[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.
____________________