Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations I Committee, Senator Lugar, in reintroducing the Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act. Today, we are reintroducing a bill that we worked on together in the 108th Congress--a bill that will help those most vulnerable to the HIV/AIDS pandemic throughout the world. An estimated 14 million children have lost either one or both parents to HIV/AIDS. By the year 2010, It is estimated that this number will grow to 25 million. The pandemic has created an orphans crisis, especially in sub-Sahara Africa where this crisis is most severe. The struggle of those orphaned by this pandemic is heartbreaking. These children face the trauma of watching their parents die. They are forced at a very young age to care for their younger siblings while suffering from deep poverty, hunger, and sicknesses. A girl from Uganda who lost her parents to HIV/AIDS at age 11 told the BBC: When my mother died we suffered so much. There was no food, and there was no one to look after us. We didn't even have money to buy soap and salt. We wanted to run away to our other grandparents, but we didn't have transport to go there. I tried to be positive, but it was difficult. I missed my mother because I loved her so much. Picture this story repeated 14 million times throughout the world. We cannot stand by and allow this suffering to continue. The Lugar-Boxer legislation that is being introduced today is designed to help these orphans and other vulnerable children who have been affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic. First, our bill would authorize the President to provide assistance to orphans and other vulnerable children in developing countries. Specific authorization is provided in the areas of basic care, HIV/AIDS treatment, school food programs, protection of inheritance rights, and education and employment training assistance. Second, this legislation calls on the President to use U.S. foreign assistance to support programs that eliminate school fees. Throughout the world, many orphans are prevented from attending school because they cannot afford to pay school fees or are forced to financially support their families or care for sick relatives. And, third, our bill would require the President to develop and submit to Congress a strategy for coordinating, implementing, and monitoring assistance programs for orphans and vulnerable children. This strategy must include measurable performance indicators to ensure that our policies are effective in helping orphans and vulnerable children. Once again, Mr. President, I thank Chairman Lugar for working with me on this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Congresswoman Lee for her leadership on this issue in the House of Representatives. I hope my colleagues will join us in supporting this important bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, may I ask what is the order at the current time?

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak for up to 20 minutes as in morning business.

Mrs. BOXER. Does one have to ask unanimous consent to go past the 10 minutes?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, Senator Frist came to the Senate to make some opening remarks about the class action bill that will be before the Senate. There will be a very good debate on this bill. I will make a couple of points. The Senator said every 2 seconds a lawsuit is filed. I have no reason to doubt his number, but I wonder if he has looked at who is filing the lawsuits. The last time I looked, it was mostly one business suing another business. So before we come to the Senate and say we have to do something about the class action lawsuits, saying every 2 seconds a lawsuit is filed gives the wrong impression. We are going to get the exact numbers, but I make that point. What we will find among colleagues, regardless of party, we all want to make sure these lawsuits are fair and that they are heard in a fair way. It appears when a class action lawsuit winds up in a Federal court, the judge, on many occasions, if not most occasions, refuses to hear it because the plaintiffs come from so many different States. I will give an example of what these lawsuits are about. When we talk about lawyers, we talk about fees, we talk about costs the lawyers have, or the time they have. We are overlooking the main point, which is: what are these class action lawsuits about? I will talk about a couple of these lawsuits because we need to put a human face on what they are. Rob Sanders of Maryland explained how his daughter was killed, as were other children, by a deployed airbag in a Chrysler minivan. For years, consumers have pursued class action cases against Chrysler to force the company to replace existing airbags in such vehicles with others that deploy less rapidly and do not pose a safety risk to the car's occupant. As someone who is small in stature, I can say the automobile companies make these airbags to protect people who are much larger and much heavier, and much taller than appropriate for children. We have seen children killed by these airbags. We all want airbags that work, regardless of our weight, our height, or stature. A class action was blocked in a Louisiana Federal court because the judge threw up his hands. But in Oklahoma--as we all know, that is a conservative State--the State court is proceeding to look at this even though the company has been working for years to block it. We are talking about life and death. We are talking about real victims. Let's talk about the ability to make a living. Georgie Hartwig of Washington State is a former Wal-Mart employee who was cheated out of overtime pay. This is a common practice, unfortunately, at many of the company stores. Her class action case is being heard in State court. Three Federal courts have refused to hear such Wal-Mart cases, whereas five State courts have allowed them. I am hopeful as we move this bill forward, we will ensure that at least some court will hear these important cases. They involve real people. I am sure Georgie Hartwig of Washington State and her colleagues at Wal-Mart have to raise a family and pay the rent. If we have a system that simply shuts the courthouse door, be it a State courthouse or a Federal courthouse, we are not fulfilling our job to make sure people get justice, they get it expeditiously, and it is done fairly. Shelly Toliver is a firefighter from Connecticut. These are the people we are talking about here--Americans. Shelly Toliver, a firefighter from Connecticut, described how she brought a State class action suit against Credit Acceptance Corporation of Michigan for cheating her and other consumers out of their vehicles in violation of Connecticut law, destroying their credit ratings in the process. We all know what it is to get a bad credit rating by mistake. It is terrible. Ultimately, the class members had their purported debt to the company wiped out and their bad ratings cleared because they were able to get their case heard. It goes on and on. I hope as we get through this bill we will be honest with the American people regarding whose rights are at stake. We are supposed to be here for the rights of the men and women of this country, the families of this country. The corporations, which are rather faceless, I support when they do the right thing, but when they do not do the right thing, when they wrong a firefighter, if an automobile company does not do what they should to protect children, there ought to be justice. That is all we are saying. Are there abuses? Yes. Should we resolve them? Yes. I am very happy to do that. It is true, we have abuses everywhere. We should fix those abuses. We have to be careful we are being sincere. There is one colleague who has been very strong on capping pain and suffering, but when it happened in his own family, he went for the gold. So let's be careful. The American people are watching. If we say we ought to cap pain and suffering for our constituents--forget about it, one size fits all. This is not class action, but these are other kinds of cases this Republican Senate is coming after: one size fits all. Let's cap it it is killing us; it is killing the country. I go to the supermarket every week. No one comes up to me and says, please, please, do something about the filing of lawsuits when their child died in a hospital. What they will say to me is, make sure there is fairness for victims. Let's get together and do the things that have to be done so that the people who get the benefit are our constituents. Do not close the courthouse door to firefighters, moms and dads, who are working for justice in their lives.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. The President has sent down his budget. We are going through it now to see what it means for our State. But this is quite a budget. This is a budget that does not include the costs of the war in Iraq. This is a budget that does not include the costs of the war in Afghanistan. This is a budget that does not show the true costs of making the tax cuts permanent. This is a budget that does not show the costs of what I call anti-Social Security, going into personal accounts, which is an enormous multitrillion dollar cost. So you have a document which is, on its face, incomplete. That is the best way I can put it: incomplete. Other people might use another word for it, but I will be charitable and say it is incomplete. Why can't the President show the true costs? Because he could not hold up his head if he put the true costs in there. We would be looking at deficits that are ruinous. The truth is, the deficits are ruinous. When President Bush took over, he had a surplus as far as the eye could see. He turned it into a deficit in 15 minutes. He said the tax cuts would be so great that we would have economic growth and we would suddenly have a balanced budget. It did not happen. Let me tell you what else is not in this budget. Where is the money from the Iraqi oil that was supposed to be coming our way? On March 27, 2003, not that long ago, this is what Paul Wolfowitz, the Assistant Secretary of Defense said, in congressional testimony, sworn to tell the truth: The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Let me repeat that. A Bush administration