[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 850-865]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

        NOMINATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 10:30 
a.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to executive session for 
the consideration of Executive Calendar No. 4, which the clerk will now 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Condoleezza 
Rice, of California, to be Secretary of State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:30 
a.m. shall be allocated in the following order: The Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Lugar; the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden; the Senator 
from California, Mrs. Boxer; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Lieberman; the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid; and the Senator from 
Tennessee, Mr. Frist; with the last 5 minutes reserved for the Senator 
from Indiana or his designee.
  The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have the pleasure and the honor to 
commend the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice. Soon, the Senate will 
carry out its constitutional duty to provide advice and consent on 
President Bush's nominee for the office of Secretary of State. We will 
be participants in an historic moment that will reaffirm the Senate's 
role in foreign policy and underscore the brilliance of the 
constitutional design.
  Last week, the Committee on Foreign Relations held exhaustive 
hearings on this nomination. Dr. Rice fielded questions on dozens of 
subjects for more than 10\1/2\ hours over 2 days. All 18 members of the 
Committee took advantage of the opportunity to ask Dr. Rice questions. 
At the hearings, she responded to 199 questions--129 from Democrats and 
70 from Republicans. In addition, in advance of the hearings, members 
of the Committee submitted 191 detailed questions for the record to Dr. 
Rice. Members received answers to each of these questions. Thus, Dr. 
Rice responded to a total of 390 questions from Senators. In American 
history, few cabinet nominees have provided as much information or 
answered as many questions during the confirmation process. She 
demonstrated that her understanding of U.S. foreign policy is 
comprehensive and insightful.
  Our hearings and yesterday's floor action served not only as an 
examination of Dr. Rice's substantial qualifications, but also as a 
fundamental debate on the direction of U.S. foreign policy. This debate 
was useful to the Senate and to the American people. Having the 
opportunity to question a Secretary of State nominee is a key aspect of 
Congressional oversight of any administration's foreign policy. Dr. 
Rice enthusiastically embraced this function of the hearings.
  In my judgment she is extraordinarily well-qualified to become 
Secretary of State. Even Dr. Rice's opponents have taken the time to 
admire her accomplishments and her qualifications. She is a person of 
conviction, loyalty, integrity, and ability. As a result of her 
distinguished service as National Security Advisor to President Bush 
and her earlier assignments on the NSC, she is well known to many 
Members of the Senate. We have observed her energy, her expertise, and 
her devotion to this country. I appreciate the cooperation that she has 
provided to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to me 
personally.
  I had the good fortune to visit Dr. Rice before she assumed the post 
of National Security Adviser. Before President George W. Bush was 
elected, I participated with Dr. Rice at Stanford University meetings 
on foreign policy hosted by former Secretary of State, George Shultz. 
Secretary Shultz, a close friend of many in the Senate, was an early 
supporter of then Governor Bush. He recognized Dr. Rice's prodigious 
talent and encouraged her leadership within the Bush foreign policy 
team. At the Stanford University meetings, Dr. Rice demonstrated 
analytical brilliance and broad knowledge of world affairs. During the 
2000 Presidential campaign, she established a trusted relationship with 
Governor Bush that has carried through in her work as National Security 
Adviser.
  The enormously complex job before Dr. Rice will require all of her 
talents and experience. American credibility in the world, progress in 
the war on terrorism, and our relationships with our allies will be 
greatly affected by the Secretary of State's leadership and the 
effectiveness of the State Department in the coming years. We recognize 
the deep personal commitment necessary to undertake this difficult 
assignment, and we are grateful that a leader of her stature is willing 
to step forward.
  Opponents of the nomination have focused primarily on individual 
statements made by the nominee during her tenure as National Security 
Adviser. I simply observe that Dr. Rice has spent 4 years in one of the 
most intense crucibles of leadership imaginable. The scrutiny that 
National Security Advisers must live under is unrelenting, and their 
responsibility for foreign policy outcomes often is exceeded only by 
the President, who makes the final decision. Dr. Rice has been in the 
arena making tough decisions and answering tough questions on a daily 
basis for 4 years. I do not remember any National Security Adviser who 
did not have bruises to show for stepping into this arena. The 
attachment of controversies to a National Security Adviser is 
inevitable. Even as Senators scrutinize Dr. Rice's record, we must not 
fail to recognize the level of sacrifice, courage, and discipline that 
is required to be National Security Adviser. Her proven fortitude in 
meeting these challenges and in sustaining herself physically and 
mentally through the pressures of responsibility is impressive.
  Dr. Rice is not just a survivor. Even under intense pressure, she has 
performed her duties successfully with thoughtfulness, fairness, and 
magnanimity. These are exactly the qualities that we want in our top 
diplomat. And these qualities already have produced results. Dr. Rice 
has contributed to numerous policy successes in the Bush 
administration. These successes have involved issues as diverse as our 
non-proliferation policies, our campaign against global AIDS, and 
reform of our post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction 
mechanisms. Befitting the role of National Security Adviser, she has 
not been in the limelight claiming credit for successes. Instead, she 
has performed without ego, while preserving the trust of the President. 
This close relationship will serve her well at the State Department.
  The Secretary of State serves as the President's top foreign policy 
advisor, as our Nation's most visible emissary

[[Page 851]]

to the rest of the world, and as manager of one of the most important 
Departments in our Government. Any one of these jobs would be a 
challenge for even the most talented public servant. The Secretary of 
State, at this critical time in our history, must excel in all three 
roles.
  From my own conversations with Dr. Rice, I am confident that she 
understands that the President's foreign policy can be enhanced in the 
second term by a closer working relationship with Congress. In moving 
to head the State Department, she understands that much of this 
communication will depend on her. Last week's hearings were an 
excellent start. Her attitude throughout these arduous hearings was 
always accommodating and always respectful of the Senate's 
Constitutional role in the nomination process. From the beginning she 
made clear her desire to have a wide-ranging discussion of U.S. foreign 
policy and to take all the questions that members wanted to ask.
  If confirmed, it will be her duty to use the foundation of these 
hearings to build a consistent bridge of communication to the Congress. 
As legislators, we have equal responsibility in this process. We have 
the responsibility of educating ourselves about national security 
issues, even when they are not the top issues in headlines or polls. We 
have the responsibility to maintain good foreign affairs law, even when 
taking care of this duty yields little credit back home. We have the 
responsibility to ensure that our first impulse in foreign affairs is 
one of bipartisanship. And we have the responsibility to speak plainly 
when we disagree with the administration, but to avoid inflammatory 
rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or settle 
partisan scores.
  We have the opportunity with the beginning of a new presidential term 
to enhance the constructive role of Congress in foreign policy. We have 
made an excellent start during the past week. I thank all 19 Senators 
who participated in the Foreign Relations Committee hearings and all 22 
Senators who have joined in the floor debate. I urge Members to vote in 
favor of the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that 
the quorum count equally against both sides of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is 
allotted to the Senator from Delaware on the Rice nomination?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is allotted 20 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to support Dr. Rice's 
nomination to be Secretary of State. I don't do it as fulsomely as I 
rose to support the nomination of the previous Secretary of State. I 
will explain why.
  I believe the President of the United States is entitled to his 
Cabinet unless the person he selects is so far out of the mainstream, 
incompetent, clearly of questionable character, or, as some in the past 
have been, dedicated to the express purpose of dismantling the very 
agency to which they were being assigned, such as President Reagan--as 
my mother would say, God love him--who wanted to do away with the 
Department of Education and assigned two people to be the head of the 
Department of Education for the express purpose of eliminating an 
agency that I thought needed to remain, or in the special case when the 
office calls for an unusually different relation, as the Attorney 
General does. The Attorney General does not work for the President. He 
is the people's lawyer. He is hired by the President, but he or she is 
the people's lawyer and, in the worst of all cases, sometimes required 
to investigate the President himself and in the best of cases is 
required to interpret the constitutional laws of the land.
  I very reluctantly voted against Attorney General Gonzales's 
nomination to be Attorney General because I believe he has so wrongly 
interpreted law on torture and did such great damage as a consequence 
of that decision. There were significant consequences. There is a 
fundamentally different relationship and a fundamentally different 
constitutional obligation. It is his judgment that I question, and I 
currently believe he should not be Attorney General.
  Dr. Rice does not fit in any of those categories. I have known and 
worked with her for the past 4 years. She is knowledgeable, she is 
smart, she is honorable, and her relationship with the President is 
essentially to be the public face of the President of the United States 
here.
  As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a 
special responsibility to work with Dr. Rice, so I am going to vote for 
Dr. Rice, but I am going to do so with some frustration and 
reservations. Let me explain why. I have said this to Dr. Rice, so she 
is not hearing this for the first time.
  Last week, we gave Dr. Rice an opportunity to acknowledge the 
mistakes and misjudgments of the past 4 years. The point is not to play 
the game ``gotcha.'' It is not about embarrassing the President. It is 
about learning from our mistakes so we do not repeat them. A second 
term is also a second chance.
  Instead of seizing that opportunity, Dr. Rice stuck to the 
administration's party line: Always right; never wrong. It is as if 
acknowledging mistakes or misjudgments is a sign of weakness. I do not 
think it is. I think it is powerful evidence of strength and maturity.
  But during the hearing, Dr. Rice claimed that my colleague, Barbara 
Boxer, was impugning her integrity when she asked about her changing 
rationale for the war in Iraq.
  Now, I wish instead that Dr. Rice had acknowledged the facts. This 
administration secured the support of the American people, and of 
Congress, for going to war based on what it insisted was an imminent 
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
  Now, when it turns out there are no such weapons, Dr. Rice and the 
President claim the war was now about removing a dictator. I am glad 
Saddam is gone. He deserves his own special place in hell, but removing 
him from power was not the justification initially offered by this 
administration to go to war. Again, it is an example of what Barbara 
Boxer was talking about: a changing rationale for war. Why Dr. Rice 
would not acknowledge that is beyond me.
  Reading the resolution that Congress passed giving the President the 
authority to use force if necessary, it was about ``disarming'' Saddam. 
And reread the words of the President and other senior officials. In 
speech after speech, television appearance after television appearance, 
they left the American people with the impression that Iraq was on the 
verge of reconstituting nuclear weapons. In fact, Vice President Cheney 
said they already had them.
  The administration left the American people with the impression, even 
today, that Saddam had other weapons of mass destruction, and that he 
was complicit in the events of 9/11 and that he collaborated with al-
Qaida--I assume collaborated with al-Qaida for purposes of the 9/11 
attack. Back then the administration liked to claim that President Bush 
never said Iraq was ``an imminent threat.'' Well, this is what he and 
other senior officials did say. They referred to it as an ``immediate 
threat,'' a ``mortal threat,'' an ``urgent threat,'' a ``grave 
threat,'' a ``serious and mounting threat,'' a ``unique threat.'' And 
it would be funny, the denial that they did not say ``imminent threat'' 
if it were not so deadly serious.
  This is my point: Especially in matters of war and peace, we have to 
level with the American people if we want not only to secure their 
support but to sustain their support.
  My poor colleagues are tired of hearing me say, for the last 2 years, 
the following: No foreign policy can be sustained without the informed 
consent of the American people. And this administration has been very 
reluctant to keep them informed. Informed means all the

