prepared her for a job that will require a
fair and realistic approach to controlling both defense and dual-use
exports.
We must ensure that our export control system keeps sensitive items
and technology out of the hands of the terrorists and other bad actors.
At the same time, we must also make sure our troops and allies, who are
fighting every day for freedom and democracy, have access to the best
and most technologically advanced tools of our time. This will take
forward thinking from all the Departments responsible for controlling
defense and dual-use items, including the Department of State. Our
export control policy must take into consideration the fact that the
U.S. military and private high-tech companies are codependent Private
companies are pushing the technological envelope for both militarily
critical and civilian products. And we must work toward a system that
allows these companies to continue growing and developing so as not to
stifle the military's rate of technological advancement. I believe Dr.
Rice will provide an intelligent and knowledgeable voice in this
endeavor.
I have been disappointed with the comments made by some of my
colleagues. While we all certainly have the right and duty to disagree
on policy and procedures, the nature of some comments have gone beyond
what is appropriate for this body. I strongly believe the character of
Dr. Rice and her integrity are above reproach. The criticism heard
here, unfortunately, reaches beyond the Senate and far beyond
Washington.
I remind my colleagues that when we speak on the Senate floor, our
words are heard by brave men and women serving overseas. Our words are
heard by their families and their friends who make it possible for them
to serve our Nation so well. I hope we all remember that as we debate
the merits of our foreign policy and the nomination of Dr. Rice.
I am pleased to again state my support for the nomination of Dr.
Rice. Her experience, her dedication, her integrity, and her character
will make her a good representative of our Nation.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have serious reservations about the
nomination of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.
While I believe that the President deserves the opportunity to select
his own team in the construction of his Cabinet, the confirmation
process is one which gives the U.S. Senate the opportunity to reject a
selection that it feels would not be in the best interest of our
country.
The nomination of National Security Advisor Rice to become Secretary
of State has been troubling to me because she was a part of the
dispensing of intelligence information to justify the war in Iraq. That
intelligence turned out to be fundamentally wrong.
There is no question that Ms. Rice has the intellect, the academic
background, and the work history to justify this nomination. She is
extraordinarily talented and skilled. But even so, I have significant
reservations about her role in the use of intelligence leading up to
the Iraq war.
I recognize she was working for and representing the President, the
Vice President, and others in the administration, but nonetheless she
too must bear responsibility for some very significant mistakes.
I sought out Condoleezza Rice yesterday for a personal conversation
about a number of the issues that concerned me. We had a full and
lengthy discussion about those matters, especially the use of
intelligence leading up to the war.
I've decided after much reflection that I will cast a vote for her
confirmation, but it is a close call for me. I fervently hope that this
administration, including the President and the new Secretary of State,
will rethink some of the foreign policy initiatives that I believe have
made our country less secure--not more secure.
So I will cast a yes vote with reservations and hope that this
administration has learned from the serious mistakes in foreign policy
it has made in its first term.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination
of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. Dr. Rice is
professionally competent and accomplished. Her academic background is
impressive and she has the diplomatic skills necessary to serve as
Secretary of State. I intend to vote in favor of her nomination, but
not without expressing serious reservations and concerns. This
administration's first term was marked by a series of failures and
miscalculations that have cost this country dearly. Dr. Rice, as
National Security Adviser, must bear some of the responsibility for
these mistakes. Now, however, she also has an opportunity to correct
them. I will therefore cast this vote with the hope and expectation
that she will work with the Congress to forge a new approach to our
foreign policy.
Dr. Rice's tasks, if she is eventually confirmed, are numerous and
daunting.
The administration should be rapidly expanding efforts to stop the
proliferation of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and
throughout the world. The prospect of these materials in the hands of
terrorists is truly the greatest risk to our national security.
Mobilizing our allies in a concerted and coordinated effort to stop
Iran's nuclear program must also be at the top of the new Secretary's
agenda.
Additionally, the administration must finally engage with the rest of
the world in addressing global climate change. Almost every day, new
scientific evidence raises the world's concern and challenges our fate.
The administration should also expand efforts to combat HIV/AIDS to
include India and other second-tier countries. Thus far, its words have
been right, but the financial reality has fallen short.
We should fully fund our development and disaster assistance accounts
and finally meet the promises of the Millennium Challenge Account.
The administration, working with our allies, needs to broaden nation-
building efforts in Afghanistan so that warlords and narcotics do not
destroy the hope of Afghan democracy.
And it must confront human rights abusers, not just in the ``outposts
of tyranny'' mentioned by Dr. Rice in her testimony to the Foreign
Relations Committee, but in Saudi Arabia, China, Central Asia and
throughout the world.
And, we must address these and many other challenges with a new
commitment to our alliances. For 50 years, American leadership helped
build international institutions to fight common threats and promote
the common good. We drafted treaties to articulate universal values and
entrench them in international law. And we constructed great military
alliances to protect not just ourselves but our friends overseas. With
a renewed commitment to alliance building and real engagement around
the world, we can begin to end our own current isolation, rescue the
reputation of U.S. policy overseas, and bring the resources of our
friends and allies to bear on the global challenges we all face.
