[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 124 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9361-S9364]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to state my intention to 
vote in favor of a resolution to authorize the use of military force 
against Iraq. At this point, final resolution language is begin arrived 
at, and I believe this effort will lead to a resolution which will gain 
broad, bipartisan support. I support the President, and as a member of 
the Appropriations Committee, look forward to working with him to 
ensure that our Armed Forces remain the best-equipped, best-trained 
fighting force in the world.
  Simply put, the world would be a far safer place without Saddam 
Hussein. As long as he remains in power in Iraq, he will be a threat to 
the United States, to his neighbors, and to his own people. Over the 
past decade, he has systematically reneged on his commitments to the 
international community. He has refused to halt his weapons of mass 
destruction program, to renounce his support for international 
terrorism, and to stop threatening peace and stability in the region. 
The threat that Saddam Hussein continues to pose to our national 
security interests, and his failure to abide by previous United 
Nation's Security Council resolutions, provides sufficient 
justification should military action become necessary.
  I am pleased that President Bush has come to the Congress to ask for 
authorization for the use of force in Iraq, and that the White House is 
continuing to work with us to develop the appropriate language for a 
congressional resolution. It is important for the people's 
representatives in Congress to have the opportunity to fully debate and 
vote on a matter of this importance. I hope we will move to this vote 
in an expeditious manner.
  In addition, I back the administration's efforts to build support for 
our policy in Iraq with our allies and with the international community 
as a whole. Secretary of State Colin Powell has been particularly 
effective in making the case that Iraq has not complied with the 
relevant Security Council resolutions and that he remains a threat. 
Make no mistake, I believe the United States is within its rights to 
act alone militarily to protect our vital national security interests. 
I we are required by circumstances to act alone, I will support that 
decision. U.S. action should not be contingent upon the decisions made 
by other nations or organizations. My expectation, however, is that 
this resolution will strengthen the hand of the President at securing 
United Nations or other forms of international support and cooperation, 
and I encourage his on-going effort in that regard.
  I believe that there is value in building an international coalition 
of nations and in having the full support of our allies. International 
support brings practical benefits, such as basing rights for U.S. 
soldiers and equipment in the region and authorization to use the 
airspace of neighboring countries to execute military strikes against 
Iraq. In addition, international support will increase the likelihood 
of success for our long-term strategy in Iraq and for the ongoing war 
on global terrorism. I encourage the President to continue his efforts 
to build a strong coalition of nations to support our Iraq policy.
  Mr. President, this issue has particular significance for me--my son 
Brooks is on active duty in the Army and is a member of one of the 
three units that General Franks has identified as likely to prosecute 
this war. There is a strong possibility that I may be voting to send my 
own son into combat, and that give me special empathy for the families 
of other American servicemen and women whose own sons and daughters may 
also be sent to Iraq. Nevertheless, I am willing to cast this vote--one 
of the most important in my career both as a Senator and certainly as a 
father--because I recognize the threat that Saddam Hussein represents 
to world peace. It is my hope that we can move forward quickly, in a 
bipartisan manner, to approve a resolution that will give the President 
the authority he needs to defend our Nation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Under the previous 
order, the Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is called the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. I have always been enormously proud to be a part of 
it. There are times I think we treat the light too seriously and then 
the serious too lightly, but in this time and place, the issue of 
national security is something all of us understand is serious.
  This is a deadly serious business. The question of war with Iraq, the 
question of homeland security, are very important issues. I know there 
was some controversy yesterday beginning with stories in the newspaper 
and in the Senate Chamber about statements by the President.
  I don't think there is a context in which it is ever appropriate for 
us to suggest or the President to suggest the opposing political party 
or members of the opposing political party do not support this 
country's national security. You will never, ever, hear me suggest a 
group of my colleagues don't care about this country's national 
security. I will never do that. It is not the appropriate thing to do.
  When you read the President's statements at fundraisers about these 
matters and hear his suggestion, no matter the context, that the U.S. 
Senate doesn't seem to care about national security, or places special 
interests ahead of the Nation's interests with respect to security, 
that is wrong.
  National security is deadly serious business. The issue has to do 
with the country of Iraq, but much more than that--a very troubled 
region of the world--the question of whether a tyrant, an international 
outlaw of sorts, is going to acquire nuclear weapons and threaten his 
region and the rest of the world, and what we might be considering 
doing about that, what we should do about it, and what the United 
Nations considers we should do about it. That is serious business.
  Any discussion ever about sending our sons and daughters to war is 
serious business. It has no place in political fundraisers or in the 
normal routine of American political partisan activity leading up to an 
election.
  Yesterday I attended a top secret briefing with Vice President Cheney 
at his invitation. I happen to think we are all on the same side. We 
have a single relentless interest, and that is the interests of this 
country and its security.
  Yesterday it was said some of this dispute relates to the discussions 
about homeland security and the position taken by some Members of the 
Senate with respect to homeland security. There is no right or wrong 
way to do homeland security. There are a lot of ideas on how one might 
address homeland security.
  I happen to believe port security is very important. We have 5.7 
million containers coming in on container ships every single year; 
100,000 of them are inspected, and 5.6 million are not. If a terrorist 
were to want to introduce a weapon of mass destruction into this 
country, do you think they would not consider putting it in a container 
on a ship that is going to come up to a dock

