Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending amendment aside, and I call up my amendment which is at the desk.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I believe this is open for debate. I want to express myself tonight. I have not said this before, but I have to tell you that the Senator from Nevada has been working so diligently with his colleagues on the other side to move along the business of this body. He suggested that four of us who have very brief amendments be allowed to go forward--not in advance of the other side. I don't have any problem with a few people going first or alternating back and forth. But I have to say, I feel very bad about this, and I am not going to be cooperating tonight if we are not going to allow this to take on some kind of comity at this late hour where we hear from Senator Hutchison, who has a very good amendment, and then we go to our side, and back and forth. I want to speak just as one Senator to say I feel bad about the way things are deteriorating tonight and I am not going to cooperate.

Mrs. BOXER. I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask the Senator from Alaska this question. We will not have an offset. I have agreed not to have an offset. Is it the chairman's understanding that the $1.5 million will come from----

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. This is retroactive. We took care of it prospectively. This is to actually write checks to people.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I urge my friend to please not put such severe time limits on this because for some of us this is an extremely important amendment that goes to the heart of how we feel about the issue. I know my friend vehemently objects. Just the way he vehemently objects, I vehemently support the Senator. I have not spoken much in this debate thus far and feel that it is extremely important to my constituents, who do not want the status quo, who want a change, to hear my views. I ask my friend if he could withhold a particular time. My own view is I probably need about 15, 20 minutes, max, but I do not know for sure.

Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object.

Mrs. BOXER. I object to the 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. For myself, I would like to speak up to 20 minutes. I may only take 15.

Mrs. BOXER. I assure the Senator from Alaska my remarks are really not as long as 20 minutes. I certainly will try to get my points across in short order. Mr. President, I am very proud to stand with the senior Democratic Senator on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Byrd, and support his amendment to require the administration to develop a plan for Iraq, to share the burden of Iraqi reconstruction and security, and provide Congress with the information it deserves to have, not only as a coequal branch of Government but in behalf of our constituents. I view this amendment as a very strong alternative to the underlying bill, an alternative that is better for our troops, that is better for our taxpayers, and will finally give us a plan and an exit strategy we should have had a long time ago. The Byrd amendment withholds half of the money requested for reconstruction until the President certifies and reports to Congress that the U.N. Security Council has adopted a new resolution authorizing a multinational force under U.S. leadership. That would result in more funding and more troops from other nations to relieve our heavy burden. And the burden is, indeed, heavy. I am very happy the U.N. Security Council just passed a resolution. But, if I might say, what that resolution does--and I am glad they passed it--is it essentially puts them on record as recognizing the United States as the transition power in Iraq. But it does not give one dollar toward the effort of reconstruction. It does not give even one soldier more from another country. So we have a long way to go. I think in many ways the Senator from West Virginia was prescient, because he put in his amendment not just that the U.N. pass any old resolution, but that the U.N. pass a resolution that will in fact relieve the burden on our troops and on our taxpayers. Senator Byrd and those of us supporting his amendment also say the administration must certify and report to Congress that our reconstruction efforts are being carried out in accordance with a detailed plan that includes significant financial assistance from other nations. In short, the Byrd amendment requires leadership from this administration--leadership from this administration--and the American people deserve no less. It is time for leadership. In addition, the Byrd amendment requires reports to the Congress on efforts to protect our troops. I made a visit to Walter Reed Hospital yesterday. It was a very emotional visit. Our troops are extraordinary. They are incredibly optimistic young people. Each one of them I visited said had they been in a different type of vehicle, they wouldn't have lost their limbs, they wouldn't have lost colleagues. Because, as we have said many times, after the President landed on the aircraft carrier and he said the major hostilities were over, we did not have a plan in place and a lot of our people have paid the price of that. So we are essentially demanding, asking, requesting, that the President report to the Congress on efforts to protect our troops. We asked for an estimate of the duration and cost of the military mission in Iraq. I might say, for many of us who supported the Levin resolution, we have been asking for that since day one and we really never had it. Why do you think the American people