Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Lott Saddened by Daschle Remarks
Aired September 25, 2002 - 14:45 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to go live to the Senate floor now and listen in to what Sen. Trent Lott has to say. This come after giving plenty time to Sen. Tom Daschle as he criticized the Bush administration about taking advantage of war talk for political gain.
Let's see what Sen. Trent Lott has to say.
SEN. TRENT LOTT, SENATE MINORITY LEADER (R-MS): ...It has been on this important issue over three weeks: the creation of the Homeland Security Department, something that clearly is very important, needs to be done perhaps, needed to be done earlier without being critical of anybody.
There needs to be some way to bring these different groups together, and get it focused, get some direction, to give them the directions that they need, and the funds and the people to deal with the threat here at home by terrorists and by others. We need this Homeland Security Department.
I had thought that we could probably do a Homeland Security Department in a few days, probably less than a week. But here we are, now, obviously we are going to take a month on this issue. What is at stake? What has delayed this issue is the president's authority to impose national security interests, the security of the American people in their homes and in their streets and in their businesses, innocent men women and children here at home for the president to be able to act in national security interests, to have some flexibility and a management authority to make sure this department runs efficiently.
And yet, we see that we are still arguing over work rules and the workplace. We're still arguing over whether or not the president should have the authority to say, For national security reasons I'm going to be able to move people and money around. We're going to be able to override work rules to look at the security of the American people. I think that it's ridiculous that we have come to this point.
I oppose the pending amendment, because once again this an effort to try to find a way to make it difficult or even impossible for the president of the United States and not just this president, presidents, to be able to do the job on homeland security. The president has said on this issue, that The Senate needs to act on homeland security, that, you know, there is beginning to be doubt about the Senate's commitment in this area because we are putting special interests of certain groups over homeland security.
That is a legitimate debate. The debate has been gentlemanly. we haven't had many amendments because we have had more talk than we have amendments. But now we have the president's proposal that has been offered by Sen. Graham, Sen. Miller, a bipartisan bill with some changes that have been agreed to. And now we have an amendment the that will be offered.
That's all well and good, that's fine. And then there's the separate issue of the Iraq resolution. What are we going to do about Saddam Hussein. Let me read to you what president of the United States said on that issue. "I want to thank members of both parties in the United States Congress for working to develop a strong resolution and a strong signal to the world that this nation is determined."
That's what the president actually said. Now, Madam President -- -- I'm really deeply, deeply saddened by the tenor and the tone of the remarks that my friend the majority leader had to say this morning on the administration's conduct in Iraq. We live in grave times, when this body should be carefully and deliberately debating the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose against the United States.
Instead, we heard accusations that a president of the United States is using the possibility of war for political purposes. Madam president, who is the enemy here? The president of the United States? Or Saddam Hussein? That's who was attacked this morning, here on the floor of the United States Senate.
I think it would be better served that we would be debating Saddam Hussein and the threat that he poses for the world. The brutal dictator had already used chemical and biological weapons against his own people. We know he has had the ability to deliver these weapons. We know that he has invaded his neighbors. We better be asking ourselves: What are we going to do about this tyrant that has for 11 years ignored 16 United Nations resolutions and has been involved in the killing of thousands of innocent people.
For anyone who seems surprised that we are engaged in this debate, I'd ask a very simple question: Where were you nine months ago? Where were you in 1998 when we had the debate on floor and passed a resolution authorizing the president to use his authority to do whatever was necessary to deal with this threat?
But nine months ago the president of United States came before a joint session of Congress and said -- quote -- Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own people, leaving bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
Where were you nine months ago, when the president continued -- quote -- States like these and their terrorist allies constitutes an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They can provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
Where you were six months ago, on the half year anniversary of September 11, when the president said, Here is what we really know already? Some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already possess weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist groups are hungry for these weapons and would use them without a hint of conscience. And we know what these weapons, in the hands of terrorists, would unleash blackmail and genocide and chaos.
The president continued: These facts cannot be denied and must be confronted. In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, there is no margin of error and no chance to learn from mistakes. Our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option. In May of this year the president said, "The evil that has formed against us has been termed the 'new totalitarian threat.' The authors of terror are seeking nuclear chemical biological weapons. Regimes that sponsor terror are developing these weapons and the missiles to deliver them. That if these regimes and their terrorist allies were to perfect capabilities, no inner voice of reason, no hint of conscience would prevent them. The president of United States had been actively laying out the case against Iraq in a deliberate focused way for nearly a year. Just a month ago...
PHILLIPS: Republican Sen. Trent Lott talking about Saddam Hussein, and his leadership, at this point. But truly responding to strong words from Tom Daschle -- Senate or Senate majority leader Tom Daschle earlier today coming out with very strong words criticizing the president saying that he was taking advantage of war talk for political gain.
Now, Trent Lott coming out and saying, It's better to debate the leadership of Saddam Hussein than the president of the United States.