[[Page S9362]]

at 2 miles an hour and dock at one of our major ports, to be taken off 
and put on 18 wheels, driven across the country to its target?
  No, we will spend $7 or $8 billion this year believing a rogue nation 
or terrorist will acquire an intercontinental ballistic missile, put a 
nuclear bomb on top of it; so we will spend $7 to $8 billion on 
national missile defense. Is that the smart thing to do, at a time when 
5.6 million containers will show up at our docks and are uninspected? 
That is a decision this Congress ought to take a hard look at.
  We have differences on the homeland security bill. It is not that one 
side believes in supporting this country's defense and this country's 
security and the other side doesn't. There are differences about it. Is 
putting 170,000 people into one agency, moving all these boxes around 
into one agency, is that going to make us better, more fit, more 
capable of defeating terrorism? Maybe. But big, slow, and bureaucratic 
is not the way to address terrorism. These 170,000 people will not 
include the CIA and the FBI. Just read the papers in the last couple of 
months and ask yourself, where have the problems been in the gathering 
and the interpretation of intelligence and information about 
prospective terrorists? They are not even a part of this.

  Some say if the President doesn't have flexibility to deal with all 
of these workers in any appropriate way he thinks necessary, somehow it 
affects our country's security. It is as if taking 170,000 workers and 
putting them into one agency and providing some basic security, the 
kind of basic security they have had with respect to jobs, is counter 
to this Nation's security. I don't believe that at all.
  Go back 100 years and ask yourself what happens in a country such as 
ours when you decide the Federal workforce shall become a part of 
patronage, Federal workers will have no security, but can be used at 
the whim of an executive agency. I am not talking about this one; I am 
talking about any executive agency or any administration. This country 
has been best served by making sure we have a Federal workforce that we 
can trust, that works hard, that is honest, that serves this country 
well, and that doesn't serve any partisan interest ever.
  Some say let's get rid of all the worker protections, that is the way 
to handle homeland security. That doesn't make any sense to me. There 
is not a Republican or a Democratic way to develop the issue of 
security for this country. This is not about political parties. It is 
about trying to figure out what is the best approach to protect this 
country's interests, what is the best approach to do that.
  Those who want to use this politically do no service to this 
country's interest. It is not about politics. It is, indeed, about 
security.
  Let me make the next point. Yes, security with respect to people such 
as Saddam Hussein, and I hope at the end of the day we can find a way 
to pass a resolution in this Senate that has broad bipartisan support. 
I hope that is what happens. I believe that is what should happen. I 
hope at the end of the day we will have passed a homeland security bill 
that works, one that is effective, one that gives us confidence about 
defeating prospective terrorists and those prospective terrorists' acts 
against the American people.
  Also, there is another issue with respect to security, and that is 
the security of our country with respect to the economy and what is 
happening inside our country. Take a look at the stock market these 
days. The stock market has collapsed like a pancake. Why? Because 
investors are nervous. There is no predictability, consistency, 
security. They are nervous.
  We have had a circumstance in recent years where big budget surpluses 
that were projected for 10 years have turned to big budget deficits. We 
have had a recession. We have had a terrorist attack on our country 
that was the worst terrorist attack in the history of our country. We 
have had, in addition to that, a war against terrorists and a collapse 
of the technology bubble and a collapse of the stock market. We have 
had a corporate scandal unparalleled in the history of this country. It 
shakes the faith of the American people in this economic system of 
