[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 612-647]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NOMINATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to declare my unqualified 
support for the President's nominee to be America's 66th Secretary of 
State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
  Dr. Rice's fitness for the job is plain to every Member of this 
Chamber. She has excelled in the foreign policy arena for 25 years and 
served three Presidents. She has built lasting, personal relationships 
with world leaders and foreign policymakers throughout the world. She 
has been one of the main authors of America's new approach to foreign 
policy in the aftermath of September 11. Most importantly, she has the 
complete trust and confidence of the President, and is perfectly poised 
to follow his leadership as America promotes freedom and democracy 
across the globe. Dr. Rice is the ideal person to lead the State 
Department at this time. The Department's mission will be to shatter 
the barriers to liberty and human dignity overseas, and Dr. Rice has 
already broken many barriers in her relatively short lifetime.
  This remarkable woman was born in Birmingham, AL, in the same year 
that the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its Brown v. 
Board of Education decision. Few then would have believed that a young 
African-American girl, born under the heavy hand of Jim Crow, could one 
day become this Nation's chief diplomat. But

[[Page 613]]

Dr. Rice's mother, a music teacher named Angelina, and her father, the 
Reverend John Rice, knew their Condi was meant for great things, and 
Reverend Rice nicknamed his daughter ``Little Star.''
  Dr. Rice may not have inherited great financial wealth from her 
parents, but she did inherit a love of learning. Her parents were both 
educators and made sure their only child could read prodigiously by age 
5. At age 3, she had begun the piano lessons that would one day lead to 
her accompanying world-renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma. She excelled in 
school and received her bachelor's degree with honors at the age of 19. 
She went on to earn her master's and Ph.D. in international studies, 
and later became, at age 38, the youngest provost in the history of 
Stanford University.
  Her accomplished career led to her appointment as Assistant to the 
President for National Security Affairs in 2001. In that role, Dr. Rice 
has been at the center of some of the most important foreign policy 
decisions since President Harry Truman, George Marshall and Dean 
Acheson navigated the beginning of the Cold War.
  In the past 4 years, she has helped formulate a national security 
strategy to protect the United States by draining the swamps that 
permit terrorism to flourish. She has been a key architect of the 
President's two-state solution in the Middle East--a policy that led to 
the first free and democratic Palestinian elections ever.
  She has helped develop a more secure relationship between the United 
States and Russia, leading to record reductions in that country's 
amount of nuclear warheads. She has helped craft the important six-
party talks designed to end North Korea's nuclear program.
  She was at the center of the President's successful operation to 
remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and enable the Afghan people to 
practice democracy for the first time ever.
  I might say, just having been in Afghanistan within the last couple 
of weeks, it is an enormous success story that we all have a right to 
feel proud about.
  She led the effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, 
eliminate the possibility of his ever unleashing weapons of mass 
destruction, and liberate over 25 million Iraqis from his reign of 
terror.
  We need Dr. Rice's leadership at this crucial time in America's 
history. As President Bush so eloquently stated last week in his second 
inaugural address, our country's safety is inextricably tied to the 
progress of freedom in faraway lands. Those lands are not so far away 
anymore. Two vast oceans are no defense against a small band of 
terrorists with a dirty bomb, a vial of ricin, or boxcutters.
  In the post-September 11 world, our national security depends heavily 
on our foreign policy, and our foreign policy will be determined 
largely by our national security needs. Because the light of liberty 
chases away the shadows of resentment, intolerance, and violence that 
lead to attacks on America, it is in America's interests to promote 
freedom and democracy in every corner of the globe.
  Democracy and economic development are crucial components to winning 
the global war on terror. Soon, if we finish our mission, Iraq will be 
a beacon of economic and political freedom in the Middle East, and the 
rogue despots of the region will watch helplessly as their citizens 
demand the freedoms and economic prosperity enjoyed by their Iraqi 
neighbors. That day will be very uncomfortable for them--and a victory 
for the free world.
  The Department of State must be a primary actor in this mission, 
because American diplomacy will be the primary force to create a world 
more favored toward freedom. The global war on terror requires us to 
cooperate with other nations more than any other global conflict 
before. It requires focus in parts of the world that were unfamiliar to 
many Americans 3 years ago. We will need to argue the virtues of 
liberty and democracy to an audience that may be hearing such arguments 
for the first time.
  America will need to rely on the multinational institutions that have 
served her so well in the past to succeed in this new era. Our 
relations with NATO, the European Union, and other partners must be 
reassured and reaffirmed. And, just as we formed coalitions of the 
willing to liberate Afghanistan and Iraq, we should continue to 
cultivate alliances of democracies when the need arises, to serve as an 
example to the world that the best method of governing is to seek the 
consent of the governed.
  For all of these hard tasks before us, I can think of no better 
person to ensure success than Dr. Rice. Her personal courage is 
eclipsed only by her professional pre-eminence. Her parents aptly named 
her ``Condoleezza'' after the Italian musical term ``con dolcezza'' 
which is a direction to play ``with sweetness.'' But she is also 
brilliant, compassionate, and determined to advance the President's 
vision of a world free from despotism.
  The State Department will play the lead in American foreign policy. 
Its foreign-service officers are the face of America to millions 
worldwide. What better way to empower them than by confirming the 
President's most-trusted advisor as Secretary of State?
  I wish to address briefly the criticisms that some of my colleagues 
have directed at Dr. Rice. As far as I can tell, no one has impugned 
her ability or moral integrity. Most of the criticisms seem to rest on 
the concern that she will not make it her primary mission as Secretary 
of State to disagree with the President.
  Think about that. Some would suggest that the Secretary of State's 
job is to oppose the President's policies. The Senate has not attempted 
to so micromanage the relationship between the President and a cabinet 
officer since passing the Tenure of Office Act.
  Let me be clear to my colleagues: It is the role of the President to 
set foreign policy. It is the role of the Secretary of State to execute 
it.
  Of course, as America's top diplomat, Dr. Rice will be expected to 
bring her expertise on a wide variety of issues to the table. The 
President has chosen her because he values her opinion. But all foreign 
policy decisions ultimately rest with the President. For some to 
suggest that a Secretary of State should be some kind of agitator-in-
residence, constantly complicating the implementation of policy, is 
irresponsible.
  Furthermore, Dr. Rice enthusiastically subscribes to President Bush's 
doctrine of spreading liberty. She was in the White House on September 
11 when it was feared the building would come under attack. From a 
bunker beneath the White House, she watched the footage of those two 
planes striking the Twin Towers over and over. She was with the 
President that night, when he first formulated the policy that America 
would make no distinction between the terrorists who committed those 
evil acts and those who harbored them.
  Dr. Rice was with the President during Operation Enduring Freedom. 
She was with him when he made the case to the United Nations that 
Saddam Hussein must face serious consequences. And she was with the 
President when he decided to liberate Iraq and the world from Saddam 
Hussein's evil intent.
  After sharing so many searing experiences, President Bush and Dr. 
Rice now share a vision for responding to them. This should be no 
surprise.
  Like the President, Dr. Rice realizes that the challenges we face 
today are daunting and will take generations to overcome. Winning the 
Global War on Terror and spreading peace and freedom will not be easy. 
But few things worth doing are. This administration has taken the long 
view, and is committed to a long-term strategy, the reward for which is 
years in the future. Posterity will thank them, and this Congress, for 
seeing the fight through.
  The liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do. We removed a tyrant 
who had both the means and the motive to attack America or her 
interests. I urge my colleagues who focus only on the setbacks, 
mistakes, or tragedies of Operation Iraqi Freedom: Take the long view.
  If there had been as many television cameras at Omaha Beach on D-Day 
as there are in this chamber today, General Eisenhower would have been 
fired

[[Page 614]]

before sunset. War is messy, but history tells us we must see our 
fights through to the end. The goal of spreading peace and freedom in 
the Middle East is too important to suffer hypercritical, politicized 
attacks.
  I am happy to praise Dr. Rice today. My experiences with her over the 
years justify every word I have said. But we should not be debating her 
nomination today. This Senate should have confirmed her on January 20.
  Finally, I wish to leave you with a question for every Member of this 
body to ponder. It is too easy to snipe from the sidelines at nominees 
like Dr. Rice, who are willing to make great sacrifices to serve their 
country. So I ask, what positive actions can this Senate take to 
further the spread of peace, liberty and democracy over the globe?
  I would refer my colleagues to the Asia Freedom Act of 2004, which 
Senator Lugar and I proposed last November. The act provides an 
integrated and coherent framework for U.S. policy towards North and 
Southeast Asia. It ties U.S. foreign aid to commitments from 
governments in the region to better their records in democracy, civil 
liberties, cooperation in the global war on terror, and several other 
areas. It requires the State Department to judge these governments not 
by what they say, but rather the concrete actions they undertake to 
further democracy, security and stability in the region.
  This act would contribute to the march of freedom from sea to sea. 
This is the kind of business this Senate should be focusing on. 
Advancing freedom, attacking terrorism and ending tyranny is the 
mission of our time. I have no doubt that this Senate recognizes that 
and will act with commensurate speed and wisdom.
  America has passed weighty tests before. Sixty years ago, emerging 
wearily from a great war, this country began the struggle with another 
seemingly entrenched enemy--the Soviet Union and its scourge of 
Communism. When that battle began, Americans could not know when it 
would end. But they knew they had to fight it. In 1947, President Harry 
Truman spoke to a joint session of Congress about this new Cold War. He 
said, ``Great responsibilities have been placed upon us by the swift 
movement of events. I am confident that the Congress will face these 
responsibilities squarely.''
  Now it falls to us to face our responsibilities just as squarely. We 
can, we will, and we must.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is 60 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, in Federalist No. 77, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

       It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself 
     the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more 
     by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was 
     bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion 
     and determination of a different and independent body, and 
     that body an entire branch of the legislature. The 
     possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in 
     proposing.

  Although Hamilton explains the importance of the role of the Senate 
in the appointment of officers of the United States, neither he nor the 
Constitution is specific about what criteria Senators must use to judge 
the qualifications of a nominee. The Constitution only requires that 
the Senate give its advice and consent. It is therefore left to 
Senators to use their own judgment in considering their vote. The 
factors involved in such judgments may vary among Senators, among 
nominees, and may even change in response to the needs of the times.
  The position of Secretary of State is among the most important 
offices for which the Constitution requires the advice and the consent 
of the Senate. It is the Secretary of State who sits at the right hand 
of the President during meetings of the President's Cabinet. The 
Secretary of State is all the more important today, considering the 
enormous diplomatic challenges our country will face in the next 4 
years.
  I commend the Foreign Relations Committee for its work in bringing 
the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the Senate. Chairman Richard 
Lugar conducted 2 days of hearings for this nominee and the debate that 
began in the committee on this nomination is now being continued on the 
floor of the Senate. Senator Biden also provided a voice in great 
foreign policy experience during those hearings. I was particularly 
impressed by Senator Boxer who tackled her role on the committee with 
passion and with forthrightness, as did Senator Kerry.
  There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has a remarkable record of personal 
achievement. She obtained her bachelor's degree at the tender age of 
19--get that. Speaking as someone who did not earn a bachelor's degree 
until I had reached 77 years of age, I have a special appreciation for 
Dr. Rice's impressive academic achievement. It was a remarkable 
achievement indeed.
  She then obtained a doctorate in international studies and quickly 
rose through the academic ranks to become provost of Stanford 
University. Dr. Rice has also gathered extensive experience in foreign 
policy matters. She is a recognized expert on matters relating to 
Russia and the former Soviet Union. She has twice worked on the 
National Security Council, once as the senior adviser on Soviet issues 
and most recently for 4 years as National Security Adviser.
  Dr. Rice has had ample exposure to the nuances of international 
politics and by that measure she is certainly qualified for the 
position of Secretary of State.
  The next Secretary of State will have large shoes to fill. I have 
closely watched the career of Colin Powell since he served as National 
Security Adviser to President Reagan and we worked together during the 
Senate consideration of the INF treaty of 1988. Colin Powell 
distinguished himself in his service as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, particularly during the 1991 Gulf War. When his nomination came 
before the Senate in 2001, I supported his confirmation and I supported 
it strongly based upon the strength of his record.
  The vote that the Senate will conduct tomorrow, however, is not 
simply a formality to approve of a nominee's educational achievement or 
level of expertise. I do not subscribe to the notion that the Senate 
must confirm a President's nominees barring criminality or lack of 
experience. The Constitution enjoins Senators to use their judgment in 
considering nominations. I am particularly dismayed by accusations I 
have read that Senate Democrats, by insisting on having an opportunity 
to debate the nomination of Dr. Rice, have somehow been engaged in 
nothing more substantial than ``petty politics,'' partisan delaying 
tactics. Nothing, nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Senate's role of advice and consent to Presidential nominations 
is not a ceremonial exercise. Here is the proof. Here is the record. 
Here is the document that requires more than just a ceremonial 
exercise.
  I have stood in the Senate more times than I can count to defend the 
prerogatives of this institution and the separate but equal--with 
emphasis on the word ``equal''--powers of the three branches of 
Government. A unique power of the legislative branch is the Senate's 
role in providing advice and consent on the matter of nominations. That 
power is not vested in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is 
not vested in any other committee, nor does it repose in a handful of 
Senate leaders. It is not a function of pomp and circumstance, and it 
was never intended by the Framers to be used to burnish the image of a 
President on Inauguration Day. Yet that is exactly what Senators were 
being pressured to do last week, to acquiesce mutely to the nomination 
of one of the most important members on the President's

[[Page 615]]

Cabinet without the slightest hiccup of debate or the smallest 
inconvenience of a rollcall vote.
  And so, Mr. President, we are here today to fulfill our 
constitutional duty to consider the nomination of Dr. Rice to be 
Secretary of State.
  I have carefully considered Dr. Rice's record as National Security 
Adviser in the 2 months that have passed since the President announced 
her nomination to be Secretary of State, and that record, I am afraid, 
is one of intimate--intimate--involvement in a number of administration 
foreign policies which I strongly oppose. These policies have fostered 
enormous opposition, both at home and abroad, to the White House's view 
of America's place in the world.
  That view of America is one which encourages our Nation to flex its 
muscles without being bound by any calls for restraint. The most 
forceful explanation of this idea can be found in the ``National 
Security Strategy of the United States,'' a report which was issued by 
the White House in September 2002. Under this strategy, the President 
lays claim to an expansive power to use our military to strike other 
nations first, even if we have not been threatened or provoked to do 
so.
  There is no question, of course, that the President of the United 
States has the inherent authority to repel attacks against our country, 
but this National Security Strategy is unconstitutional on its face. It 
takes the checks and balances established in the Constitution that 
limit the President's ability to use our military at his pleasure and 
throws them out the window.
  This doctrine of preemptive strikes places the sole decision of war 
and peace in the hands of a President--one man or woman--and undermines 
the constitutional power of Congress to declare war. The Founding 
Fathers required that such an important issue of war be debated by the 
elected representatives of the people, the people out there, in the 
legislative branch precisely, because no single man could be trusted 
with such an awesome power as bringing a nation to war by his decision 
alone. And yet that is exactly what the National Security Strategy 
proposes.
  Not only does this pernicious doctrine of preemptive war contradict 
the Constitution, it barely acknowledges the Constitution's existence. 
The National Security Strategy makes only one passing reference, one 
small passing reference, to the Constitution. It states that 
``America's constitution''--that is ``constitution'' with a small 
``c''--``has served us well''--as if the Constitution does not still 
serve this country well. One might ask if that reference to the 
Constitution is intended to be a compliment or an obituary.
  As National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice was in charge of developing 
the National Security Strategy. She also spoke out forcefully in favor 
of the dangerous doctrine of preemptive war. In one speech, she argues 
that there need not be an imminent threat before the United States 
attacked another nation. ``So as a matter of common sense,'' said Dr. 
Rice, on October 1, 2002, ``the United States must be prepared to take 
action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized.'' But 
that ``matter of common sense'' is nowhere to be found in the 
Constitution. For that matter, isn't it possible to disagree with this 
``matter of common sense''? What is common sense to one might not be 
shared by another. What's more, matters of common sense can lead people 
to the wrong conclusions. John Dickinson, the chief author of the 
Articles of Confederation, said in 1787, ``Experience must be our only 
guide; reason may mislead us.''
  As for me, I will heed the experience of the Founding Fathers as 
enshrined in the Constitution over the reason and ``common sense'' of 
the administration's National Security Strategy.
  We can all agree that the President, any President, has the inherent 
duty and power to repel an attack on the United States. He doesn't have 
to call Congress into session to do that. That is a matter that 
confronts the Nation immediately and the people and our institutions 
are in imminent danger.
  But where in the Constitution can the President claim the right to 
strike another nation before it has even threatened our country, as Dr. 
Rice asserted in that speech? To put it plainly, Dr. Rice has asserted 
that the President holds far more of the warpower than the Constitution 
grants him.
  This doctrine of attacking countries before a threat has ``fully 
materialized'' was put into motion as soon as the National Security 
Strategy was released.
  Beginning in September 2002, Dr. Rice also took a position on the 
frontlines of the administration's efforts to hype the danger of 
Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Dr. Rice is responsible for some 
of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare 
the American people into believing there was an imminent threat from 
Iraq. On September 8, 2002, Dr. Rice conjured visions of American 
citizens being consumed by mushroom clouds. On an appearance on CNN, 
she warned, ``The problem here is that there will always be some 
uncertainty about how quickly he,'' meaning Saddam, ``can acquire 
nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom 
cloud.''
  Dr. Rice also claimed that she had conclusive evidence about Iraq's 
alleged nuclear weapons program. During that same interview, she also 
said:

       We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. 
     We do know that there have been shipments going into . . . 
     Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes . . . that are really 
     only suited for nuclear weapons programs.

  Well, my fellow Senators, we now know that Iraq's nuclear program was 
a fiction. Charles Duelfer, the chief arms inspector of the CIA's Iraq 
Survey Group, reported on September 30, 2004 as follows:

       Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following 
     the Gulf War. [The Iraq Survey Group] found no evidence to 
     suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

  But Dr. Rice's statements in 2002 were not only wrong, they also did 
not accurately reflect the intelligence reports of the time. 
Declassified portions of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate from 
October 2002 make it abundantly clear that there were disagreements 
among our intelligence analysts about the state of Iraq's nuclear 
program. But Dr. Rice seriously misrepresented their disputes when she 
categorically stated:

       We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear 
     weapon.

  Her allegation also misrepresented to the American people the 
controversy in those same intelligence reports about the aluminum 
tubes. Again, Dr. Rice said that these tubes were ``really only suited 
for nuclear weapons programs.'' But intelligence experts at the State 
Department and the Department of Energy believed that those tubes had 
nothing to do with building a nuclear weapon, and they made their 
dissent known in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. This 
view, which was at odds with Dr. Rice's representations, was later 
confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and our own CIA 
arms inspectors.
  Well, Dr. Rice made other statements that helped to build a case for 
war by implying a link--a link--between Iraq and September 11. On 
multiple occasions, Dr. Rice spoke about the supposed evidence that 
Saddam and al-Qaida were in league with each other. For example, on 
September 25, 2002, Dr. Rice said on the PBS NewsHour:

       No one is trying to make an argument at this point that 
     Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what 
     happened on September 11, so we don't want to push this too 
     far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting 
     clear, and we're learning more. . . . But yes, there clearly 
     are contact[s] between Al Qaeda and Iraq that can be 
     documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the 
     contacts have been important contacts and that there is a 
     relationship there.

  Well, what Dr. Rice did not say was that some of those supposed links 
were being called into question by our intelligence agencies, such as 
the alleged meeting between a 9/11 ringleader and an Iraqi intelligence 
agent in Prague that has now been debunked. These attempts to connect 
Iraq and al-Qaida appear to be a prime example of cherry-picking 
intelligence to hype the supposed threat of Iraq while keeping contrary 
evidence away from the

[[Page 616]]

American people, wrapped up in the redtape of top secret reports.
  Dr. Rice pressed the point even further, creating scenarios that 
threatened tens of thousands of American lives, even when that threat 
was not supported by intelligence. On March 9, 2003, just 11 days 
before the invasion of Iraq, Dr. Rice appeared--where?--on Face the 
Nation. What did she say? She said:

       Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite dispersed 
     and--and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has 
     had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all 
     kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day 
     when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing 
     with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, 
     ``containment,'' enough of dealing with America, and it's 
     time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these 
     weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for 
     blackmail or for worse.

  How scary is that?
  But the intelligence community had already addressed this scenario 
with great skepticism. In fact, the CIA's National Intelligence 
Estimate from October 2002 concluded that it had ``low confidence'' 
that Saddam would ever transfer any weapons of mass destruction--
weapons that he did not have, as it turned out--to anyone outside of 
his control. This is yet more evidence of an abuse of intelligence in 
order to build the case for an unprovoked war with Iraq.
  And what has been the effect of the first use of this reckless 
doctrine of preemptive war? In a most ironic and deadly twist, the 
false situation described by the administration before the war, namely, 
that Iraq was a training ground for terrorists poised to attack the 
United States, is exactly the situation that our war in Iraq has 
created.
  But it was this unjustified war that created the situation that the 
President claimed he was trying to prevent. Violent extremists have 
flooded into Iraq from all corners of the world. Iraqis have taken up 
arms themselves to fight against the continuing U.S. occupation of 
their country.
  According to a CIA report released in December 2004, intelligence 
analysts now see Iraq, destabilized by the administration's ill-
conceived war, as the training ground for a new generation of 
terrorists. That is from the report ``Mapping the Global Future: Report 
of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project,'' page 94.
  It should be profoundly disturbing to all Americans if the most 
dangerous breeding ground for terrorism has shifted from Afghanistan to 
Iraq simply because of the administration's ill-advised rush to war in 
March 2003.
  Dr. Rice's role in the war against Iraq was not limited to building 
the case for an unprecedented, preemptive invasion of a country that 
had not attacked us first. Her role also extends to the 
administration's failed efforts to establish peace in Iraq.
  In October 2003, 5 months after he declared ``mission accomplished,'' 
the President created the Iraq Stabilization Group, headed by Dr. Rice. 
The task of the Iraq Stabilization Group was to coordinate efforts to 
speed reconstruction aid to help bring the violence in Iraq to an end.
  But what has the Iraq Stabilization Group accomplished under the 
leadership of Dr. Rice? When she took the helm of the stabilization 
group, 319 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq. That number now stands 
at 1,368, as of today, Tuesday, January 25, 2005. More than 10,600 
troops have been wounded, and what horrible wounds. The cost of the war 
has spiraled to $149 billion. That is $149 for every minute since Jesus 
Christ was born. And the White House is on the verge of asking Congress 
for another $80 billion.
  Despite the mandate of the Iraq Stabilization Group, the situation in 
Iraq has gone from bad to worse. More ominously, the level of violence 
only keeps growing week after week after week, month after month, and 
no administration official, whether from the White House, the Pentagon, 
or Foggy Bottom has made any predictions about when the violence will 
finally subside.
  Furthermore, of the $18.4 billion in Iraqi reconstruction aid 
appropriated by Congress in October 2003, the administration has spent 
only $2.7 billion. Now, with these funds moving so slowly, it is hard 
to believe that the Iraq Stabilization Group has had any success at all 
in speeding the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. For all of the hue and 
cry about the need to speed up aid to Iraq, one wonders if there should 
be more tough questions asked of Dr. Rice about what she has 
accomplished as the head of this group.
  There are also many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's record as 
the National Security Adviser. Richard Clarke, the former White House 
counterterrorism adviser, had leveled scathing criticism against Dr. 
Rice and the National Security Council for failing to recognize the 
threat from al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden in the months leading up to 
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack. In particular, Mr. Clarke 
states that he submitted a request on January 25, 2001, for an urgent 
meeting of the National Security Council on the threat of al-Qaida.
  However, due to decisions made by Dr. Rice and her staff, that urgent 
meeting did not occur until too late. The meeting was not actually 
called until September 4, 2001.
  Mr. Clarke, who was widely acknowledged as one of the Government's 
leading authorities on terrorism at that time, told the 9/11 Commission 
he was so frustrated with those decisions that he asked to be 
reassigned to different issues and the Bush White House approved that 
request.
  Dr. Rice appeared before the 9/11 Commission on April 8, 2004, but, 
if anything, her testimony raised only more questions about what the 
President and others knew about the threat to New York City and 
Washington, DC, in the weeks before the attacks, and whether more could 
have been done to prevent them.
  Why wasn't any action taken when she and the President received an 
intelligence report on August 6, 2001, entitled ``Bin Laden Determined 
to Attack Inside the United States''? Why did Dr. Rice and President 
Bush reassign Richard Clarke, the leading terrorism expert in the White 
House, soon after taking office in 2001? Why did it take 9 months for 
Dr. Rice to call the first high-level National Security Council meeting 
on the threat of Osama bin Laden?
  As the Senate debates her nomination today, we still have not heard 
full answers from Dr. Rice to these questions.
  In addition to Mr. Clarke's criticism, Dr. David Kay, the former CIA 
weapons inspector in Iraq, also has strong words for the National 
Security Council and its role in the runup to the war in Iraq. When Dr. 
Kay appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on August 18, 
2004, to analyze why the administration's prewar intelligence was so 
wrong about weapons of mass destruction, he described the National 
Security Council as the ``dog that didn't bark'' to warn the President 
about the weaknesses of those intelligence reports.
  Dr. Kay continued:

       Every President who has been successful, at least that I 
     know of, in the history of this republic, has developed both 
     informal and formal means of getting checks on whether people 
     who tell him things are in fact telling him the whole truth. 
     . . . The recent history has been a reliance on the NSC 
     system to do it. I quite frankly think that that has not 
     served this President very well.

  What Dr. Kay appeared to state was his view that the National 
Security Council, under the leadership of Dr. Rice, did not do a 
sufficient job of raising doubts about the quality of the intelligence 
about Iraq. On the contrary, based upon Dr. Rice's statements that I 
quoted earlier, her rhetoric even went beyond the questionable 
intelligence that the CIA had available on Iraq in order to hype the 
threats of aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, and connections between 
Iraq and September 11.
  In light of the massive reorganization of our intelligence agencies 
enacted by Congress last year, shouldn't this nomination spur the 
Senate to stop, look, and listen about what has been going on in the 
National Security Council for the last 4 years? Don't these serious 
questions about the failings of the National Security Council under Dr. 
Rice deserve a more thorough examination before the Senate votes to 
confirm her as the next Secretary of State?

