[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 117 (Tuesday, September 17, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8628-S8631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     NATIONAL AND DOMESTIC SECURITY

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota 
for raising what I think is an important and timely issue; that is, 
what are we going to focus on, what will be our interest, what will be 
the real objective and issue we will make the centerpiece for our 
discussion over the next 7 weeks before the election on November 5.
  It is very clear what the President wants to focus on. He wants to 
focus, it appears, exclusively on the issue of Iraq. Of course, we all 
concede that national security is our No. 1 priority. I happen to 
believe, as most do, that Democrats and Republicans have stood together 
since September 11 of 2001. We have provided the President the 
resources with the authority, and we have told him we will stand 
shoulder to shoulder with him in fighting a war on terrorism.
  There is little disagreement on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. I haven't 
heard a single Member of Congress from either party in either Chamber 
stand to defend Saddam Hussein. This man is a thug. He has been a 
threat to his own people, to the region, and certainly, if he is 
developing weapons of mass destruction, then they could be a threat way 
beyond that region of the world.
  We have to take it very seriously, as we have. I thought we made real 
progress last week. There was a time in early August when voices from 
the White House were telling us: We are just going to have to go it 
alone. The United States will have to take on Saddam Hussein by itself. 
Incidentally, we don't need congressional approval. We have father 
Bush's war approval which

[[Page S8629]]

will be good enough for son Bush as President.
  I disagree with that, but that was an argument being made out of the 
White House. There was also a suggestion that the President and the 
United States need not go to the United Nations to talk about 
inspections; that we would just, frankly, achieve regime change on our 
own.

  Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed. Thank goodness, last week, the 
President not only acknowledged that he would come to Congress for any 
approval before we would go to war, he also went to the United Nations 
in New York on September 12 and made a historic speech, calling on the 
United Nations to live up to its responsibility, its mandate, in terms 
of the power and weaponry of Iraq, and basically said to the United 
Nations: It is time for us to prove this organization has a future.
  Good news followed. This morning's paper suggests that Iraq got the 
message, a message delivered not just by the United Nations but by a 
lot of nations that historically had been at least friendly with Iraq 
and have now said they have no choice, they have to reopen their 
country to meaningful inspections. If the press reports are accurate, 
Saddam Hussein has said he will allow U.N. inspections on an 
unconditional basis now. That is a dramatic mark of progress. I hope 
the White House will take yes for an answer. I hope the White House 
will realize that we can seize a historic opportunity to send 
inspection teams in to find out exactly what is going on in Iraq.
  If it is threatening to us, to anyone in the region, or to the people 
of Iraq, we have to use the authority of the United Nations to make 
certain that it becomes a peaceful situation. I think progress has been 
made. I will tip my hat to the President and to those in the White 
House for that fact.
  But mark my words, there are some who will not take yes for an 
answer. They won't be satisfied that the U.N. is living up to its 
responsibility if it sends in inspectors. They will not be satisfied 
that Saddam Hussein has said: We are opening our borders. They will 
say: We can't trust him. It will never work. Let's prepare to invade.
  That makes a mockery of the President's visit to New York last week, 
to the United Nations. He has called on the United Nations to act. Now 
it is time to give them an opportunity to act. We should respond 
accordingly. If it is successful, if we can bring Iraq under control 
through this fashion, without a war, without the loss of innocent life, 
then thank goodness we can consider that alternative, and we should 
pursue it. If not, of course, there is another day for us to consider 
the options that may be at our disposal.
  That is the issue of national security. I have to tell you, as I 
travel around the State of Illinois, there are people who want to talk 
about other issues of security; for example, health care security.
  The Presiding Officer, the Senator from Michigan, has been a leader 
on the issue of prescription drugs. As I go about the State of 
Illinois, people are interested in Iraq, but I still run into people, 
senior citizens in particular but ordinary families as well, who talk 
about the fact that they cannot afford to buy the prescriptions they 
need to keep themselves and their children healthy. I don't see the 
kind of fervor and desire coming out of the Republican side when it 
comes to health care security as there is for national security.
  When it comes to health care security, the cost of health insurance, 
I went yesterday to speak to the Illinois State Chamber of Commerce. 
The members who were gathered there of the major corporations in 
Illinois agree with the major unions in Illinois that the cost of 
health insurance is bankrupting our system. Businesses cannot afford to 
buy insurance for the owners of the business, let alone for the 
employees. The premiums go up 25, 35 percent a year. Labor unions are 
seeing every increasing dollar amount on an hourly basis eaten up 
completely by the cost of health insurance increases.
  Have we heard a word from this administration about health care 
security, about the cost of health insurance? Of course not.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I also heard the Senator from North Dakota speak this 
morning. It appears that I am hearing the fact that we can talk about 
Iraq and, at the same time, we can deal with some of these economic 
issues with this staggering economy. Is that what the Senator is 
saying?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is exactly right. I say this to the people at the 
White House who make up the schedule: Can you give us 4 hours a week on 
the economy? Pick the 4 hours and let's talk about it in realistic 
terms. Let's talk about health security 1 hour a week. Can we do that? 
Can the White House find time in the busy schedule of dealing with 
national security and making campaign trips to raise money for 
candidates to give us 1 hour a week to talk about health care? I don't 
think that is too much to ask. And I think Congress ought to 
reciprocate. We ought to be answering in terms of what we can do to try 
to lift the burden, whether it is the cost of prescription drugs or the 
cost of health insurance for businesses and families across America.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The Senator served in the House of Representatives. Is the 
Senator aware that this administration--a Republican administration--
has significant control and direction that it can give to the House of 
Representatives, which is led by the Republicans?
  Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely. The Speaker of the House almost has 
unilateral power to set the business for the House, now controlled by 
the President's party.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator acknowledge that the House basically has 
been doing nothing? We have appropriations bills that we are waiting 
for them to do. I have not heard the President say one word about the 
inaction of the House. Has the Senator?
  Mr. DURBIN. I have not. The Senator is aware of the fact that we have 
the Patients' Bill of Rights that has gone nowhere in conference with 
the House and Senate, and there are issues we have tried to raise time 
and again--energy, for example--and all of these things have died in 
conference.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator also acknowledge that this bill, which is 
very important to constituencies all over America, on terrorism 
insurance--and the President went to Pennsylvania a couple weeks ago 
and said: I am for hardhats, not for trial lawyers. Does the Senator 
realize that is lost because the Republican House will not let us even 
hold a meeting on this bill?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am aware of that. I say to the Senator from Nevada that 
I heard from not only businesses and developers and unions but from 
ordinary people about terrorism insurance. There is a fear--legitimate 
fear--if we don't pass something soon, it is going to have a dramatic 
negative impact on employment.
  We are already losing jobs. That is another issue the White House 
won't discuss. I have talked about national security and health care 
security. There is an income security thing, as well--not only the loss 
of jobs in this country but terrorism insurance plays right into this. 
What is the President doing? What is Congress doing? Can the President 
give us 1 hour a week on the economy, 1 hour a week on income security, 
to talk about what we can do to increase the number of jobs? A meeting 
in Waco, TX, in August for a day is not enough. It takes a bipartisan, 
honest effort and to engage the Congress in doing something. Let's pass 
the terrorism bill. Let's have the President call on Democrats and 
Republicans to get it done this week. We should do it this week. If we 
do not, we are not meeting our responsibility.

  Mr. REID. If the Senator will further yield, the Senator is aware 
that the newspapers in Washington indicate that the President has been 
in Iowa, over the period of a year, I think 11 times. The Senator is 
aware that Iowa is where the first primary is held. The Senator from 
Illinois is aware that Iowa is where there are close elections.
  I would like the Senator to respond, isn't it necessary that the 
President be more engaged in what is going on in domestic issues rather 
than politicking around the country?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is the very point I am making. I concede that the 
President is the leader of his party, and every President has spent 
time trying to help his party and its candidates. I