ours.
  Even as we discuss all of these security issues, let's understand 
there is one additional security issue, and that is the economic 
security of the people in this country, an economy that, hopefully, 
grows and provides opportunities and jobs once again. This economy is 
in trouble, and it would serve this President and this Congress well to 
decide we ought to work together to do something about that as well.
  More and more people are out of work. What does that mean? Is that a 
statistic? No, it is not just a statistic; it is someone who comes home 
from work one day and says: Honey, I have lost my job, a man or woman 
who is well trained and worked hard, and because the economy runs into 
some whitewater rapids and some trouble, they are laid off. Hundreds of 
thousands of Americans are losing their jobs. It is a big problem.
  For those who lose their jobs, their statistic is 100-percent 
unemployment. They wonder whether there are people around here who care 
about that. Will there be people who care about economic security 
issues, trying to put the pieces back together in an economy that is 
troubled?
  We are told the average 401(k) retirement savings account has lost 
about a third of its value. A North Dakotan who worked for the Enron 
Corporation for many years wrote to me and said: I had $330,000 in my 
401(k) account. It was my life savings--$330,000. It is now worth 
$1,700.
  Do you think that family cares about whether we try to do something 
to fix what is wrong with this economy? That also deals with security--
economic security.
  We have all across the central heartland of this Nation family 
farmers, in my judgment the economic all-stars of America. They raise 
the food that a hungry world so desperately needs. But a massive 
drought has occurred across much of this country. Many of those farmers 
and ranchers have produced nothing.
  In my home area of southwestern North Dakota, the landscape looks 
like scorched earth. It looks like the moonscape, in fact, with no 
vegetation.

  The question is: What about economic security for people who have 
suffered a natural disaster of a drought? This Senate answered that. 
The Senate said: Let's provide some emergency help, just as we do when 
tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, and floods happen. When these natural 
disasters occur, this country says to people affected: You are not 
alone; we are here with you; we want to help. So this Senate, with 79 
votes, said: We want to help you; we want to help provide some economic 
security during a tough time, during a disaster. The drought was not 
your fault, we say to farmers and ranchers.
  But the House of Representatives and the President do not support the 
bill we passed in the Senate that also deals with economic security.
  Nobody in this Chamber has a farm someplace 15, 25 miles from town 
and has invested virtually everything they have in seeds to plant in 
the ground in the spring and then discovered it did not rain and those 
seeds are gone, there is no crop, and they do not have the money for 
family expenses to continue, so they are going to have to have an 
auction sale. No one in this Chamber suffers that fate--no one.
  No one in this Chamber gets up to do chores in the morning--milk 
cows, feed the cattle, service farm machinery. Nobody does that. But 
this Chamber understands because 79 Members of the Senate voted for a 
disaster package to help family farmers during this disaster.
  We hope that when we have all of this talk about security, which I 
think is deadly important and deadly serious--we hope security includes 
a discussion about economic security, and part of that economic 
security is providing a disaster bill and disaster help to family 
farmers when they need it. I ask the House of Representatives and the 
President to stop blocking that disaster bill.
  Another part of this issue of economic security is fixing what is 
wrong with respect to corporate governance in dealing with corporate 
scandals. We passed a bill in the Senate dealing with that, but it is 
not quite enough. We must do more.
  Senator Sarbanes, in my judgment, deserves the hero's award for being 
able to put together the bill he did. I