While Dr. Rice will face many challenges ahead, I intend to speak in
detail today on two topics: Iraq and Darfur.
The administration's approach to Iraq has been disastrous from the
start. The intelligence used by the administration on weapons of mass
destruction and links to al Qaeda were flat wrong. We must begin to
learn the lesson of this colossal failure and ensure that we have
accurate, objective intelligence. I have and will continue to call for
a full accounting of the development and use of the intelligence that
led us into Iraq. But in the coming years, I also expect our Secretary
of State to join in demanding real intelligence reform. Without it, we
will be unable to stabilize Iraq or confront other current and future
threats. Our foreign policy must be based on an understanding of our
enemies. And our policies and the intelligence behind them must be
credible with our friends.
The Administration's approach to the war in Iraq was disastrously
unilateral. It ignored the weapons inspectors, rejected our allies, and
ended up isolating America. The result of these policies is now borne
by our troops, who are fighting nearly alone in Iraq, and by American
taxpayers, who are
[[Page S524]]
paying 90 percent of the costs of the war. We cannot afford to continue
in this vein. I hope that, in this second term, the administration will
recognize the heavy costs of unilateralism and place a priority on
diplomacy and alliances. With Iraqi elections less than a week away,
the new Secretary of State can begin by acknowledging that ballots do
not equal democracy, and that the hard work of stabilizing Iraq will
require a concerted global effort. Intellectual honesty is a must for
this administration and for our Secretary of State.
There have been a series of miscalculations with regard to almost
every aspect of the occupation. The administration failed to commit
sufficient troops. It did not consider the political, military and
economic challenges inherent in occupying a foreign country. It
anticipated neither an insurgency nor sectarian and ethnic conflict. It
permitted looting and chaos, when order was so critical. It failed to
raise an Iraqi security force before the insurgency was already raging.
And its confused policies regarding detention and interrogation led to
the abuses at Abu Ghraib. On the international stage and in Iraq
itself, the damage caused by these mistakes must be addressed head on.
Trust must be rebuilt, through candor and through real changes in
policy.
Another great challenge facing the new Secretary of State is Darfur.
Secretary of State Powell's declaration of September 9, 2004 that
genocide was occurring was appropriate, and I applauded the
administration at the time. But having made that declaration, we cannot
allow genocide to continue. Nor is the reluctance of other nations to
take a tougher position an excuse for inaction. In her testimony to the
Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Rice stated that the reason the U.N.
Security Council resolutions on Darfur have been so weak was because
other members of the Council opposed sanctions against Khartoum. While
this is true, it is time to put real pressure on those countries.
Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake in Darfur. We cannot accept
business as usual at the U.N. If our bilateral relations with countries
that oppose action to stop the genocide suffer, then that is how it
should be. Saving lives, stopping genocide is the high ground. It is a
moral imperative.
But through principled and sustained leadership, we have an
opportunity to find common ground with our allies and partners. Next
week, a U.N. Commission is expected to identify those in Sudan
responsible for crimes against humanity. This is the time for
accountability. All parties need to put aside their own agendas and do
what is right for the sake of stopping this genocide, and deterring
future crimes against humanity. Those countries who have opposed
sanctions against Sudan need to accept the findings of the Commission
and change course. And the administration should be open to all forms
of justice and accountability, including the International Criminal
Court.
This week, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special
session to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the
Nazi death camps. This session is convening in the spirit of ``never
again.'' Soon we have the names of those committing genocide, brought
to us by a U.N. Commission established thanks to pressure from the
United States. We must not allow ideology to stand in the way of
accountability. Referring this case to the ICC will not threaten any
Americans. Rather, it will push the ICC toward the purpose for which it
was created and affirm America's leadership with regard to universal
values of justice and accountability.
Finally, on Darfur, we must push harder for the full deployment of
African Union troops. Dr. Rice testified that only a third of a 3,300
person AU force is currently in Darfur. It has been more than 4 months
since the U.N. Security Council called for the ``rapid expansion'' of
the AU force. Congress has appropriated $75 million specifically for
this expansion. Getting those troops in place immediately and providing
them with all the resources they need to succeed must be a top priority
for the new Secretary of State.
And if they succeed, this success will ripple outward across Africa.
Having stopped a genocide, visionary African leaders will be positioned
to address future crises on the continent and the AU will have taken an
important step forward as a credible and forceful institution.
Darfur represents an opportunity for this administration to live up
to the words articulated by the President in his inaugural address.
The President said, ``All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can
know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your
oppressors.'' How, then, can we stand by in the face of genocide?
The President, quoting Abraham Lincoln, said, ``Those who deny
freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of
a just God, cannot long retain it.'' With the names of those
responsible for the killing in Darfur, are we not obligated to see
justice served?
And the President, speaking to our allies, said, ``We honor your
friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help.'' When
the African Union expresses a desire to deploy an effective force in
Darfur, how can we not do everything in our power to make sure that
they succeed?
