Nomination of Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State - Continued

NOMINATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE TO BE SECRETARY OF STATE--CONTINUED -- (Senate - January 25, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under a previous order I am allowed 20 minutes. Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

Mr. DURBIN. I understand Senator Reed of Rhode Island is also on the list to speak. Is he not? I make inquiry of the Chair: Under the order, is Senator Reed of Rhode Island also allotted time?

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if I may respond to the distinguished Senator, Senator Reed is on a list but is not designated precisely. Perhaps while the speaker is speaking we can work this out.

Mr. DURBIN. I recommend that even though he may miss part of my speech.

Thank you, Mr. President.

President Bush has nominated Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. It is one of the highest positions in our Government. She is a person of considerable accomplishment and formidable intellect. I have watched her service from afar, and this morning I had my first opportunity to meet her personally. Dr. Rice came by my office and we sat down for half an hour and discussed many different issues. I was impressed with her ability and with her forthright approach.

I will tell you that I am also troubled. I am troubled because I followed closely the exchange between Dr. Rice and Senator Boxer during the confirmation hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee. The reason I followed this closely was not only because it was important and it related to the issue of torture but because it involved an amendment which I had drafted. As every American I have met, I was shocked by the information and photographs that came out of Abu Ghraib; troubled by reports from Guantanamo.

As a result, I joined in a bipartisan effort in both the Department of Defense authorization bill, as well as later in the intelligence reform bill, to put a clear restatement of American law to a vote, that the United States is prohibited from engaging in torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It is important to restate this principle and value so there would be no questions asked as to whether the United States had deviated from the legal standard which we had held for over 50 years--a standard first embodied in the Geneva Conventions and then in the Convention on Torture, and in other places in our laws.

My anti-torture amendment passed in the Senate, went to conference on the Department of Defense authorization bill, but it was changed slightly from a prohibition to a statement of policy. I didn't care much for the change, but I accepted it because I thought it still preserved the basic goal, which was to restate our country's policy against torture. The part that did not change was my amendment's requirement that the Department of Defense report regularly on any violations of this policy against torture. That was what happened in the Department of Defense bill.

Then came the intelligence reform bill, and I felt it was important that we try again to restate our law of prohibition against torture. It was equally important that the reporting requirements for violations apply not only to the military agencies as we did in the Defense bill, but also apply to the variety of different intelligence agencies covered by the intelligence bill.

I tried with both bipartisan amendments to cover the circumstances of those who would take into detention someone during the course of war in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other place.

This amendment passed and it was sent to conference. I followed the conference closely as a Senate conferee and a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee.

I was surprised and disappointed to learn as I went to conference that a message had come down from the White House--specifically from Dr. Rice and OMB Director Joshua Bolten--which said they objected to my amendment which condemned torture by any American, including members of the American intelligence community.

I couldn't believe it--they first accepted the underlying policy goals and the reporting requirements of this same amendment for the Department of Defense, and now they were making an exception when it came to intelligence agencies.

I have to tell you that I am very troubled by that. When Senator Boxer asked repeated questions of Dr. Rice on the issue, she received conflicting answers. So I returned to the same question this morning. I asked Dr. Rice point blank: Why did you object to that amendment? She said incorrectly: We had already taken care of that. Your Department of Defense amendment took care of intelligence agencies.

That is not the case. The Department of Defense amendment which I offered, which she should have read and apparently did not read, had reporting requirements for the Department of Defense but not for the intelligence agencies. My intelligence reform bill amendment would have extended these requirements for the intelligence agencies.

I am disappointed by that. It is not just another amendment being offered on the floor. Taking away any personal pride and authorship in this, it was a timely amendment after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal to try to restate for America and the world where we stood and where our principles are. Yet this administration opposed it. I am troubled by it. I understand Senator Boxer is even more troubled by it.

This is a critical moment in our history. It is critical because of the war in Iraq to pick up the morning paper--most Americans probably did as well--and read in this paper that the Pentagon announced there will be 120,000 American soldiers in Iraq for at least 2 more years. It is a stunning and sad admission.