[[Page S9363]]

was proud to vote for it. One amendment, to give an example of the 
unfinished business, I tried to offer and which was blocked for 3 or 4 
days by my colleague, Senator Gramm from Texas, dealt with bankruptcy. 
That amendment is not now law. Let me give an example of what I was 
trying to do and why it is unfinished business if we are really going 
to provide economic security.
  The Financial Times did a study of the 25 largest bankruptcies in 
America. Here is what they discovered: Of the 25 largest corporate 
bankruptcies in America, the year and a half before bankruptcy, 208 
executives of those corporations took $3.3 billion out of the company. 
Then they went bankrupt.
  My belief is, when executives are taking a company to bankruptcy and 
filling their pockets with gold, there is something fundamentally 
wrong. Investors lose their savings, employees lose their jobs, 
everybody else loses their shirt, and the top executives of the largest 
bankrupt companies in the country walk away to their homes behind gated 
walls someplace and count their money. They walked off with $3.3 
billion in the 25 largest bankruptcies. Shame on them.
  I wanted to offer an amendment that recaptures and disgorges those 
ill-gotten gains. Does anybody here believe that anybody, as they take 
a company into bankruptcy, the year before it goes to bankruptcy should 
be getting incentive payments and bonus payments for a company that is 
going down the tubes? Does anybody believe that? That is unfinished 
business, and there are other pieces dealing with this corporate issue 
to which we must respond.

  The other unfinished business deals with health care, for example, 
and prescription drugs. We have not passed a prescription drug bill and 
put a prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program despite all of 
our best efforts. That also deals with economic security because when 
someone needs lifesaving medicine and cannot afford it, it means that 
medicine saves no lives.
  We have people in this country who desperately need prescription 
drugs to provide the miracle cures and the opportunities for a better 
life and cannot afford them. We believe putting a prescription drug 
benefit in the Medicare Program is the right thing to do. No, not some 
shell, not some phony gimmick by saying, as the House did, just 
cobbling up a little effort: By the way, let's call this a prescription 
drug benefit and let the managed care organizations handle it. That 
does not make any sense. They know it. We know it. They are just trying 
to create a defensive position to say they did something when, in fact, 
they did nothing.
  We are going to do something, and we should, with respect to 
prescription drugs for senior citizens. We ought to do it right and do 
it well. That is another piece of unfinished business that deals with 
security--economic security and family security.
  In Dickinson, ND, a woman went to her doctor with breast cancer and 
had surgery for breast cancer, and the doctor said to the woman on 
Medicare: In order to prevent a recurrence of breast cancer, the best 
chance to prevent a recurrence, you need to take these prescription 
drugs I am going to prescribe for you.
  She said: Doctor, what does it cost? And he told her.
  She said: Doctor, there is no way I can afford to buy those 
prescription drugs. I am just going to have to take my chances.

  That is how the doctor testified at a forum I held at home in North 
Dakota. That is why it is important to complete the undone business 
dealing with economic security, security for American seniors, to put a 
prescription drug benefit in the Medicare Program that really works. We 
have not been able to do that because we are blocked by people who do 
not want that to happen.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has served in the House of Representatives and 
now in the Senate and understands, as well as anyone, the procedures 
that take place in both bodies. We have been on homeland security for 
the 4th week. I was told yesterday they had 30 people who wanted to 
speak on this amendment. As I mentioned earlier this morning, that is a 
code ward for ``filibuster.''
  Is it not unusual that a President, who says he wants this bill so 
badly, has not helped move the bill in 4 weeks, and now the majority 
leader has arranged a procedure where they can have a vote on the so-
called Gramm amendment and they are not taking yes for an answer? Do 
you think they are really serious about moving homeland security?
  Mr. DORGAN. There is no evidence of that in the last 3 or 4 weeks. If 
ever you have seen an example of slow walking, this has been it.
  We can, should, and will pass a homeland security bill. We are going 
to need help to do it. Those who say they want to pass this bill but 
have their heels dug in and are preventing action by the Senate, in my 
judgment, are delaying the inevitable. We will pass homeland security 
because we should.
  We have an amendment on which we ought to vote. We do not need 40 
speakers after 4 weeks. Have a vote on the amendment. That is the way 
to deal with this. I understand there are people who oppose the 
amendment. The opposition comes from people who either want it their 
way or they do not want it at all. They think, If we cannot get our 
way, we do not want legislation to move.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I have learned a lot from the 
Senator from North Dakota on agricultural matters because the State of 
North Dakota depends heavily on its agricultural base for everything in 
the State. As a result of that, I was 1 of 79 Senators who supported--
because the case was made so clearly--farmers all over America who were 
in desperate need of help because of the drought that has struck the 
country. We have in the Interior appropriations bill, which is also 
part of what we have been doing for 4 weeks, a provision to give that 
aid.
  I ask the Senator, would it not be better to do that now than to have 
this legislation hung up on how money will be distributed to fight 
fires?
  Mr. DORGAN. There is an urgent need to get this bill completed. The 
Interior bill, as well, has been on the floor. For those who are 
listening to this discussion, we are working on two issues 
simultaneously. They call it dual tracking. We have homeland security 
and the Interior appropriations bill. Both have been on the floor for 
weeks.
  With respect to the Interior bill, the 79 votes cast for the issue of 
providing disaster aid for family farmers demonstrates the strong 
support of this Senate for doing that. Yet it is part of an Interior 
bill that is being held up.
  There is an urgent need to get this done. We have family farmers, and 
the families are sitting around their supper tables talking about their 
hopes and dreams, whether they are going to have to have an auction 
sale. Will they be able to make it? Or get through the winter? Or raise 
cattle in the spring? Or plant seed in the spring? They do not know. If 
we provide disaster help, they will. If we do not, many will not make 
it.