The challenges ahead our many. And this administration, in its first
term, has made many mistakes. But the collective wisdom of America is
great. Our new Secretary of State and the rest of the Administration's
national security team can, if it chooses, work together with Congress
and forge a new approach--one that will make us safer and create a
better world.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the pending
nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. First, I start
off by commending the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Lugar and Biden, for their
efforts to ensure that all members had the time to engage Dr. Rice and
to express their thoughts on this very important nomination. I would
also like to thank Dr. Rice for her willingness to devote as much time
as necessary to answer our questions.
Unlike many other confirmation hearings for Secretary of State, the
nominee before us is well known to Congress and to the American people.
She has a distinguished record as an academic and has served in many
important positions as a public servant. Clearly, she has the requisite
skills and experience for this post.
Rightly, the focus of last Tuesday's and Wednesday's committee
hearings concerned in great part her role as the President's National
Security Advisor in the first term and her vision of what our foreign
policy should be in the second term. It is no secret that many of us on
the committee have had our differences with the Bush administration's
foreign policy agenda during these past 4 years. Nonetheless, I had
hoped that the hearings with Dr. Rice would demonstrate that she had
grown somewhat intellectually and would be prepared be more analytical
about the strengthens and weaknesses of U.S. policy over the past, 4
years. Sadly that has not been the case.
Instead, I have come away with the impression that when it comes to
our foreign policy agenda, it is likely that we can expect more of the
same when it comes to policy priorities. As well, I have every reason
to believe following these interactions that the lack of transparency
and accountability which was the hallmark of this administration in the
first term will continue into the foreseeable future. These flaws have
led the United States to have a negative image both domestically and
abroad.
It now appears that little will change in that regard.
For example, Dr. Rice's comments, or lack thereof, on the issue of
torture were startling to this Senator, as I presume they were to many
of my colleagues. I asked her a simple question, whether or not she
felt that on the issue of certain interrogation techniques such as
water boarding, forced nudity, and the use of stress positions are
tantamount to torture. I asked her to consider this not in the context
of whether or not members of al-Qaida are covered by the Geneva
Conventions but as a human being reflecting on the actions of one
person against another. My question was straightforward; however, Dr.
Rice's answer was anything but. In fact, at no point did she provide
[[Page S525]]
a clear answer to the question I posed. Disturbingly, her lack of a
clear answer implies that she neither defines these methods as torture
nor opposes their use in the war on terror.
International laws and treaties exist for the protection of all
parties. They contribute to security and to a more humane world.
Agreements such as the Geneva Convention project to the world the
values we hold so dear in America, liberty, freedom, the rule of law.
We are better intrinsically for abiding by them, and we are better
off--Americans are safer--when we successfully protect the values they
enshrine.
After all, following World War II, our Nation insisted on trying Nazi
war criminals, people who were guilty of the most heinous crimes ever
committed against humanity.
We insisted on this because we understood the importance of the rule
of law, of being better than the enemy, and that this was the most
effective way to spread our values, our common cause against tyranny.
Of all the memories I hold dear, I am proud of none more than that of
the role my father played as a prosecutor at those trials in Nuremburg.
Dr. Rice chose not to answer my simple question. She had a chance to
speak to the whole world yesterday and today to convey the message as
to how she will address this issue. I think she is off to a poor start.
And I would recommend, for the sake of our national security and
American citizens globally that she should reflect upon this subject
matter when she assumes her duties as Secretary of State.
I am also troubled by her unwillingness to admit that there were any
mistakes made by the Bush administration with respect to the
preparation for the war and its aftermath. Even after all the deaths
and instability that have plagued Iraq since the U.S. invasion of 2003,
Dr. Rice does not appear to have any second thoughts about decisions
taken with respect to Iraq. Surely, mistakes have been made. But Dr.
Rice appears inclined to follow in the President's footsteps of not
being willing to admit mistakes. She was reluctant to admit even the
most glaring mistake, that Iraq did not possess WMD, even though that
was the fundamental rationale behind the Bush administration's original
drive to go to war.
In addition, it was painfully obvious that Dr. Rice does not
currently have much of a feel for policy in the Western Hemisphere.
With respect to Venezuela, she seems determined to pursue the same path
that has done nothing to further democracy, and which has instead made
it easy for President Hugo Chavez to vilify the United States. With
respect to Cuba, she seems stuck in a 40-year-old fixation on a 78-
year-old man, a mode of thought that is outdated, counterintuitive, and
ultimately has proven itself unsuccessful. Our inane policy toward that
island nation is exemplified by the fact that it is the only country in
the entire world to which the U.S. Government prevents its citizens
from traveling. Americans can travel to Iran and North Korea, two
nations that are unarguably more threatening, but not to Cuba. Yet, Dr.
Rice seems intent on retaining these failed policies.