[[Page S8630]]

don't begrudge any President doing that as we come close to an 
election. As I travel in my State, the people are more focused on the 
problems that families are running into when it comes to the basic 
necessities of life than on the next election. They are hoping this 
President and all candidates will address issues as basic as income 
security, health care security, and, may I add, pension security.
  This is something that has become a devastating issue for families in 
Illinois. Former steelworkers worked a lifetime and paid in 
religiously, week after week, month after month, year after year, with 
the promise that when they retired, they would have a pension and 
health care. They now find themselves high and dry with bankrupt 
companies. I haven't heard a word from the administration about pension 
security. This really hits a lot of people close to home.
  I grew up in an area in Illinois that had a lot of steel mills. I 
used to apply there for jobs in the summer and hope that I could get 
one of those great-paying jobs. I have gone to meet with displaced 
steelworkers. I see tough men, muscular people, who worked hard their 
whole lives, who just don't take much foolishness at all, break down 
and cry in front of me because at age 59 they have lost all their 
health insurance protection. These are retirees who really followed the 
rules and did what they were supposed to do in America. Can we ask the 
President for 1 hour a week to talk about pension security--Just 1 
hour? I think that would be an indication the President is listening to 
the people across America in terms of the economic issues.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
  Mr. REID. It has been discussed on the floor that we have held up in 
the other body, which has the ability to move very quickly, terrorism 
insurance, Patients' Bill of Rights, election reform, energy policies 
for this country, bankruptcy reform. So we know things are held up 
there.
  Now, I say to my friend from Illinois, I am kind of a hawk. I was the 
first Democrat to support President Bush when he wanted to go into Iraq 
the first time. I consider myself a hawk rather than a dove. I am 
looking very closely at Iraq and I think we need to do that. But in 
doing that, is the Senator aware that Lawrence Lindsey, the President's 
chief economic adviser, indicated in the Wall Street Journal yesterday 
that the war in Iraq will cost this country about $200 billion? Is the 
Senator also aware that I had a conversation with the chief executive 
officers of the airlines last Thursday in my office? The first thing 
the spokesperson, the chief executive officer of one of the largest 
airlines in the world, told me was: If there is a war in Iraq, we all 
go broke.