spokesperson, very high up in the Defense Department, said: The oil revenues of Iraq could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. Well, here it is, folks, it is 3 years later, and not a penny of revenue is coming into our budget to help us, and the whole cost of the Iraq war is outside the budget--a disaster. Here is another claim, by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer: Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction. Where is the revenue in our budget? Not a dime, not one slim dime. They are not even talking about making these costs into loans against future oil revenues. And in the meantime, what are the American people told by this President and his budget? What are the veterans told? Oh, we are cutting back on veterans health care. Can you imagine? We are almost at 11,000 wounded, and this President's budget says, You are going to have to pay more for your pharmaceuticals, $250 to join, and you have to pay more. Let me tell you, a lot of us are going to stop that. Let me tell you, a lot of us are not going to let that happen. The people coming home from Iraq, half of them are very seriously wounded--thousands and thousands. Some estimates are that a third of them need mental health care. And this budget cuts veterans health. Wrong. That is not going to happen. It is unacceptable. I think it is unacceptable to the American people. I ask my constituents if they believe we ought to be doing more for veterans or less for the veterans or the same as we did last year. I know--and I have not taken a scientific poll--they would say: Senator, you give them what they need. The President says to the Iraqi people: As long as it takes. Whatever it is. Whatever it costs. I want to say to the veterans: Whatever it takes, however long it takes for you to get on your feet, we will be there. We have the President eliminating a program where the Federal Government gives States funding to incarcerate illegal immigrants who have committed crimes--cut, gone, finito, finished--eliminating $300 million. We call it SCAAP. How can a President, at this time in our history, where we are guarding our borders, where we are concerned about who is coming in, lay all of that on the border States? This is wrong. It is unacceptable. How about this: The Bush budget slices law enforcement grants to States from $2.8 billion to $1.5 billion, while the President claims he is increasing homeland defense. I have a message for the President, in a nice, respectful way: It is our local law enforcement people who are protecting our citizens in every capacity. They are the bottom line of homeland defense. There is a special and important program to assist police departments to improve technology and their ability to communicate with other agencies through COPS technology grants. Do you know what happens if there is an emergency in one area? What we have found out is, our police departments, our fire departments, our first responders do not have the equipment they need. They do not have the communications equipment. They cannot talk to each other. The Senate, in a bipartisan way, passed authorizing legislation to say we need to help connect these departments with one another. Because suppose something happens on a railroad track, and one sheriff sees it, and there is a disaster, and he needs to get on the line immediately to all the other agencies in the area; they cannot do it right now. They need to move toward the ability to do this. It seems shocking that we have not done that already in America, but that is the truth. What does the President do? He cuts that program. He eliminates it. Now, the President also creates a new program. He wants to extend the No Child Left Behind to high school. Well, how about fully funding his first No Child Left Behind? I wrote the part with Senator Ensign that deals with afterschool programs. It has been frozen for 3 years. There are millions of kids who want to get into afterschool programs. We know it works. Law enforcement loves the program. The teachers love the program because the kids get to do their homework. They stay out of trouble. The FBI loves the program. The FBI has told us the vast majority of juvenile crime occurs right after school until the parents come home. We did not need the FBI to tell us that. We kind of figured that out. But this is key. So here we are with a new program to extend No Child Left Behind to high school kids when we have not fully funded the afterschool program and many of the other programs that were promised to our people in the first No Child Left Behind. That is $1.4 billion, folks. This is not small change. This is $1.4 billion for this new program. There are no revenues in there from Iraqi oil. This is also the first administration not to back a polluter-pay fee. When polluters cause these superfunds, where we have toxics all over the ground seeping into the water, it costs a lot of money to clean it up. This is the first administration, Republican or Democratic, not to support this polluter-pay fee. That would bring billions in over 5 years. There are ways for us to pay for things the American people need. I am looking forward to getting into more of the fine print of this particular budget. I used to be on the Budget Committee. I can tell you, I loved being on the Budget Committee because it was a way to look at the big picture. When I went on the Commerce Committee, I had to give up the Budget Committee. It was a sad decision for me. But I look forward to hearing from Kent Conrad and I look forward to hearing from the Republican chairman, who was Pete Domenici, and I am not sure if it has changed or not. Because I want to hear their take on this budget. But we see new initiatives in this budget that obviously are not paid for when we are shorting probably 150 programs, according to the President. We see nothing in here about getting any revenues from the Iraqi oil that were promised to us: $50 to $100 billion over the course of the next 2 or 3 years we were told by this administration in 2003. I believe in holding people accountable when they say things. I think it is important. That is what they said, and we do not see any evidence of any of this in this budget. So we have the budget to deal with. We have the class action lawsuit legislation, which I hope we can do in a way to protect the important lawsuits that need to be heard and need to be resolved. Because if they are heard and they are resolved, our people will be safer, our people will be stronger, our people will feel they have been given justice. We have the Social Security, what I call, repeal. Not a penny has been put into this budget to reflect any of that. I understand my time is up. There is no one on the floor so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. The President's solution to Social Security is to borrow, borrow, borrow, throwing us deeper into debt. I will tell you, this is not going to happen under our watch. I will show you one more chart very quickly. The plan the President has talked about a lot results in benefit cuts of 45 percent. The average yearly payment for a widow would only be $5,700. Who can live on that? Certainly not those of us here or those in the White House. Widows would be 35-percent below the poverty line if the President's plan goes into effect. We think Social Security Plus is a place we can start. Keep Social Security and strengthen it, as Ronald Reagan did. We can work together to do that for our young people. I think we can solve this problem and keep one of the greatest programs ever known in the history of our country. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Mikulski for taking the lead in organizing the Democratic women. We don't always agree on every issue, but here is one that has united us. I think what is interesting about the Democratic women is we are very different. We are very different ages. We range from the 40s to the 70s. We go from the west coast to the east coast, and places in between--the north and the south. When we can come together like this--knowing that some of us are progressive, some of us are more conservative--in a whole group and say we are going to protect Social Security, we hope it sends a very powerful message to the people of this country, particularly the women of this country and to their families, that we are going to be there for you. That is what this is all about. Whose side are we on, anyway? I think in the battle over Social Security the sides are becoming very clear. You are either on the side of the families, of our people, young and older, or, frankly, if you follow money you are on the side of Wall Street because Wall Street is going to get billions of dollars if George Bush is successful, and it will come straight out of the pockets of working families. I used to be a stockbroker so I have absolutely nothing against stockbrokers and I loved working on Wall Street. But I can tell you, and I am sure you know it is true, that markets go up and markets go down. I have seen elation and I have seen devastation. One thing I never saw was a sense of security that the stock market was going to be there necessarily when you need it to be there. This year is Social Security's 70th birthday. It has been enormously successful. Before Social Security, over half of all seniors were poor. Today, 10 percent live in poverty. That is too much and we want to take care of that. What we do not want to do is go back to the days when 50 percent were living in poverty. So we, the Democratic women, are going to use every tool at our disposal to make sure the people of this country do not wind up in poverty. Certainly we know Social Security needs adjustments, as your own family budget needs adjustments. We did a major adjustment in 1983. I was over in the House side. Senator Mikulski was over in the House side. With Ronald Reagan as President, we all got together, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we strengthened Social Security. Under Bill Clinton, we made some efforts to strengthen it again. The fact is, we have to strengthen Social Security, not destroy it. The fact is, Social Security is not a handout, it is a promise we make to working men and women in this country: You pay into the system, it is insurance, and it will be there for you in your retirement years. Basically, when the folks on Social Security look at me and say, Will you fight for my Social Security? do you know what I tell them? You earned it, and of course I will make sure it is never taken away from you. Unfortunately, President Bush's solution is to dismantle Social Security. He can call it anything he wants. He can say he is not going to change it for those already on it. But what about those who are not already on it? Don't they have a right to have this insurance program, which has been there for so many years? I will show you what the LA Times wrote. This is not a new issue for George W. Bush. He has been at it for a long time: Even as a young man, Bush was sympathetic to revamping the program. When he ran for Congress in 1978 he argued that the program would go broke by 1988 if people were not given the ability to invest money themselves. So here you have the candidate George Bush, way back in 1978, calling for privatizing Social Security. He said it would go broke in 1988. That is what he said. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. We have to call it the way we see it. He underestimated the bipartisan will of Congress and President Reagan to keep Social Security for current and future generations. Instead of seeking to follow the path of Ronald Reagan, who was supposed to be one of his heroes, he is seeking a path that was plotted over 20 years ago to destroy Social Security. In the course of this debate--not today, at other times--I will share with my colleagues the roadmap that was laid down in the 1980s, a plan to destroy Social Security. George Bush was right there in 1978. So he is misleading the American people by calling Social Security a crisis. According to the Social Security trustees, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2042. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there is enough money to pay full benefits until 2052. So, yes, we need to make adjustments so we can keep this program secure, but we do not have to destroy it. While President Bush is traveling around the country on Air Force One, telling people there is a crisis in Social Security--this is what is amazing--he is giving lip service to the real crises that are right here, right now, under his own nose and on his own watch. What about the crisis of the budget deficit? It is well over $400 billion, that deficit. You want to talk about bankrupt? In my family, if you are spending that much more than you are taking in, you are bankrupt. Let's call it what it is. What about the crisis of the trade deficit, and the plummeting of the dollar? What about the crisis of the IOU that is given to our kids and grandchildren the day they are born? As Senator Reid has said, there is a birth tax on every child today--$36,000 worth of debt. We know the President is going to have to borrow trillions for his plan. What about the crisis of 40 million Americans without health insurance? What about the crisis of millions of Americans, including 10 million children, who live within 5 miles of a toxic waste dump that is wreaking havoc on their health? What about the crisis of being unprepared for a domestic terrorist attack because we have not invested enough in rail security, port security, chemical plant security, aviation security, nuclear plant security? What about the crisis in afterschool programs, where hundreds of thousands of kids are left out because the President has frozen funding for 3 consecutive years? I ask unanimous consent for 1 more minute, if I might.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, last week I had the pleasure of joining members of the California Missions Foundation at Mission San Diego to celebrate the passage of the California Missions Preservation Act, which became law in 2004. In opening the celebration, Missions Foundation Executive Director Knox Mellon expressed his gratitude to the Senate and House for passing the Missions Preservation Act, which will help my State preserve a priceless element of our historical and cultural heritage. By way of expressing my own gratitude to you and our colleagues, I want to share some of Mr. Mellon's remarks with you: There is a tendency for me to believe the primary beneficiary of the legislation Senator Boxer both carried and succeeded in getting signed by the President would be the California Missions Foundation because it acts as a conduit, a pass-through for directing monies to each of the twenty-one historic missions. But the real beneficiaries are the people not only of California but the nation. The missions are California's Pyramids. They are a part of our past. They help symbolize the nation's western beginnings. Of all the institutions that define California's heritage, none has the historic significance and emotional impact of the chain of Spanish missions that stretch from San Diego to Sonoma. The missions are an important part of the state's cultural fabric and must be preserved as priceless historic monuments. I thank our colleagues in Congress, particularly Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representatives Sam Farr and David Dreier, who worked diligently to see this bill signed into law. I also thank Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for his support. And finally, I thank Knox Mellon and the California Missions Foundation Board for their strong dedication to this cause. Through the collaboration of Federal, State, and private efforts, our missions have hope for the future.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who did the hard work of exhaustively examining the nominee's record. They have done what the Constitution requires of us and the Founders intended--that Senators take seriously their role in giving advise and consent on members of the President's Cabinet. The Attorney General is our Nation's chief law enforcement officer, tasked with upholding the Constitution and our laws. While I believe Mr. Gonzales has a truly remarkable personal story, the poor judgment he has exercised in his role as White House Counsel has resulted in a serious consequences that cannot simply be overlooked when considering his nomination. I will be voting against Mr. Gonzales for two main reasons. First, Mr. Gonzales was the legal architect of the administration's policies on torture. In 2002, when the intelligence community sought legal guidance about interrogation techniques, Mr. Gonzales asked the Justice Department to come up with legal justification for abusive interrogation tactics. The torture memo was drafted at his request and tacitly accepted by Mr. Gonzales. The Defense Department then used that memo to justify horrific and abusive interrogation tactics in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This memo sets forth a position so outlandish that even the Dean of Yale Law School has said that much of Saddam's Hussein's horrific abuses--like cutting off fingers, electrical shock, branding and burning of skin--would not meet the memo's definition of torture. Mr. Gonzales has never clearly repudiated this memo even though it has been a stain on our law and national reputation. Mr. Gonzales was asked about this memo at his confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee. Senator Leahy specifically asked him if he agreed with the memo's very narrow reading of the law about what constitutes torture. Mr. Gonzales replied: ``I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Department.'' Mr. Gonzales's response was completely unacceptable. It was his acceptance of this memo that formed the basis of administration policy for 2 years until the Department of Justice repudiated it on December 30, 2004, 1 week before Mr. Gonzales's hearings. Second, Mr. Gonzales played a central role in shaping the Bush administration's policy toward detainees. He called the Geneva Conventions ``quaint'' and ``obsolete''. And he advised President Bush to deny prisoners the protections under the Geneva Conventions, which had been the unbroken practice of the United States for over 50 years, and which have protected our soldiers since 1949. He did this over the objection of Secretary Powell and State Department legal counsel. They warned that this advice could undermine military culture, generate confusion about how to treat detainees, and ultimately lead to abuse. Tragically, this is exactly what happened. The torture and other abuses of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have done immeasurable damage to America's standing in the world, have undermined our military rules and traditions, and exposed our own soldiers and citizens to greater risks. I cannot support a nominee who has done so much damage to America's fundamental values and moral leadership in the world, and has taken actions and positions that put our soldiers and citizens at greater risk.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize Santa Cruz County Sheriff Mark Tracy, who retired after 32 years of dedicated service. Sheriff Tracy is a Santa Cruz County native who was educated in the county's public schools. In 1972, he received his bachelor of science degree in criminology from California State University at Fresno. Upon receiving his degree, Sheriff Tracy immediately returned to his home in Santa Cruz County, where he began his law enforcement career with the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. Sheriff Tracy has held many positions within the Santa Cruz County Sheriff's Office. As a deputy, he worked in the Patrol Division, the Coroner's Unit, and the Detention Bureau. He quickly rose through the ranks, and was soon promoted to sergeant, and then to lieutenant. In those positions, Sheriff Tracy managed the Street Narcotics and Gang units, served as the watch commander of the county jail, and supervised deputies in the Patrol Division, among other duties. Because of his expertise, Sheriff Tracy also served as the coordinator of the Search and Rescue Team, was a founding member of the Hostage Negotiating Team, and was instrumental in the planning and construction of the Roundtree Medium Security Detention Facility. In 1994, Sheriff Tracy was overwhelmingly elected by the residents of Santa Cruz County to serve as the sheriff-coroner. In 2002, he was successfully reelected, and served in the capacity of sheriff-coroner until his retirement in December 2004. Among his many accomplishments, Sheriff Tracy has also served as chair of the Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Council and the Santa Cruz County Commission on Domestic Violence. He has been an active member of the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California State Coroners' Association. Sheriff Tracy has worked tirelessly with local elected officials, schools, and community organizations to foster a strong sense of community in Santa Cruz County. I have collaborated with Sheriff Tracy in the past, and I can attest to his commitment to the community he served. Sheriff Tracy's service to the State of California and dedication to public safety is inspiring. I am confident that, even in retirement, Sheriff Tracy will continue to touch lives with his good will and compassion.