[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 326-327]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              NOMINATIONS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I didn't intend to speak this afternoon, 
but after listening to the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts 
regarding four individuals, three of whose nominations are pending 
before this body, I believe a brief statement and indeed a brief 
correction of the Record are necessary.

[[Page 327]]

  I am well aware that in politics a charge unanswered is often a 
charge believed. Indeed, I think the practice is not too rare that some 
believe if you make the same erroneous charge over and over and over 
and over again despite the facts that eventually your opponent will 
tire and fail to correct the Record. I don't want to be guilty of that 
because I believe not only do the American people need to know the 
truth and not be misled, the nominees whose integrity has been impugned 
during this all too painful and sometimes even cruel process deserve 
better.
  Obviously, the Senate in providing its advice and consent on the 
President's nominations should ask hard questions, and we should press 
for answers to those questions. But there does come a point where the 
process no longer becomes one that can be described as a search for the 
truth but, rather, becomes akin to harassment, and, unfortunately, I 
think that line has been approached.
  Let me explain what I am talking about. The Senator from 
Massachusetts talked specifically about four individuals--Mr. Bybee, 
who is now a circuit court judge; Mr. Haynes, who is the general 
counsel for the Department of Defense; Condoleezza Rice who, as the 
Chair knows, we all know, has been nominated by the President to be 
Secretary of State, and whose confirmation we will debate tomorrow, 
and, finally, the name of Alberto Gonzales, currently White House 
counsel, having been nominated to serve as Attorney General. Those are 
the four individuals who are the object of his comments.
  I want to be fair to the Senator from Massachusetts. Sometimes when I 
was listening to him I thought my hearing was betraying me. I was not 
quite sure what I heard was, in fact, what he was saying because it was 
so far from what I believe the facts to be. I believe, and the Record 
will correct me if I am wrong, he used words tantamount to authorize 
the use of torture. He did, and I wrote this down, speak of a ``formal 
policy of prisoner abuse''--of course, all of which pertains to the 
allegations, indeed, the proof in some circumstances, of prisoner abuse 
at places like Abu Ghraib.
  To conflate the acts of a few criminals with the acts of 
distinguished public servants who have disavowed any policy, any 
approval, of abuse or the use of torture as a policy of this 
Government, to conflate and somehow confuse and gloss over them and to 
suggest that indeed these individuals did somehow by their acts or 
inactions authorize the use of torture or condone, encourage, or create 
a perception that torture was okay, is just false. It is a story, but 
it is a false story. The American people should not be confused because 
the facts clearly point to the contrary.
  We do know that the Department of Defense, pursuant to the 
investigation called for by Secretary Rumsfeld, has conducted eight 
investigations, three of which have not yet concluded, of the Abu 
Ghraib prison scandal. So far, the conclusion has been, as well as that 
of the independent investigations like that of former Defense Secretary 
Schlesinger, that the acts at Abu Ghraib are the acts of a criminal few 
on the night shift, not a matter of public policy of this Government or 
of the Department of Defense or any branch or agency of the Government.
  Indeed, recently we saw the American system of justice mete out that 
justice in convicting one soldier, Graner, of abusing prisoners at Abu 
Ghraib and meting out a 10-year prison sentence in that connection.
  It is not true, and the American people should not be misled or 
perhaps be given information that has no justification in the Record. 
It is unproven, these allegations. They are unjustified. Frankly, I 
don't believe it does this body honor to propagate these false 
allegations.
  Everyone has a right to their opinion. I know some of the speakers 
who are so concerned from time to time about what happened at Abu 
Ghraib, as we all are, disapprove of this Nation's policy in the first 
place in going to war in Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein. Somehow, and 
this is unthinkable to me, they actually think that the world would be 
a better place with Saddam still in power. I disagree. Not only is the 
world a better place with Saddam in a prison cell awaiting trial, but 
the American people are safer and the people of Iraq now have the hope 
of a free, fair election in the next week or so leading, we all hope, 
to a free and democratic Iraq.
  While everyone has a right to their opinion, no one has a right to 
distort the facts. Unfortunately, when it comes to the involvement of 
these four individuals--Mr. Bybee, now Judge Bybee, confirmed by this 
Senate not too long ago by a vote of nearly 80 Senators; Mr. Haynes, 
who is the general counsel for the Department of Defense; and as I 
mentioned, Condoleezza Rice and Alberto Gonzales--the allegation that 
somehow they have been involved in a Government policy of condoning 
torture or authorizing prisoner abuse is just false. It is important to 
stand up and say so.
  Our disagreements about policy, indeed, the foreign policy of this 
Government, whether it be authorizing the use of force or whatever the 
issue may be, cannot be used as an excuse to make such scurrilous 
allegations against public servants who I believe are trying to do 
their best. If, in fact, somehow this administration and these 
individuals who are engaged in important public policy decisions did 
not care one whit about what the law is, what the definition of torture 
is, and how we can avoid somehow engaging in this sort of illegal and 
heinous act against any human being, why would they research the law? 
Why would they write lengthy legal memoranda? Why would they have 
debates among themselves about what the law is and what Congress 
proscribed--indeed, what our international treaty obligations proscribe 
in this area. They would not. You would not be so scrupulous and so 
careful about what the law provides if you did not care about following 
the law. That has been what these individuals and this administration 
and this Government have tried to do under very difficult 
circumstances.
  In conclusion, I hope our disagreements about some aspects of our 
Nation's foreign policy, our policy in Iraq, should not be license to 
distort the facts and impugn the character of these nominees. Three are 
nominees, one already has been confirmed. We know Mr. Haynes has been 
renominated by the President to serve as a circuit judge. We know 
Condoleezza Rice's nomination to be Secretary of State will be debated 
tomorrow in the Senate.
  Finally, I expect on Wednesday Judge Alberto Gonzales will be voted 
out of the Judiciary Committee and that nomination will soon come to 
the Senate.
  It appears the opponents of this administration and its policies will 
pass no opportunity to continue to repeat false charges which cannot be 
borne out by the facts and which I think need to be corrected.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 49 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________