  That was told to me in my office last week: If there is a war in 
Iraq, we all go broke, all the major airlines in America.
  So the Senator is aware we not only need to focus on Iraq--the 
military aspects of it--but also what it does to the domestic policy, 
which the President is ignoring. Is the Senator aware we need to also 
consider that?
  Mr. DURBIN. That is a very important point, not to mention the most 
basic concern, of course. If we go to war, lives of Americans will be 
lost. Innocent people will die. War should be the last decision we 
make, the last option we take. Thank goodness, we now have movement 
through the United Nations. I am asking that the President and the 
White House, now that progress is being made, spend some small portion 
of their time focusing on the economic issues the Senator from Nevada 
raises. I have talked about health care security, income security, 
pension security. I will add a fourth one--Social Security.
  We realize the President's tax package of last year is going to take 
$2 trillion out of the Social Security trust fund over the next 10 
years--$2 trillion--with no promise to repay any of it at a time when 
the baby boomers, by the millions, will start arriving and asking for 
Social Security. Social Security is our contract with America--our real 
contract--the one that comes from the heart. We have had it since the 
days of Franklin Roosevelt. Is it too much to ask this administration 
to give us an hour a week to focus on Social Security and its future, 
and Medicare, talk about the reimbursement for health care for senior 
citizens and hospitals and providers across America? These are real 
issues. I certainly have hospitals in rural areas and hospitals in the 
inner city struggling to survive at this point in time.
  When you talk about the issues on which we should be focusing, 
national security is important, and I think it ought to be No. 1 on the 
agenda; but, for goodness' sake, don't ignore the rest of America and 
the lives we have to lead and the impact that our failure to act is 
going to have. That is why I look at 7 weeks before the next election 
and say to the President and the White House: Give us an hour a week at 
least to talk about the economy in this country, about the need to 
breathe life back into this economy.
  It is only 2 years ago we were doing so well. We had all of this 
accumulation of wealth. People saw their retirement plans growing. They 
were making plans to leave their jobs early and enjoy a comfortable 
life with their families.
  People were seeing their stock portfolios improving to the point 
where they were considering options. They knew they had money to send 
their kids to college. Now look what we are up against, and not a word 
from the White House. One little meeting in Waco, TX, does not make 
economic policy for America.
  Where is this administration? Where is this President? Where is the 
economic leadership this country needs?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Las Vegas, Clark County, has the sixth largest school 
district in America. About 250,000 students go to school in the Las 
Vegas area in one school district. Chicago, I am sure, is larger than 
that; is that not true?
  (Mr. CARPER assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. DURBIN. That is true.
  Mr. REID. Has the Senator heard coming from the White House during 
the past 2 months, 3 months, a single word about education?
  Mr. DURBIN. No, I have not. I say to the Senator from Nevada, he 
joined me and Democrats and Republicans in passing the No Child Left 
Behind legislation the President asked for to put more resources in 
education. The Senator from Nevada is just as aware as I am that when 
the President's budget came up, he did not fund his own programs. He 
did not put the money into the schools as he promised.
  As I go across my State--and I bet the State of Nevada is in the same 
situation--we have seen a downturn in State revenues, cutbacks in State 
budgets, schools are suffering. They are saying: Where is that Federal 
money President Bush promised us? It is not there, and this 
administration does not want to talk about that. They do not want to 
talk about education security for this country. They want to talk only 
about national security. They do not want to talk about income 
security, pension security, health care security, Social Security, or 
doing something to make our schools more secure.
  One has to ask oneself: Is that as good as it gets? Is that the best 
we can hope for from this White House, to focus exclusively on Iraq and 
the Middle East? I think it is a mistake.
  We have made progress. I tip my hat to the President. Let's use the 
United Nations. Let's bring Saddam Hussein under control, but for 
goodness' sake, let's get our economy under control, too. It is really 
out of hand. People across the country--families, small businesses, 
family farmers--are suffering as a result.
  Ms. STABENOW. Will my friend from Illinois yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Ms. STABENOW. Having had the opportunity to preside and listen to the 
discussion, I thank him for putting into perspective what our challenge 
is, not only on the national security front; I thank him for focusing 
on the fact we are together and stand for safety and security, but also 
the fact we need to be focused on our economic security as well.
  Mr. President, I wonder, also, if the Senator might add to his list--
I know he is aware of the fact we have passed a very important 
prescription drug bill. We had two focuses in the Senate: One, to add 
Medicare coverage and, two, to lower prices for everyone.
  The point the Senator from Illinois made this morning about the high

[[Page S8631]]

price of health care for businesses, for our farmers, for everybody is 
also very much a part of what we passed to lower prices by getting more 
competition with generic drugs, opening the border to Canada to bring 
lower prices, giving States more flexibility.