[[Page 617]]

  Mr. President, accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in 
some circles these days. But accountability is not a negotiable 
commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our Nation's 
Government. The accountability of Government officials is an 
obligation, not a luxury. Yet accountability is an obligation that this 
President and this President's administration appear loathe to fulfill.
  Instead of being held to account for their actions, the architects of 
the policies that led our Nation down the road into war with Iraq, 
policies based on faulty intelligence and phantom weapons of mass 
destruction, have been rewarded by the President with accolades and 
promotions. Instead of admitting to mistakes in the war on Iraq, 
instead of admitting to its disastrous aftermath, the President and his 
inner circle of advisers continue to cling to myths and misconceptions.
  The only notion of accountability that this President is willing to 
acknowledge is the November elections, which he has described as a 
moment of accountability and an endorsement of his policies. 
Unfortunately, after-the-fact validation of victory is hardly the 
standard of accountability that the American people have the right to 
expect from their elected officials. It is one thing to accept 
responsibility for success; it is quite another to accept 
accountability for failure. Sadly, failure has tainted far too many 
aspects of our Nation's international policies over the past 4 years, 
culminating in the deadly insurgency that has resulted from the 
invasion of Iraq.
  With respect to this particular nomination, I believe there needs to 
be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the 
United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged 
by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in 
world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our 
provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy. 
Whether the administration will continue to pursue these policies 
cannot be known to Senators today as we prepare to cast our vote. At 
her confirmation hearing on January 18, Dr. Rice proclaimed that our 
interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a 
monologue, but 2 days later, President Bush gave an inaugural address 
that seemed to rattle sabers at any nation that he does not consider to 
be free.
  Before Senators cast their votes, we must wonder whether we are 
casting our lot for more diplomacy or more belligerence, 
reconciliation, or more confrontation. Which face of this Dr. Jekyll 
and Mr. Hyde foreign policy will be revealed in the next 4 years?
  Although I do not question her credentials, I do oppose many of the 
critical decisions Dr. Rice has made during her 4 years as National 
Security Adviser. She has a record, and the record is there for us to 
judge. There remain too many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's 
failure to protect our country before the tragic attacks of September 
11, her public efforts to politicize intelligence, and her often stated 
allegiance to the doctrine of preemption.
  To confirm Dr. Rice to be the next Secretary of State is to say to 
the American people and to the world that the answers to those 
questions are no longer important. Her confirmation will almost 
certainly be viewed as another endorsement of the administration's 
unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes, its bullying policies 
of unilateralism, and its callous rejection of our longstanding allies.
  Dr. Rice's record in many ways is one to be greatly admired. She is a 
very intelligent lady, very knowledgeable about the subject matter, 
very warm and congenial, but the stakes for the United States are too 
high. I cannot endorse higher responsibilities for those who helped to 
set our great country down the path of increasing isolation, enmity in 
the world, and a war that has no end. When will our boys come home? 
When will our men and women be able to sit down at the table with their 
families and their friends in their own communities again? For these 
reasons, I shall cast my vote in opposition to the confirmation of 
Condoleezza Rice to be the next Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of President Bush's 
nominee for Secretary of State, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
  Hers is a remarkable personal story, from her upbringing in 
Birmingham, AL, during the era of Bull Connor, to the White House, to 
her nomination as Secretary of State. She is a woman of many parts, an 
accomplished musician, a leading academic and policy intellectual, and 
a dedicated public official. This is a nomination all of America can be 
proud of.
  Dr. Rice has served with distinction as assistant to the President 
for national security, as well as in other National Security Council 
positions. She comes to this job well-qualified and prepared to take on 
her new responsibilities.
  America's challenges over the next four years will be formidable. 
U.S. foreign policy cannot be separated from our energy, economic, 
defense and domestic policies. It all falls within the ``arch of our 
national interest.'' There will be windows of opportunity, but they 
will open and close quickly.
  Foreign policy will require a strategic agility that, whenever 
possible, gets ahead of problems, strengthens U.S. security and 
alliances, and promotes American interests, credibility, and global 
freedom.
  Last week, Dr. Rice faced approximately 11 hours of probing and 
difficult questions about U.S. foreign policy, including the war in 
Iraq. Dr. Rice deserves credit for her thoughtful answers, patience, 
and I might say, grace under that questioning.
  In her testimony, Dr. Rice said that, ``the time for diplomacy is 
now.'' She understands that our success in the war on terrorism, Iraq, 
the Middle East, and throughout the world depends on the strength of 
our alliances. Our alliances should be understood as a means to expand 
our influence, not as a constraint on our power. The expansion of 
democracy and freedom in the world should be a shared interest and 
value with all nations.
  Dr. Rice also noted that, ``America and all free nations are facing a 
generational struggle against a new and deadly ideology of hatred that 
we cannot ignore.'' She stressed the importance of public diplomacy to 
counter this ideology of hate, including increasing our exchanges with 
the rest of the world. A unilateralist course would only complicate our 
relations with the Muslim world.
  Dr. Rice's nomination has offered an opportunity for the Senate to 
consider not only the merits of the nominee, but the foreign policy 
challenges that we face. The Senate should be a forum for debate about 
foreign policy.
  The former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, J. 
William Fulbright, observed that the Congress has a:

     traditional responsibility, in keeping with the spirit if not 
     the precise words of the Constitution, to serve as a forum of 
     diverse opinions and as a channel of communication between 
     the American people and their government.

  Chairman Lugar's distinguished leadership of the Foreign Relations 
Committee has been in concert with the former chairman's words.
  Senator Fulbright received criticism for holding public hearings on 
Vietnam, especially with a President of his own party in office.
  He later wrote that he held those hearings:

     in the hope of helping to shape a true consensus in the long 
     run, even at the cost of dispelling the image of a false one 
     in the short run.

  The Senate should not be party to a false consensus on Iraq. The 
stakes are too high.
  America is fighting a counter-insurgency war in a complicated and 
diverse region, in a country with an intense and long standing anti-
colonial tradition, deep ethnic and sectarian divisions, and a 
political system and culture brutalized for more than three decades by 
a tyrannical dictatorship, more than a decade of international 
sanctions, and three costly wars.

[[Page 618]]

  America's exit strategy for Iraq is linked to the capabilities of the 
Iraqi government and security forces to take responsibility for their 
future. That has not yet happened. Iraq may be free, but it is not yet 
stable, secure, or governable. Since Iraq's liberation, American and 
coalition forces are what have held the country together.
  Despite the sacrifice and courage of our brave men and women fighting 
in Iraq, and the sacrifice and courage of many Iraqis, the Iraqi state 
cannot yet reliably deliver services or security to its people.
  The elections on January 30 will be a critical benchmark for Iraqi 
sovereignty. Elections alone will not bring stability and security to 
Iraq. But they are an essential and historic step.
  All Americans should be concerned about what is happening in Iraq. 
Iraq will influence and constrain America's foreign policy for years to 
come. It is our top foreign policy priority, and there are no easy 
answers or easy options.
  Hopefully, Iraq will someday be a democratic example for the Middle 
East. But Iraq could also become a failed state. We cannot let this 
happen.
  These are big issues that will affect every American in some way. The 
Senate is an appropriate forum to debate our policies that will be 
applied to dealing with these issues.
  To sustain any foreign policy will require the informed consent of 
the American people through their voices in Congress. Dr. Rice 
understands this clearly.
  Let me conclude by once again noting that Dr. Rice has the 
intelligence, experience, and integrity for this job. She has the 
President's confidence.
  In my interactions and conversations with Dr. Rice over the last four 
years, she has always been candid and honest, and she listens. It is 
also important that Dr. Rice always be brutally frank with the 
President. She must give him the bad news as well as the good news, and 
when she disagrees with other members of the Cabinet and the President 
and Vice President, she must say so. I believe she will do that.
  I look forward to working with Dr. Rice in support of American 
interests and security. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of her 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. Allen.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support of 
the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be our next Secretary of 
State. She comes to this position and this nomination with unquestioned 
credentials and the experience to carry out the U.S. foreign policy 
during these very trying times. She is, in my view, the personification 
of the American dream. Although she grew up in the days of segregation, 
applying herself and working hard allowed her to advance through 
academia, and clearly also in this President's administration.
  The goals of this administration are not just the goals of the Bush 
administration; they ought to be the goals of America and all other 
freedom-loving people around the world.
  Dr. Rice, in her testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, 
talked about the advancement of freedom. The President mentioned it 
several times in his inaugural address. What we aim to do as Americans, 
for our own security but also because of our care for fellow human 
beings here on this Earth, is to make sure they have freedom--freedom 
of opportunity regardless of one's race, ethnicity, gender, or 
religious beliefs.
  We are trying to advance what I like to call the four pillars of 
freedom: No. 1, freedom of religion; No. 2, freedom of expression; No. 
3, private ownership of property; and, No. 4, the rule of law to help 
adjudicate disputes as well as protect those God-given rights.
  Dr. Rice, through her own life history and through her service to 
this administration, has the background that is going to help us and 
help others during this heroic time.
  The President nominated Dr. Rice because he trusts her. She has 
provided him counsel during these turbulent times in our Nation's 
history. She was part of the effort in formulating the Nation's 
response and ultimately toppling a despotic and repressive regime in 
Afghanistan.
  Following the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the world recognized 
the necessity of having a global, international war against terrorism. 
As National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice had been at the forefront of 
this effort and advised President Bush on how best to execute the war 
on terror and help ensure that the United States is not attacked again.
  The global war on terror is not over. We all know it is ongoing and 
we know it is challenging. There have been some criticisms from those 
on the other side of the aisle, but there are also positives. It would 
be nice, once in a while, to talk about some of the positives.
  We have captured numerous senior-level al-Qaida figures. They have 
been killed or they have been captured, and hundreds of others are on 
the run.
  We are working with other countries--even those which are not 
necessarily with us in the military action in Iraq. They are helping in 
trying to intercept financial assistance to terrorist organizations.
  Another positive is the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and that 
repressive regime has been replaced by an unprecedented but promising 
democracy in Afghanistan.
  The Government of Pakistan, which, prior to 9/11, was aligned with 
that Taliban government in Afghanistan, has become a strong and helpful 
ally in the global war against terrorism.
  In Libya, Muammar Qadhafi, who was a thorn in our side--a threat, 
clearly; a terrorist state--has been convinced to give up his nuclear 
ambitions and rejoin the world community.
  And our military has liberated 25 million Iraqis from the murderous 
regime of Saddam Hussein.
  While conditions on the ground in Iraq continue to be difficult--no 
one is going to question that--if the Iraqis coalesce around the new, 
popularly elected government, it will likely have the positive 
repercussions that we would like to see throughout the Middle East 
region. Shortly they will be having an election.
  I think Dr. Rice's active role in these events provide her with 
valuable preparation to serve our country as Secretary of State. Having 
worked closely with President Bush on national security and foreign 
policy matters for the previous 4 years, Dr. Rice is uniquely qualified 
to communicate this President's message, our position, to capitals 
around the world.
  All of us are a composition of our life experiences. From rising 
above discrimination and racism in her youth to her work during the 
fall of the Soviet Union, to her role in liberating the people of 
Afghanistan and Iraq, Dr. Rice is very well prepared to advocate 
freedom and democracy around the world.
  Before the Foreign Relations Committee we heard several hours of 
testimony. We have heard comments in this Chamber. Detractors have used 
some bump-and-run defenses and tactics against her. Opponents have 
framed the war on Iraq--and Dr. Rice as having stated this--as one 
solely based on Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass 
destruction; that our only reason for going in and using military 
action in Iraq was weapons of mass destruction.
  I will grant you, that was a pressing, salient concern, but that was 
not the only reason. Weapons of mass destruction was a major reason; 
however, this body voted on an authorization measure that outlined a 
much broader case. If you want to use a legal term, it was a multi-
count indictment against the Saddam Hussein regime.
  The resolution that we passed by a strong margin noted Iraq's brutal 
repression of its civilian population and its unwillingness to 
repatriate non-Iraqi citizens. We all know how they had used weapons of 
mass destruction against their own people.
  Congress also went on record as supporting using the necessary means 
to enforce multiple United Nations resolutions that had been ignored 
and flouted by the Iraqi regime, including shooting at some of our 
planes in the no-fly zones in the north and to some extent in the 
southern part of Iraq as well.

[[Page 619]]

  The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 expressed the sense of Congress that 
it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to 
remove from power Saddam's regime and promote the emergence of a 
democratic government.
  Senator Byrd--and I was listening to his comments--mentioned common 
sense. I listened to the remarks of the senior Senator from 
Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, earlier on. He is criticizing Dr. Rice for 
supporting President Bush's policies. He said that ``might have changed 
the course of history had she not given the reasons and the advice that 
she did to the President.''
  Because of that, that she agrees with President Bush, has been an 
architect and key adviser, because of that support, because of that 
knowledge, because of the advice she has given in the past and 
presently, she should not be Secretary of State for this President.
  If one wants to use common sense, why would any Executive bring on a 
Cabinet Secretary--particularly one as important as Secretary of 
State--if that person does not share his views, his values, his 
philosophy, his goals for our country, as well as have that President's 
trust?
  Also, looking through the comments that have been made by others, the 
junior Senator from Indiana said why he is going to be voting against 
Dr. Rice, complaining that there was too little troop strength, 
dismissal of the Iraqi army, and the refusal to include Baathists in 
the armies and security efforts there in Iraq. Opponents have held Dr. 
Rice personally accountable for the decision to disband the Iraqi army 
and remove members of the Baathist Party from Iraq's government.
  Let us again use some common sense. When we are reflecting on this 
decision, it is easy, I suppose, to Monday morning quarterback and 
criticize and question whether that was wise. But at the time of that 
decision--it was clear that institutions that were repressing the 
people of Iraq was the Baathist Party. So the Baathist component of the 
insurgency, which some are saying should have been incorporated, they 
are the ones who are carrying on these terror attacks--not just on 
Americans and coalition forces but also on Iraqi civilians.
  To me, it is illogical to be criticizing Dr. Rice for any of the 
decisions that were made insofar as Baathists and the security forces 
of Iraq when these same people could have been infiltrating the 
security forces, not knowing what sort of information they might 
transmit to other guerillas or terrorists on the outside. To criticize 
that, again, doesn't make much sense to me because they are the ones 
who are most concerned that the Baathist Party was thrown out of power. 
They had their good bureaucratic jobs. They had all the power. They had 
all the privileges. To criticize for not incorporating them into the 
interim government and the security forces doesn't make a great deal of 
sense.
  You also hear, again, from the junior Senator from Indiana--and 
others have said this as well--that those in charge must be held 
accountable for the mistakes. That is why they are going to vote 
against Dr. Rice. Dr. Rice allowed in the committee hearing of the 
Foreign Relations Committee that every decision that was made was not 
the right decision; that they did it with the best of intentions, the 
right principles, based on the evidence and information they had. But 
if you are going to criticize the pursuit of regime change, the 
liberation of Iraq, the advancement of freedom in countries such as 
Iraq, which is in very short order, within a week, going to have 
elections for the first time ever, what is the solution if you are 
going to criticize all of this? To tuck tail and run? I don't think 
that is what the American people want. The American people want to see 
freedom in Iraq because they recognize it is good for fellow human 
beings, but also the logic that it also makes this country much more 
secure.
  In analyzing all of the statements, they are not talking about her 
fitness or her qualifications to serve as Secretary of State. The 
opponents have used this nomination to launch these broadside attacks 
on the Bush administration and use the Monday morning quarterback 
approach to dissect every decision out of context. We have heard about 
a lot of this, again, in the Foreign Relations Committee.
  But even there, I want to repeat, Dr. Rice did not say that every 
decision was perfect. She allowed as much during those hearings. But 
let us also note that 25 million Iraqis have been freed from Saddam's 
repressive regime. In 5 days, these people are going to have elections. 
They are going to be forming their own government. From statements of 
clerics and otherwise, they seem to want a constitution and a 
government that allows for individual rights, where people's rights 
will be enhanced and not diminished on account of their ethnicity or 
their religious beliefs, and also unprecedented opportunities for women 
to serve in government.
  One other thing to note is with Saddam out of power, which seems to 
be criticized indirectly, we don't have Saddam's regime giving $35,000 
to parents to send their children on suicide-murder missions into 
Israel. Instead of that repressive regime sending terrorist attackers 
into Israel, also disrupting the whole region, now we have the chance 
of elections in Iraq for the first time ever, a first step towards a 
representative democracy.
  I ask my colleagues to be cognizant. This is not an agency head. It 
is a Cabinet Secretariat, the Secretary of State, which is arguably the 
most important Cabinet position in the Government. The Vice President 
obviously is very important, but the Secretary of State, particularly 
in a time with all the diplomatic relations and all the efforts that we 
are going to need to be making and continue to make to get allies, 
converts, and assistance from other countries around the world, it is 
important that the President's representative to the rest of the world 
is a person who advocates and garners further support for our position 
in matters of great consequence to our country.
  I ask my colleagues to be careful in your criticism. People can say 
whatever they want. They will say something, and I will say that 
doesn't make sense; here is a more logical approach. That sort of 
bantering back and forth is fine. But in the criticism and statements 
and also trying to divide opinion on this nomination of Dr. Rice, be 
careful not to diminish her credibility in the eyes of those in 
capitals around the world. Detractors can do this country a great 
disservice by playing too hard a partisan game. We need to show a unity 
of purpose to advance freedom. Folks can second-guess, criticize. That 
is all fine. But while doing that, a more positive and constructive 
approach would be to say, here is where a mistake was made; here is 
where we need to hitch up; here is the stage of events in Iraq; and 
here are some positive, constructive ideas to help us achieve this 
goal; that all Americans, regardless of whether you are Republican, 
Democrat, Independent, or don't care about politics, all Americans are 
inspired to the idea that our fellow human beings can live in freedom 
and opportunity; that their children are not starving and hungry when 
they go to bed, where there is a better world.
  Indeed, our new doctrine is peace through liberty, peace through 
strength. That mattered against the Soviet Union. The doctrine in the 
future, in my view, is peace through liberty. As more people are 
tasting that sweet nectar of liberty, it is good for them, and it helps 
our security as a country.
  As we listen to some of these partisan detractors and statements, be 
cognizant that the rest of the world is watching. Do not diminish Dr. 
Rice's credibility in capitals around the world. Also, try to be 
positive in your ideas of where we need to go in the future rather than 
just carping and sniping on decisions made in the past. I do not see 
any value in attacking Dr. Rice personally or inhibiting her ability to 
bring our allies along, on board, whether or not they were in every 
aspect of the military action in Iraq.
  In sum, obviously, I believe Dr. Rice will be an outstanding 
Secretary of State. It is unfortunate some of this has devolved into an 
overly partisan

[[Page 620]]

attack. This debate, as it goes forward this afternoon, this evening, 
and tomorrow, can end on a more positive, constructive sense. I ask my 
colleagues in a respectful way to recognize that inspirational path 
that Dr. Rice has taken to this nomination. Please focus and review her 
impeccable credentials and experience on the matters of foreign policy. 
Upon doing so, I believe it is clear she should be confirmed 
overwhelmingly, strongly, and proudly as our next Secretary of State.
  I ask unanimous consent that an article from today's Wall Street 
Journal by Brendan Miniter entitled ``Woman of the Year, Instead of 
Celebrating Condi Rice, Democrats Nip at Her Ankles,'' be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 25, 2005]

                           Woman of the Year:

     Instead of Celebrating Condi Rice, Democrats Nip at Her Ankles

                          (By Brendan Miniter)

       With 24 new women elected to the House and five to the 
     Senate, 1992 was called the ``year of the woman.'' But how 
     much did Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray or Carol Moseley Braun 
     really change the world? Now, though, a woman is on the rise 
     who has already helped reshape geopolitics. Today Condoleezza 
     Rice will face another round of hearings as she prepares to 
     be confirmed as secretary of state--a position Thomas 
     Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe used as a 
     springboard into the presidency. If Ms. Rice were a Democrat, 
     the media would have dubbed 2005 the ``year of Condi.''
       Ms. Rice has already exerted tremendous influence on world 
     affairs. As President Bush's national security adviser, she 
     was instrumental in developing the administration's response 
     to 9/11 into a policy that involved more than raiding 
     terrorist camps throughout the world. Ms. Rice, who well 
     understands the larger global political forces at work since 
     the end of the Cold War, was one of a handful of powerbrokers 
     who came to realize the best defense against terrorism was to 
     spread freedom and democracy in the world.
       There has been some public doubt whether Ms. Rice actually 
     believes in the policies of this administration. But that has 
     been much wishful thinking by administration critics. Before 
     the Iraq war, she passionately made the case for removing 
     Saddam Hussein. Minutes before one speech on the issue--at an 
     event sponsored by the Manhattan Institute--I had the 
     opportunity to talk with her one on one about Iraq. What I 
     quickly realized was that the policy of peace through liberty 
     was something she cared personally about. Now, as she has 
     been tapped to head the State Department and after President 
     Bush dedicated his second inaugural address to the idea that 
     America's best defense is promoting human liberty, there 
     should be little doubt as to the central role Ms. Rice has 
     played and will continue to play in shaping American foreign 
     policy and the global political landscape.
       Ms. Rice has been loyal to Mr. Bush, but she is an 
     intellectual power in her own right. She has the president's 
     ear and has been deeply immersed in the movement to halt the 
     spread of tyranny by waging a war of ideas since long before 
     Ronald Reagan consigned the Soviet Union to the ash heap of 
     history. This is the year Ms. Rice steps onto the public 
     stage; a year her influence and her intellect is no longer 
     confined to the quiet rooms of power. Her rise deserves to be 
     celebrated.
       That it isn't--and that Senate Democrats instead are 
     delaying her confirmation--says more about the Bush 
     administration's opponents than it does about her. Every day 
     she must face those who would rather that someone like her--
     with her intelligence, political savvy and personal appeal 
     (and anyone who has met her knows, she has a warm, personal 
     touch)--hadn't come along at all. So they ignore her, deny 
     her influence or send out a legion of ankle biters who 
     recycle the same complaints that won John Kerry 251 electoral 
     votes--mostly that the administration she serves promotes 
     torture or that she is too much of a hardliner to soothe 
     relations with other nations.
       These criticisms ring hollow, of course. The Abu Ghraib 
     prosecutions dispel the accusations of systematic torture. As 
     for soothing relations, either foreign leaders see their 
     interests in line with the U.S. or the divisions will 
     persist. France and Germany aren't childishly sulking about 
     some perceived personal rebuke; they genuinely disagree with 
     American policies. Only by subverting American foreign policy 
     could anyone engender the kind of international 
     ``cooperation'' John Kerry and the Democratic establishment 
     so desperately seek.
       Ms. Rice has persisted in the face of her critics. It is no 
     wonder then, that some on the right speculate that she will 
     one day seek elective office--governor or senator in 
     California, or maybe even the presidency. It is a plausible 
     idea. A high profile and good character translate into 
     political power, and she has enough of both to be a political 
     player. Of course, before doing so she'd have to flesh out 
     her views on a wide range of domestic subjects. It's also one 
     of the reasons Democrats would like to tarnish her now, 
     before she becomes a formidable candidate. It is a fair bet, 
     though, that Ms. Rice isn't now playing for a new job four 
     years out. Serving ably as secretary of state is of paramount 
     importance. Judging by her remarks before the Senate so far, 
     this is something Ms. Rice clearly understands. Which is why 
     we should be celebrating this as the year of Condi Rice.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle for a very good and thoughtful debate today on this 
particular nominee.
  I come to the Senate today to report and inform my colleagues on the 
Secretary of State confirmation hearings held in the Foreign Relations 
Committee last week.
  By now, everyone knows I posed some very direct questions to Dr. Rice 
about her statements leading up to the Iraqi war and beyond. As 
National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice gave confidential advice to the 
President regarding the war in Iraq. She also made the case for the war 
in Iraq to the American people through hours of television appearances 
and commentary.
  My questions, every one of them, revolved around her own words. As a 
result of my questions and comments at the hearing, I have been hailed 
as both a hero and a petty person. I have been called both courageous 
and partisan. I have been very surprised at this response. Tens of 
thousands of people signed a petition asking me to hold Dr. Rice 
accountable for her past statements.
  The reason I am so surprised at this reaction is that I believe I am 
doing my job. It is as simple at that. I am on the Foreign Relations 
Committee. This is a very high profile nominee. This is a Secretary of 
State nomination in a time of war. My constituents want me to be 
thorough. They want me to exercise the appropriate role of a Senator.
  Let's look for a moment at what that role is, how it was defined by 
our Founding Fathers. Article II, section 2, clause 2, of the 
Constitution, which I have sworn to uphold, says the President:

     shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the 
     Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and 
     Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers 
     of the United States, whose appointments are not herein 
     otherwise provided for.

  The Cabinet is covered in Article II, section 2, clause 2, of the 
U.S. Constitution.
  Now, if you read this, it does not say anywhere in here that the 
President shall nominate and the Senate shall confirm. It says the 
President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of 
the Senate'' shall make the appointments.
  Why is it our Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play 
such a strong role in the selection of these very important and 
powerful members of the administration and members of the bench? It is 
because our Founders believed that the executive branch must never be 
too powerful or too overbearing.
  In Federal No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

       It will readily be comprehended that a man who had himself 
     the sole disposition of offices would be governed much more 
     by his private inclinations and interests than when he was 
     bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion 
     and determination of a different and independent body . . .

  In today's vernacular, any President needs a check and balance. That 
certainly applies today, and it would apply to a Democratic President 
as much as to a Republican President.
  Our Founders are clear, and the Constitution is clear. Again, it does 
not say anywhere in the Constitution that a President, Democratic or 
Republican, has free rein in the selection of his or her Cabinet. That 
is exactly what the Founders did not want. They wanted the President, 
and I will quote Alexander Hamilton again, to ``submit the propriety of 
his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and 
independent body.'' And that body is the Senate.

[[Page 621]]

  It also doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the only reason 
for a Senator to vote no on a Presidential nominee is because of some 
personal or legal impediment of that nominee. It leaves the door open. 
Senators have to ponder each and every one of these nominations. It is 
very rare that I step forward to oppose one. I have opposed just a 
couple. I have approved hundreds.
  Let me be clear. I will never be deterred--and I know my colleagues 
feel the same, I believe, on both sides of the aisle--I will never be 
deterred from doing a job the Constitution requires of me or it would 
be wrong to have taken the oath and raise my right hand to God and 
swear to uphold the Constitution if I did not take this role seriously.
  I make a special comment to the White House Chief of Staff, who 
called Members of the Senate petty for seeking time to speak out on 
this particular nomination. It is important to know that the White 
House Chief of Staff does a great job for the President, but he does 
not run the Senate. I know he finds the constitutional requirement of 
advice and consent perhaps a nuisance, and others have as well in the 
White House, be they Republicans or Democrats. It is the system of 
government we have inherited from our Founders. As we go around the 
world, hoping to bring freedom and liberty to people, we better make 
sure we get it right here. This is very important, whether it is fair 
and free elections that really work so people do not stand in line for 
10 hours and wait until 4 in the morning to vote, that we fix that, and 
that we, in fact, act as a check and balance in these nominations.
  I have been motivated by a lot of people in my life. One of them is 
Martin Luther King. I wish to share something he said which is not as 
widely quoted as other things. He said that our lives begin to end the 
day we become silent about things that matter. That is important for 
everyone to take to heart. Sometimes it is easier to be silent, to just 
go along, even if in your heart you know there are certain issues that 
have to be put out on the table. But the fact is, our lives begin to 
end the day we become silent about things that matter.
  Why does this nomination matter so much to me and to my constituents 
and to the tens of thousands who signed a petition that they sent to 
me? It is because we are looking at a Secretary of State nomination in 
a time of war, someone who is very loyal to this President. And, of 
course, the President picked someone loyal to him. I do not fault him 
for that in any way, shape, or form. But what matters is this war. A 
very strong majority of Americans are worried about this war, and they 
are worried about what comes next.
  So, yes, it matters, and it is our job to look at these nominees very 
seriously. I think it would be terribly condescending to have someone 
of the caliber of Dr. Rice, with all her intelligence and 
qualifications and her record of public service with this 
administration, and not ask the tough questions. That would be 
condescending. That would be wrong.
  Now, I am so honored to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee with 
the Senator from Virginia, who just made a very eloquent talk. I know 
he would join me in saying that Richard Lugar is one of the fairest 
chairmen with whom we have ever served. He allowed members on both 
sides of the aisle to ask any questions they wanted. He supported our 
right to do so. To me, Richard Lugar is a model chairman. And I want to 
thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who asked very important 
questions of this nominee on everything from exit strategy in Iraq, to 
issues surrounding the torture question, to policies in Latin America, 
to tsunami relief. All of these colleagues from both sides of the aisle 
asked very important questions. As for me, I had five areas of 
questioning, and I want to lay them out briefly for the Senate.
  Now, one more point as to why I believed it was so important to ask 
Dr. Rice these questions. I think everyone remembers when Dr. Rice went 
on television and talked about the mushroom cloud that we could get 
courtesy of Saddam Hussein--an evil tyrant, absolutely. In my opinion, 
as I said in the committee, he ought to rot. So let's not get confused 
on that point. I do not know any American who feels any differently. 
The question is, How many people had to die? That is an important 
question. How many people had to be wounded? That is an important 
question.
  Let me tell you, 1,368 soldiers are dead, as of the latest numbers 
that we got this morning from the Department of Defense, and 10,502 
wounded. My understanding is that about a third of them may well come 
home in tremendous need of mental health counseling to try to help them 
cope with the horrors they have seen, those brave, incredible soldiers. 
As I said in the committee, and I say it again on the floor of the 
Senate, not one of them died in vain. Not one of them got injured in 
vain because when your Commander in Chief sends you to fight in a war, 
it is the most noble of things to do that. And they have done that.
  President Bush, in his inaugural address, talked about bringing 
freedom to countries that do not have it. He did not specify how. Now, 
the nongovernmental organization, Freedom House, estimates there are 49 
countries in the world that are not free. The group believes there are 
another 54 countries that are considered only partly free. I worry 
about sending more troops on military missions based on hyped up 
rhetoric. That is why these questions are so important.
  So the first set of questions that I posed to Dr. Rice had to do with 
her comments about Saddam's nuclear program. On July 30, 2003, Dr. Rice 
was asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if she continued to stand by the 
claims made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months 
leading up to the war.
  In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear weapons scare 
tactics, she said:

       It was a case that said he is trying to reconstitute. He's 
     trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

  And then she says:

       Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year. . . 
     .