I also took note of her refusal to provide a straight answer to
questions she was asked regarding a recent article about U.S. plans for
military action against Iran, which was written by the respected
journalist Seymour Hersh and published in the most recent edition of
the New Yorker magazine. Dr. Rice contended that the article was full
of inaccuracies. However, the question put to her by Senator Kerry was
quite specific, is the article's contention about U.S. plans with
respect to Iran true or false. That is a simple question with a one
word answer. If that particular part of the article is inaccurate, it
would have been easy and painless to say so. Her lack of candor did not
appear to have anything to do with the information being classified.
Had that been the case, Dr. Rice could simply have responded that any
information regarding the matter would have to be discussed in a
classified briefing. But she did not.
All of these issues I have discussed are troubling to say the least.
They raise very serious concerns about the direction our foreign policy
will take over the next 4 years. Nonetheless, I believe that except in
extraordinary circumstances, the President has the right to choose his
or her Secretary of State. Therefore it is with serious reservations
that I voted to report this nomination favorably to the full Senate and
will support her confirmation when the full Senate votes on this
matter. However, I would offer some words of advice to Dr. Rice. First,
that she reflect upon some of the issues and concerns raised during her
confirmation hearings. And second, that she never forget as Secretary
of State that she is not just the President's representative, she is
the representative of the American people. She should never forget
that.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, President Bush made an excellent choice
in nominating Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's next Secretary of
State. She has both the professional experience and the personal
integrity to make a great Secretary of State.
I cannot think of a candidate more qualified to be Secretary of State
than Condoleezza Rice. Dr. Rice's experience and expertise are truly
multi-facted. She is a distinguished public servant and has led one of
our country's most distinguished universities. She has 25 years of
experience in foreign policy, having served three Presidents as a key
advisor.
She has led the President's national security team with strength and
expertise. A short list of her many accomplishments include developing
six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear program, helping
to design the President's landmark emergency AIDS relief package, and
strengthening relations with Russia and China. In her capacity as
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice has developed personal working
relationships with international leaders and governments that will
enable her to nurture alliances and conduct effective diplomacy around
the world. She was instrumental in developing the administration's
response to 9/11 and a new framework for United States policy in the
Middle East.
Most important, Condoleezza Rice has the trust and confidence of the
President. She has served the President as a loyal and trusted advisor.
When she speaks to foreign leaders as Secretary of State, they will
know that Dr. Rice is speaking on behalf of the President.
I have had the honor of working closely with Dr. Rice on many
occasions over the past 4 years. In particular, Dr. Rice's support was
extremely helpful to me and to my colleague Senator Lieberman as we
undertook the Herculean task of reforming our intelligence community in
the last Congress. Dr. Rice helped us overcome the obstacles we faced
to ensure the bill became law, and for that, she has my gratitude.
Having a strong foreign policy vision is critical to success in the
war on terrorism. Condoleezza Rice is the right person for the job. Dr.
Rice will make an outstanding Secretary of State, and I look forward to
working with her in the coming years.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be casting my vote in support of the
nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as our next Secretary of State. Dr.
Rice currently serves as President Bush's National Security Advisor. In
that position, she has earned the trust and the confidence of the
President. Her stellar credentials and her remarkable success story,
despite the barriers of segregation in Birmingham, AL, are an
inspiration.
Dr. Rice will assume the job of our Nation's top diplomat not only
during a time of war but also during a time in which the United States
faces countless other challenges. In short, Dr. Rice will have her work
cut out for her. As she noted in her opening statement to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, ``We must use American diplomacy to help
create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the
time for diplomacy is now.'' Indeed. The extent to which we have
alienated our allies and aroused suspicion about our policies is
breathtaking in contrast to the tremendous support and sympathy we
experienced in the aftermath of 9/11. Even as we pour hundreds of
billions of dollars into our efforts in the Middle East, there is much
that needs to be done to win the war of ideas in the Muslim world and
beyond.
There are many lofty ideals which the President extolled in his
inaugural
[[Page S526]]
address--democracy and freedom, liberty for all--these are ideals we
all share. Our Secretary of State must recognize, however, that ideals
are meaningless if they do not inform the specifics of our policies.
Where we must work to find common ground is in how to realize these
ideals. I look forward to working with the next Secretary of State as
we craft the State Department's budget and as we strive for a foreign
policy we can all embrace.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today on the nomination of Dr.
Condoleezza Rice to serve as Secretary of State.
I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch
nominees: competence, integrity and commitment to the core mission of
the Department. On the basis of those criteria, I will vote to confirm
Dr. Rice.
Yet I do have concerns. This vote is not an endorsement of President
Bush's foreign and defense policy as we saw it during Dr. Rice's tenure
as National Security Advisor.
I have serious concerns with the way we went to war with Iraq: With
the overblown assertions of the threat to the United States; with the
deeply flawed intelligence analysis from a few biased sources presented
as facts; with the failure to build a strong international coalition;
with the failure to prepare and send sufficient forces to deal with the
aftermath of removing Saddam from power; and with the failure to
prepare by providing our own troops the protective equipment they
needed to carry out their missions and come home safe.