[[Page 852]]

information and a truthful rendition of the balance of the information 
they have.
  During the time I was criticizing President Bush for his assertions 
about aluminum tubes and his administration's assertions about other 
things, the press kept saying to me: Why won't you say the President is 
a liar? He was not lying. But what the President did--he got the 
intelligence, as we did on the committee. We can argue whether a 
minority or a majority, but a significant number of the intelligence 
assets in the U.S. Government said: We think those aluminum tubes are 
or could be used for gas centrifuges. A significant number said: No, 
they are not used for that. They are for artillery.
  Well, my criticism of the President was not that he, in fact, chose 
to believe that portion of the intelligence community which said they 
were used for gas centrifuge systems, which is needed to build a 
nuclear capability and if you are going to use uranium; my problem with 
it was, both he and Dr. Rice implied there was no dissent, that this 
was the view of the intelligence community, when it was not. There was, 
at a minimum, a significant dissent both in Energy and at the CIA, and 
other places. So they did not lie. They chose to pick the portion--I am 
not saying they did it for any reason other than they believed it, but 
they chose to pick the portion of the intelligence community's 
assessment which fit with their objectives, without ever mentioning, 
acknowledging, or suggesting there was any dissent within the 
intelligence community.
  I love my colleagues now who keep saying: Don't blame it on Rice. 
Don't blame it on Gonzales. Blame it on the intelligence community. I 
think our former Director of the CIA is getting a bad rap here.
  The fact is, we have to be honest with ourselves and the world; 
otherwise, we are going to do terrible damage to our most valuable 
asset, our credibility. After Iraq, it is going to be much harder to 
rally the world to our side if we have to face a truly imminent threat 
to our security from, say, Iran or North Korea.
  The same goes for the way Dr. Rice answered my questions about 
training Iraqi security forces. Time and again, this administration has 
tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has 
well over 100,000--as high as 120,000; or I think there was even a 
higher number offered--of fully competent police and military. They 
don't say fully competent; they say trained.
  Now again, it is like that story I have told. We Catholic kids go to 
Catholic school. We learn to go to one of the Sacraments in the 
Catholic Church, Penance. You go to confession. They explain to us that 
when we go to confession, we should confess all our sins. My nuns told 
me the story about Johnny, who said to the priest: Bless me father for 
I have sinned. I stole a gold chain. And he failed to tell the priest 
that attached to that gold chain was an antique gold watch. He did not 
lie. He stole the chain. But when you say what you did, you should say 
all of what you did.
  Failure to acknowledge, as my grandfather used to say, the ``hull'' 
of it, failure to do that is, at a minimum, misleading--at a minimum, 
misleading. That is what has happened here.
  So 120,000 troops trained. There may be 120,000 people who we put 
uniforms on--and I will not go through it in the limited time I have; I 
will submit for the Record the facts as I believe them based on talking 
to our military and police trainers--but the real question is, How many 
American forces doing the job of policing the streets, going after 
insurgents, guarding the borders, whatever functions we are now 
providing, how many of those could be replaced with an Iraqi now? I 
think the number is closer to somewhere between 4,000 and 18,000.
  Now, the good news--when I asked the question, I thought she would 
say we have made mistakes. We went for quantity not quality. We realize 
we had to fundamentally change our training programs. We brought in 
General Patraeus, who is a first-rate guy. He is well underway of doing 
that--which he is--and we are going to get it right. But, no, we have 
120,000 trained forces out there.
  Well, the fact is, we are months, if not years, from reaching the 
target we need of putting uniformed soldiers, uniformed cops, and 
uniformed National Guard with Iraqi uniforms into Iraq.
  The bottom line is, we should focus on real standards, not raw 
numbers. To my mind, there is a real simple standard. An Iraqi soldier 
and policeman should be considered fully trained when he or she is 
capable of doing the job we are now asking an American young man or 
woman to do. How many meet that standard today? Nowhere near, as I 
said, 120,000. In my judgment, it is closer to 14,000 total. Army 
trained is probably closer to 5,000.
  So last week's hearing was a chance for Dr. Rice to wipe the slate 
clean with the American people and with our allies. I wish she had 
seized it.
  This is not about revisiting the past. It is about how Dr. Rice and 
the administration will meet the challenges of the future.
  I notice, in the defense of Dr. Rice, I no longer hear on the floor 
disagreements--I don't want to get him in trouble--disagreements with 
the position taken by my friend, the chairman of our committee, or by 
my friend, Mr. Hagel, or Mr. McCain, or myself, or others. I do not 
hear people saying we have conducted this postwar policy very well. I 
do not hear anybody defending that. They are now saying, which is good: 
Hey, wait a minute, I guess we have made mistakes.
  Why the administration cannot do that is beyond me. They are not up 
for reelection again. It would seem to me it would be a way to coalesce 
support.
  In my judgment, America faces two overriding national security 
challenges in this new century. First and foremost, we must win the 
struggle between freedom and radical Islamic fundamentalism. Secondly, 
we must keep the world's most dangerous weapons away from its most 
dangerous people.
  On the latter point, the man we owe the greatest debt of gratitude to 
on making progress on that score is my friend and colleague, Senator 
Lugar, and former Senator Nunn. Senator Lugar is the guy who is 
following up on this and the guy forcing us all to face the reality 
that much more is needed to be done.
  To prevail, we have to be strong. We also have to be smart, wielding 
the force of our ideas and ideals together with the force of our arms.
  Today, after a necessary war in Afghanistan and an optional war in 
Iraq, we are rightly confident in the example of our power. But we have 
forgotten the power of our example.
  Foreign policy is not a popularity contest. We must confront hard 
issues. Sometimes they require us to make hard choices that other 
countries do not like. But above all, they require American leadership, 
the kind of persuasion that brings along others to our side.
  We have been having a tough time doing just that the past few years. 
So despite our great military might, in my view, we are more alone in 
the world than we have been in recent memory. As a result, we are much 
less secure than we could or should be.
  That is because virtually all the threats we face--from terrorism, to 
the spread of weapons of mass destruction, to rogue states that flout 
the rules, to endemic and pandemic diseases--cannot be solely met by 
the unilateral use of force.
  I had hoped to hear from Dr. Rice how she planned to help rebuild 
America's power to persuade, and to restore our Nation's respect that 
it once enjoyed. For she said, now is the time for diplomacy. 
Parenthetically, I think diplomacy was needed 4 years ago. I am happy 
now is the time for diplomacy.
  I also had hoped to hear her ideas for contending with a series of 
problems the administration has put on the back burner but whose pots 
are boiling over, such as the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran, 
the dangerous backsliding of democracy in Russia, and the genocide in 
Sudan, to only name a few.
  Over the past few years, North Korea has increased its nuclear 
weapons capacity by as much as 400 percent. It

[[Page 853]]

may now have as many as eight nuclear weapons to test, hide, or sell to 
the highest bidder.
  Dr. Rice told us it is ``unacceptable'' for North Korea to have these 
nuclear weapons, but she did not tell us what that meant or how the 
administration proposed to stop this growing threat.
  Over the past few years, the reform movement in Iran has been crushed 
and the regime has accelerated its own nuclear program. There may be 
nothing we can do to persuade Iran not to develop these weapons by 
diplomacy, but our European allies are trying through a combination of 
carrots and sticks. They believe they cannot succeed, though, unless 
the United States engages directly in this effort.
  I asked Dr. Rice whether we should be a party to a deal in which the 
Iranians agreed--if there was a way to verify--that they would stop 
their attempts to build a nuclear weapon and end their missile program. 
She said: Well, we have a lot of other problems with Iran.
  Of course we do. But our No. 1 problem is the growing danger they 
will develop nuclear weapons. Our best chance of stopping that is to 
work with the Europeans in showing Iran it can get more if it does the 
right thing, and what it risks if it does not. But we are sitting on 
the sidelines, in my view. Nothing Dr. Rice said gave me confidence we 
are really going to get on the playing field.
  Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BIDEN. Over the past few years, President Putin has reversed the 
course of democratic development and the rule of law in Russia. The 
administration has been largely silent. How can we be so concerned 
about the advancement of democracy in the Middle East and so 
unconcerned about the regression in Russia?
  The President gave a powerful, eloquent inaugural address about 
expanding freedom around the world. Every American shares that ideal--
it goes to who we are as a people, to our experience, and to our 
interests.
  The question isn't the goal, it's how you achieve it. I wonder if the 
President plans on bringing a signed copy of his address to President 
Putin when he meets with him next month. I fear that in Russia and many 
other places, the gap between the administration's rhetoric and the 
reality of its policies is only going to get wider.
  At the same time, we have gotten little in return for turning a blind 
eye to Russia's regression. One of the most important programs to 
protect America' security--the effort to help Russia account for, 
secure and destroy weapons of mass destruction and related materials--
has become mired in red tape that the two Presidents need to cut 
through.
  Finally, in Darfur, Sudan we have watched a terrible tragedy unfold. 
Militia supported by the government have killed as many as 100,000 
civilians and chased as many as 2 million from their homes.
  Four months ago, before the Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary 
Powell rightly called it genocide. Since then, the situation has gotten 
even worse. Yet we heard virtually nothing from Dr. Rice about what the 
administration and Congress can do, now, to stop this slaughter and to 
help African allies develop their own peacekeeping capacity.
  Let me end with something hopeful that Dr. Rice talked about: putting 
diplomacy back at the center of America's foreign policy.
  That effort is long overdue. Be that as it may, I strongly agree with 
Dr. Rice that this is the time for a new diplomatic offensive with old 
allies, rising powers, and even hostile regimes.
  But our diplomacy has to be sustained. It has to do as much listening 
as it does talking. And it has to use all the tools at our disposal.
  Our military might is critical. It gives credibility to our 
diplomacy. And it gives us the most powerful tool in the world to act, 
if necessary, against dictators who are systematically abusing the 
rights of their people, or against regimes with no democratic checks 
that are harboring terrorists and amassing weapons of mass destruction.
  But there are many other critical tools that have atrophied under 
this administration--our intelligence, our public diplomacy, our 
alliances, international organizations, treaties and agreements, 
development assistance, trade and investment. We need to wield them 
with the same determination with which we use force--even if it can be 
frustrating and even if the payoff takes years, even a generation.
  That is what we did after World War II. That is why we prevailed in 
the Cold War.
  Now, faced with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges, we 
must recapture the totality of America's strength.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by suggesting that we are now faced 
with a new but no less dangerous set of challenges than we were in 
World War II, and we have to recapture the totality of America's 
strength.
  Above all, we have to understand that those who spread radical 
Islamic fundamentalism and weapons of mass destruction, although they 
may be beyond our reach and there is no choice but to confront them and 
to defeat them, there are still hundreds of millions of hearts and 
minds around the world who practice Islam who are open to American 
ideas and ideals, and we have to reach them.
  Dr. Rice says she is going to make diplomacy her primary task. I will 
work with her in that effort.
  One of my colleagues said--by the way, I want to note parenthetically 
that I think it is totally appropriate for Senator Dayton and Senator 
Kennedy and my friend from California to say what they have said, to 
take the positions they have taken. It is consistent with the facts as 
they see them. They choose to view one side of the coin. I am viewing 
the other side of the coin.
  One of my colleagues said he is voting his notion that this is going 
to get worse. I forget the exact phrase my friend from Massachusetts, 
Senator Kerry, used. Well, it reminded me of a comment by Samuel 
Johnson who described second marriages as the triumph of hope over 
experience. Well, I may be guilty in this second term of choosing hope 
over experience, because my experience thus far with this 
administration on foreign policy has been very disquieting. My hope is 
that the new--and I suspect she will be; I hope she will be confirmed--
the new Secretary of State will, in fact, play a role in trying to 
change that policy, engage in diplomacy, and use the totality of our 
strength, which includes our ideas and our ideals, as well as our 
military power.
  I reserve whatever time I may have and thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to begin today by again thanking Chairman Lugar 
and Senator Biden, our ranking member, for a very fair debate on the 
nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. I know these 
votes usually go overwhelmingly for the nominee. The last time there 
was any vote against a nominee, I think the most votes were Kissinger 
at 7 votes. So I know that what I am doing is not about winning a vote; 
it is simply about telling the truth as I see it and other Members 
telling it as they see it.
  At the end of the day, when Senators vote, some will be very 
enthusiastic about the nominee and feel very good about their vote. 
Others will be a little anxious. I sense with Senator Biden, he 
certainly has anxieties over it, but he is very hopeful. And knowing 
Joe Biden as I do, that definitely fits his character because I think 
he gave Condoleezza Rice opportunity after opportunity after 
opportunity to set the record straight, to level with the committee. 
Senator Biden was not on the floor yesterday, but I kind of replayed 
his give and take with future Secretary Rice on the issue of how many 
troops were trained, and he was literally begging her to please be 
candid. It is interesting because after that give and take, which was 
picked up by the news media, Ambassador Negroponte came