took a deep breath when they heard $87 billion for Iraq? They don't even realize, most of them, because it slipped through here with a unanimous vote--and at that time I think rightly so--we already gave $70 billion for Iraq in an emergency supplemental. So there was $70 billion, now there is $87 billion, and if anyone thinks this is the last of it you are mistaken. If we do not get a grip on this, this is a policy that is not in anybody's control. They don't even know who is in control over at the White House. They sent out a press release that Condi Rice was in charge of reconstruction. Then Rumsfeld got mad. Then she came out and said, Well, gee, no, that really wasn't so. I think Senator Byrd, with all his many years here, his many years living, and his many years witnessing other administrations, has done us all a favor by putting together this very important amendment. Many of us helped put the finishing touches on it. I am very proud of this amendment. So we ask the President to send a report to Congress on efforts to protect our troops, an estimate of the duration and cost of the military mission in Iraq, an estimated long-term schedule for the withdrawal of U.S. and foreign troops, and a schedule with timetables and costs for the establishment of a fully trained and equipped Iraqi security force. Why is the Byrd amendment an alternative to be strongly supported? To me it is clear. It is time to end a blank-check policy. It is time to end a blank-check policy. Again, we gave $70 billion with absolutely no strings attached. We didn't stop it. We didn't say anything. We expected the President at that point would use those dollars and use the trust the Congress placed in him with that $70 billion to come up with a plan. We still don't have it. So clearly we should support this very important amendment as an alternative to the underlying bill. Let me give you other reasons. We were misled about post-Saddam Iraq. There is not one person who is civilized and has a heart and a pulse that beat who isn't glad Saddam is out of the picture. That has never been the issue. That has never been the question. The question is, did we have the right policy so that in the future that part of the world will be more secure, that we will not have a vacuum where terrorists move in, and where the United States is not the only country that is bearing the cost of a post-Saddam Iraq? The American people--I know I speak for the people of California who have spoken with me about this and, by the way, I have had well over 1,000 calls on this and it is heavily against the $87 billion--feel for the Iraqi people, and they want to do their share--underline ``share.'' But they were told the postwar situation would be quite different from what we are seeing. Let me quote President Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who was press secretary up until recently. This is what he said about reconstruction: Well, the reconstruction costs remain . . . an issue for the future, and Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is a rather wealthy country. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle and my friends on this side of the aisle that the spokesperson for the President of the United States said: . . . unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is a rather wealthy country. Still quoting, he said: 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. My friends, that was this year. Ari Fleischer was speaking for the President of the United States who is now putting pressure on us not to see this reconstruction money become loans. Ari Fleischer said: . . . Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction. What did Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz say? I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. Let us hear what he said. He said: There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people . . . and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years. Going on, Mr. Wolfowitz, No. 1 in the Defense Department, said: We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. What are we being told by the manager of this amendment, Senator Stevens? He is saying the Byrd amendment is awful; it is terrible; it is going to stop everything; it is a terrible thing. If you think the Byrd amendment is destructive, why not call Paul Wolfowitz and find out why on March 27, 2003 he said, ``We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon''? Why not call up Ari Fleischer, who spoke to the President and said, `` . . . unlike Afghanistan, Iraq can pay for its own reconstruction''? But it doesn't stop there. There is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I am quoting him. I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction. My colleagues, I want to reiterate this. Donald Rumsfeld, No. 1 in the Department of Defense, said in March of this year: I don't believe the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction. He said: [Reconstruction] funds can come from . . . frozen assets, oil revenues and a variety of other things, including the Oil for Food, which has very substantial number of billions of dollars in it. I could have quoted 10 other people from this administration, but from Secretary Rumsfeld who is a key member of this administration, to Ari Fleischer who spoke for the President, to Paul Wolfowitz, second in command at the Department of Defense, they all told us and they told the American people Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction. I think the underlying bill is very much another blank check based on more statements and promises from an administration that led a