I know a lot of the responsibility for those failures rests with the
Secretary of Defense.
I hope that Dr. Rice's service as Secretary of State will be historic
not only because she will be the first African American woman to hold
that office. I hope that Dr. Rice will make history by exercising true
leadership at the State Department: Rebuilding our tattered
international relationships and alliances; seeking to achieve lasting
peace in the Middle East and other conflicts; mobilizing the world to
meet humanitarian and development needs; and serving as an effective
CEO of the State Department to ensure that our dedicated public
servants have safe embassies and the resources they need to effectively
formulate policy and represent the United States around the world.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is a very sad day when we hear
that we lost somewhere around 37 or 38 of our finest in the Marine
Corps with the crash of a helicopter and additional deaths from the
ground fight.
Like everyone here, this information is very painful to me. I have
had the experience, as most of my colleagues have, to visit with
families as their sons and daughters are buried as a result of their
exposure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the military.
Most recently, about 2 weeks ago, I went to a funeral in New Jersey
for a 19-year-old marine corporal. I sat with the family who was very
proud of their son's contribution to his country. Twin brothers, young
men were making comments at the funeral, participating in the eulogy,
and the parents, grief stricken about the loss of this wonderful,
apparently, young man. I did not know him, but the history of his short
years was resplendent with good accomplishments in school.
I mention that because it sets the tone for my feelings about how we
portray this war to the American public.
I am a veteran of a war a long time ago. As a matter of fact, I think
I am one of three remaining here from World War II. The experiences
are, though such a long time ago, still vivid in my mind. I remember
the enthusiasm of my friends in high school--I was 18 when I enlisted
in the Army--and those in the community and how spirited the support
was for everything we did.
I do not see any failing of support for our troops in the theater. We
are ready to do whatever we have to to make sure they have the materiel
they need. On a visit I made in March of this past year with four other
Senators, it was distressful to learn, as we visited with the young
people who were doing the fighting there, that they did not have
everything they needed. I talked with a small group from New Jersey--
eight enlisted personnel and one young captain. I asked if there was
anything they needed to conduct their service that would help them.
They were reluctant to complain, but finally this young captain stood
up and said: Senator, the flack vest you are wearing is the best that
money can buy. I see these vests on some members of the coalition, but
we don't have them, Senator, and I would like to ask why.
He said further: When one of our humvees is hit with a rocket grenade
or other weapon, very often they will go up in flames, like a
firecracker.
He talked about a rifle that was issued to some of the other troops
and how much more reliable it was, how much lighter it was, how much
easier it was to carry.
I was very upset at hearing that news because the last thing that any
of our soldiers should have to do is worry about whether they have the
best equipment or whether their lives are going to be protected.
I went to visit at Walter Reed Hospital and saw a fellow who was
banged up a little bit. His companion friend with whom he had been
injured in Iraq said: You know, if we had not had the new vests, my
friend here would have been dead. But he had one of those new vests,
and it really helped. He is alive and recovering.
When I saw that families, in many instances, sent gifts of an article
or funds to buy a vest that would protect their loved ones, privately
raised money to send a vest for a soldier that we sent over there to
fight for our views, and we can't provide the equipment? That set a
tone for me, and I must say that many questions arose in my mind as to
whether the information we were getting was credible information about
all of these commitments that were being talked about from the
administration about how we were going to do everything we could to
protect our troops. It was not true. No, it was not true.
We did not have enough soldiers over there to do the job starting
early in this campaign. We have been reminded on this floor a dozen
times that General Shinseki, Chief of the Army, said we needed 300,000
troops to do this job. And, instead, we skinnied it on down and sent
130,000. They could not protect themselves. The cost was a horrible
cost. Lots of young ones died. And now over 1,400 have died as a result
of the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 40 people from the State of
New Jersey. I care about those. I am sure all of our colleagues care
about the casualties that we have suffered in this war. One cannot be
indifferent to a reminder that we are deep in the mud and we do not
know when our troops are coming home and we do not know how many more
we are going to lose before this endeavor is over.
So for me, the question centers around the information supply that we
had: How did we make so many mistakes about weapons of mass
destruction? How did we make so many mistakes about how we were going
to be treated when we got there? How did we make so many mistakes when
it was said we would be there for a short stay, that we would turn this
job over to the Iraqis and they would take care of it and we would get
out of there in time?
It was not true. No, it was not true. Unfortunately, when Dr.
Condoleezza Rice's credentials were presented it was quite a review,
quite a hearing, in the committee of jurisdiction. When they tried to
find out more about how she would be acting as the Secretary of State,
the Foreign Relations Committee did their job very well.
I do not question her extensive and impressive experience in academia
and foreign policy. What I question today is her judgment and her
ability to be candid with the American people and the Congress about
critical information. No, those are not the things we question. What we
question is the attention being given to detail. What we question is
the attention being given to the commentary that arose in that
committee.