[[Page 854]]

into it and said: Clearly, there are not 120,000, but there are more 
than 4,000.
  All this dancing around is not academic because, as Senator Biden 
clearly stated and as we all know, our exit strategy in Iraq is based 
upon the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves certainly. We all 
are working toward that day, but we can't do it if we are not going to 
be honest about how it is going, and we can't help the administration 
if they don't level with us as to how things are going.
  I found it interesting--and this has nothing to do with this 
particular nomination--that the White House Chief of Staff called those 
of us who wanted to debate this ``petty.'' I saw one clip of him saying 
that the two Senators--he didn't mention the names--who were trying to 
get this nomination to the Senate floor and have some time to talk 
about it were ``small.'' I don't think he was talking about my height. 
That is showing such a disrespect to the American people, as we go 
around the world trying to bring democracy. It is something we all want 
to do. We may have different ways of going about it, but we want to do 
it. How do we stand tall if we don't uphold our Constitution? Our 
Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play a strong role 
in the selection of these very important and powerful positions.
  Well, thanks to Senators Lugar and Biden, we have done that. I am 
glad.
  The reason I am going to be voting no is clear to anyone who has 
followed this debate. I asked Condoleezza Rice a series of questions in 
five different areas. I gave her every opportunity to correct the 
record. I asked her about her statements that the aluminum tubes Saddam 
was buying could only be used for nuclear weapons, and she talked about 
the mushroom cloud and frightened the American people at a time when we 
know she had the information that there was a very strong dispute going 
on in the intelligence community and that, in fact, she had known in 
2001 about this issue. She refused to budge.
  I asked her about her continual statements that al-Qaida and Saddam 
were close. It was not true. At the time she made those comments, the 
State Department itself put out a very important map--this was 1 month 
after 9/11--saying that in fact there was no al-Qaida whatsoever in 
Iraq. They were nowhere in Iraq. She refused to budge.
  I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair.
  I asked Dr. Rice about my concerns in five areas. I don't fault the 
President for picking someone who believes in this war, who helped him 
in her position. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with the 
lack of candor that continues to come from Dr. Rice.
  As recently as a few months ago she wrote a letter which resulted in 
a very important amendment in the Intelligence bill being stripped from 
that bill. This was a bill by Senators McCain and Lieberman, and this 
provision was written in part by Senator Durbin. It was an antitorture 
provision. She opposed it. She wrote that she opposed it. When I asked 
her about it, she denied that she opposed it, when she had opposed it 
in writing.
  I know there are other Senators coming to the floor of the Senate and 
saying this argument doesn't hold because she made statements that came 
from faulty intelligence. If that were the case, I would have no 
problem with Dr. Rice. Everybody knows there was faulty intelligence. 
But she continues to put out these misstatements. As a matter of fact, 
in front of the committee, if one listened closely, she muddied the 
waters even more. So I gave her the chance to clear it up, and she 
didn't. That is bad for the Senate. It is bad for the American people.
  Dr. King said--and I often repeat it--our lives begin to end the day 
we become silent about things that matter. This debate mattered. 
Responsibility matters. Accountability matters. It matters when you 
give someone a chance to correct the record that is replete with half-
truths and misstatements, and they don't take that opportunity.
  Dr. Rice is a role model. She is smart. She is intelligent. She is 
qualified. She is loyal to this President. I don't question any of 
that. All of that makes everyone proud. The fact is, it would have been 
very condescending and inappropriate to have someone as skilled as Dr. 
Rice before a committee, someone as involved in setting the course of 
this war as Dr. Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee, and not 
ask her the kind of questions we all did.
  I don't know whether we will have two votes against this nominee or 
four or seven or eight. I really don't know because I haven't asked one 
colleague how they are going to vote. This has not been the point of 
what I have done. I have simply tried to say that holding people 
accountable is important, that this war matters, that we need to look 
at the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them, so we don't send 
our young people into another war based on hyped-up rhetoric and half-
truths.
  I thank my colleagues all and again say to my chairman how much I 
appreciate him. I look forward to moving past this on to the other work 
of our committee and the other work of the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, yesterday I came to the Senate floor to 
announce my support for the nomination of Dr. Rice to be our Secretary 
of State and explained why I thought she was more than qualified to 
take on this critical position at this critical stage in our Nation's 
history. In the time and the hours that followed, several of my 
colleagues came to the floor and announced that they would not support 
this nomination and explained why. I wanted to return very briefly this 
morning to simply say that I considered the arguments made against her 
nomination and they do not alter my conclusion that Dr. Condoleezza 
Rice is more than qualified to be Secretary of State at this time in 
our Nation's history.
  Some of the criticisms of the administration's policy, particularly 
post-Saddam in Iraq, I agree with. Others about Dr. Rice personally, I 
vehemently disagree with. But as I see our role here in advising and 
consenting, the question is not whether we agree with everything the 
nominee has ever done or said but whether the nominee is qualified to 
be Secretary of State. This nominee is more than qualified.
  Implicit in this, of course, is that the President has won the right, 
by virtue of his election, to have around him people who have his 
confidence. This nominee certainly does.
  Secondly, I want to make a statement about how I read the criticisms 
that have been expressed. They are all about the past, either about 
past behavior of Dr. Rice or, more particularly, about past 
administration judgments or actions with regard to foreign policy 
generally and particularly about the war in Iraq. I want to make clear 
that I don't hear criticisms about where we are now or where we should 
go in the future. It is important that the American people understand 
that but more important that our friends and foes in Iraq, throughout 
the Islamic world, and the world generally understand that. There is 
not substantial dissent in the Senate of the United States about the 
policy we are following in Iraq today. It is to train the Iraqis to 
better secure themselves. It is to give them the opportunity, which 
they will exercise bravely and I believe successfully this Sunday, to 
elect their own leaders. It is to invest in their own economic well-
being so they can create a model within the Arab world of not only a 
self-governing state but a modernizing state connected to the modern 
world.
  I have listened to my colleagues who oppose this nomination, and I 
have spoken to them off the floor. I want to make clear to people 
around the world, there is not a single one of these colleagues who 
wants us to cut and run from Iraq. There is not a single one of these 
colleagues who does not fully support our troops there. I want our 
troops to understand that. There is not a single one of these 
colleagues who is not supportive of the election this Sunday and 
hopeful that people will turn

[[Page 855]]

out in large numbers. There is no question about which side we are on. 
We are on the side of the people of Iraq, struggling bravely for a 
better future, and we are against that minority there, composed largely 
of leftovers from Saddam Hussein and foreign terrorists associated with 
al-Qaida, who are killers, murderers, fascists, who want to stop 25 
million Iraqis from having a better life.
  Finally, if my colleagues believe that Condoleezza Rice is not 
qualified to be Secretary of State of the United States, then, of 
course, they must vote against her. But if they are--I hate to use the 
word ``just''--just upset about some of the things this administration 
has done in Iraq, but if they believe otherwise, that what we are doing 
now is all we can do to make the situation better, then I appeal to 
them to vote for Dr. Rice. Give her the benefit of the doubt. In some 
sense, give the President the benefit of the doubt that I believe the 
Constitution entitles him. Give America's national interests the 
benefit of the doubt. Give our soldiers fighting in Iraq the benefit of 
the doubt.
  This nominee has the President's confidence. I want people around the 
world to know--and I hope with a resounding vote--that though there are 
disagreements about what the administration has done in regard to our 
Iraq policy and other elements of foreign policy, that in the final 
analysis we are together. We are together for what we are pursuing, 
which is the successful conclusion to our involvement in Iraq and to 
the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the world.
  I thank the Chair and urge a strong vote for Dr. Condoleezza Rice to 
be our next Secretary of State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Will the Chair please recognize Senator Domenici.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar for finding time 
for me to express my views to the Senate and to those who might be 
listening or viewing the Senate proceedings.
  I say to Senator Lieberman, I appreciate very much the broad scope of 
his statement with reference to America and the world, and I thank him 
for stating his views, which are my views, and I think the views of an 
overwhelming number of Senators--77 of them who voted for us to proceed 
with this approach to Iraq.
  I think we all know our intentions, regardless of what some may say, 
are good and that the objective is that something good happen for the 
people of Iraq and for America and the world.
  Having said that, I have been dismayed to hear--not everyone on the 
other side--but some use words such as ``liar,'' to use words as to 
this nominee--Condoleezza Rice--that called her a liar, implied she was 
a liar, who implied the President intentionally misled. I would like to 
zero in on that for a minute and those who have been putting forth that 
accusation--I am not talking about those who oppose the war. I am 
talking about those who say the policy was fraught with intentional 
misleading information about weapons of mass destruction.
  I want to step back and say to my fellow Senators and those 
listening: What if today we were considering for Senate approval 
Secretary of State Colin Powell? Just think with me. He is the nominee. 
He is being reconfirmed for Secretary of State. What would the Senators 
who were here talking about Condoleezza Rice or our President 
intentionally misleading, being a liar, implying they had information 
they withheld, what would they say about Colin Powell?
  On a certain day, Colin Powell appeared before the United Nations. 
Remember that day? February 5, 2003. I remember it. I think millions 
and millions of people remember it: maps, overviews, a firm statement 
by him about weapons of mass destruction. Now I ask: Where did he get 
his information? Was he lying? Did he mislead the American people? Was 
he intentionally trying to force upon us a policy that was not based 
upon what he said but that those facts were dreamed up? I believe that 
neither Senators nor the people of America would believe he was not 
telling the truth.
  My point is, he got his information from exactly the same source that 
our President did, that the Prime Minister of Great Britain did, that 
all leaders at that point did, that we the Congress did. The President 
did not get his information from someplace in the sky, nor did Colin 
Powell. There was only one source: the accumulation of intelligence by 
the United States intelligence-gathering institutions. They told our 
President, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell what was going on, and 
they all said, what? That there were weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq, and that Saddam was a danger--an exceptional danger--because he 
had weapons of mass destruction.
  Frankly, I believe there are those who have become partisan on this 
issue, and I almost would say, and should say, extremely partisan, who 
have become totally political on this issue and totally personal. There 
is no evidence whatsoever that Colin Powell lied, that he was 
misleading us, that Condoleezza Rice was a part of a policy to mislead 
the American people, nor that the President was. They all had the same 
information. One would not think that from what we have heard on the 
floor. One would not think that as you hear those who want to deny her 
this nomination.
  Frankly, that argument does not wash. It is not consistent with 
reality. It is dreamed up. It is political. It is for no other reason 
than to insert false and untrue information and facts into this 
discussion. She deserves the nomination.
  The President did not intentionally mislead. Those who oppose the war 
ought to say it and quit exaggerating and being political and personal 
about their attacks.
  Mr. President, I thank Senator Lugar, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I take very seriously the United States 
Senate's responsibility to provide advice and consent for the 
President's nominees. Generally, I believe that the President of the 
United States should be allowed to have the people he chooses in his 
cabinet to implement the policies he has been elected to put in place--
providing they are qualified to do the job. The vote should not be 
about the ideology of the nominee--that decision is up to the 
President--but rather about the nominee's ability to perform the job.
  Condoleezza Rice certainly has the academic training and the 
professional credentials to be Secretary of State. She is bright, 
articulate, and well versed in diplomatic procedures. She works 
extremely hard, is dedicated to her job, and is very close to the 
President. In many respects, she was the natural choice to succeed 
Secretary Colin Powell.
  But, I am afraid there is a showstopper here. As National Security 
Advisor, Ms. Rice has been one of the most public faces of this 
administration's policy in Iraq. She has been the public face of this 
administration's crusade to generate American support for an invasion. 
In her effort to do this, Ms. Rice has made many of the most 
categorical statements on Iraq, claiming that we had evidence that 
Saddam Hussein was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam 
had ties to the al Qaeda terrorists, that we were threatened by a 
mushroom cloud from Iraq, or a little vial that Saddam might give to 
terrorists to poison us. Over and over again, Ms. Rice has used every 
shred of evidence she could find, even evidence that the CIA urged her 
to retract, in order to make the case that Iraq was a direct and 
immediate threat to the United States.
  We now know that most of the intelligence information that led the 
President to conclude Iraq was an immediate threat to the United States 
was wrong. Not only have no weapons of mass destruction been found in 
Iraq, but no evidence has surfaced of any recent attempt by Saddam to 
develop these weapons. No ties with al Qaeda have come to light. 
Ironically, it now appears that since the U.S. invasion, terrorists 
groups are enjoying a surge in recruitment and have even set up 
training camps in Iraq. Hatred of America's actions in Iraq has surged

