[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9216-S9218]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     NO ``CONTEXT'' JUSTIFIES QUESTIONING THE PATRIOTISM OF OTHERS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the other matter I wanted to come to the 
floor to discuss is the reaction to some of the comments that I made 
this morning.
  A number of our colleagues have come to the floor and, as I 
understand it, the administration has stated that if I had understood 
the context in which the President made those remarks--the remarks that 
Senate Democrats are not concerned about national security--that I 
probably would not have been so critical. In fact, they criticized me 
for having criticized the President.
  Mr. President, what context is there that legitimizes an accusation 
of that kind? I don't care whether you are talking about homeland 
security, I don't think you can talk about Iraq, you can't talk about 
war, you can't talk about any context that justifies a political 
comment like that.
  This is politicization, pure and simple. I meant it this morning and 
I mean it now. I don't know what may have motivated those in the White 
House to make the decision to politicize this debate, but it has to 
stop. There is no context within which anybody can make that accusation 
about people on this side of the aisle on an issue relating to homeland 
security, or Iraq, or defense, or anything else.
  So let's get that straight. I would hope that we can finally bring 
this debate to a level that it deserves.
  I can recall in 1991 and 1992--especially in 1992--when President 
Bush made the decision he did. I can recall several of my staff coming 
to me, suggesting that we say this or that. But never once did I have 
someone on my staff, someone here in the Senate, refer to the politics 
of the war with Iraq.
  I remember sitting at my desk, handwriting my speech, explaining to 
my people in South Dakota, and to whomever else might be listening, why 
I made the decision I did. I did not make that decision for political 
reasons. And I don't think there is a person in this Chamber who did.
  We need that same level of debate this time if we are going to have a 
debate, if we are going to do it this close to an election.
  So I want all the apologies at the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, 
all of these explanations about ``context'' to be taken for what they 
are worth. They are not worth the paper they are printed on.
  The time has come for us to quit the explanations, to quit the 
rationalizations, to quit the politicization, and do what we should do 
as Americans: Make our statement, make our judgment, have a debate, and 
send as clear a message to Saddam Hussein as we can. We are not going 
to tolerate his actions. And we, as a country, will build on a 
coalition to do the right thing.

  I hope this will be the last word. I look forward to talking directly 
with those in the White House, those on this side of the aisle, as we 
fashion our response, as we take this matter as seriously as we should, 
as we do it in a way that lives up to the expectations of the American 
people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