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. I asked Dr. Rice about my concerns in five areas. I don't fault the President for picking someone who believes in this war, who helped him in her position. That is not the issue. The issue has to do with the lack of candor that continues to come from Dr. Rice. As recently as a few months ago she wrote a letter which resulted in a very important amendment in the Intelligence bill being stripped from that bill. This was a bill by Senators McCain and Lieberman, and this provision was written in part by Senator Durbin. It was an antitorture provision. She opposed it. She wrote that she opposed it. When I asked her about it, she denied that she opposed it, when she had opposed it in writing. I know there are other Senators coming to the floor of the Senate and saying this argument doesn't hold because she made statements that came from faulty intelligence. If that were the case, I would have no problem with Dr. Rice. Everybody knows there was faulty intelligence. But she continues to put out these misstatements. As a matter of fact, in front of the committee, if one listened closely, she muddied the waters even more. So I gave her the chance to clear it up, and she didn't. That is bad for the Senate. It is bad for the American people. Dr. King said--and I often repeat it--our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. This debate mattered. Responsibility matters. Accountability matters. It matters when you give someone a chance to correct the record that is replete with half- truths and misstatements, and they don't take that opportunity. Dr. Rice is a role model. She is smart. She is intelligent. She is qualified. She is loyal to this President. I don't question any of that. All of that makes everyone proud. The fact is, it would have been very condescending and inappropriate to have someone as skilled as Dr. Rice before a committee, someone as involved in setting the course of this war as Dr. Rice before the Foreign Relations Committee, and not ask her the kind of questions we all did. I don't know whether we will have two votes against this nominee or four or seven or eight. I really don't know because I haven't asked one colleague how they are going to vote. This has not been the point of what I have done. I have simply tried to say that holding people accountable is important, that this war matters, that we need to look at the mistakes of the past so we don't repeat them, so we don't send our young people into another war based on hyped-up rhetoric and half- truths. I thank my colleagues all and again say to my chairman how much I appreciate him. I look forward to moving past this on to the other work of our committee and the other work of the Senate. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I want to begin today by again thanking Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden, our ranking member, for a very fair debate on the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. I know these votes usually go overwhelmingly for the nominee. The last time there was any vote against a nominee, I think the most votes were Kissinger at 7 votes. So I know that what I am doing is not about winning a vote; it is simply about telling the truth as I see it and other Members telling it as they see it. At the end of the day, when Senators vote, some will be very enthusiastic about the nominee and feel very good about their vote. Others will be a little anxious. I sense with Senator Biden, he certainly has anxieties over it, but he is very hopeful. And knowing Joe Biden as I do, that definitely fits his character because I think he gave Condoleezza Rice opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to set the record straight, to level with the committee. Senator Biden was not on the floor yesterday, but I kind of replayed his give and take with future Secretary Rice on the issue of how many troops were trained, and he was literally begging her to please be candid. It is interesting because after that give and take, which was picked up by the news media, Ambassador Negroponte came into it and said: Clearly, there are not 120,000, but there are more than 4,000. All this dancing around is not academic because, as Senator Biden clearly stated and as we all know, our exit strategy in Iraq is based upon the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves certainly. We all are working toward that day, but we can't do it if we are not going to be honest about how it is going, and we can't help the administration if they don't level with us as to how things are going. I found it interesting--and this has nothing to do with this particular nomination--that the White House Chief of Staff called those of us who wanted to debate this ``petty.'' I saw one clip of him saying that the two Senators--he didn't mention the names--who were trying to get this nomination to the Senate floor and have some time to talk about it were ``small.'' I don't think he was talking about my height. That is showing such a disrespect to the American people, as we go around the world trying to bring democracy. It is something we all want to do. We may have different ways of going about it, but we want to do it. How do we stand tall if we don't uphold our Constitution? Our Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play a strong role in the selection of these very important and powerful positions. Well, thanks to Senators Lugar and Biden, we have done that. I am glad. The reason I am going to be voting no is clear to anyone who has followed this debate. I asked Condoleezza Rice a series of questions in five different areas. I gave her every opportunity to correct the record. I asked her about her statements that the aluminum tubes Saddam was buying could only be used for nuclear weapons, and she talked about the mushroom cloud and frightened the American people at a time when we know she had the information that there was a very strong dispute going on in the intelligence community and that, in fact, she had known in 2001 about this issue. She refused to budge. I asked her about her continual statements that al-Qaida and Saddam were close. It was not true. At the time she made those comments, the State Department itself put out a very important map--this was 1 month after 9/11--saying that in fact there was no al-Qaida whatsoever in Iraq. They were nowhere in Iraq. She refused to budge. I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 4 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic commuter train crash. All of the details of the crash are not available at this moment. However, at least 10 people were killed and over 100 injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has already sent a team to investigate. I have been talking about the problem of grade crossings and the need for grade separations for several years. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade crossings. In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard on many communities in California where traffic, including emergency vehicles, is severely delayed at these grade crossings. In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed ambulance and fire protection 88 times. This translates into more people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks and larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack, imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get across the tracks. To address the safety problem of accidents and other safety hazards at grade crossings, I am introducing the Rail Crossing Safety Act, part of which passed the Senate twice in the last Congress as part larger railroad bills considered in the Commerce Committee. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during emergencies. The second part of the legislation would authorize funds for the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to State and local governments to undertake grade separations, in other words to build bridges and tunnels. Today's incident in Glendale only underscores the needs to make our streets and rail lines safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today in Glendale, CA, there was a tragic commuter train crash. All of the details of the crash are not available at this moment. However, at least 10 people were killed and over 100 injured. The National Transportation Safety Board has already sent a team to investigate. I have been talking about the problem of grade crossings and the need for grade separations for several years. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, ``grade crossings are the site of the greatest number of collisions and injuries'' in the railroad industry. In 2000, there were 3,502 incidents at grade crossings. In addition, the large volume of freight train traffic from California's ports to the rest of the Nation is a public safety hazard on many communities in California where traffic, including emergency vehicles, is severely delayed at these grade crossings. In Riverside, CA, from January 2001 to January 2003, trains delayed ambulance and fire protection 88 times. This translates into more people possibly dying from health emergencies such as heart attacks and larger and more deadly fires. If there is another terrorist attack, imagine what would happen if emergency first responders could not get across the tracks. To address the safety problem of accidents and other safety hazards at grade crossings, I am introducing the Rail Crossing Safety Act, part of which passed the Senate twice in the last Congress as part larger railroad bills considered in the Commerce Committee. This legislation would direct the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with State and local government officials, to conduct a study of the impact of grade crossings both on accidents and on the ability of emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties. This would include the ability of police, fire, ambulances, and other emergency vehicles to cross the railroad tracks during emergencies. The second part of the legislation would authorize funds for the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants to State and local governments to undertake grade separations, in other words to build bridges and tunnels. Today's incident in Glendale only underscores the needs to make our streets and rail lines safer. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Here is the thing. Dr. Rice told the American people that there were strong ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. These are her words: We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al- Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. Now, I want to show a map that the State Department put out, and it was accompanied by a letter from President Bush, a month after 9/11. Here is the map. The red indicates where there are al-Qaida cells. Unfortunately, we notice the United States is red. That is why we have to win this war. This is the list where al-Qaida or affiliated groups have operated, and this is a month after 9/11, put out by this administration. No Iraq. So how do you then go on television, look the American people in the eye, and tell them that in fact--and I will go back to her quote again: We clearly know that there were in the past and have been contacts between senior Iraqi officials and members of al- Qaeda going back for actually quite a long time. And there are some al-Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad. She did not tell the full story there, and I gave her a chance to do it. It is really troubling to me. After all this time, these are the things she could have said: I never checked out that map. You are right, Senator, there were no al-Qaida there. But she didn't do that. She could have listened to what the experts were saying about how bin Laden loathed Saddam Hussein, two despicable tyrants who hated each other. Peter Bergen said: . . . I met bin Laden in '97 and . . . asked him at the end of the interview . . . his opinion of Saddam Hussein. And [bin Laden] said, ``Well, Saddam is a bad Muslim and he took Kuwait for his own self-aggrandizement.'' In November 2001, the former head of the Saudi intelligence said: Iraq doesn't come very high in the estimation of Osama bin Laden. . . .He thinks of [Saddam Hussein] as an apostate, an infidel, or someone who is not worthy of being a fellow Muslim. Then the bipartisan 9/11 Commission says there is ``no collaborative'' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida, and Dr. Rice received that memo on September 18, 2001, and still she went before the American people. When I asked her about it, she said: As to the question of al Qaeda and its presence in Iraq, I think we did say that there was never an issue of operational control . . . that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 as far as we know or could tell. It wasn't a question of operational alliance. It was a question of an attitude about terrorism that allowed Zarqawi to be in Baghdad and to operate out of Baghdad. Well, those statements continued to mislead. There is no question about it. When she says there wasn't an operational alliance and she believed there never was, why was it that aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, when President Bush had that famous sign ``mission accomplished,'' he said: The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al Qaeda. How do you tell the committee that this administration never thought there was an operational link, when the President, standing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, was saying mission accomplished, and the major fighting is behind us? He said: In the war against Saddam, we have removed an ally of al Qaeda. It isn't right to continue this kind of talk when you already know from the 9/11 Commission that it isn't true, and you know from looking at the State Department that it wasn't true. Yet it all continues. In her point about allowing Zarqawi to be in Baghdad, she failed to mention a CIA document that was reportedly sent to the White House in September 2004 that states there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam harbored Zarqawi. Last October, a senior U.S. official told ABC News there was, in fact, no evidence that Saddam even knew Zarqawi was in Baghdad. So we are not being told the whole truth. We are not being given all of the facts. I have to say that I think it is a disservice to the American people. The fourth issue I raised with Dr. Rice concerns U.S. relations with Iran during the Iraq-Iran war. That sounds like, why would I raise that because that war was in the 1980s? It is important because, in making her case for the war in Iraq, Dr. Rice cited Saddam's deplorable use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. It certainly was a sin against humanity. She failed to mention, however, that it was Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld--here he is in this picture--in December 1983 who met with Saddam 1 month after the United States confirmed he was using chemical weapons almost daily against Iran. In an attempt to support Iraq during that war, Iraq was removed from the terrorism list in 1982. None other than Donald Rumsfeld was giving the good news to Saddam Hussein and tried to restore full diplomatic relations. As a matter of fact, during this whole Iran-Iraq war, we all know the story that American firms were selling materials to Saddam Hussein. Now, this is what Dr. Rice said. She said: I will say it right now. The U.S. Government has often, as the President said, supported regimes in the hope that they would bring stability. We have been in the Middle East sometimes blind to the freedom deficit. We are not going to do that anymore. What happened with Saddam is probably evidence that that policy was not a very wise policy. That is an understatement. It was a horrific policy. It was a terrible policy. It was a policy of appeasing Saddam Hussein, making sure that he had the weapons, because we were essentially taking his side quietly in the Iran-Iraq war, and Donald Rumsfeld was super involved in it, and here is the picture to prove it. Now, I do appreciate that Dr. Rice said it probably was not a very wise policy. I was glad to hear her say that. But you know what. She doesn't explain to us why. When she cited Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran as a justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq, she doesn't mention that the U.S. Government was working at that very same time to reestablish robust relations with Saddam. Indeed, our own Government took Saddam off the terror list, and the American people deserve to know that from her, when she advanced this issue as a reason for the war. Full disclosure. Give the whole story. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. This says: The administration also opposes [she names the section] which provides legal protections to foreign prisoners to which they are not now entitled under applicable law and policy. And she says that section 1095 of the Defense Authorization Act already addresses this issue. So Dr. Rice's own words in the letter contradict what she told the committee. Now, this issue of torture is one that matters. It matters to me for many reasons. The first is it is about our humanity. It is about our humanity. Second is that it is about our soldiers, who may find themselves in captivity and in a circumstance where they might well get treated the way we are treating people we capture. That is why the protective words here and living up to our treaties or obligations of our Constitution and international treaties are so important. It is not some vague academic discussion; it is very serious. Now, I went and saw, as many colleagues did, the pictures from Abu Ghraib prison. As long as I live, they will be seared in my memory. There are a lot more pictures that the public didn't see. I can tell you--and I think I can say this of most of my colleagues I was sitting with from both sides of the aisle--I could barely watch what was shown. I am sometimes torn to talk about what I saw. I have done it in small groups where my constituents have asked me what I saw, but I will not do it today. I do not want to do it, but let it be said that the kinds of pictures that I saw do not reflect our country or our values. We have to be united on this. Senator Dodd asked Dr. Rice to please tell us her personal views on torture, and he laid out a couple of examples of torture. She demurred and would not respond to those specific questions. I thought that was a moment in time where she could have sent out a signal to the whole world about America. She said for sure that Abu Ghraib was terrible. She was eloquent on the point. In fact, I will read to my colleagues what she said right after Abu Ghraib: What took place at the Abu Ghraib prison does not represent America. Our nation is a compassionate country that believes in freedom. The U.S. government is deeply sorry for what has happened to some Abu Ghraib prisoners and people worldwide should be assured that President Bush is determined to learn the full truth of the prisoner reports in Iraq. Those comments at that time were very important. They were the type of comments that I think pull us all together. It was a comment that reflected humanity. Then we have this language that she writes a couple of months after she makes this beautiful speech in October saying she opposes this provision that says no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. She writes a letter opposing this section after she makes this beautiful speech. When I asked her to explain it, she gives me reasons that just do not hold up, that it is duplicative, which