brilliant military campaign but was wrong on the weapons of mass destruction, wrong on what would happen after the war, wrong on what the rebuilding would cost, wrong on how many troops would be needed, wrong on oil revenues, and wrong on how much other countries would contribute. That is just a partial list. My constituents are very leery of another blank check, given this history and given the need here at home. I could not believe this U.S. Senate couldn't walk down the aisle together, Republicans and Democrats, and take a month's worth of money for Iraq and spend it in this country of ours. We weren't asking for much. The Senator from Michigan wrote a brilliant amendment. In it, she said, All right, we are spending $5 billion in Iraq. The World Bank tells us they can't really absorb all the money we are budgeting now. Let us take just 1 month and let us keep our promises to our veterans. Let us take just 1 month. That is all--$5 billion. We can take care of our veterans' health. We can take care of our school construction needs. We can help some people who need health care here in the United States of America. No. That went down in flames. We can't do that. We can't afford that. We can't afford it. After all, we have a deficit. We had a deficit only after this President took office. We had a surplus before he took office. Now this body won't even pay for this war. They won't even pay for this war. They make ringing speeches about America, the greatest leader in the world. And I agree with every speech. But every time America led the world, we didn't tell the wealthiest few that we will give you more tax breaks so our sons and daughters can go off. This amendment says to me everything that needs to be said. It puts an end to a blank-check mentality. We can't afford another blank check. We have these pressing needs at home with a deficit that is racing out of control. I thank Senator Byrd for his leadership. I have enjoyed working with him and with his staff, as well as the staff of Senators Leahy and Kennedy, to put forward an alternative that puts our troops and our taxpayers ahead of a blank-check policy. I hope we will have a strong vote. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act of 2003. This bill would designate the POW/MIA memorial currently being built at Riverside National Cemetery in California as the National POW/MIA Memorial. This monument would be a memorial to all members of the Armed Forces who have been held as prisoners of war or listed as missing in action. We should always remember and pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting for our Nation now and have fought for our Nation in the past, including those who have never returned home. Over 89,000 members of the Armed Forces have been listed as missing since the American Revolution. The families of these missing men and women have had to try to go on with their lives without ever knowing what happened. Many of them have been unable to grieve for their loved ones as they typically would, and many of them have been unable to have a proper burial. The families of our missing in action across the country should know that their nation remembers their loved one, and honors them by dedicating this national memorial in Riverside, CA. In addition to the missing soldiers, airmen, sailors, and others, there have been over 586,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been taken prisoner since the American Revolution. In the 20th Century alone, there were over 142,000 Americans taken as prisoners of war. I would like to thank Congressman Ken Calvert, who introduced the House version of this bill in May. I commend him for his leadership in honoring Americans missing in action and taken as prisoners of war. There is no national memorial for both POWs and MIAs; there is not even a statue dedicated to their memory. It is time that the United States recognize the sacrifice that these American POWs and MIAs have made, and designate the memorial at the Riverside National Cemetery as the National POW/MIA Memorial. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act of 2003. This bill would designate the POW/MIA memorial currently being built at Riverside National Cemetery in California as the National POW/MIA Memorial. This monument would be a memorial to all members of the Armed Forces who have been held as prisoners of war or listed as missing in action. We should always remember and pay tribute to the men and women who are fighting for our Nation now and have fought for our Nation in the past, including those who have never returned home. Over 89,000 members of the Armed Forces have been listed as missing since the American Revolution. The families of these missing men and women have had to try to go on with their lives without ever knowing what happened. Many of them have been unable to grieve for their loved ones as they typically would, and many of them have been unable to have a proper burial. The families of our missing in action across the country should know that their nation remembers their loved one, and honors them by dedicating this national memorial in Riverside, CA. In addition to the missing soldiers, airmen, sailors, and others, there have been over 586,000 members of the Armed Forces who have been taken prisoner since the American Revolution. In the 20th Century alone, there were over 142,000 Americans taken as prisoners of war. I would like to thank Congressman Ken Calvert, who introduced the House version of this bill in May. I commend him for his leadership in honoring Americans missing in action and taken as prisoners of war. There is no national memorial for both POWs and MIAs; there is not even a statue dedicated to their memory. It is time that the United States recognize the sacrifice that these American POWs and MIAs have made, and designate the memorial at the Riverside National Cemetery as the National POW/MIA Memorial. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I rise to submit a resolution congratulating Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. Throughout her life, Shirin Ebadi has been the leading advocate for human rights and democratic reform in Iran. As a lawyer, a judge, a writer, and an activist, Ms. Ebadi has spend her career speaking out and defending the rights of women, children, and victims of government repression. Despite repeated threats made to her security, periods of imprisonment, and temporary suspensions from practicing law, Ms. Ebadi has continued to work tirelessly for those needing a voice to speak for them. In addition to establishing one of the first independent human rights organizations in Iran--the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child--Ms. Ebadi also helped create the Center for the Defense of Human Rights, an organization aimed at defending imprisoned journalists and political activists. Her work is an inspiration to us all. I hope all my colleagues will join me in supporting this resolution demonstrating our appreciation to such a heroic champion for human rights.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call the Senate's attention to my extraordinary constituent, Phyllis Bader, who is celebrating her 90th birthday today in California with her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Though she might take the day off, Phyllis is not resting on her laurels. At an age when most of us might be at least thinking of slowing down, she is still going strong, still working, and still doing good work to benefit her community. For the past two decades, Phyllis Bader has served as a volunteer and employee at The Shop, a nonprofit thrift store operated by the Junior League of Palo Alto--Mid Peninsula. Proceeds from sales at The Shop are used to fund the League's charitable and educational projects in the community. Shortly after Phyllis moved to California to be near her family, she joined The Shop team as a volunteer at the suggestion of her daughter, Junior League supporter Lorinda Reichert. When The Shop moved to Menlo Park, the League asked Phyllis to join the staff. She has been there ever since, taking good care of customers and encouraging donations of sale items. Noting that her work with the public has contributed to her longevity and good health, Phyllis has ``never given a thought to retiring.'' She says that ``It's important for old people to be around young people; they keep you on your toes.'' Asked what lessons she has learned in 90 years, Phyllis Bader advises us to ``Keep a positive attitude. Laugh at yourself. Don't be too sensitive about what people say. Be tolerant of others' ideas. Try to lift someone's spirits each day. Find something every day to be grateful for.'' We would all do well to heed Phyllis Bader's advice. I thank her for her wisdom and her service to the community, and I send her my very best wishes on her 90th birthday.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am proud to support the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan to provide funding for important domestic priorities. This amendment is called ``A Month for America.'' Each month, the U.S. is spending roughly $5 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when important priorities here at home go unmet. This amendment would take $5 billion of the reconstruction money earmarked for Iraq and allocates it in the following way: $1 billion for school construction, $1.8 billion for health programs for our veterans, $103 million for community health centers, and $2.1 billion for highways and public transit. These domestic priorities are an emergency now. Surely we can delay $5 billion in Iraqi reconstruction funds until the fiscal year 2005 when even the World Bank says that only $5.8 billion can be absorbed by Iraq next year to rebuild its infrastructure. I want to talk about the need for new Federal spending to help rebuild and rehabilitate schools in California. These are the current conditions: 87 percent of schools report a need to upgrade or repair building to good overall condition; 71 percent of schools report at least one inadequate building feature, such as the roof, plumbing, electrical systems, windows, or heating and air conditioning; and 87 percent of schools report at least one unsatisfactory environmental factor, such as air quality, ventilation, heating, or lighting. This is an emergency. Yet when an amendment was offered by Senators Clinton and Harkin to the fiscal year 2004 Labor-HHS bill to increase funding for school reconstruction by $1 billion for the entire year, it was defeated on a party-line vote with only one Republican supporting the increased funding. It is a shame that this supplemental bill will spend in excess of $100 million for education in Iraq but not one penny for education in California. The Bush administration wants to spend $10,000 per month for business school in Iraq--more than double the monthly cost of Harvard Business School--but there is no funding for the children in California. This amendment also provides $1.8 billion for health care to our veterans so that we can fulfill the commitment made to them for their sacrifices. President Bush submitted a fiscal year 2004 budget request for VA health that is $1.8 billion below the Independent Budget produced