  I wonder if the Senator will comment on the fact that the Senate has 
passed this very important bill, sent it to the House, and it has 
received no action this fall. We have nothing yet in committee. We have 
not seen the President speaking out about the fact we passed a bill 
that will actually lower prices, bring more competition, address the 
fact that our seniors and our families are having to struggle right 
now--in fact, right now, as we are here, there are people who are 
watching C-SPAN 2 saying: Do I eat today or buy my medicine?
  We had a bill which passed the Senate. We would greatly appreciate 
the President's leadership in encouraging the House of Representatives 
to pass this bill this fall. We could dramatically lower prices 
immediately with the passage of that bill.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Michigan, first, let me 
acknowledge--and I am sure my colleagues know as well--Senator Stabenow 
has been a leader on the issue of prescription drugs. She has been 
tenacious. Thank goodness she has been. She took a bus trip to Canada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the majority leader has expired. 
Twenty-eight minutes remain on the other side.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that until someone 
comes from the other side, we be allowed to use that time. The minute 
someone's head pops in that door, we will quit. In the meantime, there 
seems to be no need to have the Senate voiceless.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  The point the Senator from Michigan makes is an important one. We did 
pass a prescription drug bill. It was not what we wanted. We wanted a 
voluntary program under Medicare which would be universal and available 
for all Americans so they could get the benefits of Medicare when it 
came to prescription drugs.
  We could not convince our Republican friends to go along with us on 
that, but we did pass a bill in terms of generic drugs to reduce costs 
for all families across America, to let States come up with their own 
plans so they could find ways to reduce costs for all the citizens in 
their State, as well as the safe reimportation of drugs from countries 
that have much lower costs. Those are three good issues, but do not 
forget the fourth.
  Senator Rockefeller's amendment provides that $6 billion, on an 
emergency basis, will be given for Medicaid to States facing high 
unemployment. These States have cut back in reimbursements to providers 
and hospitals. My State is one of them--I bet the State of Michigan is 
too--and that $6 billion would come back to the States right now. It 
would help them keep hospitals open and provide basic health care.
  We cannot get the House of Representatives to consider that 
legislation. Now they are talking about dropping everything and coming 
up with a resolution on Iraq. Why is it they can drop everything for a 
resolution on Iraq, but cannot drop everything, when it comes to 
prescription drugs, to move the issue forward?
  Our bill is there. It is pending. It would be a help to all families 
across America, not just the families of senior citizens.
  I say to the Senator from Michigan, we have to keep reminding the 
President and the Republican leadership that there are many issues in 
this country, not the least of which is good quality health care for 
everyone.
  Ms. STABENOW. Absolutely.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator yields, may I ask one 
more question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Of course.
  Mr. REID. What the Senator said is we can focus on Iraq and that 
there are many issues the President can help us on: Getting 
appropriations bills passed in the House would help us; doing something 
on election reform--we had another debacle in Florida 2 years after the 
original debacle; we passed a bill and are waiting to get that out of 
conference. We have the energy bill we need to get out of conference 
with the House. There is terrorism insurance, bankruptcy--am I missing 
anything?--generic drugs. That is one issue about which the Senator 
from Illinois and I did not talk.
  Mr. DURBIN. Patients' Bill of Rights.
  Mr. REID. Patients' Bill of Rights. There are so many issues with 
which we need to deal in the Congress that the President can help us 
with if we were not on the one track of Iraq.
  It seems to me--and one can read about this in the editorial pages 
every day--that the President could be doing this to divert attention 
from these domestic issues. Has the Senator read some of those 
comments, I say to my friend from Illinois?
  Mr. DURBIN. I have read the speculation. I do not buy it. I do not 
believe it, but the point I am trying to make in the course of this--
and I think we all are--is that the President has made progress. The 
United Nations is moving forward. Inspections are going to be ordered. 
Saddam Hussein has agreed to them. That is real progress. I salute the 
President for that progress.
  What I am now saying is, let's focus on America and some of the 
things we need to do to win the economic war in this country. I am 
asking for a very small pledge of time from the White House to focus on 
these economic issues that face our country. We can do both. The United 
States can defend itself, fight a war on terrorism, keep a watchful eye 
on Iraq and still be worried about the issues that American families in 
Nevada, Illinois, and Delaware think about every day: What about my 
job? What about my pension? How am I going to pay for that health 
insurance? Can we pay for these prescription drugs? Is Social Security 
really in good shape for years to come?
  These are real gut-wrenching issues for real families. I think it is 
a responsibility of the White House to get beyond the agenda they have 
focused on for the last several weeks and open it up to new issues and 
new concerns that are universal across America.
  We talked about education. Kids are back in school, and there is a 
lot of concern about whether our schools have the quality teachers they 
need, whether the kids are going to get the education they deserve. We 
have to put money back in education. We have to focus on making certain 
we have afterschool programs for kids who need a special helping hand, 
smaller class sizes--something we pushed for in the past--make sure 
teachers are paid as the professionals they are. These are real needs.
  When we talk about filling real needs, I do not want to overlook in 
health care a shortage in nursing. I would like the White House to give 
us 15 minutes this week or next week with an idea for the agenda of 
having more nurses in America. This is a serious shortcoming in health 
care in the United States. Hospitals have reduced their number of beds; 
nursing and convalescent homes, the same, for one simple reason: There 
are not enough nurses.

  We need an initiative, a national leadership. I hope the President 
will not ignore this. When you listen to the agenda we could be 
considering, it is substantial, but it gets to the heart of the real 
issues about which Americans are concerned. I sincerely hope we move on 
that and move on it quickly. We owe it to the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________