  Well, that was false, because 9 months before that, this is what the 
President said:

       If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an 
     amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a 
     single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than 
     a year.

  So she tells the American people nobody ever said he would have a 
weapon within a year, when in fact the President himself made that 
comment.
  Then, later, a year after she said nobody has ever said this, she 
herself says it:

     . . . the intelligence assessment was that he was 
     reconstituting his nuclear programs; that, left unchecked, he 
     would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year. . . .

  That is what she says to Fox News.
  So first she says nobody ever said it. We showed her the fact that 
the President did. And then she contradicts herself. She contradicts 
the President and then she contradicts herself.
  Now, this is very troubling. I wanted to give her a chance to correct 
the record. Did Dr. Rice correct the record? Let me tell you what she 
said. She had two responses. First she said to this committee, my 
committee:

       The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence 
     challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in 
     terms of weapons of mass destruction.

  Notice she does not mention the word ``nuclear weapons.'' And she 
says: We had a very difficult challenge. But that is a contradiction 
because on July 31, 2003, this is what she told a German TV station:

       Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong 
     intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And 
     some of the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen. . . 
     . We had very strong intelligence going in.

  So she tells the committee: We faced a difficult intelligence 
challenge--when she had told a German TV station: It was the best 
intelligence we ever had. This is contradictory, plus she never ever 
addresses the issue that we asked her about. Why did you contradict the 
President and why did she contradict herself?
  Then she had a second response. She pointed to the Duelfer report and 
cited

[[Page 622]]

it but failed to tell the whole story where the Duelfer report said:

       Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following 
     the Gulf War.

  There you go. She never said that. She never cited that. She cited 
other quotes from the Duelfer report.
  So her answers to the questions I asked her, saying once that Saddam 
would not have a weapon within a year, and another to me saying he 
would, her answers are completely nonresponsive to the question and 
raise more credibility lapses.
  Then we have another area of aluminum tubes. On September 8, 2002, 
Dr. Rice was on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer and made this 
statement:

       We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into 
     Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only 
     suited to . . . nuclear weapons programs. . . .

  And then President Bush repeated the same thing:

       Our intelligence sources tell us that (Saddam) has 
     attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable 
     for nuclear weapons production.

  I pointed out to Dr. Rice that the Department of Energy thought 
otherwise as far back as April 11, 2001. They said the ``specifications 
[for the tubes] are not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use. . . 
.''
  On May 9, 2001, they said:

       The Intelligence Community's original analysis of these 
     tubes focused on their possible use in developing gas 
     centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Further 
     investigation reveals, however, Iraq has purchased similar 
     aluminum tubes previously to manufacture chambers for a 
     multiple rocket launcher.

  In other words, not suitable for nuclear weapons.
  Then in July 2002, Australian intelligence said tube evidence is 
``patchy and inconclusive.'' And IAEA said they are ``not directly 
suitable'' for uranium enrichment and are ``consistent'' with making 
ordinary artillery rockets.
  So we laid this all out there for Dr. Rice, and she refused again to 
correct the record. She had a chance.
  This is what she said at the hearing after she saw all of this:

       We didn't go to war because of aluminum tubes.

  That is what she said to the committee. Well, if that is the case, 
why did President Bush cite the aluminum tubes in his speech in which 
he made the case for the war? He said:

       Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam] has 
     attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable 
     for nuclear weapons production.

  So you can't say that the aluminum tubes were not a reason for going 
to war when the President used it in his speech where he was building 
support for the war. She doesn't answer the question. She doesn't 
correct the record. It is very troubling.
  The third issue I raised was the matter of linking Saddam to al-Qaida 
which she did over and over again. I voted for the war against Osama 
bin Laden. I believed the President when he said we are going to get 
him dead or alive. I thought we wouldn't stop--we wouldn't turn away--
and that we would not end until we broke the back of al-Qaida.
  Well, unfortunately, when we went into Iraq--and this was sold to us 
in part by Dr. Rice; she viewed that as her job; I think the President 
gave that job to her--we took our eye off al-Qaida. We took our eye off 
bin Laden. And the consequences are being seen and felt.
  Dr. Rice told the committee that the terrorists ``are on the run.'' 
The truth is, they are now in 60 countries when before 9/11 they were 
in 45 countries.
  I want to read to you a paragraph that best expresses my views on the 
impact of the Iraqi war on the war against terrorism. It was written by 
one of the world's experts on terror, Peter Bergen, 5 months ago:

       What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have 
     hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich 
     Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type 
     of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was 
     the United States' long-term goal in the region. We deposed 
     the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden long despised, 
     ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and 
     have now provoked a ``defensive'' jihad that has galvanized 
     jihad-minded Muslims around the world. It is hard to imagine 
     a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on 
     terrorism.

  This conclusion was supported by the CIA Director's think tank.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article that 
describes this recent report that says Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as 
the training ground for the next generation of ``professionalized'' 
terrorists.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 14, 2005]

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground; War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

                            (By Dana Priest)

       Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for 
     the next generation of ``professionalized'' terrorists, 
     according to a report released yesterday by the National 
     Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.
       Iraq provides terrorists with ``a training ground, a 
     recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical 
     skills,'' said David B. Low, the national intelligence 
     officer for transnational threats. ``There is even, under the 
     best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the 
     jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, 
     wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various 
     other countries.''
       Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council 
     on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year 
     to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and 
     foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation 
     of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic 
     terrorists.
       President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an 
     integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the 
     council's report suggests the conflict has also helped 
     terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.
       ``At the moment,'' NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, 
     Iraq ``is a magnet for international terrorist activity.''
       Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had 
     only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama 
     bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with 
     Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement 
     because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and 
     ran a secular government.
       Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote 
     democracy in the Middle East. ``A free Iraq can be a source 
     of hope for all the Middle East,'' he said one month before 
     the invasion. ``Instead of threatening its neighbors and 
     harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and 
     prosperity in a region that needs both.''
       But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of 
     Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified 
     in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded 
     into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of 
     unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they 
     are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are 
     believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide 
     bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners 
     are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former 
     Baathist fighters and other insurgents.
       ``The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having 
     trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be 
     replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced 
     survivors of the conflict in Iraq,'' the report says.
       According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of 
     conflicts--including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and 
     independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the 
     Philippines, and southern Thailand--that have deepened 
     solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic 
     ideology.
       At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda 
     ``will be superseded'' by other Islamic extremist groups that 
     will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism 
     experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this 
     kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more 
     difficult to uncover and defeat.
       Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and 
     recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become 
     ``an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do 
     not need a stationary headquarters,'' the council's report 
     says. ``Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-
     how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online).''
       The report, titled ``Mapping the Global Future,'' 
     highlights the effects of globalization and other economic 
     and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest 
     concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire 
     biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear 
     device.
       The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, 
     and advises the CIA director. ``The NIC's goal,'' one NIC 
     publication states, ``is to provide policymakers with the 
     best, unvarnished, and unbiased information--regardless of 
     whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy.''
       Other than reports and studies, the council produces 
     classified National Intelligence Estimates, which represent 
     the consensus

[[Page 623]]

     among U.S. intelligence agencies on specific issues.
       Yesterday, Hutchings, former assistant dean of the Woodrow 
     Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at 
     Princeton University, said the NIC report tried to avoid 
     analyzing the effect of U.S. policy on global trends to avoid 
     being drawn into partisan politics.
       Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of 
     ``great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is 
     lower than at any time in the past century.'' However, ``at 
     no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 
     1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments 
     been in such a state of flux as they have in the past 
     decade.''
       The report also says the emergence of China and India as 
     new global economic powerhouses ``will be the most 
     challenging of all'' Washington's regional relationships. It 
     also says that in the competition with Asia over 
     technological advances, the United States ``may lose its 
     edge'' in some sectors.

  (Mr. Martinez assumed the Chair.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Here is the thing. Dr. Rice told the American people that 
there were strong ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin 
Laden and al-Qaida. These are her words:

       We clearly know that there were in the past and have been 
     contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-
     Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time.
       And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in 
     Baghdad.

  Now, I want to show a map that the State Department put out, and it 
was accompanied by a letter from President Bush, a month after 9/11. 
Here is the map. The red indicates where there are al-Qaida cells. 
Unfortunately, we notice the United States is red. That is why we have 
to win this war. This is the list where al-Qaida or affiliated groups 
have operated, and this is a month after 9/11, put out by this 
administration. No Iraq. So how do you then go on television, look the 
American people in the eye, and tell them that in fact--and I will go 
back to her quote again:

       We clearly know that there were in the past and have been 
     contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al-
     Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time.
       And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in 
     Baghdad.

  She did not tell the full story there, and I gave her a chance to do 
it.
  It is really troubling to me. After all this time, these are the 
things she could have said: I never checked out that map. You are 
right, Senator, there were no al-Qaida there. But she didn't do that. 
She could have listened to what the experts were saying about how bin 
Laden loathed Saddam Hussein, two despicable tyrants who hated each 
other.
  Peter Bergen said:

     . . . I met bin Laden in '97 and . . . asked him at the end 
     of the interview . . . his opinion of Saddam Hussein. And 
     [bin Laden] said, ``Well, Saddam is a bad Muslim and he took 
     Kuwait for his own self-aggrandizement.''

  In November 2001, the former head of the Saudi intelligence said:

       Iraq doesn't come very high in the estimation of Osama bin 
     Laden. . . . He thinks of [Saddam Hussein] as an apostate, an 
     infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow 
     Muslim.

  Then the bipartisan 9/11 Commission says there is ``no 
collaborative'' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, and Dr. Rice 
received that memo on September 18, 2001, and still she went before the 
American people. When I asked her about it, she said:

       As to the question of al Qaeda and its presence in Iraq, I 
     think we did say that there was never an issue of operational 
     control . . . that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 
     as far as we know or could tell.
       It wasn't a question of operational alliance. It was a 
     question of an attitude about terrorism that allowed Zarqawi 
     to be in Baghdad and to operate out of Baghdad.

  Well, those statements continued to mislead. There is no question 
about it. When she says there wasn't an operational alliance and she 
believed there never was, why was it that aboard the USS Abraham 
Lincoln, when President Bush had that famous sign ``mission 
accomplished,'' he said:

       The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign 
     against terror. We have removed an ally of al Qaeda.

  How do you tell the committee that this administration never thought 
there was an operational link, when the President, standing on the USS 
Abraham Lincoln, was saying mission accomplished, and the major 
fighting is behind us?
  He said:

       In the war against Saddam, we have removed an ally of al 
     Qaeda.

  It isn't right to continue this kind of talk when you already know 
from the 9/11 Commission that it isn't true, and you know from looking 
at the State Department that it wasn't true. Yet it all continues.
  In her point about allowing Zarqawi to be in Baghdad, she failed to 
mention a CIA document that was reportedly sent to the White House in 
September 2004 that states there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam 
harbored Zarqawi.
  Last October, a senior U.S. official told ABC News there was, in 
fact, no evidence that Saddam even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad. So we 
are not being told the whole truth. We are not being given all of the 
facts. I have to say that I think it is a disservice to the American 
people.
  The fourth issue I raised with Dr. Rice concerns U.S. relations with 
Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. That sounds like, why would I raise that 
because that war was in the 1980s? It is important because, in making 
her case for the war in Iraq, Dr. Rice cited Saddam's deplorable use of 
chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It certainly was a sin 
against humanity. She failed to mention, however, that it was Special 
Envoy Donald Rumsfeld--here he is in this picture--in December 1983 who 
met with Saddam 1 month after the United States confirmed he was using 
chemical weapons almost daily against Iran. In an attempt to support 
Iraq during that war, Iraq was removed from the terrorism list in 1982. 
None other than Donald Rumsfeld was giving the good news to Saddam 
Hussein and tried to restore full diplomatic relations. As a matter of 
fact, during this whole Iran-Iraq war, we all know the story that 
American firms were selling materials to Saddam Hussein.
  Now, this is what Dr. Rice said. She said:

       I will say it right now. The U.S. Government has often, as 
     the President said, supported regimes in the hope that they 
     would bring stability. We have been in the Middle East 
     sometimes blind to the freedom deficit. We are not going to 
     do that anymore. What happened with Saddam is probably 
     evidence that that policy was not a very wise policy.

  That is an understatement. It was a horrific policy. It was a 
terrible policy. It was a policy of appeasing Saddam Hussein, making 
sure that he had the weapons, because we were essentially taking his 
side quietly in the Iran-Iraq war, and Donald Rumsfeld was super 
involved in it, and here is the picture to prove it.
  Now, I do appreciate that Dr. Rice said it probably was not a very 
wise policy. I was glad to hear her say that. But you know what. She 
doesn't explain to us why. When she cited Iraq's use of chemical 
weapons against Iran as a justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq, 
she doesn't mention that the U.S. Government was working at that very 
same time to reestablish robust relations with Saddam. Indeed, our own 
Government took Saddam off the terror list, and the American people 
deserve to know that from her, when she advanced this issue as a reason 
for the war. Full disclosure. Give the whole story.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 24 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I raise the issue of Dr. Rice's opposition 
to a provision in the intelligence reform bill that would have outlawed 
the use of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners 
by intelligence officials. The section of this provision is here. It 
was passed unanimously by the Senate. The overall amendment was written 
by Senators McCain and Lieberman, but this particular provision was 
written by Senator Durbin:

       Prohibition on torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading 
     treatment or punishment.
       In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or 
     cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment that is 
     prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 
     United States.

  That is very straightforward. When I asked Dr. Rice, why did you sign 
a letter with Mr. Bolton and object to this

[[Page 624]]

provision and ask that it be stricken, she had a couple of different 
responses. The first response she gave me was:

       This is duplicative of language that was in the Defense 
     Department bill.

  So I checked with the authors of this provision, and I said: Is it 
true that this is duplicative? They said the language is in the 
Department of Defense, but it does not apply to the CIA and 
intelligence officers who work outside of the DOD. So I explained it to 
her, and she argued with me and she said it is not true, it is 
duplicative. I said: Do you think Senators McCain, Lieberman, and 
Durbin don't know what they are doing when they added this to the 
intelligence bill? She didn't answer. The fact is, this is not 
duplicative. This is necessary so that we cover those intelligence 
officials who may not be part of the Department of Defense but are part 
of other agencies not covered by the Department of Defense.
  And then she went on and said:

       We did not want to afford to people who did not--shouldn't 
     enjoy certain protections those protections. And the Geneva 
     Conventions should not apply to terrorists like al-Qaida. 
     They can't or you will stretch the meaning of the Geneva 
     Convention.

  That was her second problem with it, which was that you are granting 
more rights than the Geneva Conventions. However, this explanation 
makes no sense because the following language was also part of this, 
which is:

       Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any 
     person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any person is 
     entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

  So she gave two reasons as to why she wrote a letter and demanded 
this be removed from the intelligence bill, neither of which is true. 
It is not duplicative, and there is no problem with the Geneva 
Conventions because we make a special exception for them.
  But that is not all. The next day, Dr. Rice came back and changed 
what she said the day before. She said she doesn't oppose the 
subsection that clearly prohibited torture and cruel, inhumane, or 
degrading treatment. She said she opposes other provisions in the 
section.
  Well, Mr. President, this was the operative language of the section. 
That second day's excuse just doesn't hold up under scrutiny because 
she wrote in a letter--this is what Dr. Rice wrote to the committee.
  This says:

       The administration also opposes [she names the section] 
     which provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to 
     which they are not now entitled under applicable law and 
     policy.

  And she says that section 1095 of the Defense Authorization Act 
already addresses this issue. So Dr. Rice's own words in the letter 
contradict what she told the committee.
  Now, this issue of torture is one that matters. It matters to me for 
many reasons. The first is it is about our humanity. It is about our 
humanity. Second is that it is about our soldiers, who may find 
themselves in captivity and in a circumstance where they might well get 
treated the way we are treating people we capture. That is why the 
protective words here and living up to our treaties or obligations of 
our Constitution and international treaties are so important. It is not 
some vague academic discussion; it is very serious.
  Now, I went and saw, as many colleagues did, the pictures from Abu 
Ghraib prison. As long as I live, they will be seared in my memory. 
There are a lot more pictures that the public didn't see. I can tell 
you--and I think I can say this of most of my colleagues I was sitting 
with from both sides of the aisle--I could barely watch what was shown.
  I am sometimes torn to talk about what I saw. I have done it in small 
groups where my constituents have asked me what I saw, but I will not 
do it today. I do not want to do it, but let it be said that the kinds 
of pictures that I saw do not reflect our country or our values. We 
have to be united on this.
  Senator Dodd asked Dr. Rice to please tell us her personal views on 
torture, and he laid out a couple of examples of torture. She demurred 
and would not respond to those specific questions. I thought that was a 
moment in time where she could have sent out a signal to the whole 
world about America. She said for sure that Abu Ghraib was terrible. 
She was eloquent on the point. In fact, I will read to my colleagues 
what she said right after Abu Ghraib:

       What took place at the Abu Ghraib prison does not represent 
     America. Our nation is a compassionate country that believes 
     in freedom. The U.S. government is deeply sorry for what has 
     happened to some Abu Ghraib prisoners and people worldwide 
     should be assured that President Bush is determined to learn 
     the full truth of the prisoner reports in Iraq.

  Those comments at that time were very important. They were the type 
of comments that I think pull us all together. It was a comment that 
reflected humanity.
  Then we have this language that she writes a couple of months after 
she makes this beautiful speech in October saying she opposes this 
provision that says no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, 
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the 
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. She writes a 
letter opposing this section after she makes this beautiful speech.
  When I asked her to explain it, she gives me reasons that just do not 
hold up, that it is duplicative, which it is not, that she really did 
not oppose it, which cannot possibly be true because we have her letter 
in writing where she did.
  There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has the resume, the story, the 
intelligence, and the experience to be Secretary of State. She 
certainly is loyal to this President, we know that, and I think that is 
important. The President wants to have someone who is loyal. He should 
also want to have someone who will be independent such as Colin Powell 
was.
  After 9 hours of grueling questions and answers before the committee, 
she proved her endurance for the job. In responding to me, she used a 
very clever tactic that we all learn in politics, which is to go after 
the questioner, why are you attacking me, and then do not answer the 
questions. It was OK that she did that. I did not mind that she did 
that. But she did not answer the questions. That is the point.
  I believe the committee gave Dr. Rice the opportunity to speak 
candidly and set the record straight. It is not only my questions. 
Senator Biden asked her how many Iraqi security forces were trained, 
and without blinking an eye she said 120,000. And he said, wait a 
minute--and anyone who knows Senator Biden knows that he kind of roots 
for someone when they sit in the hot seat--let us really be candid 
here. He said: I went to Iraq and I was told by the military that there 
is nothing close to 120,000. He said he was told there were 4,000. She 
stuck by the 120,000.
  Later, when others were asked in the administration, such as 
Ambassador Negroponte, he would not put out a number but he sure did 
not say 120,000.
  Everyone with a heart and a pulse knows it is not 120,000 trained 
troops, because as Senator Biden said at that hearing, if there are 
120,000 trained Iraqi troops to protect the Iraqi people, why in God's 
name are we there in the numbers we are and keeping people there, who 
are leaving their families, for extra tours of duty? She would not 
budge.
  I am troubled because we gave Dr. Rice every opportunity to speak 
candidly, set the record straight, and she just did not do that.
  In her role as National Security Adviser, she was not responsible for 
coming to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House 
equivalent committee. Now she is going to be responsible for that. She 
could not have a friendlier chairman than Senator Lugar in terms of 
being given every opportunity to work with our committee. I know 
Senator Biden and Senator Lugar work together just like brothers. This 
is a very bipartisan committee. We are going to see Dr. Rice there very 
often because she will be confirmed. I hope when she comes back before 
the committee that she will be more candid with the committee.
  At this time I am judging her on her answers to these questions. She 
dodged so many of them and again resorted to

[[Page 625]]

half the story and even got herself in deeper water in some of her 
responses. So I cannot support this nomination.
  The cost of the policy in Iraq, a policy that she embraced 
wholeheartedly, a policy that she did, in fact, bring to the American 
people and she led them to certain conclusions that turned out not to 
be true, whether it was the aluminum tubes, the ties to al-Qaida, 
whether it was her half argument on the Iran-Iraq war, whether it was 
her obvious contradictory statements on we never said he would have a 
nuclear weapon in a year one day and then the next year she said we did 
not say that, it is too hard to overlook these things.
  I will close with the Martin Luther King quote, which I will not 
recite exactly but I do agree that our lives begin to end when we stop 
caring about things that matter. Accountability matters. Truth telling 
matters. The whole truth matters. Responsibility matters. The advice 
and consent role of the Senate is one that is really very important. I 
hope my colleagues on both sides will recognize that this Senate is at 
its best when we have some of these tough debates.
  It is not as if we are having a vote to confirm a Cabinet position 
that will not have as much reach. It is not as if we are voting to 
confirm a position where the individual is brand new and does not have 
a record. This is a very important position in a time of war where the 
nominee had a record of making many statements to the American people. 
I believe that out of respect for the American people, out of respect 
for the Senate, out of respect for the Foreign Relations Committee, and 
out of respect to Condoleezza Rice herself, we needed to ask these 
questions.
  Now that he is on the floor again, I would say to Senator Lugar what 
I said before, that he is such a fair chairman. All of us on the 
committee have such respect for him. I look forward to working with him 
on many issues. I think there will be many times where we will be 
voting the same way. We will not be today, but that is just one time. 
There will be many other occasions where we will be together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Tennessee is now recognized.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's next Secretary of State. President 
Bush has made an excellent choice for this preeminent position in his 
Cabinet. Her experience as National Security Adviser will make her even 
more effective than one normally might be. When foreign leaders talk 
with Dr. Rice, they will know she is speaking with the President's 
voice.
  I had the privilege of attending much of the 9-plus hours of 
hearings. Dr. Rice got about every kind of question. She handled the 
questions, I thought, with dignity, with intelligence, with grace. It 
was an excellent performance. It augurs well for her time as a U.S. 
Secretary of State. I am proud to support her.
  The major issue confronting Dr. Rice and our Nation today is the war 
in Iraq. At the hearings to which I just referred, some of my 
colleagues talked about needing an exit strategy. I disagree. I don't 
believe we need an exit strategy in Iraq. We need a success strategy. 
But such a strategy may mean taking a little more realistic view of 
what we mean by success. It is one thing to help people win their 
freedom, as we did in Iraq. It is another to help a country become a 
stable, pluralistic democracy, a flourishing society. We need to ask 
ourselves how many American lives are we willing to sacrifice to do 
this? How long are we willing for it to take? And what is our standard 
for success?
  We should be thinking well beyond Iraq. The next time the opportunity 
occurs for the United States to undertake what we now call regime 
change, or nation building, what lessons have we learned in Iraq? 
During his campaign for the Presidency in 2000, President Bush was 
critical of nation building. That was before September 11, 2001. Today 
the situation has obviously changed.
  Our initial war in Iraq was a stunning success. What came afterwards 
has been a series of miscalculations. But the United States has engaged 
in nation building more than a dozen times since World War II and, 
based on those experiences, should we not have anticipated that nation 
building in Iraq would have required more troops, more money, and taken 
longer than we expected? And what do those lessons say about our future 
policy toward nation building?
  I asked Dr. Rice about this when she appeared before the Foreign 
Relations Committee. One lesson she said we learned was that we need to 
train our own diplomatic personnel with the skills of nation building. 
She said we need to learn how to help a country set up a new, 
independent judiciary, how to establish a currency, how to train up 
police forces, among other things. I am sure other lessons will be 
learned as we move forward, and we should be humble enough to learn 
them.
  I would hope that our experience in Iraq has reminded us of what a 
major commitment regime change and nation building require. I hope the 
next time someone suggests to this President, or to any future 
President, that he pursue regime change, that one of his advisers, 
perhaps Dr. Rice, will say: Mr. President, based on the history of 
postwar reconstruction and what we have learned in Iraq, any regime 
change is likely to take us several years, is likely to cost us 
hundreds of billions of dollars, and require the sacrifice of thousands 
of lives. If it is in our national interest to go ahead, then the 
President may decide that, but he needs to have that advice. And we 
need to discuss that as we did in the hearing the other day.
  American history is the story of setting noble goals and struggling 
to reach them and often falling short. We sincerely say, in our 
country, that anything is possible, that all men are created equal, 
that no child will be left behind--even though we know down deep we 
will fall short and we know we will then have to pick ourselves up and 
keep trying again to reach those noble goals.
  We also said we want to make the world safe for democracy, and we 
remember an inaugural speech 44 years ago in which a new President 
named John F. Kennedy said we would ``pay any price, bear any burden'' 
to defend freedom. And we heard last Thursday President Bush echo those 
sentiments when he said to the people of the world: When you stand for 
your liberty, we will stand with you.
  Yet there is obviously a limit to what we can do and to what we are 
willing to do and to the number of lives we will sacrifice to secure 
the blessings of freedom and democracy for others. So, now that we have 
a new Secretary of State--almost have one--new Iraqi elections within 
the next few days, and we are about to spend another $80 billion in 
Iraq, now is a good time to be clearer about what our success strategy 
would be in Iraq. When I asked Dr. Rice about this in her hearing, she 
acknowledged we need a success strategy but didn't want to commit to a 
timetable.
  In a Washington Post op-ed this morning, two of Dr. Rice's 
predecessors, Secretaries Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, agreed we 
should not set a specific timetable for pulling out our troops. But 
they also go further than Dr. Rice did in the hearing in outlining the 
framework for what a success strategy in Iraq might look like.
  Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Shultz wrote this:

       A successful strategy needs to answer these questions: Are 
     we waging ``one war'' in which military and political efforts 
     are mutually reinforcing? Are the institutions guiding and 
     monitoring these tasks sufficiently coordinated? Is our 
     strategic goal to achieve complete security in at least some 
     key towns and major communication routes (defined as reducing 
     violence to historical criminal levels)? This would be in 
     accordance with the maxim that complete security in 70 
     percent of the country is better than 70 percent security in 
     100 percent of the country--because fully secure areas can be 
     models and magnets for those who are suffering in insecure 
     places. Do we have a policy for eliminating the sanctuaries 
     in Syria and Iran from which the enemy can be instructed, 
     supplied, and given refuge and time to regroup? Are we 
     designing a policy that can

[[Page 626]]

     produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for 
     control of the State and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining 
     American public support so that staged surges of extreme 
     violence do not break domestic public confidence at a time 
     when the enemy may, in fact, be on the verge of failure? And 
     are we gaining international understanding and willingness to 
     play a constructive role in what is a global threat to peace 
     and security?
       An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time 
     limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce 
     positive answers to these questions.

  That is what Secretaries Kissinger and Shultz wrote this morning. I 
ask unanimous consent the article be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. When Dr. Rice comes back to the committee as Secretary 
Rice--and she will be there often--I hope she will address these 
questions and say more about what our objectives are. When she does, I 
also wouldn't mind if she acknowledges when things aren't going well, 
or when we need to change our strategy or tactics because our earlier 
approach is not working. I think such acknowledgments only strengthen 
the administration's credibility and reassure us that needed 
adjustments are being made.
  At President Reagan's funeral last June, former Senator Jack Danforth 
said the text for his homily was ``the obvious,'' Matthew 5:14-16.

