[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23765-23766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                PARTISAN ATTACKS ON THE MAJORITY LEADER

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to express great concern 
about recent events and comments that have been made in this Chamber 
and in the House of Representatives that I believe are not in keeping 
with the sense of cooperation and bipartisanship that we have seen 
since September 11.
  I remember, after the horrible attacks that we all grieved about and 
have focused on, on that day of September 11 we joined together on the 
Capitol steps, and one of our colleagues spontaneously started singing 
``God Bless America,'' and we all joined in. And there was a sense of 
purpose and dedication and commitment as Americans. We all said that 
while we may have had differences--that is what it is all about in a 
democracy--we were going to put aside the partisan bickering and the 
personal assaults and do as our President asked, which was to come 
together and focus on the needs of the country and to set a new tone.
  And then a few weeks later we saw our own majority leader and his 
staff under another kind of attack, that of anthrax. It came to be an 
attack on those of us in the Hart Building. And we have now seen other 
letters. But we have seen our majority leader and his staff operating 
with incredible dedication, with poise, with tremendous leadership. And 
the hard work of the staff is continuing.
  In fact, all of our staffs are continuing under very difficult 
circumstances. My own staff operates out of a room in the loading dock 
at Russell. We see people who are in various situations around this 
complex of the Capitol, but they continue to serve.
  We have done a lot of things. We immediately responded to the attacks 
with a commitment of resources for New York and for the Pentagon. 
Yesterday I had the opportunity to visit the Pentagon and see the 
incredible changes that have taken place since September 11. They are 
rebuilding the Pentagon with speed that is amazing. Everyone involved 
in that should be commended for the work they are doing to rebuild this 
important part of our country and our national security and leadership.
  We have responded to that. We have passed airport security bills. 
Yes, there were differences, but they were worked out to move us 
forward in terms of airport and airline security.
  We have passed economic legislation to support the airlines and 
passed a sweeping antiterrorism bill that has included the ability to 
track the money through money laundering provisions--I was pleased to 
be a part of it in the Banking Committee--as well as upgrading the 
tools available to law enforcement officials and create the kinds of 
opportunities to reach out and prevent terrorism as well as to respond 
to it.
  We have continued to move the appropriations bills through this 
process. We are coming to the conclusion of that in the next couple of 
weeks. But we are still debating economic recovery, how best to do 
that. What should be our priorities? Should we, in fact, invest in 
additional homeland security, beefing up our public health 
infrastructure, as I hope we will do?
  But we are now seeing a constant drone of attacks and comments being 
made about our Senate majority leader, and I just have to rise today to 
express deep disappointment and concern about that. We have seen 
personal comments being made.
  Last week the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee made 
statements about our leader saying there was nothing inside the 
leader's head on which to focus. There have been implications, with all 
kinds of derogatory statements that have been made about his leadership 
and calls for him to step aside because he may be putting forward a 
different vision or set of values and priorities than someone on the 
other side--statement after statement, attacks about someone's 
sincerity and their patriotism and their leadership that are just not 
helpful and not necessary and, by the way, absolutely absurd.
  I found it offensive, when we were listening to the debate on the 
energy bill on Friday; over and over again it was laced with personal 
comments, comments that are unbecoming to this body or the body on the 
other side of the building from which I came as a House Member.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield to my good friend from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. First, I want to say how proud I am you took to the floor 
to bring this to light. I think the

[[Page 23766]]