I remember when the invasion took place. I remember a colleague of mine from Indiana--who happens to be the chairman of the committee before us today, Senator Lugar--and his statement. I don't know if he still holds to this position, but I have quoted him at length. He said at the moment of our invasion in Iraq that we are likely to be there for 5 years. When I repeated his statement and believed it to be true, many people said: We are sure you are wrong. We are going to be home more quickly than that. After we knock Saddam Hussein out of power, the Iraqi people will take over and we will come home.

Here we are 2 years in the conflict, 1,400 Americans have been killed, 10,000 or 12,000 injured--more by the day--hundreds of incidents of insurgency, terrorism, and we are still there.

I went to Litchfield, IL, 3 weeks ago to watch an MP Illinois Guard unit go off for their deployment for 18 months. There are 80, all men, in this unit. I shook hands with each of them and looked them in the eye and gave them all my best wishes, as did the crowd at the Litchfield High School gym. As I looked at them, I thought: Is there any possibility they will be home soon? This report in the morning paper says the answer is no.

What troubles me is not that it is a situation demanding of Americans. We have risen to challenges before. But what troubles me the most about this is I think it evidences one of the most profound failures in a democracy. When leaders of a democratic government mislead the people of the country in relation to a war and an invasion of another country, I think that is the lowest point one can reach. Note that I said misleading and not intentionally misleading. There is a big difference.

In this situation, it is the argument of President Bush and his White House that it is true--they misled the American people about the presence of weapons of mass destruction, about nuclear weapons, about aluminum tubes, about connections with al-Qaida, about unmanned aerial vehicles. The list goes on and on. But their argument is, well, we had intelligence; we received bad information. If we told the American people something was wrong, don't blame us; blame the intelligence agencies.

That has been the position of the White House. That is a sad defense when you consider where we are today, with 150,000 American troops with their lives in danger after being misled by the White House about the circumstances surrounding Iraq.

Dr. Rice, as the National Security Adviser, was in the room and at the table when decisions were made. She has to accept responsibility for what she said, which has been quoted at length on the floor. Some of the suggestions about nuclear threats, some of the suggestions about the threats of Saddam Hussein out of the mouth of Dr. Rice were just plain wrong and repeated. That, to me, is very troubling.

Five days from today, Iraq is scheduled to hold its first election in nearly half a century. It is a step forward. We want to see this move toward democracy. I hope it is just not an occasion for more bloodshed.

I hope it is not just an occasion for more bloodshed. It may be.

We have to ask what kind of election this will be. How many people will vote? That is an indicator of whether the election reflects the popular will. Is it an election which will be carried out with integrity? Is it one where the people clearly have a choice and where the election ballots are counted?

We have to ask what kind of elections they will be if candidates' names cannot be published, if polling places cannot be designated, and when few Sunni Muslims are likely to participate. However successful the elections may be, we all know that the bloodshed will not end at that point. Our present policies in Iraq seem unlikely to bring an end to the killing there any time soon.

Last year, Congress allocated $18 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq for the basic necessities of life--electricity, clean water. Only $2.2 billion of that amount has been spent. Why? Because it is unsafe to spend the rest. It is so unsafe that anything we build is likely to be blown up as soon as we build it. The violence we see there reflects the frustration of the people of Iraq who think the occupying United States Army is not improving their lives. We are caught in this vicious circle. We cannot rebuild Iraq because what we build will likely be destroyed, and until we rebuild Iraq, the people will not feel their fate has improved by the occupation of the American troops. Maybe this election will change that dynamic. I certainly hope so.

Now comes the administration saying they are going to need $80 to $100 billion more to continue this war. I was 1 of 23 Senators who voted against the authorization for this war; 1 Republican and 22 Democrats voted against it. After that vote, though, we had an opportunity to vote for the money for the troops. I voted for every single penny this administration has asked for. I will tell you why. I think to myself, what if it were your son or daughter in uniforms risking their lives, would you shortchange them anything? The answer is, clearly, no.