       You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill 
     cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a 
     bushel basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all 
     in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before 
     others, so that they may see your good works, and give glory 
     to your father in heaven.

  From our beginning, that vision of the city on a hill has helped to 
define what it means to be an American and provided America with a 
moral mission. It helps explain why we invaded Iraq, why we fought wars 
``to make the world safe for democracy,'' and why President Bush said 
last Thursday:

       All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the 
     United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your 
     oppressors.

  It is why we are forever involving ourselves in other nations' 
business. It is why when I was in Mozambique last summer I found 800 
Americans, 400 of them missionaries and most of the rest diplomats or 
aid workers.
  But is it possible that too much nation building runs the risk of 
extending too far the vision of the city on the hill?
  Letting a light shine so others may see our good works does not 
necessarily mean we must invade a country and change its regime and 
reshape it until it begins to look like us. It may mean instead that we 
strive harder to understand and celebrate our own values of democracy, 
of equal opportunity, of individualism, of tolerance, the rule of law 
and other principles that unite us and that we hope will be exported to 
other parts of the world. How we ourselves live would then become our 
most persuasive claim to real leadership in a world filled with people 
hungry to know how to live their lives.
  For example, in my own experience--and Dr. Rice said at the hearings 
in her experience--we have found that sometimes the most effective way 
to export our values is to train foreign students at our American 
universities who then return home to become leaders in their own 
countries.
  Of course, we Americans will never say that only some men are created 
equal, that only some children will not be left behind, or that we will 
pay only some price to defend freedom. But perhaps we should be 
thinking more about strategies for extending freedom and democracy in 
the world other than nation building and determine what those 
strategies are and when they most appropriately might be used.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2005]

                Results, Not Timetables, Matter in Iraq

              (By Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz)

       The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi 
     elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a 
     culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The 
     timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial. 
     All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit 
     strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit 
     time limit on the U.S. effort.
       We reject this counsel. The implications of the term ``exit 
     strategy'' must be clearly understood; there can be no 
     fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an 
     acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an 
     arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the 
     next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher 
     in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and 
     fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly 
     at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim 
     populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the 
     rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of 
     direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American 
     confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be 
     almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf 
     Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors 
     escalated their current involvement into full-scale 
     intervention.
       We owe it to ourselves to become clear about what post-
     election outcome is compatible with our values and global 
     security. And we owe it to the Iraqis to strive for an 
     outcome that can further their capacity to shape their 
     future.
       The mechanical part of success is relatively easy to 
     define: establishment of a government considered sufficiently 
     legitimate by the Iraqi people to permit recruitment of an 
     army able and willing to defend its institutions. That goal 
     cannot be expedited by an arbitrary deadline that would be, 
     above all, likely to confuse both ally and adversary. The 
     political and military efforts cannot be separated. Training 
     an army in a political vacuum has proved insufficient. If we 
     cannot carry out both the political and military tasks, we 
     will not be able to accomplish either.
       But what is such a government? Optimists and idealists 
     posit that a full panoply of Western democratic institutions 
     can be created in a time frame the American political process 
     will sustain. Reality is likely to disappoint these 
     expectations. Iraq is a society riven by centuries of 
     religious and ethnic conflicts; it has little or no 
     experience with representative institutions. The challenge is 
     to define political objectives that, even when falling short 
     of the maximum goal, nevertheless represent significant 
     progress and enlist support across the various ethnic groups. 
     The elections of Jan. 30 should therefore be interpreted as 
     the indispensable first phase of a political evolution from 
     military occupation to political legitimacy.
       Optimists also argue that, since the Shiites make up about 
     60 percent of the population and the Kurds 15 to 20 percent, 
     and since neither wants Sunni domination, a democratic 
     majority exists almost automatically. In that view, the Iraqi 
     Shiite leaders have come to appreciate the benefits of 
     democratization and the secular state by witnessing the 
     consequences of their absence under the Shiite theocracy in 
     neighboring Iran.
       A pluralistic, Shiite-led society would indeed be a happy 
     outcome. But we must take care not to base policy on the wish 
     becoming father to the thought. If a democratic process is to 
     unify Iraq peacefully, a great deal depends on how the Shiite 
     majority defines majority rule.
       So far the subtle Shiite leaders, hardened by having 
     survived decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, have been 
     ambiguous about their goals. They have insisted on early 
     elections--indeed, the date of Jan. 30 was established on the 
     basis of a near-ultimatum by the most eminent Shiite leader, 
     Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Shiites have also urged 
     voting procedures based on national candidate lists, which 
     work against federal and regional political institutions. 
     Recent Shiite pronouncements have affirmed the goal of a 
     secular state but have left open the interpretation of 
     majority rule. An absolutist application of majority rule 
     would make it difficult to achieve political legitimacy. The 
     Kurdish minority and the Sunni portion of the country would 
     be in permanent opposition.
       Western democracy developed in homogeneous societies; 
     minorities found majority rule acceptable because they had a 
     prospect of becoming majorities, and majorities were 
     restrained in the exercise of their power by their temporary 
     status and by judicially enforced minority guarantees. Such 
     an equation does not operate where minority status is 
     permanently established by religious affiliation and 
     compounded by ethnic differences and decades of brutal 
     dictatorship. Majority rule in such circumstances is 
     perceived as an alternative version of the oppression of the 
     weak by the powerful. In multiethnic societies, minority 
     rights must be protected by structural and constitutional 
     safeguards. Federalism mitigates the scope for potential 
     arbitrariness of the numerical majority and defines autonomy 
     on a specific range of issues.
       The reaction to intransigent Sunni brutality and the 
     relative Shiite quiet must not tempt us into identifying 
     Iraqi legitimacy with unchecked Shiite rule. The American 
     experience with Shiite theocracy in Iran

[[Page 627]]

     since 1979 does not inspire confidence in our ability to 
     forecast Shiite evolution or the prospects of a Shiite-
     dominated bloc extending to the Mediterranean. A thoughtful 
     American policy will not mortgage itself to one side in a 
     religious conflict fervently conducted for 1,000 years.
       The Constituent Assembly emerging from the elections will 
     be sovereign to some extent. But the United States' 
     continuing leverage should be focused on four key objectives: 
     (1) to prevent any group from using the political process to 
     establish the kind of dominance previously enjoyed by the 
     Sunnis; (2) to prevent any areas from slipping into Taliban 
     conditions as havens and recruitment centers for terrorists; 
     (3) to keep Shiite government from turning into a theocracy, 
     Iranian or indigenous; (4) to leave scope for regional 
     autonomy within the Iraqi democratic process.
       The United States has every interest in conducting a 
     dialogue with all parties to encourage the emergence of a 
     secular leadership of nationalists and regional 
     representatives. The outcome of constitution-building should 
     be a federation, with an emphasis on regional autonomy. Any 
     group pushing its claims beyond these limits should be 
     brought to understand the consequences of a breakup of the 
     Iraqi state into its constituent elements, including an 
     Iranian-dominated south, an Islamist-Hussein Sunni center and 
     invasion of the Kurdish region by its neighbors.
       A calibrated American policy would seek to split that part 
     of the Sunni community eager to conduct a normal life from 
     the part that is fighting to reestablish Sunni control. The 
     United States needs to continue building an Iraqi army, 
     which, under conditions of Sunni insurrection, will be 
     increasingly composed of Shiite recruits--producing an 
     unwinnable situation for the Sunni rejectionists. But it 
     should not cross the line into replacing Sunni dictatorship 
     with Shiite theocracy. It is a fine line, but the success of 
     Iraq policy may depend on the ability to walk it.
       The legitimacy of the political institutions emerging in 
     Iraq depends significantly on international acceptance of the 
     new government. An international contact group should be 
     formed to advise on the political and economic reconstruction 
     of Iraq. Such a step would be a gesture of confident 
     leadership, especially as America's security and financial 
     contributions will remain pivotal. Our European allies must 
     not shame themselves and the traditional alliance by 
     continuing to stand aloof from even a political process that, 
     whatever their view of recent history, will affect their 
     future even more than ours. Nor should we treat countries 
     such as India and Russia, with their large Muslim 
     populations, as spectators to outcomes on which their 
     domestic stability may well depend.
       Desirable political objectives will remain theoretical 
     until adequate security is established in Iraq. In an 
     atmosphere of political assassination, wholesale murder and 
     brigandage, when the road from Baghdad to its international 
     airport is the scene of daily terrorist or criminal 
     incidents, no government will long be able to sustain public 
     confidence. Training, equipping and motivating effective 
     Iraqi armed forces is a precondition to all the other 
     efforts. Yet no matter how well trained and equipped, that 
     army will not fight except for a government in which it has 
     confidence. This vicious circle needs to be broken.
       It is axiomatic that guerrillas win if they do not lose. 
     And in Iraq the guerrillas are not losing, at least not in 
     the Sunni region, at least not visibly. A successful strategy 
     needs to answer these questions: Are we waging ``one war'' in 
     which military and political efforts are mutually 
     reinforcing? Are the institutions guiding and monitoring 
     these tasks sufficiently coordinated? Is our strategic goal 
     to achieve complete security in at least some key towns and 
     major communication routes (defined as reducing violence to 
     historical criminal levels)? This would be in accordance with 
     the maxim that complete security in 70 percent of the country 
     is better than 70 percent security in 100 percent of the 
     country--because fully secure areas can be models and magnets 
     for those who are suffering in insecure places. Do we have a 
     policy for eliminating the sanctuaries in Syria and Iran from 
     which the enemy can be instructed, supplied, and given refuge 
     and time to regroup? Are we designing a policy that can 
     produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for 
     control of the state and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining 
     American public support so that staged surges of extreme 
     violence do not break domestic public confidence at a time 
     when the enemy may, in fact, be on the verge of failure? And 
     are we gaining international understanding and willingness to 
     play a constructive role in what is a global threat to peace 
     and security?
       An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time 
     limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce 
     positive answers to these questions. In the immediate future, 
     a significant portion of the anti-insurrection effort will 
     have to be carried out by the United States. A premature 
     shift from combat operations to training missions might 
     create a gap that permits the insurrection to rally its 
     potential. But as Iraqi forces increase in number and 
     capability, and as the political construction proceeds after 
     the election, a realistic exit strategy will emerge.
       There is no magic formula for a quick, non-catastrophic 
     exit. But there is an obligation to do our utmost to bring 
     about an outcome that will mark a major step forward in the 
     war against terrorism, in the transformation of the Middle 
     East and toward a more peaceful and democratic world order.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under a 
previous order I am allowed 20 minutes. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. I understand Senator Reed of Rhode Island is also on the 
list to speak. Is he not? I make inquiry of the Chair: Under the order, 
is Senator Reed of Rhode Island also allotted time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished 
Senator, Senator Reed is on a list but is not designated precisely. 
Perhaps while the speaker is speaking we can work this out.
  Mr. DURBIN. I recommend that even though he may miss part of my 
speech.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  President Bush has nominated Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. 
It is one of the highest positions in our Government. She is a person 
of considerable accomplishment and formidable intellect. I have watched 
her service from afar, and this morning I had my first opportunity to 
meet her personally. Dr. Rice came by my office and we sat down for 
half an hour and discussed many different issues. I was impressed with 
her ability and with her forthright approach.
  I will tell you that I am also troubled. I am troubled because I 
followed closely the exchange between Dr. Rice and Senator Boxer during 
the confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee. The 
reason I followed this closely was not only because it was important 
and it related to the issue of torture but because it involved an 
amendment which I had drafted. As every American I have met, I was 
shocked by the information and photographs that came out of Abu Ghraib; 
troubled by reports from Guantanamo.
  As a result, I joined in a bipartisan effort in both the Department 
of Defense authorization bill, as well as later in the intelligence 
reform bill, to put a clear restatement of American law to a vote, that 
the United States is prohibited from engaging in torture, or cruel, 
inhuman or degrading treatment. It is important to restate this 
principle and value so there would be no questions asked as to whether 
the United States had deviated from the legal standard which we had 
held for over 50 years--a standard first embodied in the Geneva 
Conventions and then in the Convention on Torture, and in other places 
in our laws.
  My anti-torture amendment passed in the Senate, went to conference on 
the Department of Defense authorization bill, but it was changed 
slightly from a prohibition to a statement of policy. I didn't care 
much for the change, but I accepted it because I thought it still 
preserved the basic goal, which was to restate our country's policy 
against torture. The part that did not change was my amendment's 
requirement that the Department of Defense report regularly on any 
violations of this policy against torture. That was what happened in 
the Department of Defense bill.
  Then came the intelligence reform bill, and I felt it was important 
that we try again to restate our law of prohibition against torture. It 
was equally important that the reporting requirements for violations 
apply not only to the military agencies as we did in the Defense bill, 
but also apply to the variety of different intelligence agencies 
covered by the intelligence bill.
  I tried with both bipartisan amendments to cover the circumstances of 
those who would take into detention someone during the course of war in 
Iraq or Afghanistan or some other place.
  This amendment passed and it was sent to conference. I followed the 
conference closely as a Senate conferee and a member of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.

[[Page 628]]

  I was surprised and disappointed to learn as I went to conference 
that a message had come down from the White House--specifically from 
Dr. Rice and OMB Director Joshua Bolten--which said they objected to my 
amendment which condemned torture by any American, including members of 
the American intelligence community.
  I couldn't believe it--they first accepted the underlying policy 
goals and the reporting requirements of this same amendment for the 
Department of Defense, and now they were making an exception when it 
came to intelligence agencies.
  I have to tell you that I am very troubled by that. When Senator 
Boxer asked repeated questions of Dr. Rice on the issue, she received 
conflicting answers. So I returned to the same question this morning. I 
asked Dr. Rice point blank: Why did you object to that amendment? She 
said incorrectly: We had already taken care of that. Your Department of 
Defense amendment took care of intelligence agencies.
  That is not the case. The Department of Defense amendment which I 
offered, which she should have read and apparently did not read, had 
reporting requirements for the Department of Defense but not for the 
intelligence agencies. My intelligence reform bill amendment would have 
extended these requirements for the intelligence agencies.
  I am disappointed by that. It is not just another amendment being 
offered on the floor. Taking away any personal pride and authorship in 
this, it was a timely amendment after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to 
try to restate for America and the world where we stood and where our 
principles are. Yet this administration opposed it. I am troubled by 
it. I understand Senator Boxer is even more troubled by it.
  This is a critical moment in our history. It is critical because of 
the war in Iraq to pick up the morning paper--most Americans probably 
did as well--and read in this paper that the Pentagon announced there 
will be 120,000 American soldiers in Iraq for at least 2 more years. It 
is a stunning and sad admission.
  I remember when the invasion took place. I remember a colleague of 
mine from Indiana--who happens to be the chairman of the committee 
before us today, Senator Lugar--and his statement. I don't know if he 
still holds to this position, but I have quoted him at length. He said 
at the moment of our invasion in Iraq that we are likely to be there 
for 5 years. When I repeated his statement and believed it to be true, 
many people said: We are sure you are wrong. We are going to be home 
more quickly than that. After we knock Saddam Hussein out of power, the 
Iraqi people will take over and we will come home.
  Here we are 2 years in the conflict, 1,400 Americans have been 
killed, 10,000 or 12,000 injured--more by the day--hundreds of 
incidents of insurgency, terrorism, and we are still there.
  I went to Litchfield, IL, 3 weeks ago to watch an MP Illinois Guard 
unit go off for their deployment for 18 months. There are 80, all men, 
in this unit. I shook hands with each of them and looked them in the 
eye and gave them all my best wishes, as did the crowd at the 
Litchfield High School gym. As I looked at them, I thought: Is there 
any possibility they will be home soon? This report in the morning 
paper says the answer is no.
  What troubles me is not that it is a situation demanding of 
Americans. We have risen to challenges before. But what troubles me the 
most about this is I think it evidences one of the most profound 
failures in a democracy. When leaders of a democratic government 
mislead the people of the country in relation to a war and an invasion 
of another country, I think that is the lowest point one can reach. 
Note that I said misleading and not intentionally misleading. There is 
a big difference.
  In this situation, it is the argument of President Bush and his White 
House that it is true--they misled the American people about the 
presence of weapons of mass destruction, about nuclear weapons, about 
aluminum tubes, about connections with al-Qaida, about unmanned aerial 
vehicles. The list goes on and on. But their argument is, well, we had 
intelligence; we received bad information. If we told the American 
people something was wrong, don't blame us; blame the intelligence 
agencies.
  That has been the position of the White House. That is a sad defense 
when you consider where we are today, with 150,000 American troops with 
their lives in danger after being misled by the White House about the 
circumstances surrounding Iraq.
  Dr. Rice, as the National Security Adviser, was in the room and at 
the table when decisions were made. She has to accept responsibility 
for what she said, which has been quoted at length on the floor. Some 
of the suggestions about nuclear threats, some of the suggestions about 
the threats of Saddam Hussein out of the mouth of Dr. Rice were just 
plain wrong and repeated. That, to me, is very troubling.
  Five days from today, Iraq is scheduled to hold its first election in 
nearly half a century. It is a step forward. We want to see this move 
toward democracy. I hope it is just not an occasion for more bloodshed. 
I hope it is not just an occasion for more bloodshed. It may be.
  We have to ask what kind of election this will be. How many people 
will vote? That is an indicator of whether the election reflects the 
popular will. Is it an election which will be carried out with 
integrity? Is it one where the people clearly have a choice and where 
the election ballots are counted?
  We have to ask what kind of elections they will be if candidates' 
names cannot be published, if polling places cannot be designated, and 
when few Sunni Muslims are likely to participate. However successful 
the elections may be, we all know that the bloodshed will not end at 
that point. Our present policies in Iraq seem unlikely to bring an end 
to the killing there any time soon.
  Last year, Congress allocated $18 billion for the reconstruction of 
Iraq for the basic necessities of life--electricity, clean water. Only 
$2.2 billion of that amount has been spent. Why? Because it is unsafe 
to spend the rest. It is so unsafe that anything we build is likely to 
be blown up as soon as we build it. The violence we see there reflects 
the frustration of the people of Iraq who think the occupying United 
States Army is not improving their lives. We are caught in this vicious 
circle. We cannot rebuild Iraq because what we build will likely be 
destroyed, and until we rebuild Iraq, the people will not feel their 
fate has improved by the occupation of the American troops. Maybe this 
election will change that dynamic. I certainly hope so.
  Now comes the administration saying they are going to need $80 to 
$100 billion more to continue this war. I was 1 of 23 Senators who 
voted against the authorization for this war; 1 Republican and 22 
Democrats voted against it. After that vote, though, we had an 
opportunity to vote for the money for the troops. I voted for every 
single penny this administration has asked for. I will tell you why. I 
think to myself, what if it were your son or daughter in uniforms 
risking their lives, would you shortchange them anything? The answer 
is, clearly, no.
  Yet despite all the money we have put into Iraq, one of the soldiers 
from Tennessee stands up and asks the Secretary of Defense a few weeks 
ago: Why do I have to dig through junk piles to find pieces of steel to 
protect my humvee? What is going on, Mr. Secretary? His answer was 
hardly satisfying or responsive. For all the money we have given to 
this administration, we cannot say they have spent it well when it 
comes to protecting our troops.
  I have a friend with a son in uniform, in service in Iraq. He and his 
wife came up with $2,000 to buy body armor for their son, which they 
sent to him in Iraq. We are spending billions of dollars, and 
individual families have to send body armor to their soldiers.
  Humvees--I don't have to tell you the story there. In the middle of 
last year, this administration discontinued armoring humvees even 
though there were hundreds, if not thousands, still vulnerable. Now 
they have resumed after that one Tennessee soldier had the courage to 
stand up.

[[Page 629]]

  Dr. Rice estimates there are 120,000 trained Iraqi forces under arms. 
Senator Biden of Delaware and many others dispute that number. They 
think it is vastly inflated. When asked whether you would stand and 
allow one of these troops to defend you, these Iraqi forces with their 
current equipment and training, most people honestly answered no.
  We have had many failures in Iraq. The National Security Adviser to 
the President who was there as we devised this strategy and executed 
this strategy now comes before us for a substantial promotion to 
Secretary of State. It is troubling.
  I am also worried about this whole issue of torture. We will revisit 
this on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General 
because his fingerprints are all over this administration's torture 
policy.
  When members of the Foreign Relations Committee asked Dr. Rice about 
certain interrogation techniques, whether they constituted torture, she 
said it would not be appropriate for her to comment. Yet, I think she 
understands, and we understand, that if she is to be successful as the 
diplomat representing the United States of America, one of the first 
things she has to try to dispel are those ghastly, horrible images of 
Abu Ghraib. Do not believe for a moment that people across the world 
dismiss that as an aberration of renegade night shift soldiers. They 
believe that this is America at work. We know better. We know our 
troops are better. Our men and women are much better than what was 
demonstrated at Abu Ghraib, but it is, in fact, an image which haunts 
and will continue to haunt America for years to come.
  Senator Boxer asked Dr. Rice why the administration opposed the 
language I have talked about earlier on prohibiting torture. As I have 
said before, I thought her answers were, at best, confusing and 
unresponsive. Frankly, this administration should not waste any time 
restating the obvious.
  Every year, our Department of State issues a report card on the 
world. We stand in judgment of the world on issues of human rights. We 
call it the ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.'' These 
reports are pretty harsh on some countries. They say about these 
countries around the world that they are involved in torture and 
degrading treatment, including beatings, threats to detainees and their 
families, sleep deprivation, deprivation of food and water, suspension 
for long periods in contorted positions, prolonged isolation, forced 
prolonged standing, tying of the hands and feet for extended periods of 
time, public humiliation, sexual humiliation, and female detainees 
being forced to strip in front of male security officers.
  These are the charges we level against other countries around the 
world, saying they are engaging in inhumane practices. Do any of these 
techniques sound familiar? If you pick up the morning paper you will 
see that our military and intelligence forces were engaged in similar 
techniques in Iraq and other places around the world. How can we stand 
in judgment of other countries? How can we hold ourselves up as a model 
when we are guilty of the same conduct? If there is ever a time when 
this administration should have embraced my amendments to both the 
Defense bill and the intelligence bill to say what we stand for in this 
country, it is now. Unfortunately, they have not.
  Let me say a word about a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal 
which took me to task because I am condemning torture techniques and 
demanding accountability for agencies of government that engage in 
them. I would say to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, it is time 
for you to make a choice. If you support torture, for goodness' sake, 
make that your editorial policy; if not, join us in condemning those 
who violate the standards of this Government, which have held up for 
decades.
  Condoleezza Rice, as National Security Adviser, understands what has 
happened in Iraq and what her new job will require. It will require 
diplomacy, a diplomacy which failed before our invasion of Iraq. Many 
who opposed the invasion felt at the time we needed a broader 
coalition. But the President and his supporters argued about the 
coalition of the willing--150 nations, whatever the number happened to 
be. But let's be very honest about that. When you pick up the morning 
paper, whose soldiers are being killed? When you look at the message 
for supplemental appropriation, whose taxpayer dollars are being spent? 
It is the Americans. The British have stood by us. Other countries have 
provided help. But when it comes to carrying this burden, it is 
American soldiers and American taxpayers. Diplomacy had its place 
before the invasion of Iraq. It will have its place in the future.
  I also talked to Dr. Rice about the situation in Sudan. I commended 
the administration for finally crossing that difficult line which the 
Clinton administration refused to cross when it came to Rwanda. The 
Clinton administration refused to use the word ``genocide,'' and that 
is what happened in Rwanda. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people 
died. I commended Dr. Rice because the Bush administration, Secretary 
Powell, has stepped forward and has said clearly this is genocide. But 
it is not enough to just say it when civilized nations who have signed 
the Genocide Convention step forward and say it is taking place, it 
requires positive action on our part. There has been very little. 
Calling in the African Union forces is too little, too late. It will 
take much more. I tried to make that point as clearly as I could.
  We also discussed at length the AIDS epidemic that faces this world. 
If there is one thing that Secretary Powell said that I believe will be 
historic in its importance, it is his reference to HIV/AIDS and the 
global epidemic. Here is what he said. He referred to that epidemic as 
``the greatest weapon of mass destruction in the world today.'' I know 
he believed it. I have spoken to him about it many times. Every 10 
seconds another person dies of AIDS in this world. Every 6 seconds 
another person becomes infected.
  The President pledged $15 billion for this cause. We have fallen 
short in the first 2 years of reaching a $3 billion target. I have 
asked Dr. Rice, if she is confirmed by the Senate, whether she is 
committed to our meeting that obligation. She said she was.
  We also talked about the role of women in the world, particularly 
when it comes to the AIDS epidemic. It is important that we teach 
abstinence and teach moral values and spiritual belief. But it is also 
important that we empower women around the world to control their own 
fate and future. We can tell women to be faithful to their partners, 
but what if their partners are unfaithful to them? We can encourage 
condom use but must remember that women may not have the ability to 
negotiate when it comes to that issue, even with their husbands.
  It is important that our global strategies against HIV/AIDS are 
realistic. In a speech at the International AIDS Conference in July 
2004, Nelson Mandela reminded us that:

       In the course of human history, there has never been a 
     greater threat than the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

  We have a chance in America, under the President's initiative to 
continue to lead, both with our own bilateral aid to individual 
countries and through the Global Fund. I hope Ms. Rice in that capacity 
will assume that leadership position.
  We have to also look to economic development. I said to Dr. Rice, if 
I went to a struggling country anywhere in the world and could only ask 
one question to decide the likelihood that they would be able to 
control their problems and their future, it would be this: How do you 
treat your women? And if women are treated like chattel, like property, 
like slaves, I can virtually guarantee you that country has little or 
no chance of conquering its problems. How many girls are in school? Are 
there forced child marriages? Do women enjoy economic opportunities? Is 
maternal health care a national priority? Give me the answers to those 
questions and I will give you a pretty good idea as to whether I think 
your country is moving forward. The President created the Millennium 
Challenge Account, and it has many important

[[Page 630]]

initiatives and goals in it. I said to her, and I repeat, I think 
elevating the role of women around the world should be one of those 
goals.
  The President's new foreign assistance initiative, the Millennium 
Challenge Account embodies an innovative and important initiative.
  It is a program of immense but as yet completely unrealized 
potential.
  The Millennium Challenge Account seeks to provide assistance to those 
countries with a proven record of investing in their own people, as 
well as meeting other criteria.
  I would like to apply the same standard to our own foreign assistance 
programs: Are we investing enough in people?
  Are we helping build the infrastructure that will help eliminate 
poverty and not merely ease the latest crisis for a few months?
  Are we making sure that our assistance reaches women in developing 
nations, women who are the key to successful development?
  These same principles must guide us as we seek to help those 
devastated by the tsunami.
  For instance, half the people of Aceh, Indonesia, the region hit 
hardest by the tidal wave, lacked clean water before the tsunami.
  Disasters hit hardest where poverty is greatest, and they affect 
women and children most of all.
  The tsunami swept away entire villages in a matter of minutes. We 
must commit to helping these regions recover over a period of years.
  Secretary-designate Rice steps into her position at a critical 
juncture.
  Well over 1,300 American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen have 
died in Iraq.
  Nearly 150,000 are still over there.
   Mr. President, 70,000 people have died in Darfur. Thousands more are 
still at risk every day. In South Africa, one in three adults are HIV 
positive. In Botswana the numbers are even higher.
  Over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. A billion 
people in the world cannot write their own names or read a single 
sentence.
  We simply cannot afford to get this wrong. We cannot afford to repeat 
mistakes or to fall short in our commitments. These are matters of 
profound moral obligation and deepest national security and interest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial 
endorsing Dr. Rice for Secretary of State, published in the Evansville 
Courier & Press, on January 24, 2005, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Evansville Courier & Press, Jan. 24, 2005]

                               Cool Condi

       Senate Democrats rather churlishly pushed Condoleezza 
     Rice's certain approval as secretary of state over to this 
     week. Perhaps they felt that the gracious gesture of 
     confirming her on Inauguration Day would be interpreted as a 
     sign of weakness by the Bush White House.
       Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seemed 
     disappointed that Rice would not distance herself from, 
     backtrack from or apologize for President Bush's foreign 
     policy. In hearings last week, they failed to force any 
     daylight between Rice and the president. And they tried; one 
     session even ran into the night.
       Rice's credentials to be secretary of state were not in 
     question. She is a career student of foreign policy and spent 
     the last four years as White House national security adviser. 
     No one who has followed her career was surprised by her 
     performance before the Foreign Relations Committee.
       She was informed, poised and unflappable, her voice only 
     taking on a slight edge when Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., 
     all but accused her of being a liar--``your loyalty to the 
     mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your 
     respect for the truth.''
       Rice's icy response: ``I never, ever lost my respect for 
     the truth in the service of anything.'' In the end, only 
     Boxer and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., of the 18 committee 
     members, voted against Rice, for whatever significance that 
     symbolic gesture had.
       Rice defended and endorsed administration positions on 
     Iraq--the war was right even if the intelligence was wrong--
     and on North Korea, Iran and the Mideast. The consistency is 
     admirable, but it raises the worrisome prospect that there is 
     no fresh thinking on these problems within the 
     administration.
       That said, she made several worthy commitments. She would 
     work to rebuild relations with our traditional allies, 
     refocus administration attention on neglected Latin America, 
     take an active role in a Mideast settlement and reassert the 
     State Department as ``the primary instrument of American 
     diplomacy''--a clear if diplomatic shot at Donald Rumsfeld 
     and the Pentagon.
       The Senate should confirm Rice without delay. She needs to 
     get to work.

