[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9218-S9219]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from New York. 
The phone calls, letters, and e-mails we have been getting have been 
one-sided against an open, blank-check resolution, as they are phrasing 
it, as was sent over. They are very much against what the President 
sent over.
  More importantly are my conversations with my constituents. They 
clearly are very pleased that Senator Feinstein has made remarks 
regarding Iraq, and I have spoken out. I have received calls now 
because I raised a number of questions in the Foreign Relations 
Committee regarding working with our allies, working through the U.N., 
asking: Is there a path to peace here?
  What I pointed out is in recent years, I have voted for two 
resolutions to go to war: One was to stop the genocide by Milosevic, 
that was with a Democratic President, and one with current President 
Bush to respond to the brutal, inhumane terrorist attack on 9/11 for 
which every single Democrat in this particular body voted.
  To me, it is not a question of will I ever vote for such action. It 
is a question of what is the best way to proceed. My constituents want 
to hear what I am thinking. I have been in Congress for 20 years. They 
do not want to see debates where one party is saying to another: You do 
not care about the American people. My friend is so correct. They look 
to us to engage in a rational debate, not to have one-line zingers as 
the President put out. This is not what they want.
  Then Ari Fleischer, who is the press secretary for the President, 
said this today:

       It's time for everyone to work well together to protect our 
     national security.

  That was his remark after he was questioned about the President's 
statement.
  That is the point that Senator Daschle was making, but not as 
rhetoric, as fact. There is an expression, I believe it was John Adams 
said: Facts are stubborn things. The facts are this President said very 
clearly: The Democrat-controlled Senate ``is not interested in the 
security of the American people.'' My people at home are appalled at 
that.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will continue to yield to both my colleagues.
  Mr. CORZINE. I want to reinforce what the Senator from New York said. 
By the way, this statement about not being interested in the security 
of the American people was made in Trenton, NJ, on Monday at a 
political rally. It is hard for me to understand what special interests 
are being reflected in the President's comments and its repeated 
nature.
  I wonder if the junior Senator from California actually knew this was 
made in Trenton, NJ, at a political rally for the competitor to our 
side of the aisle? Is that not political in and of itself?
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I learned of this quote reading the 
front page today of the Washington Post, and I am going to read what it 
says. It says four times in the past 2 days Bush has suggested that 
Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that 
the Democratic-controlled Senate is ``not interested in the security of 
the American people.''
  His remarks, intensifying the theme he introduced last month, were 
quickly seconded and disseminated by Republican House majority whip Tom 
DeLay of Texas.
  I was unaware of this, although it is interesting to me, because that 
particular race, of course, in New Jersey, which is pivotal to the 
future of this Senate, and adds to the political nature of this 
comment.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the junior Senator from California continue to 
yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I believe my friend was here when I was back in 1991. 
There was a long debate. I think it was a debate on the merits.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Both sides debated strongly in a heartfelt way. The 
Nation voted to go to war. Whatever side you were on, it seemed to me 
by having the debate, by keeping the invective aside--I do not remember 
the previous President George Bush ever using lines like that. After 
the debate, the vote was close, I believe, in both bodies. It certainly 
was in the House. The American people were more unified. There was a 
feeling that everyone had their point of view, that everything was 
explored.
  I would say to my friend from California, at every townhall meeting 
about Iraq, and I have had a bunch of them around the State, they say 
you must know something we do not know. There must be some secret.
  I have attended a few of the classified briefings and obviously would 
not want to disclose what is in there, but I say to them, no, as to the 
basic broad facts, not any kind of detail that would involve security, 
but the basic broad facts are known to every American because they are 
in the newspapers. There are no hidden, deep, dark secrets, at least 
that I am aware of. Maybe there are that we do not know about. But in a 
democracy, you cannot go to war this way. You cannot say if you are a 
leader of the country, I know something you do not know, when you are 
sending the sons and daughters of America to be put in harm's way.
  I do not know how I would come out if we had to vote today, but 
whether I would end up voting yes or no--and I do not know what the 
resolution would look like--I sure would feel bad if we did not have a 
debate, if we did not have a discussion, if a whole variety of 
questions were not asked.
  I would like to hear my friend's opinions on this. This is the most 
awesome, humbling decision that a Member of the Senate or the other 
body can make, because you are putting the beautiful young people of 
America in harm's way. You have to be careful.