We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired September 25, 2002 - 14:45 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to go live to the Senate floor now and listen in to what Sen. Trent Lott has to say. This come after giving plenty time to Sen. Tom Daschle as he criticized the Bush administration about taking advantage of war talk for political gain.
Let's see what Sen. Trent Lott has to say.
SEN. TRENT LOTT, SENATE MINORITY LEADER (R-MS): ...It has been on this important issue over three weeks: the creation of the Homeland Security Department, something that clearly is very important, needs to be done perhaps, needed to be done earlier without being critical of anybody.
There needs to be some way to bring these different groups together, and get it focused, get some direction, to give them the directions that they need, and the funds and the people to deal with the threat here at home by terrorists and by others. We need this Homeland Security Department.
I had thought that we could probably do a Homeland Security Department in a few days, probably less than a week. But here we are, now, obviously we are going to take a month on this issue. What is at stake? What has delayed this issue is the president's authority to impose national security interests, the security of the American people in their homes and in their streets and in their businesses, innocent men women and children here at home for the president to be able to act in national security interests, to have some flexibility and a management authority to make sure this department runs efficiently.
And yet, we see that we are still arguing over work rules and the workplace. We're still arguing over whether or not the president should have the authority to say, For national security reasons I'm going to be able to move people and money around. We're going to be able to override work rules to look at the security of the American people. I think that it's ridiculous that we have come to this point.
I oppose the pending amendment, because once again this an effort to try to find a way to make it difficult or even impossible for the president of the United States and not just this president, presidents, to be able to do the job on homeland security. The president has said on this issue, that The Senate needs to act on homeland security, that, you know, there is beginning to be doubt about the Senate's commitment in this area because we are putting special interests of certain groups over homeland security.
That is a legitimate debate. The debate has been gentlemanly. we haven't had many amendments because we have had more talk than we have amendments. But now we have the president's proposal that has been offered by Sen. Graham, Sen. Miller, a bipartisan bill with some changes that have been agreed to. And now we have an amendment the that will be offered.
That's all well and good, that's fine. And then there's the separate issue of the Iraq resolution. What are we going to do about Saddam Hussein. Let me read to you what president of the United States said on that issue. "I want to thank members of both parties in the United States Congress for working to develop a strong resolution and a strong signal to the world that this nation is determined."
That's what the president actually said. Now, Madam President -- -- I'm really deeply, deeply saddened by the tenor and the tone of the remarks that my friend the majority leader had to say this morning on the administration's conduct in Iraq. We live in grave times, when this body should be carefully and deliberately debating the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose against the United States.
Instead, we heard accusations that a president of the United States is using the possibility of war for political purposes. Madam president, who is the enemy here? The president of the United States? Or Saddam Hussein? That's who was attacked this morning, here on the floor of the United States Senate.
I think it would be better served that we would be debating Saddam Hussein and the threat that he poses for the world. The brutal dictator had already used chemical and biological weapons against his own people. We know he has had the ability to deliver these weapons. We know that he has invaded his neighbors. We better be asking ourselves: What are we going to do about this tyrant that has for 11 years ignored 16 United Nations resolutions and has been involved in the killing of thousands of innocent people.
For anyone who seems surprised that we are engaged in this debate, I'd ask a very simple question: Where were you nine months ago? Where were you in 1998 when we had the debate on floor and passed a resolution authorizing the president to use his authority to do whatever was necessary to deal with this threat?
But nine months ago the president of United States came before a joint session of Congress and said -- quote -- Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own people, leaving bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
Where were you nine months ago, when the president continued -- quote -- States like these and their terrorist allies constitutes an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They can provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
Where you were six months ago, on the half year anniversary of September 11, when the president said, Here is what we really know already? Some states that sponsor terror are seeking or already possess weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist groups are hungry for these weapons and would use them without a hint of conscience. And we know what these weapons, in the hands of terrorists, would unleash blackmail and genocide and chaos.
The president continued: These facts cannot be denied and must be confronted. In preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, there is no margin of error and no chance to learn from mistakes. Our coalition must act deliberately, but inaction is not an option. In May of this year the president said, "The evil that has formed against us has been termed the 'new totalitarian threat.' The authors of terror are seeking nuclear chemical biological weapons. Regimes that sponsor terror are developing these weapons and the missiles to deliver them. That if these regimes and their terrorist allies were to perfect capabilities, no inner voice of reason, no hint of conscience would prevent them. The president of United States had been actively laying out the case against Iraq in a deliberate focused way for nearly a year. Just a month ago...
PHILLIPS: Republican Sen. Trent Lott talking about Saddam Hussein, and his leadership, at this point. But truly responding to strong words from Tom Daschle -- Senate or Senate majority leader Tom Daschle earlier today coming out with very strong words criticizing the president saying that he was taking advantage of war talk for political gain.
Now, Trent Lott coming out and saying, It's better to debate the leadership of Saddam Hussein than the president of the United States.
We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