American people are ill-served, as you do, when there are personal 
attacks on any of our leaders.
  Do we have differences? Yes. Should we express those differences? 
Absolutely. Because, frankly, I have a lot of people who say: What 
really is the difference between Democrats and Republicans? So the fact 
that we do not agree on an economic stimulus package is to be expected. 
The fact that the Democrats are fighting for people who lost their 
jobs, yes, that is to be expected. The fact that we do not think it is 
right to give big rebate checks to the largest and most wealthy 
corporations in America and call it a stimulus, the fact that we do not 
agree with it is to be expected. The fact that the other side would 
support that is to be expected. So debating that is fine.
  But my colleague has pointed out the viciousness of the attack 
against the leader of this Senate, Tom Daschle, who happens to be one 
of the kindest, most compassionate people in politics today, is 
something that cannot go by without a statement.
  So I say to my friend, by way of a question, isn't it true that the 
people of this country expect us to have differences, expect us, on 
domestic policy, to bring those differences to light, where we are so 
united on the terrorism front--and we support our President and our 
Secretary of State; and we are moving together in this fight; there are 
no differences really, not even around the edges on that. But isn't it 
a fact that it is fine for us to have these differences, but that these 
differences should be debated with respect, with fairness, and with 
dignity?
  Ms. STABENOW. I couldn't agree more with my friend from California. I 
know the families I represent in Michigan are saying to me: We know 
there are differences in approaches.
  That is a reason why they sent me here. And I am of a different 
party, a different philosophy, on economic questions possibly, or other 
domestic issues, than those on the other side of the aisle.
  They expect us to operate with civility, with respect. I believe and 
in fact have been telling people in Michigan that there is a new day, 
that since September 11 we have come together. Yes, we have differences 
in priorities. We are Americans. Under the Constitution, we have a 
right, an obligation, to give our point of view. There will be 
differences.
  The personal attacks, the vicious partisan attacks that we have heard 
recently are just the same old thing we have seen for too long around 
here. People don't want to see that happening.
  I will not question someone's patriotism. I will not say because they 
differ with my thoughts that there is nothing between their ears or 
that they are somehow a child who wants a recess and that they are a 
third grader--whatever the comments were last week. Those kinds of 
things, frankly, demean all of us. That is my concern.
  We have a lot of work to do in this next couple of weeks. People 
expect us to be focused on their needs and on the needs of the country, 
the safety of the country, the economy. It is legitimate for us to 
debate, and we have legitimate differences on how to move the economy 
forward. I have spoken before in this Chamber about whether it is 
supply side economics or demand side economics, what is the best mix? 
That is legitimate. People expect us to do that. We would not be 
fulfilling our own responsibilities as individual Senators not to come 
forward with our own ideas. But when it goes on and we hear our leader 
being attacked for abrogating his responsibility or that every day 
someone is in pain should be laid at the foot of Tom Daschle, that is 
uncalled for.
  I was particularly concerned that there are actually ads being run 
now attacking our leader in the Senate because of a meeting he had in 
Mexico with the President of Mexico. Our President has met with Vicente 
Fox. President Fox has been here. We have welcomed him to the Capitol. 
They are our neighbors to the south. We have important work to do with 
them. Certainly part of what happens economically relates to trade and 
the relationship of our two countries. Yet we have those who have 
actually paid for partisan ads back in our leader's home State to imply 
that while a weekend in Mexico might be a nice break from the attacks 
at hand, in fact, this trip was the wrong thing to do.
  I hope we can decide we are going to dedicate the time between now 
and the end of this session to the serious, vital business at hand and 
the priorities about which we can disagree. We can disagree about 
whether or not to drill in Alaska's national wildlife refuge. We can 
disagree about appropriations priorities.
  As someone who has tremendous respect for the leader of this body, I 
will continue to object when there are personal comments made either 
about our leader or about the Republican leader or about others on the 
Senate floor. We have been through too much together since September 11 
to turn back to the personal kinds of derogatory statements that were a 
part of the past. We can do better than that. The American people 
deserve better. The American people expect us to do better than that.
  I call on the President of the United States and the Republican 
leadership to join us in a vigorous, sincere debate on the priorities 
for the country, the best way to achieve economic recovery and 
security, and to do that with the highest and best that is in us. We 
have a great body and people of wonderful good will on both sides of 
the aisle in both Houses, as well as the White House. We can do what 
the people expect us to do. We can do it right. I hope in fact we will 
get about the business of doing it.
  I yield the floor and 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________