A bill for the relief of Ziad Mohamed Shaban Khweis, Heyam Ziad Khweis, and Juman Ziad Khweis.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is allotted to the Senator from Delaware on the Rice nomination?

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 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 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?

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 redtape 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.

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.

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 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.

Will the Chair please recognize Senator Domenici.

Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides at this stage?

There is 14 minutes and 1 minute?

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 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. President, the Chair has noted we have 5 minutes. We are hopeful of seeing our leader.

I will yield back our time and then the leaders may proceed.

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.

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. 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 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.

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 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.