During her confirmation, she had many opportunities to reflect on
early decisions that were made in statements on Iraq in her position as
National Security Adviser to the President, but when Dr. Rice was
confronted with her misstatements and inaccuracies she refused to
acknowledge any errors or take responsibility. I found that very
disappointing.
During her hearing, Dr. Rice was given a chance to correct the record
about what she said about Iraq being a
[[Page S527]]
nuclear threat to the United States. Prior to the war, Dr. Rice stated
that the smoking gun in Iraq could come in the form of a mushroom
cloud. What an assertion that is, a mushroom cloud. That means a
nuclear bomb. It means perhaps millions being killed. There was this
specter of that kind of damage, that kind of catastrophe, because there
were weapons of mass destruction in play there that were available to
Saddam Hussein, but we know the evidence to that effect was not there.
In January 2004, the U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay announced
his group found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled any weapons of
mass destruction before our invasion. In October 2004, less than 6
months ago, the Duelfer report was released and contradicted the
administration's prewar contention that Iraq had a strong WMD, weapons
of mass destruction, program. The Duelfer report's conclusions are so
definitive they compelled the administration to announce earlier this
month that the search for WMD had officially ended.
Despite all of that information, Dr. Rice refused to admit at her
hearing that she made serious mistakes in continuously overstating
Iraq's nuclear capabilities. At her hearing, Dr. Rice was also given
the chance to speak honestly about the current size of Iraq's security
forces. She said that 120,000 Iraqis have been trained so far, but a
much more accurate on-the-ground assessment reveals that only 4,000
have been trained. Imagine, on the one hand Dr. Rice said 120,000
Iraqis have been trained and we are trying to get out of there and what
we need is a force that is able and large enough and trained well
enough so we can bring our kids home, reunite our families.
Four thousand have been trained. We are so far away from having that
force ready to take over that no one can tell what the timeframe might
be.
When I was in Iraq, I went to a training facility for police
officers. About every 6 weeks they graduated 80 officers, and we needed
53,000. So that meant, using the 6-week factor and calculating that by
10, we might be training 800 of these police officers a year, and we
need 53,000. Yet we cannot now even find the truth out about what it is
that is required.
Dr. Rice also could not explain or at least she would not explain to
the committee what our exit strategy is or should be for Iraq. Here she
simply chose not to answer the question at all. With more than 1,400 of
our brave young men and women in uniform killed, including 48 with ties
to my home State of New Jersey, I believe we deserved an answer.
Instead, Dr. Rice chose silence.
When it comes to Iraq, unfortunately this administration has lost its
credibility with the American people and with the global community, and
it is the job of the Secretary of State to restore our credibility
abroad, especially with our allies. In my view, promoting Dr. Rice to
the position of Secretary of State puts a stamp of approval on the
administration's policies and actions, and I cannot, in good faith, go
along with that. Despite ample opportunity, Dr. Rice has shown no
inclination to be more forthright about any of the mistakes she and
this administration made and continue to make in Iraq or indicate that
any change in course might be necessary. I find that very troubling.
Therefore, I feel compelled to vote against her confirmation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides at this
stage?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 14 minutes
remaining, and the Senator from Delaware has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. LUGAR. There is 14 minutes and 1 minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my understanding is the majority leader is
en route to the floor. He had responsibilities in the House of
Representatives for a period of time. The distinguished Democratic
leader is on the floor. It is his desire to wait until the majority
leader is present, and both, as I understand, will make final comments,
if necessary using leader time. Therefore, Mr. President, I will speak
at this point, utilizing the time allotted to our side with a final
argument.
Mr. President, I appreciated, as did the Senator from New Mexico, the
comments of our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator
Lieberman, when he discussed really the long debate we have had with
regard to the conduct of the war in Iraq, of the conduct of the war
against terrorism, which involves Iraq. Clearly, Senator Lieberman is
accurate when he points out that essentially we have had many
disagreements about the prewar planning, the problems of the
dislocation of all of the Iraqi security forces, the great dilemmas we
have had as we approach now the elections and the fledgling democracy
we hope Iraqis will be able to fashion as they formulate a constitution
and elect the officials of their country.
The security situation remains extremely precarious for American
troops and those who are with us in Iraq attempting to help Iraqis
provide security for their villages and for their countryside. There
are clearly differences of opinion as to how well all of these
activities have been conducted, but I think, in recognition of how very
difficult it has been for decisionmakers, a general consensus is that
the batting average has been good, even if not perfect. But Senator
Lieberman made the point that now, at this particular moment, as we
vote today to confirm a Secretary of State, we are a united group in
this Senate on the need for success in Iraq.
There should be no doubt on the part of all who are about to cast
their ballots in Iraq and take the chances that are posed when they are
threatened really with loss of life for their willingness to exercise a
franchise, it should be clear we are united back here.
This is not a fractious group, I hope, today that gives any
sustenance of hope to the insurgents, to those who are attempting to
formulate disaster in the Middle East that the face of America is not a
united face.