it is not, that she really did not oppose it, which cannot possibly be true because we have her letter in writing where she did. There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has the resume, the story, the intelligence, and the experience to be Secretary of State. She certainly is loyal to this President, we know that, and I think that is important. The President wants to have someone who is loyal. He should also want to have someone who will be independent such as Colin Powell was. After 9 hours of grueling questions and answers before the committee, she proved her endurance for the job. In responding to me, she used a very clever tactic that we all learn in politics, which is to go after the questioner, why are you attacking me, and then do not answer the questions. It was OK that she did that. I did not mind that she did that. But she did not answer the questions. That is the point. I believe the committee gave Dr. Rice the opportunity to speak candidly and set the record straight. It is not only my questions. Senator Biden asked her how many Iraqi security forces were trained, and without blinking an eye she said 120,000. And he said, wait a minute--and anyone who knows Senator Biden knows that he kind of roots for someone when they sit in the hot seat--let us really be candid here. He said: I went to Iraq and I was told by the military that there is nothing close to 120,000. He said he was told there were 4,000. She stuck by the 120,000. Later, when others were asked in the administration, such as Ambassador Negroponte, he would not put out a number but he sure did not say 120,000. Everyone with a heart and a pulse knows it is not 120,000 trained troops, because as Senator Biden said at that hearing, if there are 120,000 trained Iraqi troops to protect the Iraqi people, why in God's name are we there in the numbers we are and keeping people there, who are leaving their families, for extra tours of duty? She would not budge. I am troubled because we gave Dr. Rice every opportunity to speak candidly, set the record straight, and she just did not do that. In her role as National Security Adviser, she was not responsible for coming to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or the House equivalent committee. Now she is going to be responsible for that. She could not have a friendlier chairman than Senator Lugar in terms of being given every opportunity to work with our committee. I know Senator Biden and Senator Lugar work together just like brothers. This is a very bipartisan committee. We are going to see Dr. Rice there very often because she will be confirmed. I hope when she comes back before the committee that she will be more candid with the committee. At this time I am judging her on her answers to these questions. She dodged so many of them and again resorted to half the story and even got herself in deeper water in some of her responses. So I cannot support this nomination. The cost of the policy in Iraq, a policy that she embraced wholeheartedly, a policy that she did, in fact, bring to the American people and she led them to certain conclusions that turned out not to be true, whether it was the aluminum tubes, the ties to al-Qaida, whether it was her half argument on the Iran-Iraq war, whether it was her obvious contradictory statements on we never said he would have a nuclear weapon in a year one day and then the next year she said we did not say that, it is too hard to overlook these things. I will close with the Martin Luther King quote, which I will not recite exactly but I do agree that our lives begin to end when we stop caring about things that matter. Accountability matters. Truth telling matters. The whole truth matters. Responsibility matters. The advice and consent role of the Senate is one that is really very important. I hope my colleagues on both sides will recognize that this Senate is at its best when we have some of these tough debates. It is not as if we are having a vote to confirm a Cabinet position that will not have as much reach. It is not as if we are voting to confirm a position where the individual is brand new and does not have a record. This is a very important position in a time of war where the nominee had a record of making many statements to the American people. I believe that out of respect for the American people, out of respect for the Senate, out of respect for the Foreign Relations Committee, and out of respect to Condoleezza Rice herself, we needed to ask these questions. Now that he is on the floor again, I would say to Senator Lugar what I said before, that he is such a fair chairman. All of us on the committee have such respect for him. I look forward to working with him on many issues. I think there will be many times where we will be voting the same way. We will not be today, but that is just one time. There will be many other occasions where we will be together. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I compliment my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for a very good and thoughtful debate today on this particular nominee. I come to the Senate today to report and inform my colleagues on the Secretary of State confirmation hearings held in the Foreign Relations Committee last week. By now, everyone knows I posed some very direct questions to Dr. Rice about her statements leading up to the Iraqi war and beyond. As National Security Adviser, Dr. Rice gave confidential advice to the President regarding the war in Iraq. She also made the case for the war in Iraq to the American people through hours of television appearances and commentary. My questions, every one of them, revolved around her own words. As a result of my questions and comments at the hearing, I have been hailed as both a hero and a petty person. I have been called both courageous and partisan. I have been very surprised at this response. Tens of thousands of people signed a petition asking me to hold Dr. Rice accountable for her past statements. The reason I am so surprised at this reaction is that I believe I am doing my job. It is as simple at that. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. This is a very high profile nominee. This is a Secretary of State nomination in a time of war. My constituents want me to be thorough. They want me to exercise the appropriate role of a Senator. Let's look for a moment at what that role is, how it was defined by our Founding Fathers. Article II, section 2, clause 2, of the Constitution, which I have sworn to uphold, says the President: shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for. The Cabinet is covered in Article II, section 2, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution. Now, if you read this, it does not say anywhere in here that the President shall nominate and the Senate shall confirm. It says the President ``shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate'' shall make the appointments. Why is it our Founders believed it was crucial for the Senate to play such a strong role in the selection of these very important and powerful members of the administration and members of the bench? It is because our Founders believed that the executive branch must never be too powerful or too overbearing. In Federal No. 76, Alexander Hamilton wrote: It will readily be comprehended that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body . . . In today's vernacular, any President needs a check and balance. That certainly applies today, and it would apply to a Democratic President as much as to a Republican President. Our Founders are clear, and the Constitution is clear. Again, it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that a President, Democratic or Republican, has free rein in the selection of his or her Cabinet. That is exactly what the Founders did not want. They wanted the President, and I will quote Alexander Hamilton again, to ``submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body.'' And that body is the Senate. It also doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that the only reason for a Senator to vote no on a Presidential nominee is because of some personal or legal impediment of that nominee. It leaves the door open. Senators have to ponder each and every one of these nominations. It is very rare that I step forward to oppose one. I have opposed just a couple. I have approved hundreds. Let me be clear. I will never be deterred--and I know my colleagues feel the same, I believe, on both sides of the aisle--I will never be deterred from doing a job the Constitution requires of me or it would be wrong to have taken the oath and raise my right hand to God and swear to uphold the Constitution if I did not take this role seriously. I make a special comment to the White House Chief of Staff, who called Members of the Senate petty for seeking time to speak out on this particular nomination. It is important to know that the White House Chief of Staff does a great job for the President, but he does not run the Senate. I know he finds the constitutional requirement of advice and consent perhaps a nuisance, and others have as well in the White House, be they Republicans or Democrats. It is the system of government we have inherited from our Founders. As we go around the world, hoping to bring freedom and liberty to people, we better make sure we get it right here. This is very important, whether it is fair and free elections that really work so people do not stand in line for 10 hours and wait until 4 in the morning to vote, that we fix that, and that we, in fact, act as a check and balance in these nominations. I have been motivated by a lot of people in my life. One of them is Martin Luther King. I wish to share something he said which is not as widely quoted as other things. He said that our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. That is important for everyone to take to heart. Sometimes it is easier to be silent, to just go along, even if in your heart you know there are certain issues that have to be put out on the table. But the fact is, our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Why does this nomination matter so much to me and to my constituents and to the tens of thousands who signed a petition that they sent to me? It is because we are looking at a Secretary