by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. It would be a great comfort for those fighting now to know that the U.S. Congress is serious about meeting the needs of those who fought before them. On healthcare, the supplemental provides $850 million for Iraq to construct a new hospital and replace medical equipment. And while we should help those in need throughout the world, we should also provide for those at home. That is why the Stabenow amendment provides $103 million for federally qualified community health centers that have been shown to reduce inpatient admission rates for their patients by anywhere from 22 percent to 67 percent, and have reduced the number of patients admitted per year and the length of stay among those who were admitted. Finally, this amendment would provide $2.1 billion for highway and public transit programs. Transit is so important for my State. We have so much congestion that we must improve our highways and roads and build public transportation. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Los Angeles and the San Francisco-Oakland region are ranking No. 1 and 2 for the worst roadway congestion in this country. California has two more cities in the top 5 with San Jose ranked 4 and San Diego ranked 5. The Inland Empire of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties is ranked 12 and Sacramento is ranked 13. What does this congestion translate to? Delays. In the Los Angeles area: 136 hours per year, on average per driver, in peak hours. San Francisco-Oakland drivers put up with 92 hours of delays, and San Jose drivers endure 74 hours of delays. Inland Empire drivers are delayed by 64 hours, and San Diego drivers are delayed by 51 hours a year. Californians are trying to reduce congestion. More Californians are using alternative forms of transportation. Public transit carries over 1.2 billion passengers a year in California. Transit ridership is up in California. The number of miles traveled annually by transit passengers grew by 20 percent between 1997 and 2001. The number of annual passenger trips was up 14 percent. In the San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor, 38 percent of all trips are on transit. And, 30 percent of all trips into central Los Angeles are on transit. Like the other domestic priorities outlined in the Stabenow amendment, we need to fund transit so we can improve our infrastructure in this country. I thank the Senator from Michigan for her amendment and urge its adoption.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am going to support the amendment introduced by Senator McConnell for one reason and one reason only: I support our troops, and I share the sentiment all Americans have in holding our men and women in uniform in the highest regard. It is a fact that there are differences in this country about United States policy toward Iraq. But there is no disagreement that our military personnel have been brave and courageous. They have made sacrifices for our country and more than 300 have made the ultimate sacrifice. I grieve for their loss and my heart goes out to their families and loved ones. Families throughout America are proud of their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are anxious about reports of daily attacks on United States soldiers in central Iraq and are hopeful that already lengthy deployments are not further extended. I share both their pride and their anxiety. I, too, think about our troops every day. I think about their families. I thing about their sacrifices. The McConnell amendment makes note of these sacrifices. It also commends organizations such as the USO and Operation Dear Abby that help support our troops. The amendment also states that there should be appropriate ceremonies to honor and welcome them home. I hope these ceremonies occur sooner rather than later. California has a rich military tradition. Military personnel from across the State and from all branches have been serving bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am especially proud of these military men and women and wish them a safe return home.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer my support for the nominee for the Southern District Court of California, John Houston. I wish to emphasize the excellent process that we have in place to select district court nominees in California. In a truly bipartisan fashion, the White House Counsel, Senator Feinstein and I worked together to create four judicial advisory committees for the State of California, one in each federal judicial district in the state. Each committee has a membership of six individuals: three appointed by the White House, and three appointed jointly by Senator Feinstein and me. Each member's vote counts equally, and a majority is necessary for recommendation of a candidate. This nominee was reviewed by the Southern District Committee and strongly recommended for this position. I continue to support this bipartisan selection process and the high quality nominees it has produced. Judge Houston had extensive experience as a federal prosecutor before his appointment as a magistrate judge in San Diego. I was delighted to meet Judge Houston and his family during his Judiciary Committee hearing in September and wish them all the very best. The Southern District will benefit greatly from the exemplary services of Judge Houston, and I fully support confirmation of this nominee.