Yet despite all the money we have put into Iraq, one of the soldiers from Tennessee stands up and asks the Secretary of Defense a few weeks ago: Why do I have to dig through junk piles to find pieces of steel to protect my humvee? What is going on, Mr. Secretary? His answer was hardly satisfying or responsive. For all the money we have given to this administration, we cannot say they have spent it well when it comes to protecting our troops.

I have a friend with a son in uniform, in service in Iraq. He and his wife came up with $2,000 to buy body armor for their son, which they sent to him in Iraq. We are spending billions of dollars, and individual families have to send body armor to their soldiers.

Humvees--I don't have to tell you the story there. In the middle of last year, this administration discontinued armoring humvees even though there were hundreds, if not thousands, still vulnerable. Now they have resumed after that one Tennessee soldier had the courage to stand up.

Dr. Rice estimates there are 120,000 trained Iraqi forces under arms. Senator Biden of Delaware and many others dispute that number. They think it is vastly inflated. When asked whether you would stand and allow one of these troops to defend you, these Iraqi forces with their current equipment and training, most people honestly answered no.

We have had many failures in Iraq. The National Security Adviser to the President who was there as we devised this strategy and executed this strategy now comes before us for a substantial promotion to Secretary of State. It is troubling.

I am also worried about this whole issue of torture. We will revisit this on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General because his fingerprints are all over this administration's torture policy.

When members of the Foreign Relations Committee asked Dr. Rice about certain interrogation techniques, whether they constituted torture, she said it would not be appropriate for her to comment. Yet, I think she understands, and we understand, that if she is to be successful as the diplomat representing the United States of America, one of the first things she has to try to dispel are those ghastly, horrible images of Abu Ghraib. Do not believe for a moment that people across the world dismiss that as an aberration of renegade night shift soldiers. They believe that this is America at work. We know better. We know our troops are better. Our men and women are much better than what was demonstrated at Abu Ghraib, but it is, in fact, an image which haunts and will continue to haunt America for years to come.

Senator Boxer asked Dr. Rice why the administration opposed the language I have talked about earlier on prohibiting torture. As I have said before, I thought her answers were, at best, confusing and unresponsive. Frankly, this administration should not waste any time restating the obvious.

Every year, our Department of State issues a report card on the world. We stand in judgment of the world on issues of human rights. We call it the ``Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.'' These reports are pretty harsh on some countries. They say about these countries around the world that they are involved in torture and degrading treatment, including beatings, threats to detainees and their families, sleep deprivation, deprivation of food and water, suspension for long periods in contorted positions, prolonged isolation, forced prolonged standing, tying of the hands and feet for extended periods of time, public humiliation, sexual humiliation, and female detainees being forced to strip in front of male security officers.

These are the charges we level against other countries around the world, saying they are engaging in inhumane practices. Do any of these techniques sound familiar? If you pick up the morning paper you will see that our military and intelligence forces were engaged in similar techniques in Iraq and other places around the world. How can we stand in judgment of other countries? How can we hold ourselves up as a model when we are guilty of the same conduct? If there is ever a time when this administration should have embraced my amendments to both the Defense bill and the intelligence bill to say what we stand for in this country, it is now. Unfortunately, they have not.

Let me say a word about a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal which took me to task because I am condemning torture techniques and demanding accountability for agencies of government that engage in them. I would say to the editors of the Wall Street Journal, it is time for you to make a choice. If you support torture, for goodness' sake, make that your editorial policy; if not, join us in condemning those who violate the standards of this Government, which have held up for decades.

Condoleezza Rice, as National Security Adviser, understands what has happened in Iraq and what her new job will require. It will require diplomacy, a diplomacy which failed before our invasion of Iraq. Many who opposed the invasion felt at the time we needed a broader coalition. But the President and his supporters argued about the coalition of the willing--150 nations, whatever the number happened to be. But let's be very honest about that. When you pick up the morning paper, whose soldiers are being killed? When you look at the message for supplemental appropriation, whose taxpayer dollars are being spent? It is the Americans. The British have stood by us. Other countries have provided help. But when it comes to carrying this burden, it is American soldiers and American taxpayers. Diplomacy had its place before the invasion of Iraq. It will have its place in the future.