I make this point because the person we are about to confirm as
Secretary of State will be, aside from the President of the United
States, the most prominent spokesperson, the most prominent diplomat
making the case for the United States of America and for each of us on
this Senate floor as proud Americans. And it is very important, now
that we have had a full discussion of arguments on deficiencies, things
we must do better, institutions we must improve, simply to note how
important it is to the world to have confidence we know what we are
doing and that we are prepared at least to continually discuss this in
the same candid way we have done, but then to come together and say
this is our President, this is our Secretary of State, this is our
policy.
I am very hopeful that the vote for Dr. Rice will be a very strong
vote. I do not depreciate for a moment the right or desire of those who
may have a heartfelt need to say no. That is a great privilege we all
exercise. But a lot is at stake today in saying yes, and saying yes
together in as large a number as we can muster when the roll is called
is important because this is a person who will be Secretary of State,
and this is a vote that will be memorable. It is not in any way a
trivial pursuit or time of fractious odds or a time to be spoilers.
This is for our country at a time to be the very best we can be as
Senators.
I have reiterated the record of our hearings and I have appreciated
very much the cooperation and, beyond that, the friendship of the
distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, because the both of us
have shared from time to time with witnesses who have come before our
committee considerable anxieties about the policies they were pursuing
or some they were not pursuing, or questions we were raising we felt
they perhaps had not been raising and that they should. By my best
count, in the last 2 years, we have had 23 hearings on Iraq. That is a
lot of quality time devoted by good administration witnesses and other
experts, as well as by Senators, as I mentioned, in the long hearings
we had with Dr. Rice, and in the almost 200 questions raised before the
hearing and another 200 during the hearing. This is a lot of
questioning, a lot of information, a big record. So we took this
seriously, all 18 of us, plus Senator Feinstein of California, who
introduced Dr. Rice to the committee
[[Page S528]]
to begin with. Senators have taken it very seriously on the floor.
In my opening comments, I mentioned that at least 22 Senators spoke
yesterday and many spoke at length, with very sincere tributes to Dr.
Rice. Some of the Senators had very sincere questions about where we
are going and what we ought to be doing. But those preliminaries are
over. We come now to the moment of decision, and I hope and pray that
the vote will be a strong one for a candidate who in fact can be a
champion for us. Her entire life story, which has been touched upon,
but only barely--and perhaps this is a tribute to our next Secretary of
State, that we did not dwell on biography, although it is a dramatic
one out of Birmingham, AL. We did not dwell on racial background or on
the fact that a lady is going to be Secretary of State. We did not get
into many of the divisive arguments we often have as to where somebody
comes from and what their background is.
Dr. Rice was taken seriously from the beginning of the hearings and
throughout this debate as a world statesperson who knows a great deal,
who is extraordinarily intelligent and dedicated to this country and
extraordinarily courageous in speaking out as she has.
I add all this simply to say that I am hopeful Senators will vote for
Dr. Rice when we vote soon.
I will yield the floor in the hopes that our leader and the
distinguished minority leader will have an opportunity to make comments
before the Chair calls for the roll.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of leader time to the
Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 1
minute.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I don't speak for those who are going to
vote no today. But I think the irony here is that their no vote is a
demonstration of how clearly we are united on one point: We want to win
in Iraq.
The reason they are voting no is they believe Dr. Rice has misled, in
many ways, and as a consequence undermined our ability to succeed. I
choose to believe and take the opposite view. But I want to make it
clear that those who say no today are actually doing a service to the
Senate and possibly making it less likely that the Secretary of State
will be less candid with us, or not as candid as she has been in the
past. I think the no votes are likely to encourage candor, because that
is what it is about. They are voting no in large part because they
think she has not been candid and has undermined our ability to
succeed.
I look forward to working with Dr. Rice. I suspect there will be an
overwhelming vote. Please don't read a no vote as not being united in
the effort to win in Iraq. That is why some of my colleagues are voting
no; they think she has undermined our ability to win in Iraq. I choose
to differ with them, but we do not differ on the point that we need to
succeed in Iraq.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is all time used or yielded back?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Chair has noted we have 5 minutes. We
are hopeful of seeing our leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, he is here. He is waiting for my remarks to
conclude.
Mr. LUGAR. I will yield back our time and then the leaders may
proceed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden set a great
example for the rest of the Senate in the way they handled this most
important issue before this body and the way they handled that
committee in general. I admire and respect both of them.
But I do say to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, I listened
closely yesterday to the remarks and I read some of them today. The
remarks yesterday were troubling to me because most all of the remarks
yesterday criticized us--that is, the minority--for having this debate,
saying why didn't we complete the debate last Thursday when the
President was inaugurated.
The philosopher Voltaire once said, ``I may disagree with what you
have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.''
Every American who goes to school has seen that quote because it
reflects our most deeply cherished values and beliefs. Americans
believe in freedom of expression. We believe in democracy. We believe
in debate. That is why I have been disappointed that the administration
and most of the Republicans in this body have attempted to stifle
debate on the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State.