  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman, for his great leadership in handling this nomination. That 
leadership is consistent with what I have observed these many years, 
now being in my 27th year in the Senate, my colleague being a year or 2 
senior to me. But on behalf of the Senate and on behalf of the country, 
we thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I must say, I think your ranking 
member, in large measure, has been supportive. I am anxious to see how 
this works out tomorrow. But well done to you, sir, from one old sailor 
to another.
  I am privileged to join my colleagues today in this very important 
debate with regard to the nomination of perhaps the most important 
member of any President's Cabinet, that of Secretary of State.
  Before referring to Dr. Rice, I would like to pause and express my 
heartfelt appreciation to Secretaries Powell and Armitage. I have been 
privileged to have known them and worked with them for many years.
  When I was Secretary of the Navy, while I did not know him at that 
time, during the war in Vietnam, Secretary Powell was on the very front 
lines of that war. And to this day, in his heart and in other ways, he 
carries the heavy burdens of that conflict. I have always been so 
impressed with him. I have worked with him as he rose through the 
ranks.
  I first met him as a colonel and followed his career all the way 
through being a four star general, particularly when I was actively 
working with him and he was the executive military assistant to 
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. And by his side he wisely chose 
to put Secretary Rich Armitage, another Vietnam veteran who bears the 
scars of that war. They were a magnificent team on behalf of the United 
States of America, and they both quietly have stepped down in the 
manner in which they have always conducted their lives. I want to be 
among the many to pay their respects to those two fine public servants 
on the eve of confirming the successor to Secretary Powell.
  I have also known, through the years, the nominee to take Secretary 
Armitage's place, and he is an excellent choice. The President is to be 
commended.
  I must refer to history. I love this institution I think as much as 
anyone; not more than anyone, but as much. I respect the heritage and 
traditions of this Chamber. It is quite interesting, if you go back, 
the Presidents of the United States--certainly I would yield to the 
chairman; I have the history of these here--Presidents have always had 
the Senate confirm their Secretary of State on the day of the 
inauguration. It goes quite a ways back in history.
  I expressed at that time that I regret this Chamber could not act, 
and I continue to express that. I think this debate is an important 
one. I do not in any way suggest that this debate not take place, but I 
think it could have taken place in the ensuing days and weeks following 
that. But that is history. I did not want this tradition of the Senate 
to be overlooked in the context of these remarks.
  It is clear from the exhaustive nomination hearings conducted by the 
Foreign Relations Committee over the course of 2 days that Dr. Rice is 
extraordinarily capable and qualified. She is as capable and qualified 
a candidate as has ever been appointed in my lifetime to this position. 
She stands with the finest because of her extraordinary record of 
achievements. I say to the chairman, she was reported out of your 
committee by a vote of 16

[[Page 631]]

to 2. To me, that is a resounding affirmation by bipartisan members of 
that committee.
  The personal attacks on her character and integrity, we have now 
witnessed them. I find them somewhat astonishing, the level of the 
attack, particularly as it relates to her lifetime dedication to what 
we call here in the Senate the standards for truthfulness.
  And I was delayed, Mr. Chairman, because I had been trying through 
the day to reach former Secretary of State George Shultz, with whom you 
and I and many others have had so many years of warm and excellent 
relations--sometimes not so warm, maybe a little heated on occasion, I 
recall. But Secretary Shultz reminded me that Dr. Rice first met 
President Bush in his living room. And the relationship goes way back.
  So I wrote down just a few of the remarks by that distinguished 
Secretary because it goes to the very heart of the critics who 
challenge her integrity. He said, without any reservation whatsoever, 
she was absolutely honest in her convictions and a woman of impeccable 
loyalty and integrity.
  He said loyalty, of course. But truthfulness will always prevail over 
any degree of loyalty.
  I found that important, and I wanted to share it with my colleagues. 
She, in his judgment, will rise to the occasion and in due course, if 
not already, she will receive the trust and confidence of the people of 
this country, and that her record, as she works through her challenges, 
will be one that they, the United States of America and its citizens, 
can be proud of.
  I thank Secretary Shultz for his remarks.
  I also thought to myself, the chairman and I have paralleled our 
careers. One of my Commanders in Chief, actually two times--for a brief 
period at the end of World War II and then Korea--was Harry Truman. 
Harry Truman very often had directed at him some remarks which didn't 
exactly reflect with great resounding in his heart. He came out with 
that priceless statement: If you can't take the heat, get out of the 
kitchen.
  Well, the most profound thing that I may say today is this Secretary 
of State can take the heat, and she will remain in that kitchen. In my 
judgment, in the vote by the Senate tomorrow, you will find by virtue 
of the size of that vote a statement by this Senate reflecting their 
trust and their confidence in this distinguished American's record of 
achievement over her lifetime, her entire lifetime, not just that in 
public office recently.
  Going back to some of the comments that were leveled at her, the 
essence of the criticism was that she has been less than truthful. It 
turned in large measure on this issue of weapons of mass destruction. 
That is an issue that I take a back seat to no one on. I tried in every 
respect with others to be in the very forefront of that debate.
  I remember one hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and 
Director Tenet was before the committee. I asked him a question. This 
was before we had engaged in active military operations to liberate the 
people of Iraq. The President was there in the final moments of his 
decisionmaking. I was one of four who worked up a bipartisan resolution 
that the Senate worked up. Seventy-seven Senators voted for that 
resolution.
  I said to Director Tenet, the issue of weapons that can bring about 
such destruction is important in this debate and this decision process. 
I used the phrase such as ``should we be compelled,'' as the President 
was, in my judgment, rightfully, to go in and use military power, and 
at such time as the battles have reached a position where the 
television cameras of the world can come in and photograph what is 
there, will those photographs, the television pictures, carry clearly 
evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction. And his 
acknowledgment was: Without a doubt.
  Now that testimony reflects the best judgment within our Government 
of the situation with regard to weapons of mass destruction. Hussein 
had defied 17 or 18 United Nations resolutions. Literally because of 
his defiance and inaction, it propelled this Nation into this war. And 
because of his past history with the use of such weapons and the clear 
documentation following the 1991 conflict that they were there in some 
measure, there was every reason to attach considerable credibility to 
the prevailing thinking at that time, not only within our Government 
but many other governments of the world, that these weapons did exist 
in the hands of a despot and in one way or another they could be 
released either by him or by surrogates on free nations elsewhere in 
the world. That is a statement of fact. I question anybody who wants to 
take me up on that.
  Against that background, this criticism is made of this distinguished 
public servant. But it is clear to me that the actions taken by the 
President were the correct ones in light of the facts that were known 
to the best of our judgment at that time. It was a strong case to 
utilize force to back up the diplomacy. I mention that ``force to back 
up diplomacy.'' Diplomacy, throughout the history of mankind, can be no 
stronger than the commitment to enforce it, to back it up in the event 
it fails. I think throughout this process we followed that time-honored 
tradition of world powers. We did everything we could to withhold the 
use of force and to allow diplomacy to work its will. The rest is 
history.
  From the time of Iraq's defeat in the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, 
and following his brutal invasion of Kuwait, Hussein followed a pattern 
of deceit, manipulation, and defiance of the international community. 
He continued to brutally repress his own citizens. He continued to 
support terrorist organizations in Palestine and elsewhere. He made a 
mockery of the U.N. sanctions and the U.N. Security Council 
resolutions, as he pursued banned weapons and technologies of mass 
destruction. He systematically robbed the coffers of the humanitarian 
programs established to ensure that Iraqi citizens received sufficient 
medicines and food and other nourishment.
  Over the course of the next 12 years, since 1991, the Hussein regime 
defied the will of the international community. Every conceivable 
diplomatic effort has been expended in an attempt to require him to 
destroy and account for the weapons of mass destruction he clearly 
possessed in 1991, to account for missing Kuwaiti nationals, and to 
comply with at least 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions.
  Prior to 9/11, Saddam Hussein's conduct was of grave concern to the 
United States and, indeed, the larger international community. Based on 
his repressive treatment of his own citizens in defiance of U.N. 
weapons inspectors, it became the policy of the United States, as 
embodied in the Iraq Liberation Act in October of 1998, to actively 
seek regime change in Iraq.
  In a statement to the Nation shortly after ordering United States 
armed forces to strike Iraq in December 1998, after Saddam Hussein had 
expelled U.N. weapons inspectors, President Clinton stated the 
following--I might add a personal note. I remember so well our former 
colleague and dear friend Bill Cohen was Secretary of Defense at that 
time. I was chairman of the committee.
  He invited me over several hours before the order was executed to 
utilize force. We sat in that office of the Secretary of Defense which 
I had been in so many times over the years, and he went through very 
carefully the reason why President Clinton decided to use force. I 
remember saying to him: Well, Mr. Secretary--I obviously said Bill--it 
is on the eve of Christmas. Could not this matter be delayed for a 
brief period. Let's face it, the world is celebrating one of the great 
religious and historic precedents. He said: No. We are going to launch 
it.
  Well, the President said the following as he launched that strike:

       Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike 
     military and security targets in Iraq. Their mission is to 
     attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons 
     programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. 
     The international community had little doubt then, and I have 
     no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use 
     these terrible weapons again . . . The hard fact is that so 
     long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the 
     well-

[[Page 632]]

     being of his own people, the peace of the region, and the 
     security of the world. And, mark my words; he will develop 
     weapons of mass destruction. He did deploy them and he will 
     use them.

  I don't know what additional needs to be said. To me that is very 
clear. It is understandable. It is explicit. It was a proper use of 
Presidential power. Even though he made, I think, at that point a very 
courageous and proper decision, it did not deter Saddam Hussein.
  In the post-9/11 world, the thought of a rogue tyrant--one who had 
used weapons of mass destruction in the past--joining forces with 
terrorists was even more unsettling. As the Congress debated the 
resolution to authorize the President to use force in Iraq in October 
2002, our colleague Senator Kerry made the following statement:

       When I vote to give the President of the United States the 
     authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam 
     Hussein, [it is] because I believe that a deadly arsenal of 
     weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave 
     threat to our security. . . .''

  In a speech 3 months later at Georgetown University, Senator Kerry 
stated:

       Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a 
     brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He 
     presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so 
     consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is 
     miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and 
     his consistent grasp of weapons of mass destruction. So the 
     threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is 
     real.

  Is anyone taking the floor today to suggest that President Clinton 
and others who spoke out so forcibly at that time were untruthful? I 
hear a silence.
  I believe that we should give consideration to this fine public 
servant who is stepping up to become Secretary of State and consider 
the environment, the state of the knowledge, the statements made by a 
former President, and statements made by colleagues in the context of 
the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and I suggest that I do not 
find any disloyalty or any lack of truthfulness in her remarks publicly 
and throughout this process as it related to the earlier base of 
knowledge on weapons of mass destruction.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee in the last Congress, I 
went through a very careful set of hearings with other members of that 
committee, and we issued a report that I think helped explain how the 
mistakes were made with regard to the judgments on weapons of mass 
destruction, on which I certainly do not find any basis to challenge 
Dr. Rice's truthfulness.
  In retrospect, we were wrong as a Nation, together with other 
countries, in our assumptions about Saddam Hussein's stockpiles of 
weapons of mass destruction. This shortcoming in our intelligence 
estimates has been the subject of exhaustive investigations by the 
Congress and independent commissions, and it continues with other 
commissions that are looking at it. We were not alone in those 
assessments. The best estimates of most foreign intelligence agencies, 
including those of Britain, Italy, Germany, Russia, and those of the 
U.N., were that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. How can 
the critics possibly say that Dr. Rice and others in the administration 
would intentionally deceive the American people and the world?
  Hindsight has also revealed several other interesting facts. Saddam 
Hussein's strategy of ignoring sanctions and eroding support for them 
over time was clearly working. International will to continue sanctions 
was waning. What is clear in the findings of the Iraq Survey Group is 
that it was Saddam Hussein's intent to revive a weapons of mass 
destruction program, including a nuclear program, once sanctions were 
removed or sufficiently eroded and the attention of the world was 
diverted elsewhere. That comes out of that survey group. Our committee 
had a great deal of work with that group, and I have high respect for 
their findings.
  It is true that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass 
destruction in Iraq. That is a fact. But, we did find clear evidence of 
Saddam Hussein's intent to reconstitute those programs in the future. 
Such a finding has to be viewed in the context of Saddam Hussein's 
Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein, his repressive policies, his regional 
ambitions, and his weapons of mass destruction had killed hundreds of 
thousands of people over three decades. His relationship with 
terrorists--and his direct role as the head of a state that sponsors 
terrorism and engaged in terrorist operations--contributed to death and 
destruction in Israel and elsewhere. The ultimate intent of his 
terrorist ties was unclear, but very unsettling, in the post 9/11 
world.
  Considering the compelling factual case, assembled over many years, 
our President made the right decision. In a bipartisan vote, 77 Members 
of this body agreed.
  Iraq was a grave and gathering threat, to its own citizens, to the 
region, and to the world. The issue of weapons of mass destruction was 
a factor, but by no means the only reason for considering the use of 
military force against Iraq--it was one among many concerns.
  Courageously, our President did act, with the support of the 
Congress, the voice of the American people. It was the right decision. 
The world is a safer place today and Iraq and the entire Middle Eastern 
region is a better place without Saddam Hussein. We owe a timeless debt 
of gratitude to those of our military and to other nations whose 
uniformed personnel have borne the brunt of battle, together with their 
families.
  Dr. Rice has often, in my visits and consultations with her, 
expressed her concern for those who bear the brunt of war and, indeed, 
also the tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who regrettably at this 
very moment are suffering from the internal strife in that nation on 
the eve of these historic elections, which will go forward this 
weekend.
  We have before us an extraordinarily well-qualified nominee to be 
Secretary of State--an educator, a manager, a public servant, a proven 
leader of international renown. Dr. Rice is enormously talented and we 
are fortunate, as a Nation, to have someone of her caliber so willing 
to serve.
  I strongly support the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of 
State and urge my colleagues to confirm her appointment quickly and 
overwhelmingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator, my friend and colleague from 
Virginia, for his generous remarks.
  I ask unanimous consent at this point, to try to formulate the 
program for much of the rest of the evening, that following the remarks 
of Senator Feinstein, this be the order of speakers: Senator Stevens; 
Reed of Rhode Island; Voinovich; Kerry; Inhofe; a Democratic Senator at 
this point, if one seeks recognition; Senator Cornyn; once again, at 
the next point a Democratic Senator, if one seeks recognition; and 
there may be as many as three additional speakers who have not 
determined whether they were prepared to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. At this point, in trying to formulate for the benefit of 
the Senators the rest of the program, how much time remains on both 
sides of the aisle at this juncture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 2 hours 14 minutes; the 
minority controls 1 hour 52 minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee. I had the pleasure of introducing Dr. 
Rice to the Foreign Relations Committee. I thought I might just come to 
the floor of the Senate and share with the Senate as a whole some of my 
feelings and beliefs about this nominee.
  I consider myself a friend of Dr. Rice's. She is a fellow 
Californian. I have known her. We have participated together in various 
think tank discussions. I know the bright, incisive mind that she has. 
I also know her background. This is a woman who was born 50 years ago 
in the segregated South, in Alabama. She has been able to reach

[[Page 633]]

the highest level of academia and public service. Can you imagine, she 
went to college at the age of 15 and graduated at the age of 19. Not 
many people know that. In January of 2001, she became the first 
African-American woman to serve as National Security Adviser. She has 
distinguished herself as a thoughtful, determined, and hard-working 
individual. Consequently, I believe she can be a strong and effective 
voice for America's interests abroad.
  Now, looking at the foreign policy landscape, the United States faces 
several very complex challenges in many parts of the world. How we 
respond to these challenges will have a tremendous impact not only on 
our future, but on the future of the world. If you just take Iraq--and 
we are coming up to an election--what happens after that election? What 
will be done with the ``de-Baathification'' policy of Mr. Bremer, which 
I happen to think was a huge mistake? Yes, one of the mistakes the 
administration made was to effectively remove many managers and 
supervisors, of virtually all of the significant infrastructure of 
Iraq, including the military and the police department.
  I am one who believes that was a mistake. I am one who believes that 
because of that, the Sunni population has become part of the problem 
rather than part of the solution. That needs to be dealt with. I do not 
know what Dr. Rice will do, but I do know I have had an opportunity to 
discuss it with her, and I do believe she knows that it is a 
significant problem that needs to be addressed.
  In the Middle East, there is a real window of opportunity to advance 
the peace process with the election of Abu Mazen as the President of 
the Palestinian Authority and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to 
withdraw from Gaza. It has also been helped by the fact that the Labor 
Party has become part of the coalition government, thereby giving Ariel 
Sharon more flexibility.
  I was very pleased to hear her statements before the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee in which she said:

       I look forward to personally working with the Palestinian 
     and Israeli leaders, and bringing American diplomacy to bear 
     on this difficult but crucial issue. Peace can only come if 
     all parties choose to do the difficult work and choose to 
     meet their responsibilities. And the time for peace is now.

  That is a quote from the next Secretary of State of the United States 
of America, who has said that she will make a solution to the 
Palestinian-Israeli struggle a major priority. That is a very important 
step and a very important statement.
  Iran and North Korea's nuclear weapons programs pose serious risks 
for peace and stability in the Middle East, in Asia, and they have set 
back efforts to curb nuclear proliferation. Here, there is need for 
consistent and effective diplomacy, not to further isolate North Korea 
but rather to convince North Korean leadership that it is in their 
country's self-interest to cooperate in dismantling their nuclear 
programs.
  I basically believe countries do what they perceive to be in their 
self-interest, not because we tell them to do something, and I look 
forward to an initiative to convince the North Korean leadership that 
it is indeed in their self-interest to rid themselves of a nuclear 
weapons program.
  In Russia, President Vladimir Putin has consolidated power and taken 
several steps calling into question his commitment to democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law. Dr. Rice has a very strong background in 
Soviet and Russian affairs, and I believe this is going to be a big 
help in charting future diplomatic efforts with President Putin.
  Serious challenges deserve quality leadership. I believe Dr. Rice has 
the skill, the judgment, and the poise to take on these challenges and 
lead America's foreign policy in the coming years.
  I understand that some of my colleagues, many of them on my own side, 
have serious concerns about Dr. Rice's nomination, stating that she was 
a key architect of U.S. foreign policy during President Bush's first 
term. Let me be clear, I believe the key architects were, in fact, the 
President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense. Obviously, 
Dr. Rice offered advice and counsel as the President's National 
Security Adviser, but remember, 78 Members of this body voted to 
authorize use of force in Iraq based on the intelligence which we 
received, which at the time was compelling and chilling but which we 
now know was not credible and was both bad and wrong.
  Should Dr. Rice be blamed for wrong and bad intelligence? I think 
not. That is what intelligence reform was all about. That is what 
improved oversight over the intelligence community by the Intelligence 
Committees of both the House and the Senate is really all about, and 
that is what a new national intelligence director, to coordinate the 14 
or 15 different agencies is all about.
  For my part, I will continue to fight for a principled foreign policy 
based not just on military strength but cooperation, understanding, 
humility, and a desire to seek multilateral solutions to problems that 
indeed touch on many different nations. I want to see the United States 
reclaim the respect and admiration of the world and once again be seen 
as a champion and a leader of democracy, justice, and human rights. I 
believe the best way to do this is by example, by listening and by 
understanding that America's great strength is not our military prowess 
but our sense of justice, freedom, and liberty.
  Importantly, Dr. Rice has the trust and confidence of the President 
of the United States and the world knows that she will have direct 
access to him. I believe this makes her a very powerful Secretary of 
State. I believe she will assume this office with a new dimension. To 
see this brilliant, young African-American woman represent our 
country's national interests on the world stage can bring about a new 
dimension of American foreign policy. So clearly this is an asset.
  I did not expect this President of the United States to appoint 
anyone who seriously disagreed with him. The question really is, Is 
this woman competent? Is she able? Can she handle and lead the enormous 
State Department? I believe the answer to those questions is clearly 
yes. I also believe that she will be able to advocate a course and make 
changes and adjustments when and where necessary, and enhance the 
ability of the United States to restore lost credibility among many 
nations and allies.
  Indeed, barring serious questions about a nominee's integrity and 
ability to serve, a President deserves to have his selections 
confirmed. There is nothing in Dr. Rice's past performance to suggest 
she is not capable of performing the job as America's chief diplomat, 
having the responsibility to conduct America's foreign policy. There is 
every reason to believe that she is up for this challenge. No one can 
be sure if she will succeed.
  I conclude by saying this: Only time and events will tell if Dr. Rice 
will indeed make a great Secretary of State. To be sure, her vision, 
thinking, and problem-solving skills will be tested. I believe she is a 
remarkable woman, and I look forward to working with her as the next 
Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice's nomination for Secretary of State. I first met Dr. 
Rice when she served as the Soviet and East European Affairs adviser 
during the first Bush administration. Her reputation as an invaluable 
adviser was well established even then. She helped guide that 
administration through the reunification of Germany, rebellion in the 
Balkans, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Her unshakable 
commitment to freedom, democracy, international peace and justice are 
unquestioned.
  Philip Zelikow, who served with Dr. Rice on the National Security 
Council during this time, and is the Executive Director of the National 
Commission on Terrorist Attacks, stated this:

       She believes in empowering people. In international 
     affairs, that means real commitment to liberty and freedom. 
     She sees the message of her life as a message of how to 
     realize a person's potential. No one should ever

[[Page 634]]

     become the prisoner of other people's expectations.

  Dr. Rice returned to Stanford at the close of the first Bush 
administration. In 1993, she became the first female and non-white 
provost in the university's history. She was also the youngest.
  My daughter, Lily, graduated from Stanford in 2003, so I have a 
unique appreciation for Dr. Rice's accomplishments. During her 6 years 
as provost, Dr. Rice succeeded in restoring Stanford's financial 
position, and also engaged in one of her passions--sports.
  A stalwart sports fan, Dr. Rice would regularly be seen cheering the 
Stanford Cardinals from the bleachers. I even saw her one day when 
Stanford beat UCLA--a terrible day. She was also seen working out with 
the Stanford football team. Dr. Rice is a role model, especially for 
young women. During her time at Stanford she was loved by 
undergraduates and appreciated by faculty members.
  Dr. Rice has had a profound impact on students across our Nation. A 
political science major at nearby Howard University put it best, 
saying:

       She has opened the door for not only women but minorities 
     in government and, hopefully, she [will] be a role model for 
     women and minorities to achieve high, important positions in 
     government.

  Dr. Rice is also capable of making tough decisions. Up to this point 
she's had mostly advisory roles in government, and she has served in 
that capacity with honor, dignity and unwavering dedication. It is 
those qualities--and her unsurpassed intellectual abilities--that 
prompted Forbes magazine to name her the most powerful woman in the 
world last year. I believe she is entitled to that acclaim.
  Dr. Rice is a balanced genius in her own right. And, when the Senate 
confirms her nomination to become Secretary of State--as I believe it 
will and should--she will be the boss. The Nation could not be in 
better hands. Dr. Rice has my complete support. I look forward to 
working with her in her new role.
  I ask unanimous consent it be possible for me at this time to 
introduce S. 39.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Stevens pertaining to the introduction of S. 39 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time I have been 
allotted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
discussing the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of 
State of the United States. I must confess, after careful deliberation 
I intend to oppose this nomination.
  There is no doubt that Dr. Rice is an extraordinarily talented, 
capable individual. Her credentials as an academic are impeccable. She 
has a compelling life story. She has done remarkable things in her 
life. But I believe the best way to judge what would be her performance 
as Secretary of State is looking closely at what she has done as a 
National Security Adviser under this Bush administration. I think in 
that regard she leaves some very troubling questions unanswered as her 
nomination comes before us this day.
  Most of what she did with the President, obviously, as his National 
Security Adviser, was confidential and necessarily is not subject to 
public view. But she has not, in my view, successfully responded to 
obvious questions about inconsistencies in her statements, about 
policies she advocated, apparently, and about her role in marshaling 
information for the President of the United States. In a very 
simplistic view, I think the National Security Adviser's chief role is 
to make sure the President has every bit of information he needs to 
make very difficult judgments--not just the information that favors one 
side or the other but all the information. Indeed, not just the bold 
strokes but the nuances. My sense is that this mission was not 
adequately performed by Dr. Rice.
  She has been a key figure in the Bush foreign policy establishment 
going back years when Governor Bush decided to run for President. She 
is someone who is very close to the President. Again, I think she has 
to be judged on the result of that partnership.
  One of the aspects that is troubling to me is the fact that Dr. Rice 
has maintained that Iraq is the central arena in the war on terror, 
when, in fact, this is a global, international threat to the United 
States and that, in fact, it appears that Iraq was not the global 
center, the central arena in this war on terror.
  She applied a doctrine of preemption which is applicable to terrorist 
cells, but I believe she applied it incorrectly in the case of Iraq--at 
least the administration did, and she was the principal architect or 
one of the principal architects of that policy.
  Many people expressed alternate views about the role of Iraq as a 
center of terror. Brent Scowcroft, a predecessor as National Security 
Adviser, pointed out in an editorial:

       An attack on Iraq, at this time, would seriously 
     jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist 
     campaign we have undertaken.

  To this date I think it certainly has not advanced the policy we are 
actively pursuing throughout the world.
  She suggested on several occasions there are strong links between al-
Qaida and Saddam Hussein. On March 9, 2003, on ``Face the Nation,'' Dr. 
Rice declared:

       Now the al-Qaeda is an organization that's quite disbursed, 
     and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had 
     links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds 
     of other terrorists.

  On ``Meet the Press'' on September 28, 2003, Dr. Rice said:

       No one has said that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein 
     directed or controlled 9/11, but let's be very clear, he had 
     ties to al Qaeda, he had al Qaeda operatives who had operated 
     out of Baghdad.

  That, in my view, is not accurately reflecting what many other 
sources subsequently confirmed, that, in fact, any ties Saddam Hussein 
had with al-Qaida were very tenuous if they existed at all.
  On June 27, 2003, the New York Times reported:

       The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the UN 
     Security Council to track al Qaida told reporters that his 
     team had found no evidence linking al Qaida to Saddam 
     Hussein.

  And 6 months later, the New York Times further reported:

       CIA interrogators have already elicited from the top al 
     Qaida officials in custody that, before the American-led 
     invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some 
     of his lieutenants to work jointly with Saddam.

  As far back as November 2002, Europe's top investigator of terrorism 
told the LA Times:

       We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and al 
     Qaeda. If there were such links, we would have found them. 
     But we have found no serious connections whatsoever.

  But what I think Dr. Rice did publicly, and perhaps even within the 
confines of the West Wing, is to make the case for these links when the 
case was at least highly questionable. None of that questioning, none 
of that nuance seemed to have been presented effectively to the 
President, certainly not effectively to the public.
  During her confirmation hearings, Dr. Rice asserted her belief, 
reiterated her belief on the topic of troop strength, that she believed 
that the levels in Iraq were sufficient from the beginning of the war 
up to and including phase IV operations. Phase IV operations are those 
posthostility operations to stabilize the country. In her phrase she 
said that they were ``adequately resourced.''
  What we have discovered in the months since the successful action 
leading to the fall of Saddam is instability, violence--demonstrating, 
I think, less than adequate forces there in country to deal with these 
problems.
  It turns out that in March 2003 when a lieutenant colonel was 
briefing the issue of phase IV, the postoperation activities of our 
military forces, phase 4-C, the chart was very simple. It said, ``To Be 
Provided.'' Again, I think this

[[Page 635]]

is a glaring error. If you are the National Security Adviser, you have 
to be able to assure the President of at least a plan for every 
contingency, thorough, adequate, with sufficient resources and 
sufficient troops. Since the success of the military campaign, we have 
been, in my view, plagued by insufficient troops. Indeed, it was 
interesting to note that Ambassador Bremer, just last October, stated:

       We never had enough troops on the ground.

  This, I think, is a glaring mistake. It might have been the decision 
of a principal to overrule their best advice, but that is not the case 
she is making today as she seeks this nomination for Secretary of 
State.
  There is another troubling issue and that, of course, is the one that 
received quite a bit of notoriety--the appearance in the State of the 
Union speech of a reference to Iraq attempting to buy yellow cake from 
Africa even though weeks before that, many weeks before that, the CIA 
claimed that such an assertion was unsubstantiated.
  In a July 2003 interview with Jim Lehrer, Dr. Rice stated she either 
did not see or could not remember reading this CIA clearance memo.
  I would argue if a piece of information is going to be uttered by the 
President of the United States in a State of the Union speech dealing 
with the critical issues of peace and war, of weapons of mass 
destruction, of the attempt of one nation to obtain nuclear material 
from another, that is a point of information that has to be of concern 
to the National Security Adviser.
  She claims she delegated it to her deputy, Stephen Hadley. But still 
it is her responsibility. That was a misstatement--a misstatement that 
had already been pointed out by the CIA before the President made such 
a statement before our colleagues in the State of the Union Address.
  The interesting point to make also is that Mr. Hadley now apparently 
has been selected to be the National Security Adviser even though if 
there was a mistake he apparently is the one who is determined to be 
responsible--at least in Dr. Rice's recollection.
  There is another issue, too. In October 2003, the White House 
announced the creation of an ``Iraq Stabilization Group,'' recognizing 
that something more had to be done to stabilize the situation. Dr. Rice 
was charged with leading this stabilization group. This group was 
designed to coordinate activities there. She was in charge. There were 
four coordinating committees on counterterrorism, economic development, 
political affairs, and creation of clearer messages to the media both 
in the United States and within Iraq.
  There has been no product of this committee, no apparent impact on 
policy. It is a void in terms of what it has done. Yet this was one of 
her major responsibilities.
  I think these are serious issues about her stewardship of the very 
critical role as National Security Adviser and raises serious questions 
in my mind of her capacity to do differently as Secretary of State.
  She also indicated many times that prior to 9/11 the policy of the 
Bush administration--and her advice by inference--was a strong focus on 
counterterrorism. Yet I understand Dr. Rice was scheduled to deliver a 
speech on September 11 at Johns Hopkins in which she would indicate the 
cornerstone of the Bush foreign policy was missile defense.
  Having served in this body during that period of time, I can tell you 
the emphasis was on missile defense. It was not on counterterrorism. It 
was not on the old-fashioned kind of boots on the ground, intelligence, 
striking brigades. It was a multibillion-dollar effort on developing a 
national missile system. I think her speech scheduled for that day was 
emblematic of what the focus was.
  Also, before 9/11, the Bush administration was preparing significant 
cuts in the counterterrorism program. Those cuts were obviously 
obviated by the terrible attacks on New York on that dreadful day.
  Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism expert in the Clinton 
administration, sent an urgent memo to Dr. Rice directly asking for a 
meeting of principals about the impending attack by al-Qaida. That was 
January 24, 2001--days after the President took office. There was no 
meeting with her on such topic until 1 week before 9/11.
  Internal Government documents show that the Clinton administration 
officially prioritized counterterrorism as the ``tier I'' priority, but 
when the Bush administration took office, top officials downgraded 
counterterrorism. Even Dr. Rice admitted, ``We decided to take a 
different track.''
  There again, was the President given the best advice? Was all the 
information marshaled so he could make good judgments? Were the people 
who had viewpoints that might be inconsistent with the group think of 
the time allowed in? That is a special role of the National Security 
Adviser, and a very difficult role.
  These are a few of the issues which I think have to be considered 
with this nomination. There are other issues, too.
  The President, in my view, is basically replicating his inner circle 
now in the broader context of the Cabinet. This raises an issue that 
was identified by John Prados, a senior fellow at the National Security 
Archive at George Washington University. What he said is:

       The administration is setting itself up for a very closed 
     process of creating foreign policy. It's going to eliminate 
     consideration of wider points of view.

  In effect, we are in danger of creating an echo chamber of foreign 
policy in which one loud voice carries because it reverberates without 
check. That, I think, would be a very dangerous situation.
  There are other areas of concern that I have with respect to Dr. 
Rice's nomination. She has excellent access to the President. There are 
friends of hers who say she and the President have a ``mind meld.''
  I guess they think alike. But being Secretary of State or being any 
Cabinet Secretary is not just having access, rapport, and a sense of 
what the boss wants; it is also having the ability and the interest to 
tell hard truths which you know are not going to be accepted well. That 
is something that is important.
  Again, I don't know. It is hard to predict these things--whether she 
possesses that kind of ability to tell someone whose mind is melded 
with hers that he is wrong, or she will even understand where policy 
requires a different perspective.
  As the New York Times editorial characterized her first term as 
National Security Adviser, according to their words:

       She seemed to tell [President Bush] what he wanted to hear 
     about the decisions he's already made, rather than what he 
     needed to know to make sound judgments in the first place.

  That type of approach will not serve a Secretary of State very well.
  She has also broken a longstanding precedent recognized by preceding 
National Security Advisers who refrain from partisan politics. She gave 
speeches espousing the administration's policy in key battleground 
States of Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania beginning in May 2004. Her 
actions were sharply criticized by her predecessor, Zbigniew 
Brzezinski, National Security Adviser for President Carter. He stated 
that ``the national security adviser is the custodian of the nation's 
most sensitive national security secrets and should be seen as an 
objective adviser to the President'' and not just another member of the 
political team.
  We have I think serious issues raised by this nomination. No one can 
deny her ability. But I think she has not successfully explained these 
inconsistencies of statements and these policy mistakes which I believe 
have seriously eroded our position in the world.
  She has, along with the President, apparently espoused a unilateral 
policy that has isolated many of our traditional allies. It has us 
going it alone in Iraq at a huge cost. The President is sending up to 
us a supplemental budget of $80 billion. Today, the operations officer 
for the U.S. Army indicated they assume they will have over 100,000 
troops in Iraq not just this year but next year. That means--just doing 
the arithmetic--that we can expect another $80 billion-plus bill next 
year,

[[Page 636]]

and still we are in a difficult and confusing situation.
  I think Dr. Rice's nomination recognizes and represents a 
continuation of a policy which has us bogged down in Iraq while Iran 
and North Korea continue to advance their nuclear ambitions and while a 
diminished but still dangerous al-Qaida continues to plot against us.
  These facts--this strategic situation--I believe requires if not a 
change in direction at least a realistic reassessment of where we are 
and how we got there.
  Dr. Rice's nomination does not appear to give hope to this change in 
direction or realistic reassessment. Therefore, I will vote against 
this nomination.
  I yield the remainder of time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Ohio 
be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to join Chairman Lugar and 
other members of the Foreign Relations Committee to express my strong 
support for the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to serve as our next 
Secretary of State.
  Dr. Rice has the qualifications, the educational background, and 
professional experience to serve as an outstanding Secretary of State. 
She is an academic expert of the former Soviet Union, earning her 
doctorate before the age of 30, and rising to serve as provost of 
Stanford University before turning 40. Her experience as provost at 
Stanford University allowed her to have substantial management 
experience.
  In addition to her experience in academia, Dr. Rice is an experienced 
professional in the national security arena. She served as Director of 
Soviet and Eastern European Affairs at the National Security Council 
under the administration of President George H. W. Bush and most 
recently as the National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush.
  Dr. Rice brings a great deal of talent, skill, and intellect to the 
table. As our country continues to confront global challenges in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, it is essential our 
Secretary of State have the stature, skill, and ability to help protect 
our national security interests and promote the President's vision of 
freedom and democracy abroad that he so eloquently communicated in his 
inaugural address.
  This Senator from Ohio shares the President's vision. This vision 
must be successful so our children and grandchildren are able to live 
in a country free from the fear of terrorism.
  During the last 4 years as National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice has 
played a major role in the formulation of our foreign policy, serving 
as a vital part of the administration's effort to promote peace and 
democracy throughout the world.
  Dr. Rice has a close relationship and the confidence of the President 
which will serve her well as she assumes the position of Secretary of 
State at home and abroad. She is a good listener, an important trait 
for someone who is going to be this country's chief diplomat. I know 
this from contacts with her over the years. I had the pleasure of 
knowing Dr. Rice since joining then Governor Bush as adviser during the 
2000 Presidential elections. I found her ready and willing to work 
together on important issues, including United States policy toward 
Southeast Europe, NATO enlargement, and efforts to combat global anti-
Semitism.
  While working with Governor Bush on the campaign trail--and I will 
not forget in 2000 Dr. Rice knew of my strong concerns with proposed 
legislation from two respected members of the Senate, Senator Warner 
and Senator Byrd, that would have forced the new American President who 
was to be elected in 2000--at that stage of the game we were not sure 
who would be elected in 2000--they were going to force that new 
President by July of the first year of his term to decide whether to 
remove United States troops from Kosovo. She listened and became 
involved.
  Ultimately, and I remember the debate quite vividly, the provision 
was defeated with the help of then Presidential candidate George W. 
Bush and with the help of then sitting President Clinton.
  Now, nearly 5 years later I continue to believe it is essential we 
remain engaged in Southeast Europe, particularly as we look to ensure 
peace and security in Kosovo following the violence that erupted last 
March. I know Dr. Rice will continue to work on matters important to 
the stability of this part of the world and I am confident she 
understands how important it is for the United States to play a 
leadership role in the Balkans.
  During her tenure as National Security Adviser, I have worked with 
Dr. Rice on other foreign policy priorities, including efforts to bring 
seven new nations into the NATO alliance, strengthening a Europe that 
is whole, free, and at peace. Among these seven countries were the 
Baltic nations of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia--all countries I 
strongly believe deserve membership in NATO despite strong objections 
from Russia. Again, Dr. Rice was willing to listen and to serve as an 
ear for the President.
  I was pleased when the President made clear his support for NATO 
enlargement during a speech in Warsaw, Poland, in June of 2001. At that 
time there were many people in this country who were concerned that 
because the President wanted to move away from the ABM Treaty that he 
might negotiate with Russia in a quid pro quo for their backing off of 
the ABM if he would back off from pushing for expansion of NATO, 
particularly the three countries I mentioned.
  President Bush made an outstanding speech in Warsaw, Poland, and he 
made clear his support for NATO enlargement. He remarked at that time:

       I believe the NATO membership for all of Europe's 
     democracies that seek it.

  President Bush went on to say:

       As we plan to enlarge NATO, no nation should be used as a 
     pawn in the agenda of others. We will not trade away the fate 
     of free European peoples.

  The seven countries that went in--Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, 
Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--all of those people who have 
relatives in the United States should know it was Condoleezza Rice who 
worked with the President to prepare that speech so he made it very 
clear he supports the expansion of NATO. And even though our relations 
have thawed with Russia today, the fact of the matter is, we have 
continued to have serious differences of opinion with Russia.
  Again, her special expertise--Think about it. We are going to have a 
Secretary of State who can ``ponimat po-russki.'' I think that is very 
important. We have not had a Secretary of State who is fluent in 
languages as is Dr. Rice. I think some people may not think that is 
important, but I will tell you, it is important that people know she 
thinks enough of other languages that she has become an expert in those 
languages.
  Dr. Rice has also worked with me and other colleagues of the Senate 
and the House of Representatives to combat global anti-Semitism. We 
have made important strides in this effort during the last several 
years, but there is still more to be done, particularly to establish a 
new office at the State Department to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. 
Dr. Rice has expressed her support for such action, which is called for 
as part of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, which the President 
signed into law on October 16, 2004.
  I am pleased that Dr. Rice appeared receptive to attending the third 
OSCE conference on anti-Semitism which is scheduled to take place in 
Cordoba, Spain this June. Her presence as Secretary of State of the 
United States at this conference is essential, as was the presence of 
Secretary Powell at the

[[Page 637]]

prior OSCE conference in Berlin, as an example of the concern of the 
United States about the growing menace of anti-Semitism. I am 
confident, under her leadership, this good work will continue, and I am 
hopeful we can take it to an even greater level.
  I say that every one of us here, in one way or another, could be 
critical of decisions made in U.S. foreign policy. It is easy to be a 
Monday-morning quarterback. As we continue to move forward with efforts 
to promote stability and security in Iraq and the greater Middle East 
and other parts of the world, I think it is an advantage to have 
someone serving as Secretary of State who has experience and has seen 
the pluses and minuses, and had the opportunity to take away lessons 
learned.
  She has been there for 4 years. Even though some people do not want 
to admit it, we have had some ups and downs, and she has experienced 
those. I would rather have somebody who has been there and experienced 
these things as Secretary of State than bring in some fresh face that 
has not had that experience. I am sure Dr. Rice has learned some 
important lessons during these last 4 years.
  I agree with the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the largest newspaper in 
Ohio, which had an editorial titled, ``A little respect, please: Dems 
should remove petty obstacles to Rice's confirmation, but she owes 
senators much better answers as secretary of state.''
  I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

A Little Respect, Please: Dems Should Remove Petty Obstacles to Rice's 
Confirmation, but She Owes Senators Much Better Answers as Secretary of 
                                 State

       Condoleezza Rice ought to make an accomplished secretary of 
     state for reasons that go well beyond having the president's 
     ear. She has the skills, interest and drive to reinvigorate 
     U.S. diplomacy and repair severely frayed international 
     relations. Her communication abilities, personal warmth, work 
     ethic and knowledge, combined with the fervor of her beliefs, 
     could make her a national treasure at a fateful moment when 
     the Iraq war has tarnished American standing in the world. 
     Her stated and obviously heartfelt commitment to foreign 
     engagement, public diplomacy and more U.S. efforts to foster 
     foreign-language study could inject needed fire and focus to 
     the diplomatic arts, as practiced by America.
       That's why no one seriously opposes Rice's nomination to be 
     this country's chief diplomat, four heartbeats away from the 
     presidency.
       Democratic senators who are playing juvenile games by 
     delaying her confirmation should lift their objections, 
     forthwith.
       It's one thing to mount principled opposition to policies 
     or people who could injure American interests. It's quite 
     another to throw monkey wrenches just to hear them clank in 
     the cogs. The handful of Democrats, including Sen. Robert 
     Byrd of West Virginia, who are obstructing Rice's moment must 
     stop, and vote her in.
       That said, Rice's performance during nearly 11 hours of 
     confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee last week was more than just disappointing. It was 
     alarming to see an official who played such a central role in 
     crafting U.S. Iraq policy turn vague and uncommunicative when 
     specific questions were asked. Congress deserves fuller 
     responses on critical matters such as the U.S. exit strategy, 
     how soon before adequate numbers of Iraqi security forces are 
     trained and the overall rationale for U.S. engagement in 
     Iraq.
       These are the seminal questions the second George W. Bush 
     administration must answer today, not tomorrow.
       Rice also must clear up the contradiction she herself put 
     forth to the committee: She cannot be both a ``good soldier'' 
     who molds every public statement to the president's message, 
     and also a Cabinet member who speaks her mind and answers 
     Congress candidly. Rice must choose to be the latter, 
     committing herself to the role that her predecessor and 
     friend Colin Powell performed at State--offering her own 
     voice on U.S. diplomacy, not simply an echo of the Oval 
     Office chorus.
       If Rice can find her voice--and use it to push blinkered 
     State Department underlings to better understand both friends 
     and rivals abroad--these next four years could do much to 
     dispel the international ill will and suspicions aroused by 
     the last four. If she cannot, she will be true neither to 
     herself nor to the trust that is about to be placed in her to 
     manage this nation's foreign relations.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Quoting from the article:

       [Dr. Rice]'s performance during nearly 11 hours of 
     confirmation hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations 
     Committee last week was more than just disappointing. It was 
     alarming to see an official who played such a central role in 
     crafting U.S. Iraq policy turn vague and uncommunicative when 
     specific questions were asked.
       Congress deserves fuller responses on critical matters such 
     as U.S. exit strategy, how soon before adequate numbers of 
     Iraqi security forces are trained and the overall rationale 
     for U.S. engagement in Iraq.

  I share some of those concerns, and so do lots of other members of 
the Foreign Relations Committee. I think the administration has not 
been as candid and forthright with us during the last couple of years 
in regard to some of the questions I and other members of the Foreign 
Relations Committee have asked. I want to make it clear publicly that I 
expect more candor from this administration during the next 4 years, 
particularly with members on the Foreign Relations Committee, so we can 
maintain a bipartisan foreign policy. We have some good people on the 
Foreign Relations Committee. There are some Democrats who have been 
very supportive of the President during the last several years, and 
some of them, I think, are frustrated that they do not feel they are 
getting the kind of answers they should be getting. I think that is 
something Dr. Rice has to understand if we are going to have this 
bipartisan foreign policy that is so essential to us moving forward to 
do what the President would like to accomplish.
  That being said, I agree with the Plain Dealer which also said in 
that editorial:

       Condoleezza Rice ought to make an accomplished secretary of 
     state for reasons that go well beyond having the president's 
     ear.
       She has the skills, interest and drive to reinvigorate U.S. 
     Diplomacy and repair severely frayed international relations.
       Her communication abilities, personal warmth--

  Boy, she is a wonderful person. You feel good when you are around 
her.

       [Her] work ethic and knowledge, combined with the fervor of 
     her beliefs, could make her--

  Listen to this--

     a national treasure at a fateful moment when the Iraq war has 
     tarnished American standing in the world.

  I am continuing to read from the editorial:

       Her stated and obviously heartfelt commitment to foreign 
     engagement, public diplomacy and more U.S. efforts to foster 
     foreign-language study could inject needed fire and focus to 
     the diplomatic arts, as practiced by America.

  I think that is one wonderful editorial in support of her nomination 
from Ohio's largest newspaper, the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
  Dr. Rice has the experience, intellect, and ability to serve our 
country well as Secretary of State. She is absolutely qualified to have 
this job. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination.
  I would hope that many of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who may have some questions will look beyond some of the things 
we have heard from the other side of the aisle and support her 
nomination so we send a signal to the rest of the world that we have a 
Secretary of State who has the overwhelming support of the Senate. It 
is so important, I think, to her success as our Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first let me say to the Senator from Ohio, 
Mr. Voinovich, I have always considered him to be the expert on the 
Balkans, and it is interesting that he would make the comments about 
Dr. Rice and her knowledge of that area. At the conclusion of my 
remarks, I am going to be talking a little bit about West Africa, an 
area in which I have had a lot of personal experience. There again, she 
is an expert.
  We are presented with an extraordinary opportunity to confirm as 
Secretary of State a truly remarkable American. Dr. Condoleezza Rice is 
no stranger to the international scene. Her long record of 
accomplishments is well known to all of us, and her record of exemplary 
service to this country is without parallel.

[[Page 638]]

  As President Bush's National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice has played a 
vital role in protecting our Nation both here and abroad, while 
providing the President with everything he needed to know to defend the 
American people and advance the cause of freedom. Her experience, along 
with her prior knowledge, makes Condoleezza Rice the ideal Secretary of 
State for these difficult times.
  Being the Secretary of State has to be one of the toughest jobs I can 
imagine. The person in that job has to be an expert on everything from 
Albania to Zimbabwe. Over the last 25 years, Dr. Rice has studied 
foreign policy in the academic world and lived foreign policy in the 
trenches, and she is a master of it in both theory and practice.
  In addition to being an expert, the Secretary of State also has to be 
something of a salesman. It is not enough to understand every detail of 
America's foreign policy; you also have to be able to explain it to 
others who might be reluctant or even defiant; and then you have to 
convince them that joining in our work is the right thing to do. Again, 
Dr. Rice possesses this ability in abundance, and I cannot imagine 
anyone more qualified to be the face of America in the world of 
diplomacy.
  As if these two jobs were not enough, the Secretary also has to 
manage an enormous Cabinet Department spread across the globe. Most of 
us have been in many parts of the world where you are dealing with 
people in each one of these countries. These people are experts, and 
you have to be more of an expert than they are. Staying on top of the 
day-to-day workings of the State Department would be enough for any 
three people, apart from the other jobs. But Dr. Rice has proven her 
ability in this area as well, managing a giant research university with 
great success.
  Of course, Dr. Rice will face many challenges as Secretary of State: 
the ongoing military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, our efforts to 
rebuild those countries as we continue to share the joys of freedom, 
the relationships with our allies that have been strained in recent 
years, and of course the threat of ideological hatred that we know all 
too well.
  Dr. Rice will also have to rally our allies and coordinate their 
support to carry out the global war on terrorism. But Dr. Rice has both 
the experience and the vision to chart America's course in the 
international community. The path ahead of us is clear. It is a path 
that Dr. Rice knows, believes in, and can articulate better than anyone 
else. I have no doubt she will continue the great tradition of American 
diplomacy with honor, confidence, and the utmost dedication.
  Dr. Rice has faced some intense questioning during the nomination. I 
have been very proud of her. One of the characteristics of Dr. Rice is 
that she knows she can stand up against anyone. We have seen this. We 
have seen it over and over again on television. I said in one of the 
shows not too long ago one of her great characteristics is, she cannot 
be intimidated. Quite frankly, there are a lot of Senators who don't 
like someone they can't intimidate, but she cannot be intimidated. I 
was very proud of her during the process that I was able to watch 
mostly on television. I know Dr. Rice will acquit herself well, as she 
has thus far.
  Last week President Bush laid out his vision. He said:

       It is the policy of the United States to seek and support 
     the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every 
     nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny 
     in our world.

  Dr. Rice helped formulate this vision for our foreign policy, and she 
knows how to make it happen.
  Senator Voinovich was talking about the Balkans. I have had the 
opportunity over the last 8 years to spend a great deal of time in West 
Africa. I have to say that 4 years ago last month, I was the first 
visitor Dr. Rice had in the White House. As she was unpacking her 
things, I told her about things we were dealing with in countries such 
as Benin, Cote d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Congo Brazzaville, Congo 
Kinshasa, Gabon. Each country I brought up to her, she knew the history 
of that country, the individuals and problems that are there and how we 
must deal with the problems. I can't think of anyone who is even 
similarly equipped for this job unless we go back to Henry Kissinger.
  There was an editorial in the Washington Post this morning by Henry 
Kissinger and George Shultz. People are struggling to try to find 
reasons that she should not be confirmed. Those reasons all seem to 
boil down to one of the argument on weapons of mass destruction. Why is 
it that she thought there were weapons of mass destruction? That was 
answered so articulately by Senator John Warner a few minutes ago on 
the floor when he read the quotations of former President Bill Clinton 
as well as Senator John Kerry when they said: there are weapons of mass 
destruction. We have to go in and take out Saddam Hussein. And so 
everybody knows that was the prevailing wisdom and it was accurate. 
There were weapons of mass destruction. Anyway, that argument has been 
diffused.
  They are going to say, we want to know a timetable as to when our 
troops are going to come out. That is what this article was about this 
morning. It was an editorial by Kissinger and George Shultz. And they 
talk about it. I will read part of one paragraph:

       An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time 
     limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce 
     positive answers to these questions. In the immediate future, 
     a significant portion of the anti-insurrection effort will 
     have to be carried out by the United States. A premature 
     shift from combat operations to training missions might 
     create a gap that permits the insurrection to rally its 
     potential. But as Iraqi forces increase in number and 
     capability, and as the political construction proceeds after 
     the election, a realistic exit strategy will emerge.

  This is two people thought to be as knowledgeable as anyone else, 
certainly, one of those being Henry Kissinger.
  I ask unanimous consent to print this editorial at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. One of the great experiences I had in my career on the 
Hill was when I was in the other body. It was about a year before 
former President Nixon died. No matter what you think of former 
President Nixon, I don't think there is anyone who won't tell you that 
he was the most knowledgeable person on foreign affairs of anyone of 
his time. He came before the House of Representatives where I was 
serving at the time and gave a 2\1/2\ hour talk. He didn't use any 
notes. He stood up there, stood erect at his age and his health 
condition, and he took us for 2\1/2\ hours all the way around the 
world, every remote country there was, and talked about the history of 
that country, the history of our relationship to that country, what our 
relationship would be and should be with those countries. I don't think 
there is anyone who can do that today other than the nominee we are 
talking about today in Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I have seen her do the 
same thing. We are blessed to have her as our nominee for Secretary of 
State. I am certainly looking forward to serving with her.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 25, 2005]

                Results, Not Timetables, Matter In Iraq

              (By Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz)

       The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi 
     elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a 
     culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The 
     timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial. 
     All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit 
     strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit 
     time limit on the U.S. effort.
       We reject this counsel. The implications of the term ``exit 
     strategy'' must be clearly understood; there can be no 
     fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an 
     acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an 
     arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the 
     next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher 
     in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and 
     fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly 
     at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim 
     populations, radical elements would be

[[Page 639]]

     emboldened. As the rest of the world related to this reality, 
     its sense of direction would be impaired by the demonstration 
     of American confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American 
     withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that 
     would dwarf Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as 
     neighbors escalated their current involvement into fullscale 
     intervention.
       We owe it to ourselves to become clear about what post-
     election outcome is compatible with our values and global 
     security. And we owe it to the Iraqis to strive for an 
     outcome that can further their capacity to shape their 
     future.
       The mechanical part of success is relatively easy to 
     define: establishment of a government considered sufficiently 
     legitimate by the Iraqi people to permit recruitment of an 
     army able and willing to defend its institutions. That goal 
     cannot be expedited by an arbitrary deadline that would be, 
     above all, likely to confuse both ally and adversary. The 
     political and military efforts cannot be separated. Training 
     an army in a political vacuum has proved insufficient. If we 
     cannot carry out both the political and military tasks, we 
     will not be able to accomplish either.
       But what is such a government? Optimists and idealists 
     posit that a full panoply of Western democratic institutions 
     can be created in a time frame the American political process 
     will sustain. Reality is likely to disappoint these 
     expectations. Iraq is a society riven by centuries of 
     religious and ethnic conflicts; it has little or no 
     experience with representative institutions. The challenge is 
     to define political objectives that, even when falling short 
     of the maximum goal, nevertheless represent significant 
     progress and enlist support across the various ethnic groups. 
     The elections of Jan. 30 should therefore be interpreted as 
     the indispensable first phase of a political evolution from 
     military occupation to political legitimacy.
       Optimists also argue that, since the Shiites make up about 
     60 percent of the population and the Kurds 15 to 20 percent, 
     and since neither wants Sunni domination, a democratic 
     majority exists almost automatically. In that view, the Iraqi 
     Shiite leaders have come to appreciate the benefits of 
     democratization and the secular state by witnessing the 
     consequences of their absence under the Shiite theocracy in 
     neighboring Iran.
       A pluralistic, Shiite-led society would indeed be a happy 
     outcome. But we must take care not to base policy on the wish 
     becoming father to the thought. If a democratic process is to 
     unify Iraq peacefully, a great deal depends on how the Shiite 
     majority defines majority rule.
       So far the subtle Shiite leaders, hardened by having 
     survived decades of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, have been 
     ambiguous about their goals. They have insisted on early 
     elections--indeed, the date of Jan. 30 was established on the 
     basis of a near-ultimatum by the most eminent Shiite leader, 
     Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. The Shiites have also urged 
     voting procedures based on national candidate lists, which 
     work against federal and regional political institutions. 
     Recent Shiite pronouncements have affirmed the goal of a 
     secular state but have left open the interpretation of 
     majority rule. An absolutist application of majority rule 
     would make it difficult to achieve political legitimacy. The 
     Kurdish minority and the Sunni portion of the country would 
     be in permanent opposition.
       Western democracy developed in homogeneous societies; 
     minorities found majority rule acceptable because they had a 
     prospect of becoming majorities, and majorities were 
     restrained in the exercise of their power by their temporary 
     status and by judicially enforced minority guarantees. Such 
     an equation does not operate where minority status is 
     permanently established by religious affiliation and 
     compounded by ethnic differences and decades of brutal 
     dictatorship. Majority rule in such circumstances is 
     perceived as an alternative version of the oppression of the 
     weak by the powerful. In multiethnic societies, minority 
     rights must be protected by structural and constitutional 
     safeguards. Federalism mitigates the scope for potential 
     arbitrariness of the numerical majority and defines autonomy 
     on a specific range of issues.
       The reaction to intransigent Sunni brutality and the 
     relative Shiite quiet must not tempt us into identifying 
     Iraqi legitimacy with unchecked Shiite rule. The American 
     experience with Shiite theocracy in Iran since 1979 does not 
     inspire confidence in our ability to forecast Shiite 
     evolution or the prospects of a Shiite-dominated bloc 
     extending to the Mediterranean. A thoughtful American policy 
     will not mortgage itself to one side in a religious conflict 
     fervently conducted for 1,000 years.
       The Constituent Assembly emerging from the elections will 
     be sovereign to some extent. But the United States' 
     continuing leverage should be focused on four key objectives: 
     (1) to prevent any group from using the political process to 
     establish the kind of dominance previously enjoyed by the 
     Sunnis; (2) to prevent any areas from slipping into Taliban 
     conditions as havens and recruitment centers for terrorists; 
     (3) to keep Shiite government from turning into a theocracy, 
     Iranian or indigenous; (4) to leave scope for regional 
     autonomy within the Iraqi democratic process.
       The United States has every interest in conducting a 
     dialogue with all parties to encourage the emergence of a 
     secular leadership of nationalists and regional 
     representatives. The outcome of constitution-building should 
     be a federation, with an emphasis on regional autonomy. Any 
     group pushing its claims beyond these limits should be 
     brought to understand the consequences of a breakup of the 
     Iraqi state into its constituent elements, including an 
     Iranian-dominated south, an Islamist-Hussein Sunni center and 
     invasion of the Kurdish region by its neighbors.
       A calibrated American policy would seek to split that part 
     of the Sunni community eager to conduct a normal life from 
     the part that is fighting to reestablish Sunni control. The 
     United States needs to continue building an Iraqi army, 
     which, under conditions of Sunni insurrection, will be 
     increasingly composed of Shiite recruits--producing an 
     unwinnable situation for the Sunni rejectionists. But it 
     should not cross the line into replacing Sunni dictatorship 
     with Shiite theocracy. It is a fine line, but the success of 
     Iraq policy may depend on the ability to walk it.
       The legitimacy of the political institutions emerging in 
     Iraq depends significantly on international acceptance of the 
     new government. An international contact group should be 
     formed to advise on the political and economic reconstruction 
     of Iraq. Such a step would be a gesture of confident 
     leadership, especially as America's security and financial 
     contributions will remain pivotal. Our European allies must 
     not shame themselves and the traditional alliance by 
     continuing to stand aloof from even a political process that, 
     whatever their view of recent history, will affect their 
     future even more than ours. Nor should we treat countries 
     such as India and Russia, with their large Muslim 
     populations, as spectators to outcomes on which their 
     domestic stability may well depend.
       Desirable political objectives will remain theoretical 
     until adequate security is established in Iraq. In an 
     atmosphere of political assassination, wholesale murder and 
     brigandage, when the road from Baghdad to its international 
     airport is the scene of daily terrorist or criminal 
     incidents, no government will long be able to sustain public 
     confidence. Training, equipping and motivating effective 
     Iraqi armed forces is a precondition to all the other 
     efforts. Yet no matter how well trained and equipped, that 
     army will not fight except for a government in which it has 
     confidence. This vicious circle needs to be broken.
       It is axiomatic that guerrillas win if they do not lose. 
     And in Iraq the guerrillas are not losing, at least not in 
     the Sunni region, at least not visibly. A successful strategy 
     needs to answer these questions: Are we waging ``one war'' in 
     which military and political efforts are mutually 
     reinforcing? Are the institutions guiding and monitoring 
     these tasks sufficiently coordinated? Is our strategic goal 
     to achieve complete security in at least some key towns and 
     major communication routes (defined as reducing violence to 
     historical criminal levels)? This would be in accordance with 
     the maxim that complete security in 70 percent of the country 
     is better than 70 percent security in 100 percent of the 
     country--because fully secure areas can be models and magnets 
     for those who are suffering in insecure places. Do we have a 
     policy for eliminating the sanctuaries in Syria and Iran from 
     which the enemy can be instructed, supplied, and given refuge 
     and time to regroup? Are we designing a policy that can 
     produce results for the people and prevent civil strife for 
     control of the State and its oil revenue? Are we maintaining 
     American public support so that staged surges of extreme 
     violence do not break domestic public confidence at a time 
     when the enemy may, in fact, be on the verge of failure? And 
     are we gaining international understanding and willingness to 
     play a constructive role in what is a global threat to peace 
     and security?
       An exit strategy based on performance, not artificial time 
     limits, will judge progress by the ability to produce 
     positive answers to these questions. In the immediate future, 
     a significant portion of the antiinsurrection effort will 
     have to be carried out by the United States. A premature 
     shift from combat operations to training missions might 
     create a gap that permits the insurrection to rally its 
     potential. But as Iraqi forces increase in number and 
     capability, and as the political construction proceeds after 
     the election, a realistic exit strategy will emerge.
       There is no magic formula for a quick, non-catastrophic 
     exit. But there is an obligation to do our utmost to bring 
     about an outcome that will mark a major step forward in the 
     war against terrorism, in the transformation of the Middle 
     East and toward a more peaceful and democratic world order.

  Mr. KYL. I rise today in strong support of the nomination of Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice to be the Secretary of State.
  Dr. Rice has a distinguished, 25-year foreign policy career and has 
served three Presidents. Over the past 4 years,

[[Page 640]]

she has worked closely with the President, as his National Security 
Advisor, to develop and implement a broad range of foreign policy 
initiatives--among them, the Broader Middle East Initiative, the 
liberation of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime, the 
liberation of the Iraqi people from decades of tyranny under Saddam 
Hussein, the signing of the Moscow Treaty with Russia, the six-party 
talks with North Korea, and the Millennium Challenge Account, just to 
name a few.
  I must say that I was highly disappointed that this body did not vote 
on Dr. Rice's nomination last week because of the objections of a few 
Members. Policy disagreements are one thing; personal attacks are quite 
another. Our country is at war. We need a Secretary of State who will 
be able to speak on behalf of the President and who will be able to 
tend to America's fragile alliances. There is no better person for that 
job.
  Unfortunately, Dr. Rice was unable to attend the swearing-in of 
Ukraine's new democratically elected President, Victor Yushchenko. This 
event, which took place over the weekend, is one of the shining 
examples of the unmistakable power of freedom and the importance of 
U.S. leadership in promoting it. Dr. Rice, like the President, 
understands this vital U.S. role. As she stated in her testimony to the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18:

       We must use American diplomacy to help create a balance of 
     power in the world that favors freedom. . . . One of 
     history's clearest lessons is that America is safer, and the 
     world is more secure, whenever and wherever freedom prevails.

  Dr. Rice continued in her statement to discuss the ``three great 
tasks'' of American diplomacy, one of which is to spread freedom and 
democracy throughout the world. She noted that, ``No less than were the 
last decades of the 20th century, the first decades of this new century 
can be an era of liberty. And we in America must do everything we can 
to make it so.''
  The administration's actions in its first term--including the removal 
of Saddam's regime in Iraq--adhered closely to the principles 
articulated by Dr. Rice in her testimony, stated by the President in 
his inaugural address, and those on which our great Nation was founded. 
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the inalienable rights 
of every person, not a select few. And when we are able to transform 
what Natan Sharansky calls ``fear societies'' into free ones, we will 
not only do a service to those who are the direct beneficiaries of our 
actions, we will also cultivate an environment in which a lasting peace 
is attainable.
  President Bush wants Dr. Rice to serve in his Cabinet as the 
Secretary of State. Dr. Rice has served this country ably and honorably 
for many years. This body should act quickly to confirm her to this new 
position.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I support the nomination of Condoleezza 
Rice to be our next Secretary of State. She will replace a great 
patriot and a man I call my friend, Secretary of State Colin Powell, 
who has served over the past 4 years with decency, strength and 
selflessness. While I am sad to see him go, I look forward to working 
with Condoleezza Rice in her new capacity and know she will serve 
tirelessly and thoughtfully in the challenges ahead.
  As President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice was 
instrumental in developing the nation's response to September 11th. Ms. 
Rice understands as good as, or better than anyone, the global 
political forces at work. Her great intellect and sound judgment will 
lend themselves well to the office--one which is America's face to the 
world.
  She has served our country well in the past, and I have full 
confidence in Condoleezza Rice's abilities as Secretary of State. I 
urge my colleagues to quickly move to a vote on her nomination and 
approve Ms. Rice as our next Secretary of State.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand today to give my strong support for 
President Bush's choice to be our next Secretary of State, Dr. 
Condoleeza Rice. I believe that Dr. Rice will be a superb diplomat to 
lead the State Department, while remaining one of the President's 
principal confidantes and advisers on the challenges to our national 
security that we will face in the difficult years before us. Indeed, 
not since President Nixon nominated his National Security Advisor, Dr. 
Henry Kissinger, to the same post, has an administration seen the same 
continuity in assigning a key foreign policy advisor to the more public 
role of principal diplomat.
  I was pleased that Chairman Lugar and Ranking Minority Member Biden 
expeditiously moved Dr. Rice's nomination out of their committee last 
week. I am disappointed that we could not hold this vote last week. At 
a time when this Nation is at war, procedural delays on a position as 
important as the Secretary of State would appear to inhibit the conduct 
of our foreign policy and would have been of great concern to me and my 
constituents in Utah, where the sense of fair play is strong, but the 
duty to a Nation at war is even stronger.
  Yes, I certainly recognize the prerogatives of the Senate for 
thorough and critical debate. I will listen carefully to the debate 
today and tomorrow and see if I hear anything that is worthy of 
delaying this important nomination so critical to the national security 
efforts of the administration. I will listen for arguments I have not 
heard before, on the Senate floor or the campaign trail, and I will be 
open to all the insights that come from arguments never made before, 
and relevant to this nomination. But I know that I represent the vast 
majority of all Utahns when I say that confirming a President's 
Secretary of State while we are at war, while the President is 
preparing an aggressive diplomacy that will begin with a trip to Europe 
to meet with key allies next month, is a matter the Senate should take 
expeditiously.
  We are at war, in Iraq and around the world. Utah's sons and 
daughters are paying the price, nobly and selflessly sacrificing for 
their duty, and in too many cases, with their lives.
  For those who wish to debate Iraq policy--and I am the first to 
recognize that spirited and substantive debate is essential for these 
grave matters--we have all the opportunities to do so before us, and we 
should avail ourselves of these opportunities. Many today may use the 
confirmation process of Dr. Rice to criticize or review Iraq policy. We 
should confirm Dr. Rice and then continue to debate this subject, as we 
have done so over the past years.
  Because I wish a speedy confirmation for Dr. Rice, I will keep my 
comments about Iraq to a minimum. My statements of support for the 
President's policies and my arguments for that support are a matter of 
record. I will add to that record in the coming weeks, months and 
years.
  For now, I will leave it to this observation. This Sunday the Iraqi 
people, amidst great insecurity but with even greater resolve, will go 
to vote to choose their National Assembly, one that will write a 
constitution and set the next elections. Depending on which polls you 
see, between 67 percent and 84 percent of the Iraqi people want this 
opportunity to vote this coming Sunday, despite the perils many face 
every day. To see the ideology they are so resoundingly rejecting, I 
direct my colleagues to the long statement by Abu al-Zarqawi released 4 
days ago. It is a statement of extremist, Islamic fascism: In the most 
explicit manner possible, for 9 pages, it lists all the reasons why the 
Islamic fascists reject democracy, declaring ``fierce war on this 
malicious ideology'' democracy. That is what we are against. And that 
is what the majority of the Iraqi people utterly reject. And I believe 
that America's interest--once again--is to stand against the fascists 
who have declared war on democracy.
  We are well aware of Dr. Rice's resume and experience. Her academic 
credentials are remarkable, and her professional experience extensive. 
She was a senior professional at the National Security Council under 
the first President Bush, where she worked on Soviet affairs and was 
directly involved in our policy of supporting a peaceful reunification 
of Germany at the end of the Cold War. I believe that the successful 
reunification of Germany was the most successful aspect of

[[Page 641]]

the first President Bush's foreign policy, often overlooked because of 
all of the tumult during those crucial years when Soviet communism 
collapsed. Dr. Rice's involvement in that policy at that crucial time 
in Europe's history demonstrates her experience at shepherding a 
critical transition between an authoritarian model and a democratic 
one. While one should not analogize between German reunification and 
Iraq's transition today, one can look at Dr. Rice's experience and 
understand why the current President Bush chose her first to be his 
National Security Adviser during her first term and now has the 
confidence to make her America's top diplomat.
  In the last 4 years Dr. Rice has been at the center of this 
administration's foreign policy. That that policy was a target of 
legitimate criticism during the past presidential campaign, as well as 
during the last 2 days of hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, is to be expected. The candidates presented their 
distinctively different worldviews throughout last year's campaign, 
during a difficult war that rages still, and the public made its 
choice.
  In the United States Senate, it is our responsibility to debate, 
honestly, candidly and critically, all aspects of our Nation's foreign 
policy. My only admonition to my colleagues is that this debate be 
constructive, that it illuminate rather calumniate, and that, when in 
disagreement, it provide alternatives. Yes, it is legitimate to review 
the rationales for war, the flaws in intelligence and the faults in 
rhetoric. I believe Republicans have been quite candid and forthright 
about doing so. The chairmen and chairwoman of the Senate Armed 
Services, Foreign Relations, Intelligence and Government Affairs and 
Homeland Security Committees have all had hearings, conducted 
investigations and released reports critical in various degrees of the 
conduct and implementation of various administration policies. That is 
as it should be, and, for most of us, and certainly for me, it does not 
detract from our support for the administration's foreign policy at a 
critical time in this Nation's history.
  Partisan critics of this administration have perpetuated about its 
foreign policy a myth that has morphed into a meme: And that is that 
this administration has failed at diplomacy. This specious belief that 
diplomacy can neutralize the dangers and the threats to the 
international community is puzzling to me. It is a variant of a theme 
in American foreign policy, deriving from the Wilsonian belief that a 
League of Nations to which we submit our sovereign responsibilities can 
prevent conflict. I, and Dr. Rice, do not subscribe to this view, so 
overwhelmingly proved wanting into the historical laboratory that was 
the 20th century.
  And yet this meme parroted so often by many in the Democratic party--
that this administration has not conducted a robust diplomacy--is 
false, simply false. No President more regularly addressed the General 
Assembly in the history of the United Nations than did the current 
President Bush. He spoke honestly and, to me, compellingly about that 
body's many trounced-upon resolutions. He cajoled and he listened and 
he waited, but at no time did this President suggest that the United 
Nations or any ally would be in a position to veto the actions we 
deemed necessary to protect our national security. No President would 
ever do so.
  And while we failed to get Security Council support for our invasion 
of Iraq as President Clinton failed before he belatedly led the attack 
on Serbia over Kosovo--this President leads a global war on terrorism 
where most of the nations of the world are cooperating with us, in one 
form or another, through intelligence sharing, law enforcement 
cooperation, or any of a number of multilateral initiatives. Disagree 
with the President's foreign policy if you wish, criticize, if you 
must, but do not suggest that such a global effort can occur without 
sustained and successful diplomacy.
  Credit for the diplomacy for the first term of this administration 
must go to those who formulated the policy, the President and Dr. Rice 
and the rest of the national security team, and to the man who led the 
State Department, Secretary Colin Powell. To this day, the standard for 
dignity and graciousness has been set by Secretary Powell, who once 
again took the call from his country and served it with honor, 
diligence and character. Secretary Powell assembled a strong team at 
the Department, and he represented this Nation in a way that made every 
one of us proud. Dr. Rice knows that, as she assumes this important 
position, she follows a decent and serious diplomat and a dedicated 
servant. I have no doubt that she will meet the standard.
  Dr. Rice will assume the responsibility of Secretary of State while 
we are at war, with global terrorism and with an insurgency in Iraq 
that every day puts in stark contrast the darkness of the past 
dictatorship against the light of a hopeful democracy. These next 2 
years, I expect, will be some of the most difficult years in this 
Nation's foreign policy. We will continue to need the experience and 
wisdom of Dr. Rice as she serves this administration in a new role.
  That role, as the Secretary of State, will have outstanding 
challenges. Dr. Rice will need to advance further cooperation of a 
multinational coalition in the war on terrorism; she will have to renew 
a push for more international support for a more effective political 
and economic reconstruction of Iraq; she will need to strengthen U.S. 
support for counterproliferation initiatives in Europe and Asia; and 
she will need to maintain U.S. leadership in the fight against poverty 
and disease. She can count on me for support as she assumes these huge 
and historic responsibilities.
  In her testimony, Dr. Rice has conceded that our public diplomacy 
needs serious reconsideration. Many cite ongoing and growing 
dissatisfaction among international audiences regarding the United 
States. I would caution Dr. Rice against overemphasizing this reality 
as she redesigns our public diplomacy. The U.S. is a source of 
resentment and disparagement among many audiences throughout the world, 
but many of those audiences are contaminated by the propaganda of their 
own autocratic regimes. Today, more people still want to immigrate to 
this country than any other nation in the world, and more people take 
inspiration in the institutions that protect and promote our freedoms, 
be it our Constitution or our free press or our culture of openness. I 
have long been a strong supporter of public diplomacy. Today's 
challenges are not only to rebut the ever-growing sophistication of the 
biases and distortions that compete in global media, but to continue to 
find new ways to promote the American message and the American story. 
The days of United States Information Service libraries are over, but 
cultural exchange programs, in particular visitor programs to this 
country, must continue and, in my opinion, should grow. I will help Dr. 
Rice in any way that I can to reinvigorate our public diplomacy.
  In the last few years, I believe the State Department has failed to 
grasp the value of culture of lawfulness programs. These programs use 
education ministries to advance core primary and secondary curricula on 
anticorruption lessons. It is impossible to advance the rule of law, 
which is a fundamental goal of bringing stability in regions we cannot 
afford to lose to anarchy or criminality, without the local population 
learning the value of clean government. We have seen success with such 
programs in Italy, Mexico, Colombia and other countries, and yet I have 
seen no enthusiasm from the State Department in making these programs 
an essential aspect of all our foreign assistance planning. Perhaps 
that is because these programs are so inexpensive, and there is still 
the bias against programs that don't require billions of taxpayer 
funds; perhaps the Department does not yet understand the potential for 
these programs, despite the clear affirmation of the Undersecretary of 
State for Global Affairs, who has spoken eloquently in favor of such 
programs. I am heartened by Dr. Rice's testimony before the Senate 
Foreign

[[Page 642]]

Relations Committee last week, she asserted that ``we are joining with 
developing nations to fight corruption, instill the rule of law, and 
create a culture of transparency.'' She has my support, and I am going 
to ask Dr. Rice to study the experience and potential of these culture 
of lawfulness programs and work with me and other Members of Congress 
to integrate them into our foreign assistance plans.
  I will work with Dr. Rice in every way that I can to make her mission 
a success. Because the mission of the Department of State is to work to 
manage conflicts so that they do not erupt into violence and war. In a 
world where we can not control so many factors beyond our shores, we 
need the very best diplomacy to be constantly working our alliances, 
presenting our policies and engaging those who would challenge our 
security. Dr. Condoleeza Rice has 25 years of experience in advancing 
the national security of this nation. She has 4 years as the principal 
advisor to President Bush, as he has charted a foreign policy that has 
responded to global terror and taken on the most destabilizing regime 
in the Middle East. She has the knowledge and character and experience 
of one who can lead this country in our diplomacy around the world. Dr. 
Rice has my strong support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator 
from Oklahoma. I, too, want to speak on the confirmation of Condoleezza 
Rice to serve as Secretary of State. We are all aware, because it has 
been the subject of quite a bit of discussion and we have seen her in 
action for the last 4 years at the White House and even before that, of 
Dr. Rice's accomplishments. She is a woman of fantastic achievement, a 
profoundly talented individual who has excelled at virtually everything 
to which she has set her mind. I dare say there are few people in this 
Nation's history who would make both an excellent Secretary of State 
and an excellent commissioner of the National Football League. I am 
sure Dr. Rice, in keeping with her stated aspirations, will fill both 
roles with dedication, intellect, and passion in due time.
  Yet the reaction to this nomination, which you would think would be a 
cause for great celebration, given the historic nature of this 
particular appointment, is also sadly predictable. For example, it is a 
shame to think that with the overwhelming voice of the people so 
recently expressed in the recent national elections and with the 109th 
Congress just having begun, with the President having been sworn in 
last week, with early pledges of bipartisanship and working together in 
the best interest of the American people, we are yet again already 
seeing the specter of partisan politics being brought to bear on this 
nomination.
  Of course, the Senate does have a very important role in the 
confirmation process known as advice and consent. No one is questioning 
the right of any Senator, indeed the duty of every Senator, to ask hard 
questions and to determine to the best of their ability the 
qualifications of a nominee to serve in the office to which the 
President has chosen to appoint them. But there is a difference between 
exercising the role of advice and consent and the line that seems to 
have been crossed with impunity when it comes to the attacks we have 
seen on some of the President's nominees. Condoleezza Rice just happens 
to be the one we are focusing on today. We have seen much of the same 
vitriol and poison used to assassinate the character of people like 
Alberto Gonzales, another American success story, a personification of 
the American dream.
  I would hope that no one in this body would feel it necessary to 
bring all the left-over angst of the campaign season to bear against a 
bright and honorable nominee such as the one who is presently before 
us. You may disagree with Dr. Rice's view of the world. You may take 
issue with some of her policy preferences. But to impugn her motives or 
the integrity of a woman held in such high esteem is a tactic that I 
believe is simply unacceptable and beneath the dignity of this body. 
Yet we see this tactic clearly, again, in the attempt to--first in the 
committee hearings, the Foreign Relations Committee, and even on the 
floor of the Senate--try to tie her actions to the tragic events at Abu 
Ghraib prison, the crimes that occurred by a handful of individuals 
that simply crossed the line between human decency and criminality. 
They were acts that violated U.S. policy and basic human rights. They 
were disgusting actions undertaken by sick individuals who are being 
investigated and being brought to justice--the most recent of which, of 
course, was the conviction and sentencing of Mr. Graner to 10 years in 
prison.
  Now, my colleagues know well that at no point has Dr. Rice ever 
supported, condoned, or advocated such acts of torture or humiliation. 
I believe to try to link her, through some vague references, to these 
crimes is nothing more than a blatant attempt to score political 
points, to somehow demean her in her service, and to taint her 
nomination. It should not be necessary to raise these points, but I 
realize that in politics, particularly in Washington, a charge 
unanswered is too often a charge believed.
  Let me just refer to a brief reference in the Schlesinger report--of 
course, referring to the former Secretary of Defense, who served on an 
independent commission with former Defense Secretary Harold Brown, who 
served in the Carter administration, as well as a former distinguished 
Member of the House of Representatives. They concluded after their 
investigation--and this was just one of, I believe, eight 
investigations. There are three more that are not yet completed. But 
this was the conclusion of the independent Schlesinger commission:

       No approved procedures called for or allowed the kinds of 
     abuse that in fact occurred. There is no evidence of a policy 
     of abuse promulgated by senior officials or military 
     authorities.

  So to suggest, to hint, to imply that this nominee, or any senior 
officials in the Bush administration has condoned or adopted a policy 
that resulted in the criminal abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib is 
simply without foundation and any fact. Indeed, it is a scurrilous 
allegation, and the American people need to understand that. They also 
need to understand the motives why such allegations are made.
  In addition to these inappropriate partisan attacks against a nominee 
who deserves our respect, there are a handful of my colleagues who have 
used this opportunity to roll out the same tired, old arguments 
concerning the war on terror, and particularly Operation Iraqi Freedom. 
We know that we are in the midst of a global war on terrorism. This is 
not just about Afghanistan and Iraq. This is not just about isolated 
incidents of terrorism. This is about a conflict that has been building 
for more than a decade and, indeed, will likely last a generation.
  Since America suffered an attack on our own soil in New York in 1993, 
we have been hit at our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; we have been 
hit at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; our Navy was hit at the USS 
Cole in Yemen; of course, we had the attacks of 9/11; and Bali, Madrid, 
and in Beslan. The list goes on and on.
  In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, President Bush 
decided, with the authorization of Congress at every turn, that if 
diplomacy would not yield a pacified Saddam, that if the U.N. declined 
to enforce its own resolutions requiring inspections and disarmament, 
we would, when necessary, use preemptive action against those who seek 
to harm America and those who threaten world peace and supply sanctuary 
to terrorists.
  We also decided that it was in America's self-interest to take the 
battle to the terrorists where they live, where they plot, where they 
plan, and where they train and build weapons--not to wait until we are 
attacked again and where innocent civilians' lives are lost and 
innocent blood is shed. The post-
9/11 reality is that America must choose to fight this terrorist threat 
on their ground, or they will fight us on ours.
  This is not some grand conspiracy of this current administration or 
any policy which is really strange to history or unknown to history. It 
was in 1941,

[[Page 643]]

after Pearl Harbor, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:

       If you hold your fire until you see the whites of their 
     eyes, you will never know what hit you.

  That was Israel's policy in 1981 when it knocked out Saddam's Osirak 
nuclear reactor. The fact that Israel continues to exist today was in 
part because its leaders had the wisdom and courage to take on a 
growing threat by the use of preemptive action--sometimes called 
preventive self-defense--whenever it was necessary.
  No one wants to imagine what could have happened if Iraq's nuclear 
program, which was well documented after Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1991, 
when we were surprised to learn after we repulsed that attack that 
Saddam's nuclear program was much further along than our intelligence 
authorities had previously thought. But no one wants to imagine what 
would have happened if Iraq had continued to develop its nuclear 
capability, or if they had been able to reconstitute their nuclear 
program after we left Iraq in 1991. It was a horrific possibility for 
America and the rest of the world, and indeed a responsibility of the 
leaders of this country and the free world to eliminate this gathering 
threat.
  Ms. Rice has also been criticized for the belief that Saddam had 
stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But you know what? And the 
critics know this. The truth is, virtually every intelligence service 
in the world believed that Saddam had these weapons of mass 
destruction. Indeed, this was one of the premises for the Iraq 
Liberation Act in 1998. It was for the authorization given to then-
President Clinton to use necessary force to remove this threat. Our 
intelligence, though, as we all now know with the benefit of 20/20 
hindsight, proved to be incorrect--at least at the time that we entered 
Iraq--that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Of 
course, we have been undertaking the necessary reforms both in this 
body and in the intelligence community to stop that kind of 
intelligence failure from ever occurring again.
  The critics should not be allowed to rewrite history. The fact is 
that no one party or person misled the rest of us--Democrat, 
Republican, or Independent. The truth is, we were all misled by this 
erroneous intelligence, and rather than point the finger of blame where 
no blame is due, what we ought to be about--and, indeed, what we have 
been doing--is correcting the reasons for that failure and making sure 
that it never happens again.
  Yet even though we did not find stockpiles of WMD, the bottom line is 
this: This was not the only reason that Congress voted overwhelmingly 
to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Indeed, there are 
numerous other reasons set out in the resolution that passed this 
Senate by overwhelming margins. It is beyond debate that Saddam 
continued to have the intent to acquire WMD and there is little doubt 
that but for our intervention and the fact that he was pulled from a 
spider hole and put in prison awaiting future accountability at the 
hands of the Iraqi people that he would have fully reconstituted his 
program just as soon as he was able.
  One does not have to take my word for it. Mr. Duelfer, who succeeded 
Mr. Kay, and was in charge of looking into the possibility that Saddam 
had WMD, concluded in September 2004:

       Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was 
     essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed 
     and Iraq's economy stabilized. . . .

