U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

I am glad that we have had a few more days to consider and hours to discuss this nomination. Some have suggested that we should have simply “voice voted” Dr. Rice’s nomination so she could be confirmed in time for the Inauguration. Senators are here to advise and consent – not rubber stamp for the White House’s convenience.

We needed this extra time for debate. The Secretary of State is the chief foreign policy advisor to the President and fourth in the line of Presidential succession. And, like some other Senators, I was disappointed by Dr. Rice’s testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee last week.

I had hoped that her testimony would demonstrate the kind of forthright, objective analysis that I believe we need in a Secretary of State. Unfortunately, it did not. I share the serious concerns expressed by Senator Boxer and Senator Kerry, and I commend them and other Senators for voicing them.

I have not been impressed with Dr. Rice’s performance as National Security Advisor. Strong leadership, openness, and sound judgment have been far less evident at the National Security Council during her tenure than I would have liked.

I also believe that she has not always been forthright with Congress or the American people. She contributed to the exaggerated public statements, false information in the President’s State of the Union speech about Iraq’s supposed attempts to acquire nuclear material, and the selective declassification of intelligence, which helped to create an atmosphere of hysteria that led us into war in Iraq. She and others created the false – the false – impression that Iraq posed an imminent threat the United States.

These were serious failures, made worse by Dr. Rice’s unwavering advocacy and support for the Administration’s policies that have cost the lives of over 1,300 American soldiers and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis, many of them noncombatants.

It has alienated our friends and allies and convinced many of the world’s Muslims that we are at war with Islam itself. It led to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. It has added $200 billion to the federal deficit and at the rate we are going that is only a down payment.

There are now 150,000 American troops, many of them National Guard and Reserve, bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq that has become a haven for terrorists.

Yet, Dr. Rice refuses to own up to the Administration’s failures. When confronted with her own glaringly inconsistent statements regarding weapons of mass destruction which were the primary justification for the war, she responded that the question unfairly impugned her integrity.

She had an opportunity to reassure her detractors, and believe me there are many in my state of Vermont, when she testified last week. She declined to do so, and that was disappointing and frustrating to those of us who want her to succeed in her new position.

My vote in favor of Dr. Rice is difficult to explain. It is more the product of a belief than a cold analysis of her record. I believe that Dr. Rice is capable of learning from her mistakes and changing her ways. That she will rise to this new challenge. That she can be a good Secretary of State.

The other major reason I am voting in favor of Dr. Rice’s nomination is that I am the Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. In this capacity, I have a responsibility to work with the Secretary of State, on a daily basis, to tackle a full range of international issues critical to the United States and the rest of the world: AIDS and other global health issues, human rights, the United Nations, terrorism, the environment, women’s rights, poverty, corruption. To name just a few.

By voting for Dr. Rice’s nomination, I am sending a clear message: I want to get this important working relationship started on the right track. I hope that my vote will be a step towards a more constructive U.S. foreign policy. After all, it is these policies that ultimately impact the lives of billions of people around the world.

Mr. President, during the first term, the Bush Administration dug a deep hole: relationships with our oldest allies are badly strained, Iraq is a mess, our own country is badly divided.

We need to come together as a Nation to deal with these and many other problems. But, coming together does not mean ignoring valid criticism, embarking on a policy that pleases only one side of the aisle, and accusing those opposed of being un-American or un-patriotic. Criticism and dissent are the essence of democracy, the essence of patriotism.

Coming together means genuine consultations with members of both political parties, and policies which reflect a range of views even if they do not fit into pre-conceived ideologies.

As I said, I hope that my vote here today will, in some small way, help begin this process. I hope it will allow us to get back to the real practice of the Vandenberg rule – that politics end at the water’s edge – and away from the slash and burn politics practiced during the first term of the Bush Administration.

I hope that Dr. Rice will meet me half way. I want to work with her on the many pressing issues that concern both Democrats and Republicans, including the issues of freedom and human rights that the President spoke of in his inaugural address that are so important not only to Americans, but to people everywhere.

I yield the floor.

#####