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch. This is an excellent nominee for the Southern District Court of California, William Hayes. I want to emphasize the excellent process that we have in place to select District Court nominees in California. In a truly bipartisan fashion, the White House Counsel, Senator Feinstein and I worked together to create four judicial advisory committees for the State of California, one in each Federal judicial district in the State. Each committee has a membership of six individuals: three appointed by the White House and three appointed jointly by Senator Feinstein and me. Each member's vote counts equally, and a majority is necessary for recommendation of a candidate. Mr. Hayes was reviewed by the Southern District Committee and strongly recommended for this position. I continue to support this bipartisan selection process and the high quality nominees it has produced. Mr. Hayes had extensive civil experience as a private attorney before becoming a Federal prosecutor, rising to the position of head of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in San Diego. The southern district will benefit greatly from the exemplary services of Mr. Hayes, and I fully support confirmation of this nominee. I wish to emphasize, once again, to my colleagues that we have a wonderful process in place in California to come up with these nominees for the district court. Senator Feinstein and I have three members on the committee. The Bush administration has three members on the committee. It takes a majority vote. This means we are working together, and we have proven that we can come up with mainstream nominees for the district court. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. It is because I prize America's leadership in the world that I will be proudly supporting Senator Byrd's amendment because Senator Byrd's amendment will allow us to really look at what we are doing in Iraq. It is because I also prize this country and I respect and honor the needs of our people that I am supporting Senator Byrd's amendment. If we look at what we spend in a year on items most important to the people in this country, and we compare it to what they are about to spend in Iraq reconstruction which we were told would never fall to American taxpayers, we will see that our people are being shortchanged. Senator Byrd's amendment allows the funds for the military to move forward and even $5 billion of reconstruction for the Iraqi police to move forward, but it withholds the $15 billion because he prizes America's leadership, because he doesn't want us to look foolish, because he as well as I and many others are tired of reading in the newspaper comments from the Iraqis. For example, this is one from USA Today. It tells of an Iraqi businessman who was surprised to see the $100 million estimate to build a complex that will house more than 3,000 people. He said: I could build this for $10 million. If someone comes to the floor and says Senator Byrd is turning his back on America's place in the world because Senator Byrd wants to protect the people of this country and their taxpayer dollars so that when and if we do build housing or shopping malls in Iraq, it is done in the right way, I say the people who question him are on the wrong track. I have another quote. A member of the Iraqi Governing Council-- appointed by this administration, I might say--saying to Waxman staff over on the House side that non-Iraqi contractors had charged about $25 million to refurbish 20 police stations in Basra, a job that he said Iraqis could have done for $5 million. This is a disaster. My friend talked about President Roosevelt. Let me tell you what FDR said about this during World War II: I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the U.S. as a result of this world disaster. He was talking about war profiteering. Maybe my colleagues are sanguine about the scandals we have already seen with no big contracts in the back room to firms that have connections to the Vice President of the United States. I am not sanguine. The Byrd amendment is saving us from the embarrassments that will flow, because they will flow. I have been in the area of military procurement reform for a very long time. I served in the House for 10 years. I served on the Armed Services Committee. I discovered a lot of problems with military procurement, and you ain't seen nothing yet when you already have Iraqis saying we are charging so much. What Senator Byrd is saying to us is, before we send hard-earned American tax dollars over there for a rebuilding, if you will-- actually, it is not even a rebuilding; it is a building because a lot of the things they never had before--before we do that, we need to look at this situation. When I see that the administration, the President, is asking for $33,000 apiece for 80 pickup trucks when here they cost $14,000, I say thank you, Senator Byrd. When I see a $3.6 million request for satellite phones at an average cost of $6,000 and we are told by the Iraqis that they paid on May 12 $900 each, I say thank you, Senator Byrd. And $2 million for museums and memorials when the Iraqis say they are tired of memorials. That is all Saddam ever gave them. They don't want more memorials. I say thank you, Senator Byrd, for calling attention to the fact that they want to build two prisons at a cost of $50,000 per prison bed where in America it cost $25,000 per prison bed. Others have talked about the cost of a 4-week business course in Iraq at a cost of $10,000 per student when in Harvard it is $4,000. I say thank you, Senator Byrd. Where is the money going? Into somebody's pocket where it doesn't belong over there or over here? It doesn't matter; it is taxpayers' dollars. Look at what we spend one year on drug enforcement, $1.6 billion, and our kids are dying of overdoses, and we don't have the money, and