  Indeed, that has been the evidence we learned in the oil-for-food 
scandal in the United Nations, that Iraq would siphon off money to 
stabilize and support his failing economy, but his job, he thought, was 
to wait out the sanctions in such a way that once the sanctions were 
removed he would reconstitute Iraq's WMD capability. To somehow point 
the finger of blame at this distinguished nominee, where she, like all 
of us, was given the erroneous reports from the intelligence community, 
is simply unjustified and unfounded and indeed, in the end, it is 
revisionist history.
  Lest this point be lost in the debate and the fingerpointing, we are 
in Iraq for our own good and for the good of the world, and I might add 
for the good of the Iraqi people. September 11 taught us all a very 
important lesson, that security in the modern world depends on taking 
aggressive and focused action to prevent terrorist acts before they 
occur, not just opening a criminal investigation after innocent blood 
is shed.
  We have marshaled the force of freedom in this fight, one of the most 
powerful weapons that we have in our arsenal, and indeed on this 
Sunday, as has been recounted over and over again, the Iraqi people 
will make their first major step toward self-government as a free Iraq.
  There are some who continue to argue that we did not have the right 
plan to deal with postwar Iraq. We have hashed that argument out a 
hundred times. Yes, hindsight is always 20/20, and we did not know then 
what we know now, but that is no real revelation. That really suggests, 
again, another failure of our intelligence-gathering capability and 
particularly our HUMINT, our human intelligence capability, which we 
are fixing.
  I point out that it serves no one's interests, and certainly not the 
national interest of this country or the interests of the Iraqi people, 
to continue to try to point the finger of blame at past errors, 
particularly in connection with our intelligence-gathering capability. 
Indeed, even those who did not support the resolution authorizing the 
use of force must now concede that it is in our best interest not to 
have Iraq fail and become perhaps a sanctuary for terrorists. Even 
those who oppose this war should acknowledge at this point that it is 
in our best interest for Iraq to become a working democracy and to 
avoid strife and become a free and peaceful nation.
  It is counterproductive, unless of course one's purpose is merely 
partisan politics, to dwell on the past at the expense of our present 
duty and our plans for the future. It is time to focus on what is our 
duty in Iraq, along with other nations, the coalition and the Iraqi 
people, and that is to secure Iraq, to help this new democracy take 
root, and to further the cause of freedom around the globe.
  There is no question that Iraq continues to be a very fragile place, 
but in truth, Iraq is making solid progress on a difficult road when 
one takes into consideration the fact that Saddam had an iron grip on 
power in this nation a mere 2 years ago. Consider what has been 
accomplished. A valid voter registration list of 14.3 million names has 
been completed. More than 500 voter registration centers have been 
established to help Iraqis verify their registration status. Iraqis 
will vote on election day in the thousands of voting centers across 
that country and in 14 other countries, including the United States of 
America. Candidate lists for 111 political entities have been submitted 
for the national elections and, in total, 256 political entities, 
composed of 18,900 candidates, have registered to compete in 20 
different elections: The national election, 18 provincial elections, 
and the Kurdistan regional government election.
  These 254 entities include 27 individuals, 33 coalitions, and 196 
parties, all demonstrating widespread enthusiasm for this opportunity 
they have for free and fair elections.
  I believe we will see the true ramifications of freedom in Iraq over 
the next generation, and I believe this first election is a watershed 
at the beginning of this new generation of a free Iraq.
  As responsible leaders rise to the forefront and the vestiges of 
tyranny are replaced by a fledgling republic, we will see that the 
victories won, the hardship that has been endured, and the lives risked 
and indeed tragically lost have not been in vain.
  Before this election season that just concluded, or I thought 
concluded on November 2 but which seems to have continued now with 
attacks against the President's nominees--those who were unsuccessful 
in persuading the American public of the correctness of their opinions 
on November 2--I never thought I would hear anyone utter what I think 
is one of the most foolish

[[Page 644]]

notions yet. And yet I have heard the suggestion made again and again 
in the context of Dr. Rice's hearing. And it is the suggestion that 
Iraq today and the world as a whole is worse off than it was with 
Saddam Hussein in power.
  Have these people somehow missed the fact that we found unspeakable 
horrors in Saddam's Iraq, torture cells, rape rooms, execution 
chambers, children's prisons. We found a legacy of terror and fear and 
vestiges of unimaginable cruelty. We have found that more than 1 
million people are simply missing; 300,000 are dead, lying in mass 
graves throughout Iraq in nearly 100 reported sites, including one that 
I personally viewed a year ago last August. These mass graves are 
silent monuments to Saddam's ruthlessness left behind for all to see.
  With due respect for my colleagues who advanced the idea that Iraq or 
America was better off with Saddam Hussein in power, to suggest that 
the world is safer when despots rule in palaces instead of serving 
time, being held accountable in jails, is to ignore the bulk, if not 
the entirety, of human history.
  It was Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who enjoined against similar 
foreign policy foolishness in an earlier era when he said:

       Unable to distinguish between our friends and our enemies 
     [you adopt] our enemies' view of the world.

  I think we must also be sobered and cautioned by that injunction, and 
we should all be responsible enough to not let our desire to score 
partisan political points lapse into adopting our enemy's view of the 
world.
  As President Bush urged just last week, America has the moral 
responsibility to take a stand for liberty as the guiding force in the 
world and the defining principle of this age. We have the strength and 
the will to see this purpose through.
  I urge my colleagues to support a Secretary of State who understands 
the stakes, who sees the right course, and has the will to follow it.
  In conclusion, I have talked about the attacks that have been 
directed on this honorable nominee and why I believe that they are 
unfounded and how I believe those who are disappointed, perhaps, in the 
way the election turned out on November 2 have continued their sort of 
political insurgency directed at the President but through his nominees 
for his Cabinet, and particularly Condoleezza Rice and Alberto 
Gonzales. I have said that while it is our responsibility as Senators 
to exercise with diligence our advice and consent function and to ask 
hard questions in good faith, there is a line that should not be 
crossed, which I believe has been crossed in the attacks made against 
these nominees, including Condoleezza Rice.
  One reason I believe that is true is because of the evidence that I 
have in my hand. This is a solicitation, a fundraising solicitation 
sent out by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. This is over the signature of Senator Barbara Boxer, who 
has been one of the most acerbic critics of this nominee. But at the 
same time she argues why this nominee should not be confirmed, she ties 
this to fundraising efforts by the Democratic Senatorial Committee.
  She said in part:

       The Republicans were expecting the Senate to confirm Dr. 
     Rice with little debate and questioning from the Foreign 
     Relations Committee.

  I think we found that already not to be true. The distinguished 
chairman, who is in the Chamber now, held lengthy hearings and allowed 
all Senators a chance to ask numerous questions of this nominee, and we 
know now, from the 9 hours that have been agreed to as part of this 
debate, that, indeed, there is substantial debate about this nominee. 
But she goes on, from Senator Boxer's pen:

       They didn't count on me to ask the tough questions. What 
     the Republicans don't realize is, no matter who is in charge 
     in the White House, the role of Congress will always be to 
     act as a check on the Executive branch of government. And 
     when it comes to the President's nominees, the Senate must 
     take its ``advise and consent'' role during the confirmation 
     process seriously.

  I agree with that. I have said as much in my comments today. But what 
I do not agree with, and I think where this fundraising solicitation 
crosses the line and where it finds itself in company with some of the 
partisan attacks that have been made without substance against this 
nominee, is when it goes on to say to contribute to the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee, making this part of not only a political 
attack but a fundraising effort by the Democrats in the Senate. That, I 
believe, crosses a line that should not have been crossed, and one for 
which I believe Dr. Rice is entitled to an apology. To tie the 
confirmation of the Secretary of State to a fundraising campaign and to 
propagate misinformation or disinformation about this distinguished 
nominee, who is an American success story, in an effort to raise money 
for the Democratic Senatorial Committee is inappropriate and I think 
would offend and does offend the American people.
  I believe this offense deserves a quick repudiation by our colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle who maybe were not involved in this and, 
indeed, an apology to Dr. Rice for the way she has been treated.
  In conclusion, let me say that I have seen, in my relatively short 
time in the Senate, some pretty rough treatment of the President's 
nominees. We have seen filibusters of judicial nominees when there is a 
bipartisan majority of the Senate to confirm those nominees. Indeed, 
this has been a part of an unconstitutional burden that neither this 
President nor those nominees should have to bear.
  But we have also seen sort of a character attack on nominees that I 
think is not only unfair to those nominees but completely unbecoming to 
the dignity of the Senate and the kind of respect with which they 
should be treated. It is one thing to disagree about policy; it is one 
thing to ask hard questions. No one is asking anyone to vote against 
their conscience on a nominee. But to abuse these nominees in a way 
that is unfair, not only to them and their family but one that 
mischaracterizes the facts and is part of a disinformation campaign 
which is clearly tied to politics, is something we ought to call an end 
to.
  I had held out some hope, and increasingly it appears to be a vain 
hope, that somehow with the reconvening of this 109th Congress we would 
see a change in attitude, we would see a willingness to work together.
  We have seen some comments, some speeches, some promises to that end. 
But when it comes to this sort of inappropriate political activity and 
politicizing the confirmation process for America's diplomat in chief 
and the President's other judicial nominees, all I can say is it is a 
crying shame.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

       Dear DSCC Friend, The Republicans were expecting the Senate 
     to confirm Dr. Rice with little debate and questioning from 
     the Foreign Relations Committee.
       They didn't count on me to ask the tough questions. What 
     the Republicans don't realize is, no matter who is in charge 
     in the White House, the role of Congress will always be to 
     act as a check on the Executive branch of government. And 
     when it comes to presidential nominees, the Senate must take 
     its ``advise and consent'' role during the confirmation 
     process seriously.
       That's why I took a stand last week and voiced my concerns 
     about Dr. Rice's misleading statements leading up to the war 
     in Iraq and beyond. I will continue to make my voice heard on 
     the Senate Foreign Relations committee, but in order to put 
     the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and 
     reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to 
     the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections.
       Because after Dr. Rice is confirmed, the Senate will face 
     many more crucial decisions in the coming months: 
     confirmation of President Bush's choice for Attorney General 
     Alberto Gonzales, social security, Iraq and possibly a 
     Supreme Court nomination. My Democratic colleagues and I will 
     hold the Bush Administration accountable for its decisions. 
     But we will need your help to hold them accountable in the 
     ultimate public hearing: the next midterm elections in 2006.
       The Republicans want us Democrats to step back and pave the 
     way not only for this

[[Page 645]]

     one nominee, but for their entire social, economic and 
     international agenda. We have a chance during the midterm 
     elections to make sure the Republicans don't have four years 
     to do so. The DSCC is working every day to recruit the 
     strongest candidates in every Senate race across the country. 
     They are fighting early and fighting hard, but they need your 
     ongoing support today.
       So while I raise my voice on the Senate floor, I hope you 
     will join us on the campaign trail and send the loudest 
     message of all--one that the Republicans will not be able to 
     ignore--unseating them in the midterm elections and sending 
     more Democrats to the Senate.
           Yours sincerely,
                                            Senator Barbara Boxer.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak in behalf of 
Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. I hope the chairman would 
yield to me such time as I might consume.
  Mr. LUGAR. How much time does the Senator plan to speak?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. About 10 minutes.
  Mr. LUGAR. I yield the Senator the time he may need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of 
the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar. I have had an 
opportunity to work with him in the years I have been in the Senate on 
the Foreign Relations Committee. He is an outstanding Member and such a 
good colleague and so knowledgeable on so many issues. It is quite 
wonderful to have his work and the things he has done, particularly the 
incredibly important Nunn-Lugar, or I call it the Lugar-Nunn Act on 
Nuclear Proliferation, getting rid of some material in the Soviet 
Union. I have seen that bill in action and that has been a powerful 
good to possibly reduce the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. 
I thank my colleague.
  I rise to express my strong support for the nomination of Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice for the position of Secretary of State. While it is 
regrettable that we are continuing to debate this nomination after 2 
days of hearings, I believe it will only confirm what the President has 
done in making such a great choice. As the first woman to hold the key 
post as the President's National Security Adviser, she has had a 
distinguished career already in Government, as well as in academics. I 
still recall her wise and learned comments made nearly a decade ago 
about how systems failures were occurring at that time in the Soviet 
Union that led to the fall of the Soviet Union.
  It wasn't seen at the time. Yet she was able to look at the disparate 
situations that were happening, saying how systems failures in the 
Soviet Union presaged a place none of us thought possible to fall. And 
she was seeing that--observing that as an astute observer years ahead 
of her time. That kind of judgment and foresight will be critical in 
the months and years ahead for the United States.
  It is a complex job, Secretary of State. I believe she has the 
necessary talent and experience and is, without doubt, one of the most 
qualified people in the world for this job.
  Like Secretary Powell, who has done an outstanding job and whose 
humanity and professionalism and dedication will be sorely missed, she 
recognizes the deep personal commitment necessary, and this Nation is 
grateful for someone of her stature who is willing to serve in this 
position.
  The Secretary of State serves as the President's top foreign policy 
adviser and in that capacity is this Nation's most visible diplomat 
here and around the world. It is a position that demands the full 
confidence of the President, and in Dr. Rice, we know the President 
trusts her judgment.
  That relationship is critical when one considers the state of the 
world in which Dr. Rice will work. According to a recent National 
Intelligence Council report: Not since the end of World War II has the 
international order been in such a state of flux. During the past 3 
years, we have seen terrorists kill thousands of people in this country 
and around the world. While terrorism will continue to be a serious 
threat to the Nation's security as well as many countries around the 
world, genocide--even after Bosnia and Rwanda and even Auschwitz--
continues to this day in Darfur. This proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction among rogue regimes continues apace. Meanwhile, in the 
East, the rise of China and India promises to reshape familiar patterns 
of geopolitics and economics.
  Still, there is great reason to be encouraged by the world that Dr. 
Rice will face. Freedom is on the march in places some had written off 
as potentially unsuitable for democracy. Ukraine's Orange Revolution, 
Georgia's Rose Revolution, Serbia's Democratic Revolution, and 
successful elections in Indonesia, Malaysia, Afghanistan, and the 
Palestinian Authority demonstrate the longing for democracy that 
embraces the most diverse cultures. Iraq will continue to pose 
challenges even after the elections at the end of this month.
  The new Secretary of State will have to engage the United States and 
our allies in working closely with the Iraqis to seize the 
opportunities that lie before them to forge a nation that is free of 
the past and that is ultimately and uniquely Iraqi. The only exit 
strategy for the United States and the coalition forces is to ensure 
that Iraqis are in control of their own destiny.
  The new Secretary of State must devote her time and resources to 
achieving a settlement in the Arab-Israeli conflict by clearly 
articulating the robust vision of peace in the Middle East. We must not 
only come to grips with nuclear proliferation issues in Iran and North 
Korea, but we must have the moral courage to bring attention to the 
human rights abuses in both of these countries that sustain these 
nuclear ambitions.
  Similarly, we must confront the regime in Khartoum where crimes 
against humanity must be brought to justice so that urgent humanitarian 
assistance can continue in Darfur and elsewhere in Sudan. There are 
many actions we can take and must take, especially after we have had 
the bold initiative to clearly call Darfur for what it is--it is 
genocide that is happening there. If we are to maintain our credibility 
in this area, we must act decisively.
  In addition to the humanitarian efforts in the Indian Ocean region 
and elsewhere as a result of the tsunami, I am certain that the new 
Secretary will maintain our commitment to the global fight against AIDS 
and other infectious diseases. But to do so with the kind of prudent 
and result-based efforts that have been so successful in past efforts, 
we have to maintain a focus and an effort to be able to get things 
done.
  Last week, President Bush laid down a marker by which we would define 
what it means not to just be an American but a citizen of the world. 
Declaring in his inaugural address that our liberty is increasingly 
tied to the fate of liberty abroad, he placed the United States on the 
side of democratic reformers and vowed to judge governments by their 
treatment of their own people.
  President Bush's vision draws on the wellsprings of our Nation's 
spirit and value. I believe Secretary-designate Rice possesses the 
skills and talents necessary to turn the President's visionary goals 
into a reality.
  In her statement before the Foreign Relations Committee, she said, 
``The time for diplomacy is now.'' Her qualifications to carry that 
prescription into practice will be indispensable. She combines a big-
picture mindset born of academic training with a wealth of hands-on 
experience at the highest level. Perhaps most importantly, she can 
always be sure of having the President's confidence and ear.
  Finally, Dr. Rice's own biography testifies to the promise of 
America. Born and raised in the segregated South, her talent, 
determination, and intellect will place her fourth in line to the 
Presidency. She has often said to get ahead she had to be ``twice as 
good''--and she is that and more.
  Her childhood shaped her strong determination of self-respect, but it 
was her parents' commitment to education and her brilliant success at 
it that defined her style.
  She managed to work her way to college by the age of 15 and graduate 
at 19

[[Page 646]]

from the University of Denver with a degree in political science. It 
was at Denver that Dr. Rice became interested in international 
relations and the study of the Soviet Union. Her inspiration came from 
a course taught by a Czech refugee. That background will become 
increasingly important as we deal with the changing dynamics and 
challenges posed around the world.
  In short, I am moved to think that she will soon be confirmed as our 
66th Secretary of State, and it will be time for us to move forward. 
She is already well known to the world. Dr. Rice will now become the 
face of America's diplomacy.
  We need to support her in every way we can. She can be assured of my 
support. As the newly appointed chairman of the Commission on Security 
and Cooperation in Europe, I look forward to working with her and other 
officials at the State Department to further promote democracy, human 
rights, and the rule of law in Europe and Eurasia. Charged with the 
responsibility for monitoring and promoting implementation of the 
Helsinki Final Act in all 55 signatory countries, the Commission has 
been and will continue to be a force for human freedom, seeking to 
encourage change, consistent with the commitment these countries have 
voluntarily accepted. As President Ford remarked when signing the 
Helsinki Final Act on behalf of the United States:

       History will judge this Conference . . . not only by the 
     promises we make, but the promises we keep.

  As we approach the 30th anniversary of the historic occasion this 
year, a number of Helsinki signatories seem determined to undermine the 
shared values enshrined in the Final Act and diminish the commitment 
they accepted when they joined the Organization for Security and 
Cooperation in Europe. It is imperative that the United States hold 
firm to the values that have inspired democratic change in much of the 
OSCE region. Dr. Rice in her confirmation testimony referred to the 
potential role that multilateral institutions can play in multiplying 
the strength of freedom-loving nations. Indeed, the OSCE has tremendous 
potential to play even a greater role in promoting democracy, human 
rights, and rule of law in a region of strategic importance to the 
United States.
  I look forward to building upon the partnership forged between the 
Helsinki Commission and the State Department as we stand with oppressed 
and downtrodden people wherever they are in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support Dr. Rice for the position of 
Secretary of State. I wish her good luck and Godspeed.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise and express my strong support for 
Condoleezza Rice for confirmation as Secretary of State of the United 
States of America. She is a native of my home state of Alabama and grew 
up in a very difficult time in our State. I remember vividly and was 
touched by the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham that 
occurred during her youth. Her family later moved to Colorado, I 
believe, where she grew up.
  She is a pianist and a talented person in so many ways. I think few 
would dispute her talent, her incredible background and personal 
history, and the many accomplishments that she has achieved through the 
years.
  In the course of doing so, she has won the confidence of the 
President of the United States, George W. Bush. He has relied on her 
foreign policy expertise for quite a number of years. He believes she 
is the right person to serve this country today as Secretary of State. 
She is a perfect fit in this role and I strongly support her 
confirmation.
  Condoleezza Rice served as provost at Stanford University. She worked 
in the National Security Council of former President Bush. She has 
served our current President Bush as National Security Advisor for 4 
years. That is an excellent background for the job; that, along with 
her studies in international relations and history, particularly the 
Soviet Union.
  I remember early on we had a problem with national missile defense 
and the test ban treaty that would have required us to either not 
implement a national missile defense system or would have required us 
to manipulate it as some sort of test program in a way that was not 
very practical.
  She suggested we ought to avail ourselves of the privileges the 
treaty gave us to give notice and step out of the agreement with 
Russia. It had been signed with the Soviet Union in an entirely 
different global setting. At this point, we were dealing with Russia, 
which was friendly in many ways. Many on the other side of the aisle--
very much the same ones criticizing her today--were saying that this 
was just awful. They claimed that it would destabilize relations 
between Russia and the United States.
  I remember seeing Dr. Rice being questioned about that, meeting with 
Senators and discussing it. She listened carefully to the comments 
others had and then articulated her own considered thoughts with 
crystal clarity. She was inclined to believe we ought to get out of 
that treaty. She and the President eventually made the decision to do 
so. They did so in a way of which Russia was accepting. It caused no 
problems.
  I remember vividly the warnings from the liberal Members of this body 
that withdrawing from that treaty, and thus allowing us to build a 
legitimate national missile defense, was somehow going to cause 
permanent damage to the relationship between Russia and the United 
States. She concluded that this was not true. In fact, it was not true. 
She helped execute that action that allows us now to have missiles in 
place that are capable of knocking down incoming weapons that could 
wreak havoc, nuclear or otherwise, on the people of the United States. 
It is one of many memories I have that demonstrate her capabilities and 
skill.
  Partly, I suspect, as a result of her growing up in an area where, 
sadly, everyone was not treated equally, when people were discriminated 
against quite significantly and were treated as second-class citizens, 
she has a deep and abiding respect for liberty. She has a deep and 
abiding respect for the legal system of this country. She believes we 
ought to promote liberty, promote equality and promote progress in the 
world. It is a responsibility this Nation has and that she must 
champion as she serves as Secretary of State. I have no doubt that she 
is equal to the task.
  Absolutely we have to be careful. Absolutely there are limits to what 
we can do as a nation to help other nations. We simply are not able, 
and it would not be wise, even, to attempt to fix all of the problems 
of every nation around the world.
  I want a Secretary of State who understands America, who understands 
the values and ideals of this country, and who has values and ideals 
herself, to serve as Secretary of State. I want a Secretary of State 
who looks forward to seizing opportunities whenever they may appear--
and we do not know when they will during the course of her service--
where she can promote liberty, freedom, progress and peace throughout 
the world.
  When you find liberty and freedom in countries, they usually don't 
fight. It is my impression we have few, if any, examples of war--
certainly not in recent memory--that have occurred between two 
democratic states. Democratic states somehow are used to working out 
difficulties within their own country and somehow they are normally 
able to work out difficulties between an opposing state if they are a 
democracy.
  It is only when you come up against dictators, these people who are 
used to always doing it their way, who have an obsession with 
expansionism and oppression of their own people and their own self-
interest, those are the ones who are difficult to deal with.
  Condoleezza Rice understands that. She is a student of history and 
international relations. She can help our President make those tough 
choices. When do we step up to the plate? When do we not step up to the 
plate? How can we be most effective? When should we negotiate? When 
should we seek the assistance of other nations to negotiate?

[[Page 647]]

When should we involve ourselves directly? When, Heaven forbid, should 
we have go to war?
  This is the kind of expertise she brings to the table. Her personal 
history and her experience as the National Security Advisor to the 
President is just the kind of background we need.
  The State Department is composed of some of the finest people I have 
had the privilege of knowing. They work extremely hard. They are 
extraordinarily educated and steeped in the countries they have as 
their responsibility. They provide a tremendous resource to our Nation. 
People forget as they serve around the world--and I have visited them 
as I have traveled--that they are at risk just for bearing the American 
flag and being a representative of this Nation, because they are in 
dangerous places in our world. They do a great job every day. Sometimes 
a great organization such as that, that creates and forms itself over 
many years, develops an inertia, an inability to change, to see new 
ideas and new ways of proceeding.
  Having someone at the helm such as Condoleezza Rice who has been 
involved in the National Security Council, she will be perfectly 
respectful of those fine people who serve in the State Department. She 
will also have the ability to lift that agency, to transform it into a 
more nimble and more responsive agency that can help promote American 
ideals aggressively throughout the world.
  I am very proud of her. I am proud that she is from Alabama. I am 
proud that President Bush has chosen to nominate her. I am confident 
she will be a terrific Secretary of State and very confident she will 
be confirmed.
  I am sorry that some of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle--I guess in response to complaints from those among the hard left 
who are never happy when America commits itself around the world and 
stands up for its values--have chosen to hold up this nominee. I 
thought she was moving along rather quickly and that we would have 
already confirmed her by now. But there are those who want to use this 
opportunity to express their views, many of which are not helpful to 
our soldiers who are out in the field executing the policies we voted 
on in this body by an overwhelming vote--more than three-fourths. We 
sent them there. Members of this Senate voted overwhelmingly to do so. 
It is not appropriate to delay Dr. Rice's nomination in order to reopen 
the debate on our nation's actions in Iraq, particularly when there is 
no likelihood she will be voted down.
  Some of the comments made to her have not been of the most respectful 
and appropriate kind. Her integrity--perhaps inadvertently, but in 
reality--was questioned. I certainly believe she should have every 
right to push back and defend herself under those circumstances.
  I am always happy to allow my colleagues to have their say, but it 
has taken longer than it should. We need to move this nomination 
forward. We need a Secretary of State in place. She will be an 
outstanding Secretary of State. I look forward to seeing her confirmed, 
hopefully no later than tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. May I inquire of the Chair, how much time remains on both 
sides of the aisle in this debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 53 minutes to the majority, and 1 
hour 22 minutes to the minority.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, let me comment that we have been privileged to hear 
from 22 colleagues today. Thirteen Republicans and nine Democrats have 
spoken on the confirmation. I would comment, it has been my privilege 
to hear more of the testimony while I chaired the hearings and likewise 
the debate today. On both occasions, we have made clear to colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle that there would be ample opportunity, first 
of all, to question Dr. Rice during the confirmation hearings. And, as 
I pointed out earlier in the day, well over 300 questions were raised, 
some before the hearings, to which she gave response in written 
answers, and over half of the 300 actually during the hearings in face-
to-face dialog with Dr. Rice. Let me point that out because I think the 
record for this nominee is as full as any confirmation procedure I have 
witnessed.
  Today, we have had 22 contributions that were substantial and 
thoughtful. Tomorrow, we will have another hour of debate prior to a 
vote and will come to a conclusion which I pray will bring about the 
confirmation of Dr. Rice to be our next Secretary of State, and a move 
forward as she assists our President and all of us in the statecraft of 
our country.
  In any event, I simply point out for the record that as we conclude 
the debate this evening--and we will do so shortly because no further 
Senators have sought to speak--there was at least on our side of the 
aisle 53 minutes available and on the other side 1 hour 22 minutes. 
Therefore, the time that was requested turned out to be more than 
ample.
  I am hopeful our debate will conclude constructively and 
affirmatively tomorrow. We certainly will attempt to work with that. I 
am advised that the distinguished ranking member of the committee, 
Senator Biden, will be present, and he will make a statement tomorrow, 
and that will be important as we conclude our debate.
  Mr. President, seeing no other Senators who seek recognition, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________