[[Page 856]]

throughout the Muslim world and beyond. Condoleezza Rice is not solely 
responsible for this dangerous turn of events, but she is inextricably 
linked to this policy, and refuses to admit that any mistakes have been 
made by this administration.
  A hallmark of the administration's Iraq policy has been a refusal to 
work with the international community. President Bush preferred to go 
it alone rather than be hampered by the constraints of the United 
Nations or make the concessions necessary to form a broad coalition. 
Ms. Rice was a prime spokesperson for this policy. She repeatedly 
justified the doctrine of preemption and defended the wisdom of going 
it alone, even if it meant losing the support of our closest allies. 
She was the public face of this policy of contempt for the role of 
diplomacy.
  The Secretary of State is America's second most visible face to the 
world. If he or she is to be effective, the Secretary must be seen as 
truthful, forthright, and respectful of other nations. The hallmark of 
this administration's foreign policy has been its willingness to 
distort information in the service of its political objectives, and its 
failure to tell the truth. It has viewed other nations as either naive 
or cowardly if they have disagreed with our policy. Ms. Rice has been 
the public face of this policy and this ``modus operendi''. Nothing 
could be more detrimental to her ability to be a successful Secretary 
of State.
  I have said all along that this war is wrong, that the 
administration's rationale for this war was faulty, and that the 
consequences of this war may be very detrimental to our national 
interest and our national security. Unfortunately, it looks like these 
observations are proving correct.
  More than 1,370 American soldiers have died in this war, and over 
10,000 have been wounded, many of them maimed for life. Countless 
thousands of Iraqis have died--we will probably never know how many. 
Their country has been devastated, and as of now, it appears this 
Sunday's elections are unlikely to bring about any resolution of the 
internal strife. Civil war is a real possibility, and today it is hard 
to see how progress is going to be made toward the administration's 
goal of stability in Iraq.
  Condoleezza Rice has been a lead architect of our Nation's failed 
foreign policy and of the war in Iraq. Therefore I believe she is 
severely handicapped in her ability to be America's chief diplomat and 
the chief architect of America's effort to resolve these problems. This 
administration has not hesitated to play loose with the truth and show 
contempt for international opinion. These are not the tools of 
successful diplomacy, the primary responsibility of the Secretary of 
State.
  Therefore, sadly, for the first time in my Senate career, I must cast 
my vote against a Cabinet-level nominee. I will vote no on the 
nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I speak today in response to some things 
I have heard a few of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say 
about Dr. Condoleezza Rice. I want to set the record straight and 
express my full support for her confirmation.
  Dr. Rice is without question one of the most qualified people ever to 
be chosen as Secretary of State. She is more qualified to be Secretary 
of State than all 100 Senators are for their jobs.
  It is not surprising to me that I have not heard any of my colleagues 
question Dr. Rice's qualifications. She is one of the most well-rounded 
foreign policy experts in the nation, having spent some 25 years in 
Government, the private sector, and academics.
  In Government, she has served three Presidents, including service at 
the National Security Council and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the 
Pentagon. As National Security Advisor, one of the most important 
foreign policy positions in our Government, she has been a key 
architect of our Nation's response to terrorism and threats abroad. 
Since she joined the Bush administration as National Security Advisor, 
this administration has reached an agreement with Russia to reduce 
nuclear weapons, successfully achieved the return of our military 
personnel from China when their plane was taken hostage, engaged North 
Korea in multilateral talks to end their nuclear weapons program, 
launched an effort to fight AIDS around the world, and freed millions 
of people living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.
  In addition to her Government service, Dr. Rice has spent time in the 
business world where she gained the management experience needed to run 
an organization as large and diverse as the State Department. She has 
served on numerous corporate boards, and was the top budget official at 
Stanford University when she served as Provost.
  While I do not think that academic achievement alone qualifies 
someone for a job as important as Secretary of State, there is no 
question Dr. Rice has proven her intelligence, knowledge, and hard work 
through her academic career. She has three degrees, including a 
doctorate, in Government and foreign policy. She has written numerous 
books and articles on national defense and foreign policy topics. And 
while serving as Provost at Stanford, she was also the top academic 
officer of that prestigious university.
  Rather than questioning Dr. Rice's qualifications, the few Senators 
who have come to the floor to speak against her are simply playing 
politics. I fear the Senators I listened to all day yesterday are 
acting out of bitterness from the rejection of their ideas and 
candidates at the polls last fall. They are attacking Dr. Rice in a 
continuing effort to tear down our great President and to tear down his 
policies that are bringing freedom and democracy to those who have 
never experienced it. Worse yet, I fear some of my colleagues are 
attacking Dr. Rice to paint a false picture of her because they believe 
she may one day seek elected office, or even be an opponent at the 
ballot box.
  Well, I have no such concerns about Dr. Rice, and I have no problems 
supporting her. Late last year I had the pleasure to sit down with Dr. 
Rice and discuss her vision for our foreign policy and the State 
Department. I was impressed by how clearly she discussed the war on 
terrorism and our involvement in the Middle East. We are involved in an 
effort to bring freedom, democracy, and individual rights to a region 
of the world that has never known any of those things. Dr. Rice 
understands that those changes will not happen in just a few months or 
years. It will take decades, if not generations, to see the Middle East 
transform into a peaceful and stable region. The next few years are 
critical to that effort, and I believe Dr. Rice is the right person to 
lead our relations with Middle Eastern nations as well as all nations 
around the world.
  Mr. President, I am confident the Senate will overwhelmingly confirm 
Dr. Rice, and I wish her well. She has a huge task ahead of her, 
including bringing accountability to the United Nations and getting to 
the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal, and I hope this body will be 
responsive to her needs as she works to promote freedom and our 
national security.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have followed closely both the 
confirmation hearing of Dr. Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee 
and the floor debate on her nomination. After considerable reflection, 
I have decided to vote in favor of Dr. Rice's confirmation, although I 
must state for the record that I do so with some reservations.
  I intend to support her nomination primarily because I believe the 
foreign policy of the United States must reflect a spirit of 
bipartisanship. Amidst the complex challenges that we face in the war 
on terrorism, this country cannot afford enduring divisions on 
international issues. We must return to common ground, not least so 
that the rest of the world recognizes our single purpose and our 
resolve. I should note, parenthetically, that restoring that lost unity 
depends equally upon the majority party, as upon my party.
  Dr. Rice has the credentials to be Secretary of State. As National 
Security Adviser, she has proven an eloquent advocate for the 
administration's policies. At her confirmation

[[Page 857]]

hearing, she made clear our need for effective diplomatic engagement 
worldwide. I welcomed that emphasis. Perhaps most importantly, Dr. Rice 
has the President's utmost confidence--this will, I am certain, be an 
asset in her dealings with other nations, as well as in working with 
other agencies in our own Government.
  My reservations about Dr. Rice stem not from doubts about her 
abilities, but rather from my concerns about her role in developing 
U.S. policy toward Iraq and in characterizing the threats posed by Iraq 
prior to the conflict. I have concluded that many of the 
administration's statements on Iraqi weapons, including those of Dr. 
Rice, were simply not underpinned by the intelligence available. That 
is troubling, as was Dr. Rice's failure, during the confirmation 
hearing, to acknowledge that mistakes were made, not only in the 
conduct of the war and its aftermath, but in the policies that led us 
into it.
  This goes directly to the question of accuracy and accountability--
whether this administration will take responsibility for its decisions 
and learn from the past, so as not to repeat the same errors in future. 
I believe that the decision to go to war in Iraq was wrong. 
Nevertheless, despite great skepticism among the American people about 
Iraq, President Bush was reelected. We must now go forward together to 
achieve stability in Iraq, to bring our forces home, and to restore 
American credibility at home and abroad.
  The dubious decisions, not the nominee, concern me; however, I will 
not oppose Dr. Rice because I disagree with the administration's 
policies. That would not be conducive to the bipartisan foreign policy 
that I believe is crucial. Rather, I look forward to working with Dr. 
Rice to forge consensus on a more balanced approach to national 
security issues.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the vote on whether to confirm 
Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State is a difficult decision. The 
administration and Defense Department's Iraq policy has been, by any 
reasonable measure, riddled with errors, misstate-
ments, and misjudgments. From the beginning of the Iraqi war, we were 
inadequately prepared for the aftermath of the invasion with too few 
troops and an inadequate plan to stabilize Iraq. Today, we are reaping 
the consequences of those decisions with continuing tragic losses of 
American and Iraqi lives, a full-fledged insurgency in Iraq and a lack 
of security and stability in many areas. In fact, the National 
Intelligence Council, the CIA's own think tank, recently stated that 
Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as the prime international terrorist 
haven--a deeply disturbing result of our problematic policies.
  In her role as National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice was a member of 
the team responsible for our flawed Iraq policy. She made several 
misleading statements about the presence of weapons of mass destruction 
in the lead up to the war. And in the almost 2 years since the Iraq 
invasion, the flawed policies on Iraq have not been corrected. Indeed, 
Dr. Rice has tremendous difficulty in even admitting error though 
obvious errors abound. In addition, $18 billion has been appropriated 
for the reconstruction of Iraq, but only a tiny percentage of that 
money has actually been spent because of the violence in Iraq.
  Although I profoundly disagree and deeply regret how this war has 
been conducted, my concern has less to do with Dr. Rice and more to do 
with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld. The 
fact is that the President was reelected, and, though I was strongly 
opposed to his reelection, he was reelected nonetheless. I do not 
believe, however, that accountability ends with an election. We are all 
public servants, including the President and his team, and we are all 
therefore accountable to the public for our achievements and mistakes 
on a continual basis. We are also accountable to the future and to 
history.
  So while I, and many of my colleagues, have strong concerns about her 
role in the development of a flawed Iraq policy, an overwhelming 
majority on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including a large 
majority of committee Democrats, voted in favor of forwarding her 
nomination to the full Senate. While many of my Democratic colleagues 
on the committee, including the ranking member, share my concern over 
her role in our Iraq policy, they think it worthwhile to give her a 
chance in this new role. That judgment, from Senators who had the 
opportunity to probe and question Dr. Rice on her qualifications, tips 
the balance in favor of voting for Dr. Rice's nomination to be 
Secretary of State, in my mind.
  I am hopeful that Dr. Rice's background and training will enable her 
to serve as Secretary of State with distinction and that she will carry 
the lessons of our policy failures in Iraq with her as she leads the 
Department of State. She does have the President's ear and I hope she 
will use her role to direct the President's attention to addressing our 
frayed alliances in Europe, our relationships with Latin America, our 
policy toward Russia, nuclear proliferation around the world, 
especially in Iran and North Korea, personal sustained attention to new 
opportunities for lasting security and peace in the Middle East, 
problems and opportunities posed by China, Afghanistan, India and 
Pakistan and to lead the world's efforts to address the global crises 
of AIDS and other diseases, environmental degradation, poverty, 
education and health care in the developing world, and human rights.
  As National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice's role was to advise the 
President. The Secretary of State has a different role as the Nation's 
chief diplomat. Dr. Rice's proposed appointments to senior positions 
within the State Department are well-qualified experienced personnel.
  I am hopeful that Dr. Rice's statements during the recent hearings in 
support of reaching out to allies, public diplomacy and building 
coalitions will be more than words, but instead describe a genuine 
effort to ensure that our country leads the world though its strong 
alliances, values and example.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am glad that we have had a few more days 
to consider and hours to discuss this nomination. Some have suggested 
that we should have simply ``voice voted'' Dr. Rice's nomination so she 
could be confirmed in time for the inauguration. Senators are here to 
advise and consent, not rubber stamp for the White House's convenience.
  We needed this extra time for debate. The Secretary of State is the 
chief foreign policy adviser to the President and fourth in the line of 
Presidential succession. And, like some other Senators, I was 
disappointed by Dr. Rice's testimony before the Foreign Relations 
Committee last week.
  I had hoped that her testimony would demonstrate the kind of 
forthright, objective analysis that I believe we need in a Secretary of 
State. Unfortunately, it did not. I share the serious concerns 
expressed by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry, and I commend them and 
other Senators for voicing them.
  I have not been impressed with Dr. Rice's performance as National 
Security Adviser. Strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment have 
been far less evident at the National Security Council during her 
tenure than I would have liked.
  I also believe that she has not always been forthright with Congress 
or the American people. She contributed to the exaggerated public 
statements, false information in the President's State of the Union 
speech about Iraq's supposed attempts to acquire nuclear material, and 
the selective declassification of intelligence, which helped to create 
an atmosphere of hysteria that led us into war in Iraq. She and others 
created the false--the false--impression that Iraq posed an imminent 
threat to the United States.
  These were serious failures, made worse by Dr. Rice's unwavering 
advocacy and support for the administration's policies that have cost 
the lives of over 1,300 American soldiers and an estimated 100,000 
Iraqis, many of them noncombatants.
  It has alienated our friends and allies and convinced many of the 
world's Muslims that we are at war with Islam itself. It led to the 
atrocities at Abu Ghraib. It has added $200 billion to the