[[Page S9219]]

  I am not a pacifist. I can think of a whole number of wars in our 
country's history where I would have enlisted. I would have been lined 
up the next day.
  I would not say that first strikes should always be ruled out, but I 
sure want to ask some questions and I sure want to know some answers. 
This idea of trying to impugn the patriotism, in the interest of 
helping the American people, of anyone who wants to ask questions, I 
find, well, too low for words.
  I ask the junior Senator from California if she has the same feeling. 
I come from New York. I know what terrorism does. I knew people who 
were lost. I put this flag on September 12, and I have worn it every 
day since then in memory of those who were lost. God willing, I am 
going to wear it every day for the rest of my life.
  I know what terrorism is all about. Nobody wants to beat back 
terrorism more than I do, but I want to make sure we do it and we do it 
right. I want to make sure if we go to war in Iraq we are not going to 
ignore or take resources away from, for example, fighting al-Qaida or 
other terrorist groups. Perhaps we can do both, but I have not had a 
chance yet to get all the answers about that. I wonder what the Senator 
thinks.
  Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right.
  I want to say for the benefit of my senior Senator for California, I 
will be talking another 5 minutes and then I will yield.
  I want to underscore that what the Senator says is so right. After 
that debate that took place on the first gulf war, about 80 percent of 
the American people said they were so proud. Clearly, they may not have 
agreed with my position, your position, or any other Senator on the 
other side of the debate, but they saw debate free and open, respectful 
debate, among colleagues, asking questions, posing ideas, other 
solutions, other paths to resolve the issue.
  In some cases, there was strong support for the President. They 
realized then that we are a representative democracy. They were calm.
  When I went home this past weekend, I found out the people in my 
State are not calm. They are very agitated, and it is because they are 
worried that debate is being stifled. They are worried that a 
resolution is----
  Mr. MILLER. The Senator has used her 10 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Reid made the request, he did not apply the 
10 minutes to this speaker, but I ask unanimous consent to continue for 
5 additional minutes before Senator Feinstein proceeds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. The people at home are agitated, I say to my friend, 
because they expect to see this respect go both ways between the 
parties and even, frankly, within the parties. We have Republicans who 
are asking questions and others who are not. We have Democrats who are 
ready to vote today for the Bush resolution and others, such as myself, 
who frankly could not because I believe it is a blank check.
  I thank my friend for his engagement in this colloquy. Let me 
conclude in this way: I have thought to myself, why is this happening? 
I believe there is a political decision that has been made to keep this 
country focused on the foreign policy questions and not focused on the 
everyday kitchen table issues, the domestic issues that need to be 
addressed. I am going to go to some charts very quickly.
  We have seen long-term unemployment more than doubling since this 
administration came in. We have seen the worst performance of the stock 
market since Hoover. That means pensions are going down the tubes, as 
well as 401(k)s, and people's hopes and dreams for their retirement. We 
have seen an average rate change in the real gross domestic product, 
which is the worst in generations. It is the worst of all Presidents 
from Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the 
first George Bush, and President Clinton. It is the worst growth rate. 
That is what we have seen.
  In summing up the economic record, we have seen record job losses, 
weak economic growth, declining business investment, falling stock 
market, shrinking retirement accounts, eroding consumer confidence, 
rising health care costs, escalating foreclosures, vanishing surpluses, 
higher interest rates on the horizon, raiding Social Security, record 
executive pay and a stagnating minimum wage.
  So I believe that a decision was made to deal with a foreign policy 
issue at the exclusion of what is happening on the ground with our 
families. Mr. President, that is distressing. We need to do both.

  We need to rise to the foreign policy challenges we face. On the war 
against terrorism, we have a long way to go. In Afghanistan, in 
Pakistan, right here, with the cells that exist in our country, we have 
a long way to go. We need to step to the plate on that fight. We need 
to step to the plate on the Iraq challenge and handle it correctly with 
our allies, with a plan that will lead us perhaps to a peaceful end 
without having to shed blood. Maybe there is a chance. We should at 
least explore it. We have to step to the plate on the economic issues 
and we need to do that across party lines. We have to do it with the 
Republicans, with the Independents, with the Democrats--together.
  One course we do not want is for one party to say about the other: 
They don't care about the security of the American people. If one party 
does that, as the Republicans did today, as the President did, as 
reported today, we will lose all these other battles. We will have a 
divided country. We will not be able to work together in good will.
  My leader, Tom Daschle, the leader of the Senate, was right to say 
what he said, was right to express himself in the way he did. I hope 
the answer will be that in the future we will join hands as Americans 
and, even where we might disagree on a strategy, on an amendment, on a 
bill, work together as Americans. That is when the people are most 
proud of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
20 minutes.

                          ____________________