  I have been pleased, and will always be pleased as a Member of this 
body, to support, in every circumstance, those around this country who 
suffer disasters. When Florida is hit by a devastating hurricane, or 
California by a devastating earthquake, or a dozen other natural 
disasters I could name, I am the first to say we ought to help. I 
always want to vote for it. I always want our country to say to those 
people affected by the disasters, you are not alone; the rest of the 
country is with you.
  That is why I was so pleased with what the Senate did, by 79 votes, 
saying we need a disaster bill to deal with the devastating drought. In 
some areas it is as bad as it has been since the 1930s.
  In answer to the question, there is urgent business in the Interior 
bill. We ought to get it done. Those who are blocking it ought to stop 
blocking it.
  Mr. REID. Finally, because of the need to pass homeland security and 
certainly this drought assistance, and we are spending so much 
unnecessary time on it, I have said this is an effort to divert 
attention from all the issues of the economy, and I have heard the 
Senator from North Dakota ask on many occasions: Why are we not doing 
something about passing appropriations bills? Why are we not doing 
something to stimulate the economy? Why are we not doing something with 
bankruptcy reform? Election reform? Why

[[Page S9364]]

aren't we doing something with generic drugs? The Senator talked about 
the Patients' Bill of Rights, terrorism insurance--on all the domestic 
issues, we have heard not a word and are getting no help from the 
majority in the House or the minority in the Senate, and certainly not 
from the White House.
  Does the Senator acknowledge we are not spending much time on 
economic issues?
  Mr. DORGAN. I talked about the issue of security and I said it is 
deadly serious business, national security, homeland security. But 
there is another area very important for the country. That is economic 
security. We are spending virtually no time on that. We ought to. The 
American people deserve to have a Congress that, yes, is concerned 
about national security, concerned about homeland security, but that is 
willing to tackle during tough economic times the economic security 
issues as well. This Congress has not been willing to do that.
  Let me end as I began, because this is important. I will never 
minimize the importance of the security issues. In my judgment, the 
President and the Congress need to act and speak as one when we talk 
about the security of this country. No one will never, ever hear me say 
any Member in this Chamber does not believe in the security of this 
country or does not act to support the security of this country. I will 
never say that. I don't want to hear the President say it. I don't want 
to hear anyone else say it. I believe every Republican, Democrat, 
conservative and liberal, believes in their heart that whatever they 
are doing represents the security interests of this country. They love 
this country and believe in the country, and that goes for everyone 
serving this country. I don't want anyone to suggest in any way under 
any context there are those who believe in security more than others. 
We all love this country. We all want to do what is right and best for 
this country. I will strongly support the security of this country. It 
is national security. It is homeland security. It is economic security.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the second half of 
the time shall be under the control of the Republican leader or his 
designee.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                          ____________________