of State nomination in a time of war, someone who is very loyal to this President. And, of course, the President picked someone loyal to him. I do not fault him for that in any way, shape, or form. But what matters is this war. A very strong majority of Americans are worried about this war, and they are worried about what comes next. So, yes, it matters, and it is our job to look at these nominees very seriously. I think it would be terribly condescending to have someone of the caliber of Dr. Rice, with all her intelligence and qualifications and her record of public service with this administration, and not ask the tough questions. That would be condescending. That would be wrong. Now, I am so honored to serve on the Foreign Relations Committee with the Senator from Virginia, who just made a very eloquent talk. I know he would join me in saying that Richard Lugar is one of the fairest chairmen with whom we have ever served. He allowed members on both sides of the aisle to ask any questions they wanted. He supported our right to do so. To me, Richard Lugar is a model chairman. And I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who asked very important questions of this nominee on everything from exit strategy in Iraq, to issues surrounding the torture question, to policies in Latin America, to tsunami relief. All of these colleagues from both sides of the aisle asked very important questions. As for me, I had five areas of questioning, and I want to lay them out briefly for the Senate. Now, one more point as to why I believed it was so important to ask Dr. Rice these questions. I think everyone remembers when Dr. Rice went on television and talked about the mushroom cloud that we could get courtesy of Saddam Hussein--an evil tyrant, absolutely. In my opinion, as I said in the committee, he ought to rot. So let's not get confused on that point. I do not know any American who feels any differently. The question is, How many people had to die? That is an important question. How many people had to be wounded? That is an important question. Let me tell you, 1,368 soldiers are dead, as of the latest numbers that we got this morning from the Department of Defense, and 10,502 wounded. My understanding is that about a third of them may well come home in tremendous need of mental health counseling to try to help them cope with the horrors they have seen, those brave, incredible soldiers. As I said in the committee, and I say it again on the floor of the Senate, not one of them died in vain. Not one of them got injured in vain because when your Commander in Chief sends you to fight in a war, it is the most noble of things to do that. And they have done that. President Bush, in his inaugural address, talked about bringing freedom to countries that do not have it. He did not specify how. Now, the nongovernmental organization, Freedom House, estimates there are 49 countries in the world that are not free. The group believes there are another 54 countries that are considered only partly free. I worry about sending more troops on military missions based on hyped up rhetoric. That is why these questions are so important. So the first set of questions that I posed to Dr. Rice had to do with her comments about Saddam's nuclear program. On July 30, 2003, Dr. Rice was asked by PBS NewsHour's Gwen Ifill if she continued to stand by the claims made about Saddam's nuclear program in the days and months leading up to the war. In what appears to be an effort to downplay the nuclear weapons scare tactics, she said: It was a case that said he is trying to reconstitute. He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And then she says: Nobody ever said that it was going to be the next year. . . . Well, that was false, because 9 months before that, this is what the President said: If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. So she tells the American people nobody ever said he would have a weapon within a year, when in fact the President himself made that comment. Then, later, a year after she said nobody has ever said this, she herself says it: . . . the intelligence assessment was that he was reconstituting his nuclear programs; that, left unchecked, he would have a nuclear weapon by the end of the year. . . . That is what she says to Fox News. So first she says nobody ever said it. We showed her the fact that the President did. And then she contradicts herself. She contradicts the President and then she contradicts herself. Now, this is very troubling. I wanted to give her a chance to correct the record. Did Dr. Rice correct the record? Let me tell you what she said. She had two responses. First she said to this committee, my committee: The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in terms of weapons of mass destruction. Notice she does not mention the word ``nuclear weapons.'' And she says: We had a very difficult challenge. But that is a contradiction because on July 31, 2003, this is what she told a German TV station: Going into the war against Iraq, we had very strong intelligence. I've been in this business for 20 years. And some of the strongest intelligence cases that I've seen. . . . We had very strong intelligence going in. So she tells the committee: We faced a difficult intelligence challenge--when she had told a German TV station: It was the best intelligence we ever had. This is contradictory, plus she never ever addresses the issue that we asked her about. Why did you contradict the President and why did she contradict herself? Then she had a second response. She pointed to the Duelfer report and cited it but failed to tell the whole story where the Duelfer report said: Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War. There you go. She never said that. She never cited that. She cited other quotes from the Duelfer report. So her answers to the questions I asked her, saying once that Saddam would not have a weapon within a year, and another to me saying he would, her answers are completely nonresponsive to the question and raise more credibility lapses. Then we have another area of aluminum tubes. On September 8, 2002, Dr. Rice was on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer and made this statement: We do know that there have been shipments going . . . into Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to . . . nuclear weapons programs. . . . And then President Bush repeated the same thing: Our intelligence sources tell us that (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. I pointed out to Dr. Rice that the Department of Energy thought otherwise as far back as April 11, 2001. They said the ``specifications [for the tubes] are not consistent with a gas centrifuge end use. . . .'' On May 9, 2001, they said: The Intelligence Community's original analysis of these tubes focused on their possible use in developing gas centrifuges for the enrichment of uranium. Further investigation reveals, however, Iraq has purchased similar aluminum tubes previously to manufacture chambers for a multiple rocket launcher. In other words, not suitable for nuclear weapons. Then in July 2002, Australian intelligence said tube evidence is ``patchy and inconclusive.'' And IAEA said they are ``not directly suitable'' for uranium enrichment and are ``consistent'' with making ordinary artillery rockets. So we laid this all out there for Dr. Rice, and she refused again to correct the record. She had a chance. This is what she said at the hearing after she saw all of this: We didn't go to war because of aluminum tubes. That is what she said to the committee. Well, if that is the case, why did President Bush cite the aluminum tubes in his speech in which he made the case for the war? He said: Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. So you can't say that the aluminum tubes were not a reason for going to war when the President used it in his speech where he was building support for the war. She doesn't answer the question. She doesn't correct the record. It is very troubling. The third issue I raised was the matter of linking Saddam to al-Qaida which she did over and over again. I voted for the war against Osama bin Laden. I believed the President when he said we are going to get him dead or alive. I thought we wouldn't stop--we wouldn't turn away-- and that we would not end until we broke the back of al-Qaida. Well, unfortunately, when we went into Iraq--and this was sold to us in part by Dr. Rice; she viewed that as her job; I think the President gave that job to her--we took our eye off al-Qaida. We took our eye off bin Laden. And the consequences are being seen and felt. Dr. Rice told the committee that the terrorists ``are on the run.'' The truth is, they are now in 60 countries when before 9/11 they were in 45 countries. I want to read to you a paragraph that best expresses my views on the impact of the Iraqi war on the war against terrorism. It was written by one of the world's experts on terror, Peter Bergen, 5 months ago: What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure that bin Laden has long predicted was the United States' long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden long despised, ignited Sunni and Shia fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a ``defensive'' jihad that has galvanized jihad-minded Muslims around the world. It is hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism. This conclusion was supported by the CIA Director's think tank. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article that describes this recent report that says Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of ``professionalized'' terrorists.