[[Page 858]]

Federal deficit and at the rate we are going that is only a down 
payment.
  There are now 150,000 American troops, many of them National Guard 
and Reserve, bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq that has become a 
haven for terrorists.
  Yet Dr. Rice refuses to own up to the Administration's failures. When 
confronted with her own glaringly inconsistent statements regarding 
weapons of mass destruction which were the primary justification for 
the war, she responded that the question unfairly impugned her 
integrity.
  She had an opportunity to reassure her detractors, and believe me 
there are many in my State of Vermont, when she testified last week. 
She declined to do so, and that was disappointing and frustrating to 
those of us who want her to succeed in her new position.
  My vote in favor of Dr. Rice is difficult to explain. It is more the 
product of a belief than a cold analysis of her record. I believe that 
Dr. Rice is capable of learning from her mistakes and changing her 
ways. That she will rise to this new challenge. That she can be a good 
Secretary of State.
  The other major reason I am voting in favor of Dr. Rice's nomination 
is that I am the ranking member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. 
In this capacity, I have a responsibility to work with the Secretary of 
State, on a daily basis, to tackle a full range of international issues 
critical to the United States and the rest of the world: AIDS and other 
global health issues, human rights, the United Nations, terrorism, the 
environment, women's rights, poverty, corruption, to name just a few.
  By voting for Dr. Rice's nomination, I am sending a clear message: I 
want to get this important working relationship started on the right 
track. I hope that my vote will be a step towards a more constructive 
U.S. foreign policy. After all, it is these policies that ultimately 
impact the lives of billions of people around the world.
  During the first term, the Bush administration dug a deep hole: 
relationships with our oldest allies are badly strained, Iraq is a 
mess, and our own country is badly divided.
  We need to come together as a Nation to deal with these and many 
other problems. But coming together does not mean ignoring valid 
criticism, embarking on a policy that pleases only one side of the 
aisle, and accusing those opposed of being un-American or unpatriotic. 
Criticism and dissent are the essence of democracy, the essence of 
patriotism.
  Coming together means genuine consultations with members of both 
political parties, and policies which reflect a range of views even if 
they do not fit into preconceived ideologies.
  As I said, I hope that my vote here today will, in some small way, 
help begin this process. I hope it will allow us to get back to the 
real practice of the Vandenberg rule--that politics end at the water's 
edge--and away from the slash and burn politics practiced during the 
first term of the Bush administration.
  I hope that Dr. Rice will meet me half way. I want to work with her 
on the many pressing issues that concern both Democrats and 
Republicans, including the issues of freedom and human rights that the 
President spoke of in his inaugural address that are so important not 
only to Americans, but to people everywhere.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Dr. Condoleezza 
Rice to be our next Secretary of State. I am pleased to echo the 
sentiments of many of my colleagues--Dr. Rice's accomplishments are 
inspirational, and she sets an amazing role model for young people in 
our Nation today.
  We are considering a person for Secretary of State with an impressive 
educational resume, a person who has lived through some of the most 
trying eras of our history and who represents the best of America. Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice is more than well qualified to be Secretary of State. 
She served 6 years as the Provost of Stanford University. Under 
President George H. W. Bush, she was Director and Senior Director of 
Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and 
a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
  With her experience the last 4 years as National Security Adviser to 
President Bush, she comes prepared for this position like no other 
person could. She knows our President and his foreign policy and 
national security issues. She will arrive at a new job with a full 
understanding of the President's plan for our chief diplomat.
  I have had the privilege of working with Dr. Rice during her tenure 
as National Security Adviser. In 2001, Dr. Rice played an instrumental 
role in the Senate's passage of S. 149, the Export Administration Act 
of 2001, a bill I introduced in 2000. S. 149 was a strong bill that 
would have modernized our national export control system for dual-use 
items and technology. The bill, which required a risk-based analysis of 
proposed exports and emphasized transparency and accountability, 
garnered vocal support from the President, the Secretaries of Defense 
and State, and our National Security Adviser, Dr. Condoleeza Rice. The 
support of Dr. Rice underscored the strength of the bill's national 
security provisions. Unfortunately, Congress failed to pass S. 149 into 
law before adjourning the 106th Congress.
  As such, I look forward to working again with Dr. Rice in her new 
capacity as Secretary of State on issues related to export controls. In 
her new role, I believe she will be a leader within the interagency 
process on dual-use exports, as well as an effective leader for the 
Office of Defense Trade Controls, ODTC, which administers the 
International Traffic in Arms Regulations, ITAR, and maintains the 
munitions list--a list of items controlled for defense purposes. Dr. 
Rice's experience on the National Security Council has well prepared 
her for a job that will require a fair and realistic approach to 
controlling both defense and dual-use exports.
  We must ensure that our export control system keeps sensitive items 
and technology out of the hands of the terrorists and other bad actors. 
At the same time, we must also make sure our troops and allies, who are 
fighting every day for freedom and democracy, have access to the best 
and most technologically advanced tools of our time. This will take 
forward thinking from all the Departments responsible for controlling 
defense and dual-use items, including the Department of State. Our 
export control policy must take into consideration the fact that the 
U.S. military and private high-tech companies are codependent Private 
companies are pushing the technological envelope for both militarily 
critical and civilian products. And we must work toward a system that 
allows these companies to continue growing and developing so as not to 
stifle the military's rate of technological advancement. I believe Dr. 
Rice will provide an intelligent and knowledgeable voice in this 
endeavor.
  I have been disappointed with the comments made by some of my 
colleagues. While we all certainly have the right and duty to disagree 
on policy and procedures, the nature of some comments have gone beyond 
what is appropriate for this body. I strongly believe the character of 
Dr. Rice and her integrity are above reproach. The criticism heard 
here, unfortunately, reaches beyond the Senate and far beyond 
Washington.
  I remind my colleagues that when we speak on the Senate floor, our 
words are heard by brave men and women serving overseas. Our words are 
heard by their families and their friends who make it possible for them 
to serve our Nation so well. I hope we all remember that as we debate 
the merits of our foreign policy and the nomination of Dr. Rice.
  I am pleased to again state my support for the nomination of Dr. 
Rice. Her experience, her dedication, her integrity, and her character 
will make her a good representative of our Nation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have serious reservations about the 
nomination of Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State.
  While I believe that the President deserves the opportunity to select 
his own team in the construction of his

[[Page 859]]

Cabinet, the confirmation process is one which gives the U.S. Senate 
the opportunity to reject a selection that it feels would not be in the 
best interest of our country.
  The nomination of National Security Advisor Rice to become Secretary 
of State has been troubling to me because she was a part of the 
dispensing of intelligence information to justify the war in Iraq. That 
intelligence turned out to be fundamentally wrong.
  There is no question that Ms. Rice has the intellect, the academic 
background, and the work history to justify this nomination. She is 
extraordinarily talented and skilled. But even so, I have significant 
reservations about her role in the use of intelligence leading up to 
the Iraq war.
  I recognize she was working for and representing the President, the 
Vice President, and others in the administration, but nonetheless she 
too must bear responsibility for some very significant mistakes.
  I sought out Condoleezza Rice yesterday for a personal conversation 
about a number of the issues that concerned me. We had a full and 
lengthy discussion about those matters, especially the use of 
intelligence leading up to the war.
  I've decided after much reflection that I will cast a vote for her 
confirmation, but it is a close call for me. I fervently hope that this 
administration, including the President and the new Secretary of State, 
will rethink some of the foreign policy initiatives that I believe have 
made our country less secure--not more secure.
  So I will cast a yes vote with reservations and hope that this 
administration has learned from the serious mistakes in foreign policy 
it has made in its first term.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today we are considering the nomination 
of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. Dr. Rice is 
professionally competent and accomplished. Her academic background is 
impressive and she has the diplomatic skills necessary to serve as 
Secretary of State. I intend to vote in favor of her nomination, but 
not without expressing serious reservations and concerns. This 
administration's first term was marked by a series of failures and 
miscalculations that have cost this country dearly. Dr. Rice, as 
National Security Adviser, must bear some of the responsibility for 
these mistakes. Now, however, she also has an opportunity to correct 
them. I will therefore cast this vote with the hope and expectation 
that she will work with the Congress to forge a new approach to our 
foreign policy.
  Dr. Rice's tasks, if she is eventually confirmed, are numerous and 
daunting.
  The administration should be rapidly expanding efforts to stop the 
proliferation of nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and 
throughout the world. The prospect of these materials in the hands of 
terrorists is truly the greatest risk to our national security. 
Mobilizing our allies in a concerted and coordinated effort to stop 
Iran's nuclear program must also be at the top of the new Secretary's 
agenda.
  Additionally, the administration must finally engage with the rest of 
the world in addressing global climate change. Almost every day, new 
scientific evidence raises the world's concern and challenges our fate.
  The administration should also expand efforts to combat HIV/AIDS to 
include India and other second-tier countries. Thus far, its words have 
been right, but the financial reality has fallen short.
  We should fully fund our development and disaster assistance accounts 
and finally meet the promises of the Millennium Challenge Account.
  The administration, working with our allies, needs to broaden nation-
building efforts in Afghanistan so that warlords and narcotics do not 
destroy the hope of Afghan democracy.
  And it must confront human rights abusers, not just in the ``outposts 
of tyranny'' mentioned by Dr. Rice in her testimony to the Foreign 
Relations Committee, but in Saudi Arabia, China, Central Asia and 
throughout the world.
  And, we must address these and many other challenges with a new 
commitment to our alliances. For 50 years, American leadership helped 
build international institutions to fight common threats and promote 
the common good. We drafted treaties to articulate universal values and 
entrench them in international law. And we constructed great military 
alliances to protect not just ourselves but our friends overseas. With 
a renewed commitment to alliance building and real engagement around 
the world, we can begin to end our own current isolation, rescue the 
reputation of U.S. policy overseas, and bring the resources of our 
friends and allies to bear on the global challenges we all face.
  While Dr. Rice will face many challenges ahead, I intend to speak in 
detail today on two topics: Iraq and Darfur.
  The administration's approach to Iraq has been disastrous from the 
start. The intelligence used by the administration on weapons of mass 
destruction and links to al Qaeda were flat wrong. We must begin to 
learn the lesson of this colossal failure and ensure that we have 
accurate, objective intelligence. I have and will continue to call for 
a full accounting of the development and use of the intelligence that 
led us into Iraq. But in the coming years, I also expect our Secretary 
of State to join in demanding real intelligence reform. Without it, we 
will be unable to stabilize Iraq or confront other current and future 
threats. Our foreign policy must be based on an understanding of our 
enemies. And our policies and the intelligence behind them must be 
credible with our friends.
  The Administration's approach to the war in Iraq was disastrously 
unilateral. It ignored the weapons inspectors, rejected our allies, and 
ended up isolating America. The result of these policies is now borne 
by our troops, who are fighting nearly alone in Iraq, and by American 
taxpayers, who are paying 90 percent of the costs of the war. We cannot 
afford to continue in this vein. I hope that, in this second term, the 
administration will recognize the heavy costs of unilateralism and 
place a priority on diplomacy and alliances. With Iraqi elections less 
than a week away, the new Secretary of State can begin by acknowledging 
that ballots do not equal democracy, and that the hard work of 
stabilizing Iraq will require a concerted global effort. Intellectual 
honesty is a must for this administration and for our Secretary of 
State.
  There have been a series of miscalculations with regard to almost 
every aspect of the occupation. The administration failed to commit 
sufficient troops. It did not consider the political, military and 
economic challenges inherent in occupying a foreign country. It 
anticipated neither an insurgency nor sectarian and ethnic conflict. It 
permitted looting and chaos, when order was so critical. It failed to 
raise an Iraqi security force before the insurgency was already raging. 
And its confused policies regarding detention and interrogation led to 
the abuses at Abu Ghraib. On the international stage and in Iraq 
itself, the damage caused by these mistakes must be addressed head on. 
Trust must be rebuilt, through candor and through real changes in 
policy.
  Another great challenge facing the new Secretary of State is Darfur. 
Secretary of State Powell's declaration of September 9, 2004 that 
genocide was occurring was appropriate, and I applauded the 
administration at the time. But having made that declaration, we cannot 
allow genocide to continue. Nor is the reluctance of other nations to 
take a tougher position an excuse for inaction. In her testimony to the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Dr. Rice stated that the reason the U.N. 
Security Council resolutions on Darfur have been so weak was because 
other members of the Council opposed sanctions against Khartoum. While 
this is true, it is time to put real pressure on those countries. 
Hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake in Darfur. We cannot accept 
business as usual at the U.N. If our bilateral relations with countries 
that oppose action to stop the genocide suffer, then that is how it 
should be. Saving lives, stopping genocide is the high ground. It is a 
moral imperative.

[[Page 860]]

  But through principled and sustained leadership, we have an 
opportunity to find common ground with our allies and partners. Next 
week, a U.N. Commission is expected to identify those in Sudan 
responsible for crimes against humanity. This is the time for 
accountability. All parties need to put aside their own agendas and do 
what is right for the sake of stopping this genocide, and deterring 
future crimes against humanity. Those countries who have opposed 
sanctions against Sudan need to accept the findings of the Commission 
and change course. And the administration should be open to all forms 
of justice and accountability, including the International Criminal 
Court.
  This week, the United Nations General Assembly is holding a special 
session to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the 
Nazi death camps. This session is convening in the spirit of ``never 
again.'' Soon we have the names of those committing genocide, brought 
to us by a U.N. Commission established thanks to pressure from the 
United States. We must not allow ideology to stand in the way of 
accountability. Referring this case to the ICC will not threaten any 
Americans. Rather, it will push the ICC toward the purpose for which it 
was created and affirm America's leadership with regard to universal 
values of justice and accountability.
  Finally, on Darfur, we must push harder for the full deployment of 
African Union troops. Dr. Rice testified that only a third of a 3,300 
person AU force is currently in Darfur. It has been more than 4 months 
since the U.N. Security Council called for the ``rapid expansion'' of 
the AU force. Congress has appropriated $75 million specifically for 
this expansion. Getting those troops in place immediately and providing 
them with all the resources they need to succeed must be a top priority 
for the new Secretary of State.
  And if they succeed, this success will ripple outward across Africa. 
Having stopped a genocide, visionary African leaders will be positioned 
to address future crises on the continent and the AU will have taken an 
important step forward as a credible and forceful institution.
  Darfur represents an opportunity for this administration to live up 
to the words articulated by the President in his inaugural address.
  The President said, ``All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can 
know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your 
oppressors.'' How, then, can we stand by in the face of genocide?
  The President, quoting Abraham Lincoln, said, ``Those who deny 
freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of 
a just God, cannot long retain it.'' With the names of those 
responsible for the killing in Darfur, are we not obligated to see 
justice served?
  And the President, speaking to our allies, said, ``We honor your 
friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help.'' When 
the African Union expresses a desire to deploy an effective force in 
Darfur, how can we not do everything in our power to make sure that 
they succeed?
  The challenges ahead our many. And this administration, in its first 
term, has made many mistakes. But the collective wisdom of America is 
great. Our new Secretary of State and the rest of the Administration's 
national security team can, if it chooses, work together with Congress 
and forge a new approach--one that will make us safer and create a 
better world.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the pending 
nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. First, I start 
off by commending the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Senators Lugar and Biden, for their 
efforts to ensure that all members had the time to engage Dr. Rice and 
to express their thoughts on this very important nomination. I would 
also like to thank Dr. Rice for her willingness to devote as much time 
as necessary to answer our questions.
  Unlike many other confirmation hearings for Secretary of State, the 
nominee before us is well known to Congress and to the American people. 
She has a distinguished record as an academic and has served in many 
important positions as a public servant. Clearly, she has the requisite 
skills and experience for this post.
  Rightly, the focus of last Tuesday's and Wednesday's committee 
hearings concerned in great part her role as the President's National 
Security Advisor in the first term and her vision of what our foreign 
policy should be in the second term. It is no secret that many of us on 
the committee have had our differences with the Bush administration's 
foreign policy agenda during these past 4 years. Nonetheless, I had 
hoped that the hearings with Dr. Rice would demonstrate that she had 
grown somewhat intellectually and would be prepared be more analytical 
about the strengthens and weaknesses of U.S. policy over the past, 4 
years. Sadly that has not been the case.
  Instead, I have come away with the impression that when it comes to 
our foreign policy agenda, it is likely that we can expect more of the 
same when it comes to policy priorities. As well, I have every reason 
to believe following these interactions that the lack of transparency 
and accountability which was the hallmark of this administration in the 
first term will continue into the foreseeable future. These flaws have 
led the United States to have a negative image both domestically and 
abroad.
  It now appears that little will change in that regard.
  For example, Dr. Rice's comments, or lack thereof, on the issue of 
torture were startling to this Senator, as I presume they were to many 
of my colleagues. I asked her a simple question, whether or not she 
felt that on the issue of certain interrogation techniques such as 
water boarding, forced nudity, and the use of stress positions are 
tantamount to torture. I asked her to consider this not in the context 
of whether or not members of al-Qaida are covered by the Geneva 
Conventions but as a human being reflecting on the actions of one 
person against another. My question was straightforward; however, Dr. 
Rice's answer was anything but. In fact, at no point did she provide a 
clear answer to the question I posed. Disturbingly, her lack of a clear 
answer implies that she neither defines these methods as torture nor 
opposes their use in the war on terror.
  International laws and treaties exist for the protection of all 
parties. They contribute to security and to a more humane world. 
Agreements such as the Geneva Convention project to the world the 
values we hold so dear in America, liberty, freedom, the rule of law. 
We are better intrinsically for abiding by them, and we are better 
off--Americans are safer--when we successfully protect the values they 
enshrine.
  After all, following World War II, our Nation insisted on trying Nazi 
war criminals, people who were guilty of the most heinous crimes ever 
committed against humanity.
  We insisted on this because we understood the importance of the rule 
of law, of being better than the enemy, and that this was the most 
effective way to spread our values, our common cause against tyranny. 
Of all the memories I hold dear, I am proud of none more than that of 
the role my father played as a prosecutor at those trials in Nuremburg.
  Dr. Rice chose not to answer my simple question. She had a chance to 
speak to the whole world yesterday and today to convey the message as 
to how she will address this issue. I think she is off to a poor start. 
And I would recommend, for the sake of our national security and 
American citizens globally that she should reflect upon this subject 
matter when she assumes her duties as Secretary of State.
  I am also troubled by her unwillingness to admit that there were any 
mistakes made by the Bush administration with respect to the 
preparation for the war and its aftermath. Even after all the deaths 
and instability that have plagued Iraq since the U.S. invasion of 2003, 
Dr. Rice does not appear to have any second thoughts about decisions 
taken with respect to Iraq. Surely, mistakes have been made. But Dr. 
Rice appears inclined to follow in the President's footsteps of not 
being willing to

[[Page 861]]

admit mistakes. She was reluctant to admit even the most glaring 
mistake, that Iraq did not possess WMD, even though that was the 
fundamental rationale behind the Bush administration's original drive 
to go to war.
  In addition, it was painfully obvious that Dr. Rice does not 
currently have much of a feel for policy in the Western Hemisphere. 
With respect to Venezuela, she seems determined to pursue the same path 
that has done nothing to further democracy, and which has instead made 
it easy for President Hugo Chavez to vilify the United States. With 
respect to Cuba, she seems stuck in a 40-year-old fixation on a 78-
year-old man, a mode of thought that is outdated, counterintuitive, and 
ultimately has proven itself unsuccessful. Our inane policy toward that 
island nation is exemplified by the fact that it is the only country in 
the entire world to which the U.S. Government prevents its citizens 
from traveling. Americans can travel to Iran and North Korea, two 
nations that are unarguably more threatening, but not to Cuba. Yet, Dr. 
Rice seems intent on retaining these failed policies.
  I also took note of her refusal to provide a straight answer to 
questions she was asked regarding a recent article about U.S. plans for 
military action against Iran, which was written by the respected 
journalist Seymour Hersh and published in the most recent edition of 
the New Yorker magazine. Dr. Rice contended that the article was full 
of inaccuracies. However, the question put to her by Senator Kerry was 
quite specific, is the article's contention about U.S. plans with 
respect to Iran true or false. That is a simple question with a one 
word answer. If that particular part of the article is inaccurate, it 
would have been easy and painless to say so. Her lack of candor did not 
appear to have anything to do with the information being classified. 
Had that been the case, Dr. Rice could simply have responded that any 
information regarding the matter would have to be discussed in a 
classified briefing. But she did not.
  All of these issues I have discussed are troubling to say the least. 
They raise very serious concerns about the direction our foreign policy 
will take over the next 4 years. Nonetheless, I believe that except in 
extraordinary circumstances, the President has the right to choose his 
or her Secretary of State. Therefore it is with serious reservations 
that I voted to report this nomination favorably to the full Senate and 
will support her confirmation when the full Senate votes on this 
matter. However, I would offer some words of advice to Dr. Rice. First, 
that she reflect upon some of the issues and concerns raised during her 
confirmation hearings. And second, that she never forget as Secretary 
of State that she is not just the President's representative, she is 
the representative of the American people. She should never forget 
that.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, President Bush made an excellent choice 
in nominating Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be America's next Secretary of 
State. She has both the professional experience and the personal 
integrity to make a great Secretary of State.
  I cannot think of a candidate more qualified to be Secretary of State 
than Condoleezza Rice. Dr. Rice's experience and expertise are truly 
multi-facted. She is a distinguished public servant and has led one of 
our country's most distinguished universities. She has 25 years of 
experience in foreign policy, having served three Presidents as a key 
advisor.
  She has led the President's national security team with strength and 
expertise. A short list of her many accomplishments include developing 
six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear program, helping 
to design the President's landmark emergency AIDS relief package, and 
strengthening relations with Russia and China. In her capacity as 
National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice has developed personal working 
relationships with international leaders and governments that will 
enable her to nurture alliances and conduct effective diplomacy around 
the world. She was instrumental in developing the administration's 
response to 9/11 and a new framework for United States policy in the 
Middle East.
  Most important, Condoleezza Rice has the trust and confidence of the 
President. She has served the President as a loyal and trusted advisor. 
When she speaks to foreign leaders as Secretary of State, they will 
know that Dr. Rice is speaking on behalf of the President.
  I have had the honor of working closely with Dr. Rice on many 
occasions over the past 4 years. In particular, Dr. Rice's support was 
extremely helpful to me and to my colleague Senator Lieberman as we 
undertook the Herculean task of reforming our intelligence community in 
the last Congress. Dr. Rice helped us overcome the obstacles we faced 
to ensure the bill became law, and for that, she has my gratitude.
  Having a strong foreign policy vision is critical to success in the 
war on terrorism. Condoleezza Rice is the right person for the job. Dr. 
Rice will make an outstanding Secretary of State, and I look forward to 
working with her in the coming years.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I will be casting my vote in support of the 
nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as our next Secretary of State. Dr. 
Rice currently serves as President Bush's National Security Advisor. In 
that position, she has earned the trust and the confidence of the 
President. Her stellar credentials and her remarkable success story, 
despite the barriers of segregation in Birmingham, AL, are an 
inspiration.
  Dr. Rice will assume the job of our Nation's top diplomat not only 
during a time of war but also during a time in which the United States 
faces countless other challenges. In short, Dr. Rice will have her work 
cut out for her. As she noted in her opening statement to the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee, ``We must use American diplomacy to help 
create a balance of power in the world that favors freedom. And the 
time for diplomacy is now.'' Indeed. The extent to which we have 
alienated our allies and aroused suspicion about our policies is 
breathtaking in contrast to the tremendous support and sympathy we 
experienced in the aftermath of 9/11. Even as we pour hundreds of 
billions of dollars into our efforts in the Middle East, there is much 
that needs to be done to win the war of ideas in the Muslim world and 
beyond.
  There are many lofty ideals which the President extolled in his 
inaugural address--democracy and freedom, liberty for all--these are 
ideals we all share. Our Secretary of State must recognize, however, 
that ideals are meaningless if they do not inform the specifics of our 
policies. Where we must work to find common ground is in how to realize 
these ideals. I look forward to working with the next Secretary of 
State as we craft the State Department's budget and as we strive for a 
foreign policy we can all embrace.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today on the nomination of Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice to serve as Secretary of State.
  I have three criteria I use to evaluate all executive branch 
nominees: competence, integrity and commitment to the core mission of 
the Department. On the basis of those criteria, I will vote to confirm 
Dr. Rice.
  Yet I do have concerns. This vote is not an endorsement of President 
Bush's foreign and defense policy as we saw it during Dr. Rice's tenure 
as National Security Advisor.
  I have serious concerns with the way we went to war with Iraq: With 
the overblown assertions of the threat to the United States; with the 
deeply flawed intelligence analysis from a few biased sources presented 
as facts; with the failure to build a strong international coalition; 
with the failure to prepare and send sufficient forces to deal with the 
aftermath of removing Saddam from power; and with the failure to 
prepare by providing our own troops the protective equipment they 
needed to carry out their missions and come home safe.
  I know a lot of the responsibility for those failures rests with the 
Secretary of Defense.
  I hope that Dr. Rice's service as Secretary of State will be historic 
not

[[Page 862]]

only because she will be the first African American woman to hold that 
office. I hope that Dr. Rice will make history by exercising true 
leadership at the State Department: Rebuilding our tattered 
international relationships and alliances; seeking to achieve lasting 
peace in the Middle East and other conflicts; mobilizing the world to 
meet humanitarian and development needs; and serving as an effective 
CEO of the State Department to ensure that our dedicated public 
servants have safe embassies and the resources they need to effectively 
formulate policy and represent the United States around the world.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today is a very sad day when we hear 
that we lost somewhere around 37 or 38 of our finest in the Marine 
Corps with the crash of a helicopter and additional deaths from the 
ground fight.
  Like everyone here, this information is very painful to me. I have 
had the experience, as most of my colleagues have, to visit with 
families as their sons and daughters are buried as a result of their 
exposure in Afghanistan and Iraq in the military.
  Most recently, about 2 weeks ago, I went to a funeral in New Jersey 
for a 19-year-old marine corporal. I sat with the family who was very 
proud of their son's contribution to his country. Twin brothers, young 
men were making comments at the funeral, participating in the eulogy, 
and the parents, grief stricken about the loss of this wonderful, 
apparently, young man. I did not know him, but the history of his short 
years was resplendent with good accomplishments in school.
  I mention that because it sets the tone for my feelings about how we 
portray this war to the American public.
  I am a veteran of a war a long time ago. As a matter of fact, I think 
I am one of three remaining here from World War II. The experiences 
are, though such a long time ago, still vivid in my mind. I remember 
the enthusiasm of my friends in high school--I was 18 when I enlisted 
in the Army--and those in the community and how spirited the support 
was for everything we did.
  I do not see any failing of support for our troops in the theater. We 
are ready to do whatever we have to to make sure they have the materiel 
they need. On a visit I made in March of this past year with four other 
Senators, it was distressful to learn, as we visited with the young 
people who were doing the fighting there, that they did not have 
everything they needed. I talked with a small group from New Jersey--
eight enlisted personnel and one young captain. I asked if there was 
anything they needed to conduct their service that would help them.
  They were reluctant to complain, but finally this young captain stood 
up and said: Senator, the flack vest you are wearing is the best that 
money can buy. I see these vests on some members of the coalition, but 
we don't have them, Senator, and I would like to ask why.
  He said further: When one of our humvees is hit with a rocket grenade 
or other weapon, very often they will go up in flames, like a 
firecracker.
  He talked about a rifle that was issued to some of the other troops 
and how much more reliable it was, how much lighter it was, how much 
easier it was to carry.
  I was very upset at hearing that news because the last thing that any 
of our soldiers should have to do is worry about whether they have the 
best equipment or whether their lives are going to be protected.
  I went to visit at Walter Reed Hospital and saw a fellow who was 
banged up a little bit. His companion friend with whom he had been 
injured in Iraq said: You know, if we had not had the new vests, my 
friend here would have been dead. But he had one of those new vests, 
and it really helped. He is alive and recovering.
  When I saw that families, in many instances, sent gifts of an article 
or funds to buy a vest that would protect their loved ones, privately 
raised money to send a vest for a soldier that we sent over there to 
fight for our views, and we can't provide the equipment? That set a 
tone for me, and I must say that many questions arose in my mind as to 
whether the information we were getting was credible information about 
all of these commitments that were being talked about from the 
administration about how we were going to do everything we could to 
protect our troops. It was not true. No, it was not true.
  We did not have enough soldiers over there to do the job starting 
early in this campaign. We have been reminded on this floor a dozen 
times that General Shinseki, Chief of the Army, said we needed 300,000 
troops to do this job. And, instead, we skinnied it on down and sent 
130,000. They could not protect themselves. The cost was a horrible 
cost. Lots of young ones died. And now over 1,400 have died as a result 
of the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 40 people from the State of 
New Jersey. I care about those. I am sure all of our colleagues care 
about the casualties that we have suffered in this war. One cannot be 
indifferent to a reminder that we are deep in the mud and we do not 
know when our troops are coming home and we do not know how many more 
we are going to lose before this endeavor is over.
  So for me, the question centers around the information supply that we 
had: How did we make so many mistakes about weapons of mass 
destruction? How did we make so many mistakes about how we were going 
to be treated when we got there? How did we make so many mistakes when 
it was said we would be there for a short stay, that we would turn this 
job over to the Iraqis and they would take care of it and we would get 
out of there in time?
  It was not true. No, it was not true. Unfortunately, when Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice's credentials were presented it was quite a review, 
quite a hearing, in the committee of jurisdiction. When they tried to 
find out more about how she would be acting as the Secretary of State, 
the Foreign Relations Committee did their job very well.
  I do not question her extensive and impressive experience in academia 
and foreign policy. What I question today is her judgment and her 
ability to be candid with the American people and the Congress about 
critical information. No, those are not the things we question. What we 
question is the attention being given to detail. What we question is 
the attention being given to the commentary that arose in that 
committee.
  During her confirmation, she had many opportunities to reflect on 
early decisions that were made in statements on Iraq in her position as 
National Security Adviser to the President, but when Dr. Rice was 
confronted with her misstatements and inaccuracies she refused to 
acknowledge any errors or take responsibility. I found that very 
disappointing.
  During her hearing, Dr. Rice was given a chance to correct the record 
about what she said about Iraq being a nuclear threat to the United 
States. Prior to the war, Dr. Rice stated that the smoking gun in Iraq 
could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. What an assertion that is, 
a mushroom cloud. That means a nuclear bomb. It means perhaps millions 
being killed. There was this specter of that kind of damage, that kind 
of catastrophe, because there were weapons of mass destruction in play 
there that were available to Saddam Hussein, but we know the evidence 
to that effect was not there.
  In January 2004, the U.S. chief weapons inspector David Kay announced 
his group found no evidence that Iraq had stockpiled any weapons of 
mass destruction before our invasion. In October 2004, less than 6 
months ago, the Duelfer report was released and contradicted the 
administration's prewar contention that Iraq had a strong WMD, weapons 
of mass destruction, program. The Duelfer report's conclusions are so 
definitive they compelled the administration to announce earlier this 
month that the search for WMD had officially ended.
  Despite all of that information, Dr. Rice refused to admit at her 
hearing that she made serious mistakes in continuously overstating 
Iraq's nuclear capabilities. At her hearing, Dr. Rice was also given 
the chance to speak honestly about the current size of Iraq's security 
forces. She said that

[[Page 863]]

120,000 Iraqis have been trained so far, but a much more accurate on-
the-ground assessment reveals that only 4,000 have been trained. 
Imagine, on the one hand Dr. Rice said 120,000 Iraqis have been trained 
and we are trying to get out of there and what we need is a force that 
is able and large enough and trained well enough so we can bring our 
kids home, reunite our families.
  Four thousand have been trained. We are so far away from having that 
force ready to take over that no one can tell what the timeframe might 
be.
  When I was in Iraq, I went to a training facility for police 
officers. About every 6 weeks they graduated 80 officers, and we needed 
53,000. So that meant, using the 6-week factor and calculating that by 
10, we might be training 800 of these police officers a year, and we 
need 53,000. Yet we cannot now even find the truth out about what it is 
that is required.
  Dr. Rice also could not explain or at least she would not explain to 
the committee what our exit strategy is or should be for Iraq. Here she 
simply chose not to answer the question at all. With more than 1,400 of 
our brave young men and women in uniform killed, including 48 with ties 
to my home State of New Jersey, I believe we deserved an answer. 
Instead, Dr. Rice chose silence.
  When it comes to Iraq, unfortunately this administration has lost its 
credibility with the American people and with the global community, and 
it is the job of the Secretary of State to restore our credibility 
abroad, especially with our allies. In my view, promoting Dr. Rice to 
the position of Secretary of State puts a stamp of approval on the 
administration's policies and actions, and I cannot, in good faith, go 
along with that. Despite ample opportunity, Dr. Rice has shown no 
inclination to be more forthright about any of the mistakes she and 
this administration made and continue to make in Iraq or indicate that 
any change in course might be necessary. I find that very troubling.
  Therefore, I feel compelled to vote against her confirmation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides at this 
stage?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 14 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Delaware has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. There is 14 minutes and 1 minute?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Correct.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my understanding is the majority leader is 
en route to the floor. He had responsibilities in the House of 
Representatives for a period of time. The distinguished Democratic 
leader is on the floor. It is his desire to wait until the majority 
leader is present, and both, as I understand, will make final comments, 
if necessary using leader time. Therefore, Mr. President, I will speak 
at this point, utilizing the time allotted to our side with a final 
argument.
  Mr. President, I appreciated, as did the Senator from New Mexico, the 
comments of our distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman, when he discussed really the long debate we have had with 
regard to the conduct of the war in Iraq, of the conduct of the war 
against terrorism, which involves Iraq. Clearly, Senator Lieberman is 
accurate when he points out that essentially we have had many 
disagreements about the prewar planning, the problems of the 
dislocation of all of the Iraqi security forces, the great dilemmas we 
have had as we approach now the elections and the fledgling democracy 
we hope Iraqis will be able to fashion as they formulate a constitution 
and elect the officials of their country.
  The security situation remains extremely precarious for American 
troops and those who are with us in Iraq attempting to help Iraqis 
provide security for their villages and for their countryside. There 
are clearly differences of opinion as to how well all of these 
activities have been conducted, but I think, in recognition of how very 
difficult it has been for decisionmakers, a general consensus is that 
the batting average has been good, even if not perfect. But Senator 
Lieberman made the point that now, at this particular moment, as we 
vote today to confirm a Secretary of State, we are a united group in 
this Senate on the need for success in Iraq.
  There should be no doubt on the part of all who are about to cast 
their ballots in Iraq and take the chances that are posed when they are 
threatened really with loss of life for their willingness to exercise a 
franchise, it should be clear we are united back here.
  This is not a fractious group, I hope, today that gives any 
sustenance of hope to the insurgents, to those who are attempting to 
formulate disaster in the Middle East that the face of America is not a 
united face.
  I make this point because the person we are about to confirm as 
Secretary of State will be, aside from the President of the United 
States, the most prominent spokesperson, the most prominent diplomat 
making the case for the United States of America and for each of us on 
this Senate floor as proud Americans. And it is very important, now 
that we have had a full discussion of arguments on deficiencies, things 
we must do better, institutions we must improve, simply to note how 
important it is to the world to have confidence we know what we are 
doing and that we are prepared at least to continually discuss this in 
the same candid way we have done, but then to come together and say 
this is our President, this is our Secretary of State, this is our 
policy.
  I am very hopeful that the vote for Dr. Rice will be a very strong 
vote. I do not depreciate for a moment the right or desire of those who 
may have a heartfelt need to say no. That is a great privilege we all 
exercise. But a lot is at stake today in saying yes, and saying yes 
together in as large a number as we can muster when the roll is called 
is important because this is a person who will be Secretary of State, 
and this is a vote that will be memorable. It is not in any way a 
trivial pursuit or time of fractious odds or a time to be spoilers. 
This is for our country at a time to be the very best we can be as 
Senators.
  I have reiterated the record of our hearings and I have appreciated 
very much the cooperation and, beyond that, the friendship of the 
distinguished ranking member, Senator Biden, because the both of us 
have shared from time to time with witnesses who have come before our 
committee considerable anxieties about the policies they were pursuing 
or some they were not pursuing, or questions we were raising we felt 
they perhaps had not been raising and that they should. By my best 
count, in the last 2 years, we have had 23 hearings on Iraq. That is a 
lot of quality time devoted by good administration witnesses and other 
experts, as well as by Senators, as I mentioned, in the long hearings 
we had with Dr. Rice, and in the almost 200 questions raised before the 
hearing and another 200 during the hearing. This is a lot of 
questioning, a lot of information, a big record. So we took this 
seriously, all 18 of us, plus Senator Feinstein of California, who 
introduced Dr. Rice to the committee to begin with. Senators have taken 
it very seriously on the floor.
  In my opening comments, I mentioned that at least 22 Senators spoke 
yesterday and many spoke at length, with very sincere tributes to Dr. 
Rice. Some of the Senators had very sincere questions about where we 
are going and what we ought to be doing. But those preliminaries are 
over. We come now to the moment of decision, and I hope and pray that 
the vote will be a strong one for a candidate who in fact can be a 
champion for us. Her entire life story, which has been touched upon, 
but only barely--and perhaps this is a tribute to our next Secretary of 
State, that we did not dwell on biography, although it is a dramatic 
one out of Birmingham, AL. We did not dwell on racial background or on 
the fact that a lady is going to be Secretary of State. We did not get 
into many of the divisive arguments we often have as to where somebody 
comes from and what their background is.
  Dr. Rice was taken seriously from the beginning of the hearings and

[[Page 864]]

throughout this debate as a world statesperson who knows a great deal, 
who is extraordinarily intelligent and dedicated to this country and 
extraordinarily courageous in speaking out as she has.
  I add all this simply to say that I am hopeful Senators will vote for 
Dr. Rice when we vote soon.
  I will yield the floor in the hopes that our leader and the 
distinguished minority leader will have an opportunity to make comments 
before the Chair calls for the roll.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute of leader time to the 
Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I don't speak for those who are going to 
vote no today. But I think the irony here is that their no vote is a 
demonstration of how clearly we are united on one point: We want to win 
in Iraq.
  The reason they are voting no is they believe Dr. Rice has misled, in 
many ways, and as a consequence undermined our ability to succeed. I 
choose to believe and take the opposite view. But I want to make it 
clear that those who say no today are actually doing a service to the 
Senate and possibly making it less likely that the Secretary of State 
will be less candid with us, or not as candid as she has been in the 
past. I think the no votes are likely to encourage candor, because that 
is what it is about. They are voting no in large part because they 
think she has not been candid and has undermined our ability to 
succeed.
  I look forward to working with Dr. Rice. I suspect there will be an 
overwhelming vote. Please don't read a no vote as not being united in 
the effort to win in Iraq. That is why some of my colleagues are voting 
no; they think she has undermined our ability to win in Iraq. I choose 
to differ with them, but we do not differ on the point that we need to 
succeed in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is all time used or yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Chair has noted we have 5 minutes. We 
are hopeful of seeing our leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, he is here. He is waiting for my remarks to 
conclude.
  Mr. LUGAR. I will yield back our time and then the leaders may 
proceed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Lugar and Senator Biden set a great 
example for the rest of the Senate in the way they handled this most 
important issue before this body and the way they handled that 
committee in general. I admire and respect both of them.
  But I do say to the distinguished Senator from Indiana, I listened 
closely yesterday to the remarks and I read some of them today. The 
remarks yesterday were troubling to me because most all of the remarks 
yesterday criticized us--that is, the minority--for having this debate, 
saying why didn't we complete the debate last Thursday when the 
President was inaugurated.
  The philosopher Voltaire once said, ``I may disagree with what you 
have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.'' 
Every American who goes to school has seen that quote because it 
reflects our most deeply cherished values and beliefs. Americans 
believe in freedom of expression. We believe in democracy. We believe 
in debate. That is why I have been disappointed that the administration 
and most of the Republicans in this body have attempted to stifle 
debate on the nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. 
This job, this Cabinet office, is the most powerful and important 
position in this or any administration. In my years in the Senate, I 
have studied our rules and procedures, and I have studied them closely. 
I have come to know them pretty well.
  In my years on this Earth, I have studied the qualities and values 
that I believe will help us become better people. One of those is 
fairness--basic fairness. I have tried to uphold that value the best I 
can. So between my knowledge of the Senate rules and my belief in the 
importance of fairness, I know that we should be debating this 
nomination. It is our job in the Senate to debate matters of importance 
to the American people.
  We are a deliberative body. We are the Senate of the United States. 
Our Founding Fathers meant for us to carefully consider the matters 
brought before us and make sure that our Government does not act 
irrationally and without a plan and a vision for this country's future. 
It is a matter of fairness that those who have concerns about Dr. Rice 
be allowed to express them. Silence is not an important part of 
American history, but debate is. ``Shut up and vote'' is not democracy. 
It is especially important that we hold debate on Dr. Rice's nomination 
because of the importance of the job for which she is being considered.
  Our Secretary of State will be handling our foreign policy at a time 
when we are at war and when our friendships and traditional allies have 
been strained. In Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, Americans 
face enormous threats and challenges every day. About 1,400 Americans 
have died so far in Iraq, and more than 10,000 have been wounded, many 
grievously wounded. Today, 31 Marines died in 1 incident in Iraq. An 
estimated 40 troops have died in the last 2 days.
  The American people have questions and should have questions, and 
have concerns and should have concerns, about our plan in Iraq. Those 
questions deserve answers and those concerns deserve to be addressed. 
That is what the Senate should be doing. That is what we are all 
about--asking questions on behalf of the American people. Instead, 
people such as the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from 
California have been criticized for not rubberstamping this nomination. 
I don't think that is appropriate.
  Nothing will matter more to the safety and security of our country 
than our foreign policy decisions over the next few years. If any 
nominee deserves scrutiny and rigorous debate, it is the nominee for 
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.
  Democrats have had 4 hours of debate on Condoleezza Rice--4 hours of 
debate on the most important Cabinet nomination the President, or any 
President, can have. Can anyone say that 4 hours of debate dealing with 
Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State of the United States is too 
much? The American people all take longer to buy a car than what we 
have debated on this nomination. If you want to buy a TV set, you look 
around Circuit City and other places, and it takes 4 hours. Shouldn't 
we be able to spend 4 hours on a decision of this magnitude? I think 
so.
  Republicans say a 4-hour debate has been a burden to the country and 
has been unreasonable. On the contrary, it is exactly what the Founding 
Fathers contemplated with the advise and consent clause of our 
Constitution. Debate--vigorous debate--is an American principle of 
democracy, a principle that is in our national interest, our national 
security interest and, of course, our foreign policy interests.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in 2 or 3 minutes, we will have a historic 
vote in the Senate Chamber. We are about to confirm Dr. Condoleezza 
Rice, the first African-American woman to become Secretary of State. It 
is a proud moment for this Senate and indeed for the American people. 
Dr. Rice has served her country with distinction and she has served her 
country with honor. She has been a steady and a trusted confidant to 
two Presidents, and as Secretary of State she will apply her long 
experience and extraordinary skill to meet the greatest challenges of 
our time--fighting the war on terror and advancing democracy around the 
globe.
  Dr. Rice possesses this rare combination of management and 
administrative experience, policy expertise, academic scholarship and, 
not least important, personal integrity and character. Yes, I am 
disappointed that Dr. Rice's nomination was caught up in partisan 
politics. While I recognize my colleagues' right to debate the 
President's

[[Page 865]]

nominees, Dr. Rice's obvious qualifications have never, ever been in 
doubt. Nor was it ever in doubt that a large bipartisan majority would 
vote to confirm her, which we will see in a few moments. Partisanship 
has its time and place, but we are at this point in time a nation at 
war. We need the strength of all of our resources to fight and win. I 
am disappointed that others on the other side of the aisle have taken 
this moment to wage a partisan campaign. But it is time for all of us 
to move on, and we indeed will move forward with this vote.
  I look forward to working with Dr. Rice to meet those challenges 
ahead and I congratulate her on a historic achievement.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice, of California, to be 
Secretary of State?
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent. The 
Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) and the Senator from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Gregg).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
wishing to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas, 85, nays, 13, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Ex.]

                                YEAS--85

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--13

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Dayton
     Durbin
     Harkin
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Reed

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Burns
     Gregg
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have just had a historic vote in the 
Senate. By an overwhelming bipartisan majority, 85 to 13, the Senate 
has voted to confirm Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American 
woman to become Secretary of State. It is a proud moment for the Senate 
and for the American people.
  For the information of our colleagues, under our previous agreement 
we will proceed with Secretary-designate Nicholson. We have a short 
time agreement. Then we will have a voice vote, followed by Secretary-
designate Leavitt. Then, shortly after that, I am hopeful we can 
proceed with Secretary-designate Bodman.
  There have been no requests for rollcall votes on any of those three. 
If that is the case, we would not expect to have rollcall votes later 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Under the previous order, the 
President will be notified that the nominee has been confirmed.

                          ____________________