this administration won't give us the money for education. This President cut afterschool programs in half, throwing 1 million kids out on the street. Thank goodness we restored some of it. I say thank you, Senator Byrd. You can make the most lofty statements you want about America's leadership. America's leadership doesn't move forward one iota when we are not careful and we don't look at what we are doing. I think it is extraordinary: $9 million for a state-of-the-art Iraqi postal service. Per capita, this amount is greater than the Federal Government spends on the U.S. Postal Service. Tell that to our constituents who are told they may not get Saturday mail deliveries. My constituents are perplexed by this request. The President will not pay for it. He is adding to an already overblown deficit. If we do not count the Social Security trust fund, it is up to $700 billion. He will not pay for it. The numbers do not add up. They do not make sense. My people want us to do our share to help the Iraq people, but they were told a different story from this administration. Press Secretary Ari Fleischer: 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. Ari Fleischer, the spokesman for the President, said that in February of this year. In March of this year, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz: There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. He also said: We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon. This is what my constituents were told, and now they are told they are supposed to blink their eye at tens of billions of dollars going for things that cost half the price in this country. How about Secretary Rumsfeld, the leader of this war: I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction. Let me say that again. The top person in the Defense Department, Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: I don't believe that the United States has the responsibility for reconstruction. That is not Barbara Boxer speaking. That is not Robert Byrd speaking. That is not Senator Murray speaking or Senator Stabenow. This is what the American people were told, and Senator Byrd is saying to this administration that they did not tell us the truth about this. It goes deeper than that. This administration has been wrong down the line on this policy, and suddenly we are supposed to write this enormous check for this reconstruction. I look at it as a blank check-- when one sees the numbers they have put forward. They were wrong on the weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong on what would happen after the war. They were wrong when they failed to predict that the terrorists would move in and fill the void. They were wrong on what the rebuilding would cost. They were wrong on the state of Iraq's ability to recover economically. They were wrong on how many troops would be needed. They were wrong on the oil revenues. They were wrong on how much other countries would contribute. I know it is hard to listen to this. I know some of my colleagues on the other side do not really want to listen to this, but these are the facts. We are not operating from a lack of experience. What Senator Byrd is saying--and he is making a plea to colleagues on both sides of the aisle--is that we need to take a further look at these requests, especially at a point in time when we are told by this administration that they cannot even meet our homeland defense needs. I have an amendment to try to protect commercial aircraft from shoulder-fired missiles. Let's support Senator Byrd. He is doing the right thing for America. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. I just want to point out that to attempt to minimize this crime by saying this woman was probably an analyst and not an agent is unbelievable to me. The fact is, whether she was an agent or an analyst or anything else, was she not undercover? Every time I see her on TV, they cover up her face. I say to my friend, let's not get into the sideshow about was she an analyst or was she an agent. The fact is, she was in a covert situation, was she not, and it is safe to say that the reason her face is covered up is that she was undercover; the reason the CIA asked for an investigation is that they believe a law may have been broken because she was undercover. I want to make that one point, in addition to the points we made this morning, which is that I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I hope my colleagues on the other side will not have a dual sense of when an independent counsel should be appointed: There is a real estate deal somewhere; there is an independent counsel. There were no lives on the line there. This is a situation where someone who is undercover has been revealed as a way to get back at her husband who happened to bring back the news that the administration didn't want to hear--that in fact Iraq was not purchasing, at least in this particular case, from Niger any nuclear materials. We have a circumstance where, faced with this, the new defense is: She was just an analyst; she wasn't an agent. I want to make the point, this woman was in the CIA. Her career has no doubt been destroyed. She was undercover. We do not see her face on TV. The fact is, the CIA asked for an investigation. And what my friend is saying today is, we need a more independent investigation. We don't want politics to play a role in this investigation. We want to remove it, even though the Attorney General will still be in charge of an independent or a special counsel, as we call it. A special counsel will have a little more independence than just getting it over to the Justice Department.