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I raise the issue of Dr. Rice's opposition to a provision in the intelligence reform bill that would have outlawed the use of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners by intelligence officials. The section of this provision is here. It was passed unanimously by the Senate. The overall amendment was written by Senators McCain and Lieberman, but this particular provision was written by Senator Durbin: Prohibition on torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment. In general, no prisoner shall be subject to torture or cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. That is very straightforward. When I asked Dr. Rice, why did you sign a letter with Mr. Bolton and object to this provision and ask that it be stricken, she had a couple of different responses. The first response she gave me was: This is duplicative of language that was in the Defense Department bill. So I checked with the authors of this provision, and I said: Is it true that this is duplicative? They said the language is in the Department of Defense, but it does not apply to the CIA and intelligence officers who work outside of the DOD. So I explained it to her, and she argued with me and she said it is not true, it is duplicative. I said: Do you think Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Durbin don't know what they are doing when they added this to the intelligence bill? She didn't answer. The fact is, this is not duplicative. This is necessary so that we cover those intelligence officials who may not be part of the Department of Defense but are part of other agencies not covered by the Department of Defense. And then she went on and said: We did not want to afford to people who did not--shouldn't enjoy certain protections those protections. And the Geneva Conventions should not apply to terrorists like al-Qaida. They can't or you will stretch the meaning of the Geneva Convention. That was her second problem with it, which was that you are granting more rights than the Geneva Conventions. However, this explanation makes no sense because the following language was also part of this, which is: Nothing in this section shall affect the status of any person under the Geneva Conventions or whether any person is entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. So she gave two reasons as to why she wrote a letter and demanded this be removed from the intelligence bill, neither of which is true. It is not duplicative, and there is no problem with the Geneva Conventions because we make a special exception for them. But that is not all. The next day, Dr. Rice came back and changed what she said the day before. She said she doesn't oppose the subsection that clearly prohibited torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment. She said she opposes other provisions in the section. Well, Mr. President, this was the operative language of the section. That second day's excuse just doesn't hold up under scrutiny because she wrote in a letter--this is what Dr. Rice wrote to the committee.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to recognize the 75th anniversary of the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley. In 1930, the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley, JFSV, was incorporated into the national Jewish Federation system to promote philanthropic and humanitarian activities in Santa Clara County. For 75 years, JFSV has served as a focal point for the Jewish community in Silicon Valley. With a membership of over 13,000, the JFSV is committed to preservation and enrichment of Jewish culture, and to expressing Jewish community concerns about Jewish life in Santa Clara County, the United States, Israel and throughout the world. Over the past 75 years, JFSV has expanded greatly, and now offers a wide variety of programs to its members. The Silicon Valley Young Adults Division offers educational and social programs to members ages 25-40. The Women's Philanthropy Division focuses on community-building, educational, social, and cultural enrichment for women, while offering great networking opportunities to women members. Blue Knot, the Jewish Technology Initiative, creates opportunities for Jewish professionals in the technology sector to exchange ideas and expand networks. JFSV is based on the caring philosophies of Klal Yisrael, the responsibility of each Jew for another, and Tikun Olam, repairing the world through social action. JFSV has mentored many members who have dedicated themselves to community service in Silicon Valley and the Greater Bay Area. Through its outreach, JFSV has successfully enhanced social and civic participation in the Silicon Valley community. The Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley's service to the Jewish community, both in Santa Clara County and nationwide, is truly inspiring. I congratulate the Jewish Federation of Silicon Valley on their 75th anniversary and wish them another 75 years of success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding accomplishments of the University of Southern California football team. Earlier this month, the Trojans completed a perfect season by winning the Orange Bowl and their second consecutive national championship. Last year, USC shared the championship after being excluded from the Bowl Championship Series title game. This year, there was no doubt. The Trojans won all 13 of their games and led both the Associated Press and the USA Today/ESPN coaches polls from the preseason through the bowl games. On Tuesday, January 4, they ended the season with a bang. In a much- anticipated meeting with second-ranked Oklahoma, the Trojans overwhelmed the Sooners by a score of 55-19 to win the Orange Bowl and the national championship in utterly convincing fashion. I would like to congratulate USC President Steven B. Sample, Head Coach Pete Carroll, and the Trojan football team for an unforgettable season.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to name the courthouse in Sacramento, California, as the ``Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse.'' I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feinstein and Durbin. Congressman Matsui's death on January 1, 2005 was shocking to all of us. Naming the Federal Courthouse in Sacramento in his honor would be a very appropriate memorial to his continual efforts toward a just and fair society. After his childhood internment, Bob Matsui could have chosen to dwell on the sadness of his early years. Instead, he chose to give his life to public service, working to improve the lives of those in his congressional district and all Americans. He was a true patriot. He was first elected to Congress in 1978, and spent the past 26 years representing the citizens of Sacramento with distinction and pride. He served as a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and took a particular interest in complex public policy issues including tax, international trade, social security, healthcare, and welfare reform. Congressman Matsui's dedication to the well-being of America's children earned him the Congressional Advocate of the Year award from The Child Welfare League of America in 1992 and 1994. The Congressman was also honored with the Anti Defamation League's Lifetime Achievement Award for his commitment to human rights. Included in Congressman Matsui's long list of legislative achievements were his accomplishments to benefit the people of his district including flood control, transportation, and his success in obtaining $142 million in federal funding for the courthouse in Sacramento. A graduate of the University of California at Berkeley and Hastings College of Law, he founded his own law practice in 1967, and was elected to the Sacramento City Council in 1971. After winning reelection in 1975 he became vice mayor of Sacramento in 1977. Congressman Matsui is survived by his wife, Doris Matsui, their son Brian and his wife Amy, and granddaughter, Anna.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that will protect hundreds of thousands of acres of wilderness in Northern California. The Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Wilderness Act would designate over 300,000 acres in 14 areas as wilderness and would protect 21 miles of the Black Butte Creek as wild and scenic. The Senate passed this legislation during the 108th Congress, and I am hopeful this year that the bill will become law. California's natural treasures have always been one of the things that make California unique, drawing millions of people to them over the years to revel in their wild beauty. But that beauty must not be taken for granted. It is important that we move now to designate these special places in California as wilderness to protect them for the enjoyment of future generations. That is why I introduced the statewide California Wild Heritage Act during the 107th Congress and the 108th Congress, and I will soon be reintroducing it. The California Wild Heritage Act would protect more than 2.5 million acres of public land throughout the state of California, as well as the free-flowing portions of 23 rivers. Every acre of wild land is a treasure, but the areas protected in this bill are some of California's most precious. I am pleased to join Representative Mike Thompson of California in introducing this legislation, which protect those portions of my statewide bill that are located in California's First Congressional District. The areas protected under this legislation are some of the most magnificent wild places in our state. For example, in southwestern Humboldt and northwestern Mendocino counties, over 42,000 acres of the King Range will be protected as wilderness. This is the wildest portion of the California coast, boasting the longest stretch of undeveloped coastline in the United States outside of Alaska. This bill will protect watersheds that provide clean water to our cities and farms. This bill would also protect the precious plant and animal species that make their homes in these areas. Endangered and threatened species whose habitats will be protected by this bill include the bald eagle, California brown pelican, steelhead trout, coho salmon, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, northern spotted owl, and Roosevelt elk. During the last 20 years, 675,000 acres of unprotected wilderness lost their wilderness character due to activities such as logging and mining. As our population increases, and California becomes home to almost 50 million people by the middle of the century, development pressures threaten our remaining wild places. We must protect our precious wild lands and wild rivers before they are lost forever. Mr. President, those of us who live in the United States have a very special responsibility to protect our natural heritage. With this legislation, we are one step closer to protecting this legacy for our children's children, and their children.