[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 22550-22551]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     STANDING UP FOR THE PRESIDENT

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield myself up to 4 minutes. I 
think a lot has been said here about the words of Senator Kennedy. I 
don't think anyone on the floor has cast aspersions on the Senator. He 
certainly has a right to say anything he wants to say. But I also think 
many of us who believe the President is trying very hard to do the 
right thing for our country have the right to take up for our 
President, stand up for our President, and talk about the issues.
  I think Senator Kennedy would be the first to say he should stand by 
his words, he must take responsibility for his words. It is my opinion 
that when you use words such as ``fraud'' and ``bribery'' in talking 
about the policies of the United States, it is fair game for us to 
respond to that and say I think it is absolutely wrong to say we are 
bribing political leaders all over the world by giving them American 
dollars.
  We are giving foreign countries American dollars for a variety of 
reasons. Is it a bribe that we would make a loan to the country of 
Turkey after Turkey has just led the command and control of the 
security forces in Afghanistan, doing a great service for all of the 
people of the world to try to help keep the peace and security in 
Afghanistan, which was very costly to a relatively small country? That 
we would be making loans to Turkey, is that a bribe? I don't think so. 
Is it a bribe to give money to Russia for part of its economic 
improvement? I don't think so. I think Russia has shown it can be quite 
independent. So has Turkey. No one is accusing them of doing everything 
the United States has asked them to do. But foreign aid is part of 
American policy and, in most instances, foreign aid goes for buying 
American products. It gives them the money to buy American products to 
help our economy.
  So I think when people use words, they should be able to take 
responsibility for those words, and I don't think it casts aspersions 
on anyone's patriotism.
  But if anyone questions my right to stand up for my President who is 
speaking before the United Nations as we are talking on the floor 
today, then I think they are wrong. Of course, we are going to stand up 
for him. Why would that be a surprise? We are in a terrible war on 
terrorism. We are doing everything we can to support the President as 
he prosecutes that war. It is not for helping other countries 
exclusively. It is for helping America. It is for American security 
that we are in Iraq and Afghanistan--to keep terrorists on their soil 
so they do not come to American soil again.
  The President has not forgotten 9/11. Sometimes I think when I hear 
people talking that they have forgotten America was attacked.
  People are talking about an $87 billion package. It is a big package. 
Many of us are trying to ask for contributions from other countries to 
help defray the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. But let me 
remind you about the cost of 9/11. The cost of 9/11 is estimated at 
$300 billion, and that was one incident. What will be the cost if we 
allow terrorists to come in here because we haven't contained them in 
Iraq and Afghanistan? What will be the cost to the American people?
  We have a right to stand up for our President, and that is exactly 
what we are doing. We are trying to talk about the policies that are 
important to our country.
  I yield up to 4 minutes to the Senator from Pennsylvania, after which 
I will yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Texas.
  The Senator from Texas noted the irony of our standing on the floor 
of the Senate at the very moment the President is speaking to the 
United Nations. He is speaking before the United Nations to rally the 
world for our efforts in Iraq. As we stand on the floor of the Senate, 
some Members are calling into question the President's actions and 
calling into question the President's motives. It is one thing to call 
into question his action. It is one thing to call into question his 
plan. But to call into question his motives is one of the things that I 
think disturbs many people on this side of the aisle, and, frankly, 
many members of the American public.
  The Senator from Nevada said that some Members here have been using 
the baseball analogy of throwing a high hard one at Senator Kennedy's 
head to back him off the plate. Having reviewed what was said here this 
morning, I think the best thing we can throw is a change-up on the 
outside corner. Hopefully, we have gotten a strike since we have been 
accurate in what we are saying. But it was not put to anybody's head 
and it was not thrown hard. These were principled statements about the 
accuracy of the statement of the Senator from Massachusetts. We did not 
comment on his motives. We did not comment on his patriotism. We 
commented on the accuracy of his statement, which is a legitimate 
discussion here in the Senate. I hope we keep to that.
  We have had a debate on the floor of the Senate. Senator Daschle 
again questions the planning and actually questioned whether there was 
a plan. He used terms which were used back in 1948. A Senator Revercomb 
said, ``I charge tonight that there are no restraints placed upon those 
who administer this act''--similar to what Senator Daschle and Senator 
Byrd said. In fact, the statement has been made describing it as a 
``blank check.'' Senator Byrd from West Virginia has used that term 
repeatedly on the Senate floor--only this comment is not about, 
obviously, the Bush plan in Iraq; it was about the Marshall plan of the 
Truman administration.
  It is remarkable as I have gone through the Congressional Record of 
the House and the Senate about the debate and the way it happened 3 
years after V-E Day. Not 3 months was the plan put into place, not 3 
weeks was this plan put into place--it took 3 years for the Truman 
administration to put a recovery plan into place in Europe and for 
Congress to act on it.
  Back then Members of Congress talked about how this was a blank check 
which was going to be a failure

[[Page 22551]]

and it was unwise policy. Of course, it is now seen as one of the 
greatest foreign policy accomplishments of this country's history. Why? 
Because we had a President at the time--and who at the time was not 
popular among the American people for what he was doing--who was seen 
as someone who was not providing a great plan or strong leadership but 
he stuck to his guns. He went to the American people at election time, 
and the American people sustained him in office because he provided 
leadership at a time when leadership was needed; when Members of 
Congress were looking at their own parochial interests instead of the 
interests of the country and of the world such as, again, is the case 
here today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I certainly join my colleagues in underscoring the fact that, of 
course, this shouldn't be a discussion about motives or patriotism. 
This is not a discussion about a former Senator, Mr. Cleland, or any 
other individual. All of us have the right to disagree on issues of 
substance.
  Senator Dodd was absolutely right. The issues of substance that we 
should be discussing are how to succeed in Iraq and how to do the right 
thing for homeland security. But at the same time, all of us are 
responsible for the words we use and the terms we use and what it 
conveys not just to the American people but to our allies abroad.
  In this regard, I was most concerned about the use of the word 
``bribery'' in reference to foreign assistance. I think that was a 
mistake. I think that was not just a poor choice of words but a 
counterproductive choice of words, because to suggest that the funds we 
provide for reconstruction is bribery suggests that all of the foreign 
assistance we engage in around the world is misspent, or, again in the 
worst case here, bribery.
  I believe our foreign assistance should be scrutinized, should be 
debated, and that we should strike the right balance, but in all cases 
the foreign assistance that we provide around the world should be used 
to further our national security interests. That is an important issue 
of substance. The funds we are providing to Iraq should strengthen 
security in the United States and should strengthen the stability and 
security of the people in Iraq and in the region of the Middle East.
  In all cases, we should scrutinize that foreign assistance budget. 
But to refer to it as ``bribery'' I think is a mistake. It sent the 
wrong message to our allies and to those who are benefiting from our 
economic support, foreign military financing program, and even our 
humanitarian aid around the world. It is for our national security 
interests and the purposes for which we do that, and our debate should 
reflect that point.

                          ____________________