This job, this Cabinet office, is the most powerful and important
position in this or any administration. In my years in the Senate, I
have studied our rules and procedures, and I have studied them closely.
I have come to know them pretty well.
In my years on this Earth, I have studied the qualities and values
that I believe will help us become better people. One of those is
fairness--basic fairness. I have tried to uphold that value the best I
can. So between my knowledge of the Senate rules and my belief in the
importance of fairness, I know that we should be debating this
nomination. It is our job in the Senate to debate matters of importance
to the American people.
We are a deliberative body. We are the Senate of the United States.
Our Founding Fathers meant for us to carefully consider the matters
brought before us and make sure that our Government does not act
irrationally and without a plan and a vision for this country's future.
It is a matter of fairness that those who have concerns about Dr. Rice
be allowed to express them. Silence is not an important part of
American history, but debate is. ``Shut up and vote'' is not democracy.
It is especially important that we hold debate on Dr. Rice's nomination
because of the importance of the job for which she is being considered.
Our Secretary of State will be handling our foreign policy at a time
when we are at war and when our friendships and traditional allies have
been strained. In Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, Americans
face enormous threats and challenges every day. About 1,400 Americans
have died so far in Iraq, and more than 10,000 have been wounded, many
grievously wounded. Today, 31 Marines died in 1 incident in Iraq. An
estimated 40 troops have died in the last 2 days.
The American people have questions and should have questions, and
have concerns and should have concerns, about our plan in Iraq. Those
questions deserve answers and those concerns deserve to be addressed.
That is what the Senate should be doing. That is what we are all
about--asking questions on behalf of the American people. Instead,
people such as the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from
California have been criticized for not rubberstamping this nomination.
I don't think that is appropriate.
Nothing will matter more to the safety and security of our country
than our foreign policy decisions over the next few years. If any
nominee deserves scrutiny and rigorous debate, it is the nominee for
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
Democrats have had 4 hours of debate on Condoleezza Rice--4 hours of
debate on the most important Cabinet nomination the President, or any
President, can have. Can anyone say that 4 hours of debate dealing with
Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State of the United States is too
much? The American people all take longer to buy a car than what we
have debated on this nomination. If you want to buy a TV set, you look
around Circuit City and other places, and it takes 4 hours. Shouldn't
we be able to spend 4 hours on a decision of this magnitude? I think
so.
Republicans say a 4-hour debate has been a burden to the country and
has been unreasonable. On the contrary, it is exactly what the Founding
Fathers contemplated with the advise and consent clause of our
Constitution. Debate--vigorous debate--is an American principle of
democracy, a principle that is in our national interest, our national
security interest and, of course, our foreign policy interests.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in 2 or 3 minutes, we will have a historic
vote in the Senate Chamber. We are about to confirm Dr. Condoleezza
Rice, the first African-American woman to become
[[Page S529]]
Secretary of State. It is a proud moment for this Senate and indeed for
the American people. Dr. Rice has served her country with distinction
and she has served her country with honor. She has been a steady and a
trusted confidant to two Presidents, and as Secretary of State she will
apply her long experience and extraordinary skill to meet the greatest
challenges of our time--fighting the war on terror and advancing
democracy around the globe.
Dr. Rice possesses this rare combination of management and
administrative experience, policy expertise, academic scholarship and,
not least important, personal integrity and character. Yes, I am
disappointed that Dr. Rice's nomination was caught up in partisan
politics. While I recognize my colleagues' right to debate the
President's nominees, Dr. Rice's obvious qualifications have never,
ever been in doubt. Nor was it ever in doubt that a large bipartisan
majority would vote to confirm her, which we will see in a few moments.
Partisanship has its time and place, but we are at this point in time a
nation at war. We need the strength of all of our resources to fight
and win. I am disappointed that others on the other side of the aisle
have taken this moment to wage a partisan campaign. But it is time for
all of us to move on, and we indeed will move forward with this vote.
I look forward to working with Dr. Rice to meet those challenges
ahead and I congratulate her on a historic achievement.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
Mr. FRIST. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice, of California, to be
Secretary of State?
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) and the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. Gregg).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns)
would have voted ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
wishing to vote?
The result was announced--yeas, 85, nays, 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 2 Ex.]
YEAS--85
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--13
Akaka
Bayh
Boxer
Byrd
Dayton
Durbin
Harkin
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Levin
Reed
NOT VOTING--2
Burns
Gregg
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have just had a historic vote in the
Senate. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, 85 to 13, the Senate
has voted to confirm Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American
woman to become Secretary of State. It is a proud moment for the Senate
and for the American people.
For the information of our colleagues, under our previous agreement
we will proceed with Secretary-designate Nicholson. We have a short
time agreement. Then we will have a voice vote, followed by Secretary-
designate Leavitt. Then, shortly after that, I am hopeful we can
proceed with Secretary-designate Bodman.
There have been no requests for rollcall votes on any of those three.
If that is the case, we would not expect to have rollcall votes later
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Under the previous order, the
President will be notified that the nominee has been confirmed.
____________________