[[Page S9217]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in many ways, this has been a very hard 
day. I thank the majority leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, for the 
remarks he just made and for the remarks he made earlier today. He 
actually spoke in defense of the Senate.
  Anyone who knows Tom Daschle--and I think most people around here 
do--knows that Tom Daschle is a very soft spoken man. They know that 
Tom Daschle does not rise to anger or fights, if ever, very often. 
Therefore, one has to really look at why this occurred.
  In my mind, this is not an isolated example of what has been 
happening. It is a continuum of what has been happening, starting with 
Andrew Card, the President's chief of staff, who, when asked, why 
didn't you start discussing this this summer, if you were ready to move 
such a resolution in October or September, answered, in essence: You 
don't roll out a new product in the summer.
  This kind of thing just seems to continue. We have the Vice President 
campaigning and essentially saying to the campaigns of the Republican 
candidates: Gee, we really need you because the Democrats won't help 
our war effort.
  I don't know where this President has been, but I have heard many 
Democrats, including, for example, the individual presiding in the 
chair, indicating their support. We are an umbrella party. We do 
represent different views. Frankly, it makes our party stronger. 
Everyone wants to go after Saddam Hussein. Everyone wants to get rid of 
those weapons of mass destruction. We may have a different path to get 
there. Some of us may want to go it alone and give the President the 
authority he asks for. Some may want to go with our allies. Some may 
want to see more U.N. resolutions, as the British have said they want.
  The bottom line is, this makes us a strong party. Frankly, it makes 
us a strong Nation. I have heard members of the President's party 
express some concerns.
  What Tom Daschle did was essentially come to the floor and defend the 
honor of the Senate and this democracy. Why did he have to do it? In 
today's paper, and also on television, we have seen this quote 
reiterated over and over. We have the President of the United States 
saying that the Senate is ``not interested in the security of the 
American people.''
  I know of no one in the Senate, Republican or Democrat, who has slept 
well after 9/11. I know of no colleague on either side who doesn't 
think about it every day: How do we protect our people; how do we make 
the airlines safer; how do we protect this country from chemical 
warfare; how do we protect ourselves from a possible smallpox epidemic; 
how do we protect our nuclear powerplants; how do we protect our people 
night, day, in the air, on the ground? I don't know many Members in 
this Chamber on either side who have ever slept as well as they did 
before 9/11, who don't wake up in the middle of the night thinking 
about it or turn on the radio at 6 or 7 a.m. and pray that there isn't 
something there.
  This kind of statement, that the Senate ``is not interested in the 
security of the American people,'' is very hurtful. It is hurtful to 
this institution. It is hurtful to our democracy. It is, in particular, 
very hurtful because I have talked to my colleagues who served in 
Vietnam or who served in World War II or even some in Korea. Nobody 
asks in the military, Are you registered Democrat or Republican?
  This is a horrible turn of events. If we don't express ourselves, it 
is dangerous for our country to put partisanship ahead of being unified 
as a nation, standing for the rule of law, for free debate, for 
discussion, for tough debate. That is good for this country. We have a 
lot of points of view out there. Everyone in this country needs to know 
that somehow, some way, somewhere their voice is being heard, not being 
stifled. Because if you dare to say something that questions anything, 
whether it is this homeland bill, which is a major reshuffling, the 
biggest reshuffling of the Federal Government in many years, since the 
creation of the Department of Defense, if you dare say, are we doing 
the right thing, are we taking our time, if you dare say that, you will 
find yourself being criticized in the middle of a campaign.
  That isn't right. Of course, we will disagree on certain issues. That 
is the strength of this Nation. People died for that right. When 
Senator Daschle came down here and said he thought it was important to 
get an apology, I believed that apology should have been given. Not 
saying, well, we didn't mean this had to do with Iraq. It had to do 
with something else.
  The statement stands on its own--it could be applied to anything--
``the Senate is not interested in the security of the American 
people.'' That is why Senator Daschle came to the floor. That is why 
Senator Daschle for a moment even lost his voice, because he was so 
filled with emotion.
  He looked behind him at Senator Inouye who lost a limb in World War 
II. He thought of other colleagues who lost their limbs fighting for 
this country, who faced the posttraumatic stress of Vietnam, who came 
home and had to deal with that. Are the Vietnam vets Democrats? Are 
they Republicans? Are they Independents? I can't tell you that. But 
some of them are homeless. We need to stand united because they faced a 
war at a time that our country was divided. We need to make sure we 
give full debate, not some open-ended resolution.
  I sat through a hearing today at the Foreign Relations Committee. It 
was a very important hearing. We had Ambassador Holbrooke there and 
Robert McFarlane. We had a Democrat and a Republican. We had a very 
important debate.
  Many different viewpoints were reflected on both sides of the aisle. 
Some were saying: We are ready. They were ready to give the President 
whatever he needed, whatever he wanted, now, ready, today, go. Others 
on both sides of the aisle said, as I said: Where are our allies? Would 
we be in better shape to go in after another U.N. resolution? I asked: 
Is there a path to peace? Is there some way we can avoid the bloody war 
that may ensue? Is there a path to that peace? Let's talk about it. If 
we must have a war, what is this President's intention following that 
war? These are important questions.
  One question that never was raised by anyone in that committee was: 
Is anyone on this committee motivated by anything other than patriotism 
and wanting to do what is right for this country, whether they support 
the resolution or they do not; whether they support the resolution of 
the White House or a resolution that may be written by some other 
Republican or Democrat? No one ever suggested that anyone of either 
party sitting in that hearing did not have the best motivation at heart 
for our country.
  It is extremely disheartening when we hear the statement of Andrew 
Card that basically says: We did not want to roll out our new product--
meaning resolution--in the summer, talking about it as if it was 
toothpaste or a new car. It is about life and death.
  If anyone says: Excuse me, what is it going to cost us in lives, in 
blood, in treasure, that person ought to be respected, not told they do 
not believe in the security of the people, whether it is questioning 
the homeland security bill or maybe a better way to do that or 
questioning an open-ended, blank-check resolution which I think has 
come over and I personally cannot support. The people in my State are 
telling me they do not want me to support it. They do not want me or 
Senator Daschle to come here and not speak what is in our hearts, in 
our souls, in our minds.
  Senator Daschle did a very brave thing today. He did something I 
believe we do not see often enough in politics today. He spoke from his 
heart. He spoke the truth, unvarnished. He did not go through a 
committee. He did not bring it to a political adviser.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the junior Senator from California for her 
remarks which I think are right on point.
  Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator a couple questions. 
First, she was there, as I recall, as I was, when Senator Daschle came 
into our meeting this morning--there were maybe seven or eight 
Senators--and read the remarks. All of us were stunned and furious. We 
were just so upset that not a policy debate but, rather, a sort of 
below-the-belt hit was being made not only by political operatives but 
by the President himself when he said people are not for national 
security.

[[Page S9218]]

  I have been asked by reporters: Was this a calculated move?
  I said: No; you should have been there and just seen the reaction.
  I remember the junior Senator from California, the senior Senator 
from New York, and some others of us urged him to go to the floor and 
to just speak his mind. He was saying to others: Maybe I ought to 
reflect on it. No, you should speak what you think.
  I think it is clear, and I have been talking with people in my State, 
that the President has stepped over the line with these remarks. This 
weekend, I was asked by many people way to the left of me: Isn't the 
President, when he wants to go into Iraq, using politics?

  I said: No, I don't think so. I think he has been wanting to go into 
Iraq from the very beginning.
  Then for him to accuse Democrats of using politics, in my judgment--
and I wonder what the Senator from California thinks because she has 
spoken in a heartfelt, compassionate way--I think the American people 
are fundamentally fair, and ugly tactics like that will backfire on 
their own, but I also believe it has to be pointed out because war is 
serious stuff and we need unity. We do not need political games.
  Senator Inouye said it best. I just ask the Senator if she is finding 
the same thing in her State as mine; that people are not sure, they 
want some questions asked before we go into war, and people do not like 
one party accusing the other of not being patriotic or being less 
concerned about national security simply because they ask questions. I 
wonder what the Senator's opinion is.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from California yield for a parliamentary 
request?
  Mrs. BOXER. I certainly will.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are on H.R. 5005; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

                          ____________________