I also talked to Dr. Rice about the situation in Sudan. I commended the administration for finally crossing that difficult line which the Clinton administration refused to cross when it came to Rwanda. The Clinton administration refused to use the word ``genocide,'' and that is what happened in Rwanda. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people died. I commended Dr. Rice because the Bush administration, Secretary Powell, has stepped forward and has said clearly this is genocide. But it is not enough to just say it when civilized nations who have signed the Genocide Convention step forward and say it is taking place, it requires positive action on our part. There has been very little. Calling in the African Union forces is too little, too late. It will take much more. I tried to make that point as clearly as I could.

We also discussed at length the AIDS epidemic that faces this world. If there is one thing that Secretary Powell said that I believe will be historic in its importance, it is his reference to HIV/AIDS and the global epidemic. Here is what he said. He referred to that epidemic as ``the greatest weapon of mass destruction in the world today.'' I know he believed it. I have spoken to him about it many times. Every 10 seconds another person dies of AIDS in this world.

Every 6 seconds another person becomes infected.

The President pledged $15 billion for this cause. We have fallen short in the first 2 years of reaching a $3 billion target. I have asked Dr. Rice, if she is confirmed by the Senate, whether she is committed to our meeting that obligation. She said she was.

We also talked about the role of women in the world, particularly when it comes to the AIDS epidemic. It is important that we teach abstinence and teach moral values and spiritual belief. But it is also important that we empower women around the world to control their own fate and future. We can tell women to be faithful to their partners, but what if their partners are unfaithful to them? We can encourage condom use but must remember that women may not have the ability to negotiate when it comes to that issue, even with their husbands.

It is important that our global strategies against HIV/AIDS are realistic. In a speech at the International AIDS Conference in July 2004, Nelson Mandela reminded us that:

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

We have a chance in America, under the President's initiative to continue to lead, both with our own bilateral aid to individual countries and through the Global Fund. I hope Ms. Rice in that capacity will assume that leadership position.

We have to also look to economic development. I said to Dr. Rice, if I went to a struggling country anywhere in the world and could only ask one question to decide the likelihood that they would be able to control their problems and their future, it would be this: How do you treat your women? And if women are treated like chattel, like property, like slaves, I can virtually guarantee you that country has little or no chance of conquering its problems. How many girls are in school? Are there forced child marriages? Do women enjoy economic opportunities? Is maternal health care a national priority? Give me the answers to those questions and I will give you a pretty good idea as to whether I think your country is moving forward. The President created the Millennium Challenge Account, and it has many important initiatives and goals in it. I said to her, and I repeat, I think elevating the role of women around the world should be one of those goals.

The President's new foreign assistance initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account embodies an innovative and important initiative.

It is a program of immense but as yet completely unrealized potential.

The Millennium Challenge Account seeks to provide assistance to those countries with a proven record of investing in their own people, as well as meeting other criteria.

I would like to apply the same standard to our own foreign assistance programs: Are we investing enough in people?

Are we helping build the infrastructure that will help eliminate poverty and not merely ease the latest crisis for a few months?

Are we making sure that our assistance reaches women in developing nations, women who are the key to successful development?

These same principles must guide us as we seek to help those devastated by the tsunami.

For instance, half the people of Aceh, Indonesia, the region hit hardest by the tidal wave, lacked clean water before the tsunami.

Disasters hit hardest where poverty is greatest, and they affect women and children most of all.

The tsunami swept away entire villages in a matter of minutes. We must commit to helping these regions recover over a period of years.

Secretary-designate Rice steps into her position at a critical juncture.

Well over 1,300 American soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen have died in Iraq.

Nearly 150,000 are still over there.

Mr. President, 70,000 people have died in Darfur. Thousands more are still at risk every day. In South Africa, one in three adults are HIV positive. In Botswana the numbers are even higher.

Over a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. A billion people in the world cannot write their own names or read a single sentence.

We simply cannot afford to get this wrong. We cannot afford to repeat mistakes or to fall short in our commitments. These are matters of profound moral obligation and deepest national security and interest.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. DURBIN. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov