Vice Presidential Debate

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
SENATE
Oct. 6, 2004

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, last night, I was in Cleveland, OH-I got back in the early hours of this morning-to be present at the Vice Presidential debate between our colleague, Senator Edwards, and Vice President Cheney. It is an interesting responsibility and assignment that I had, along with several of my colleagues on the Republican side, to provide the so-called spin after the debate. You would think that voters could reach their own conclusions about who said what and how they should vote, but there are many who line up in an effort to stress the important and strong points made by their candidate. That was my role last night.

I am not going to presume to tell anybody who watched that debate who won or lost. I will point out two specific things that were said by Vice President Cheney that I believe demand some clarification. He said at one point in the debate that he had never met Senator Edwards. In fact, he said:

In my capacity as Vice President, I am President of the Senate, the presiding officer. I am in the Senate most Tuesdays in session. The first time I met you [Senator Edwards] was when you walked on the stage tonight.

That is what Vice President Cheney said last night. You know, all of us forget from time to time when we have met someone. In this particular instance, the Vice President had forgotten that at least on two previous occasions he had not only met Senator Edwards but had been in very close contact with him. In fact, at the National Prayer Breakfast on February 1, 2001, Vice President Cheney acknowledged Senator Edwards, who was in the audience. They were at the same event. Then, at the swearing-in ceremony for Senator Edwards' colleague, Senator ELIZABETH DOLE, in 2003, in fact, Vice President Cheney was standing right next to Senator Dole and Senator Edwards.

So to suggest that he never met the man last night-it turns out that he had a lapse in memory. It happens to us all. It is a rather incidental thing in the scheme of things but for the other lapse of memory the Vice President had last night. I listened to him say these words, and I could not believe it. He said:

I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

I wrote that down and underlined it, saying I can't believe that, because I have heard him say repeatedly that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq that warranted our invasion of Iraq before we put together a broad and strong coalition to share in the burden. So with some research we find that at least on two occasions, and many others perhaps, the Vice President has forgotten again. This is what he said on December 2, 2002:

His [Saddam Hussein] regime has had high level contacts with al-Qaida going back a decade, and has provided training to al-Qaida terrorists.

That is a direct quote from Vice President Cheney, who said last night he had never suggested that connection.

Then again, on January 22, 2004, on National Public Radio, the "Morning Edition," he said:

I think there is overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government.

Those are his quotes. Last night, he denied them. I will tell you why he should have denied them. He was wrong. He was wrong then and wrong the other times he suggested the connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida to justify our invasion of Iraq. In fact, the 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan commission, has dismissed that premise. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which I serve on, has dismissed that premise and said the intelligence community failed us when they made that suggestion. And here is the best part. On October 4 of this year, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, in the President's Cabinet with the Vice President, said he had no hard evidence to link al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. The Secretary of Defense said:

To my mind, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence linking the two.

Why is this significant? It is significant for the same reason that the report that is about to come out today, ordered by this administration, a report prepared by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, again says that there is no evidence of weapons of mass destruction. This administration is in denial when it comes to the reality of Iraq.

Mr. STEVENS. Would the Senator like to yield there?

Mr. DURBIN. No, not until I have completed my statement; then I'll be happy to yield.

This administration is in denial when it comes to the reality of Iraq. We have a Vice President who linked Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, and that has been debunked and dismissed by several sources, including his own Secretary of Defense, and an administration that still clings to this notion of weapons of mass destruction despite report after report of no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and they tell the American people that is why we had to do this; that is why we had to invade before we put together a coalition, that is why we had to send troops into combat before they had the necessary body armor to protect themselves, before the Humvee vehicles that our brave soldiers were driving in Iraq were protected with armor, before our helicopters had the necessary defensive equipment, we sent our troops into harm's way.

The Bush administration saw an urgency based on wrong information. Today, neither the President nor Vice President will accept the reality that they were wrong. How can you make a policy in America to make it stronger unless and until you accept the reality?

Last night, Vice President Cheney could not accept the reality that he was wrong linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and the President cannot accept the reality that there were no weapons of mass destruction. In fact, now the report says the best they can find was a desire to build weapons of mass destruction. Is that what it takes to justify a preemptive attack on a country, that its leader may desire to create a weapon that could threaten us? I certainly hope the standard would be much higher.

If you look at the record-I listened to the Senator from Minnesota who talked to us about domestic issues-it is hard to imagine that they are going to make an argument on the Republican side that this has been a successful administration when it comes to domestic issues.

Just take a look at private sector jobs. Under President Clinton, 20.7 million private sector jobs were created; under President Bush, we lost 1.6 million private sector jobs. You have to go back 70 years through Democratic and Republican Presidents to find such a failure in the creation of jobs. But this administration clings tenaciously to the notion that their economic policy is the best.

I see the Senator from Delaware. How much time do I have remaining in morning business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7½ minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. Will the Chair advise me when I have 1 minute remaining?

Let me also talk about our fiscal situation. When we talk about the need for more money for education, more money for health care, tax credits for small businesses to provide health insurance, tax deductions for families to help pay for college tuition, we find we are in a difficult position to even consider it. Why?

Here is the chart that tells the story. Take a look at this. As President Clinton left office, there was a $236 billion surplus in the Federal Treasury. Today, under President Bush's leadership, there is a deficit of $422 billion, the largest deficit in the history of the United States.

We have our hands tied when it comes to doing things to help American families get through this tough time when they see the cost of gasoline, the cost of health care, and the cost of college tuition going up, while their personal incomes are not increasing.

Take a look, as well, at the specifics when it comes to real household income for families in America under President Bush. It declined by $1,535, 4 years of President Bush; real family income down $1,500.

Now take a look at the cost to families. Under President Bush's leadership, the cost of family health care premiums has gone up $3,599. When Senator Edwards turned last night to Vice President Cheney and said, I don't think America can take 4 more years of this, this is what he is talking about. Real family income is declining and the cost to families for the necessities of life is increasing.

What we are finding out over and over is that families are not better off. We have seen household income go down under the Bush administration, gasoline prices up 22 percent, college tuition costs up 28 percent, family health care premiums up 45 percent. That is the harsh reality of the cost of living for working families across America.

When Senator Edwards confronted Vice President Cheney last night with those realities, what the Vice President said was, Well, we certainly hope everyone can find a job. Hope is not enough. You need a policy that does not reward the wealthiest in America with tax cuts, but that instead helps working families deal with the realities of the costs of life.

The Vice President and the President are wrong. They are wrong in their policies and some say resolute, I say perhaps too resolute, in sticking with the policy that has failed.

We are in a position where we need new leadership. We have that opportunity, and last night's debate showed the sharp contrast between the projected programs and hopes and policies of the Kerry/Edwards ticket as opposed to the harsh realities of the programs we have seen over the last 4 years.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes and the Senator from Delaware have 5 minutes.

Mr. DURBIN. I object to that request. If the Senator from Alaska is going to address me, I would like to have 5 minutes.

Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will not yield to me, I will not yield to him. I want 5 minutes and the Senator from Delaware wants 5 minutes. Does the Senator object?

Mr. DURBIN. I object, Mr. President.