Mrs. BOXER. I wish to make a point to underscore this discussion. This leaking of a name is, on its face, a crime. The person who did this deserves to be punished because to think that someone would punish someone's family--they didn't like what Ambassador Wilson said: How can we hurt him? How can we sting him? How can we burn him? We will hurt his wife. We will out her; that will ruin her chances. And that will send a chilling message to Ambassador Wilson: A, be quiet, maybe this will go away; and, B, it sends a chilling message to everyone. That is why what you are doing is so important. This is an incident that cannot be swept under the rug. Whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration matters not because this endangered someone, and it sends a chilling message to anyone who might bring bad news to this administration, who might disagree with their policy in Iraq. I say to my friend, he is right on target. If this does fail in a party-line vote--and I pray it does not, but if this fails in a party- line vote, unfortunately, this will become a bigger and bigger political issue because I, for one, am not going to stop focusing attention on it. As a woman who has all my life been in jobs that are perhaps a little bit different than other women, I have tried to say we can do it. This attack on this woman who was on the ladder, obviously, in the CIA, was not only a crime, it was unjustified, and it sends a terribly chilling message to other women out there that you can do the greatest job in the world but, gee, if you are married to someone who might say something controversial, you are going to be outed. What about the message--I close with this--it sends to other agents out there, other agents who may be working on issues and bringing back information that the administration doesn't want to hear because maybe it does not comport with what they want to be known as the facts? What kind of message does this send? Are they going to take the risks? As Senator Harkin said, we are going to win this war against terrorism by the quality of our intelligence. And here we have the White House itself that says it is leading the fight against terrorism. We stood by their side continually on this, as we should. Here they are, in essence, outing someone who could be working in ways to save our people from another terrorist attack, from al-Qaida, and whatever else. I am so pleased my friend has been so stalwart on this issue. Anything he needs from this Senator from California to help him, I remain available to do whatever I can do to bring justice to this family. I yield back the time.

Mrs. BOXER. The fact is, we now have the DC bill in front of us and we have a legislative way to express ourselves. The thing I want to point out is now there is an attempt to try to demean this incident by saying that the fact that a CIA analyst or agent--we are not exactly sure--was revealed is not such a big deal and does not have much merit to it. I know my friend spoke about that, but I want to pursue a couple of questions. Is it not the fact that the head of the CIA himself decided this was so egregious, to reveal the identity of Ambassador Wilson's wife, that the head of the CIA, who really serves at the pleasure of President Bush, asked for an investigation by the Attorney General? Is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. The reason I am doing this is because I am unable to stay and speak on the Senator's amendment but I wanted to make a couple of comments and ask a question, if I can, through the Chair. First, I again thank Senator Schumer for his leadership on this. We spoke about it this morning, the fact that he took action back in July and wrote to the head of the FBI. He knew immediately that this was something outrageous, and I do thank him for that. I am also very pleased that we are able now to have the Senator's amendment offered, to which I am a cosponsor. If I am not, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.