Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is telling me something I was not aware of. I did not see the poll, but again, I think it becomes very clear to the people that every policy that comes down, whether it is taxation of dividends, tax breaks for the people at the top of the economic ladder, that we are, in essence, seeing a plan to get this economy revived which is going to do nothing but put money in the pockets of people whose pockets are stuffed with money. We do not need to do that. I was in California with people who were telling me: Senator, we do not need a tax break. We are doing fine. Worry about homeland security. Worry about nuclear powerplants getting protected. Worry about the chemical plants being protected. Worry about the homeland security first responders. I say to my friend, if, God forbid, we are attacked anywhere in our country, people are going to dial 9-1-1, they are not going to dial the President, they are not going to dial Senator Reid, Senator Boxer, or Senator Hatch. They are going to dial 9-1-1. Those very people are telling us they have not received a penny, and it is a very sad situation.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, will my friend yield briefly for a followup to Senator Sarbanes' questions?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I wish to add my voice to that of Senator Sarbanes and thank the Senator from West Virginia for his great leadership. I want him to know that in California, my constituents have talked to me about the Senator's statements many times. I spent the week in California, and they have received through e-mail a copy of the most recent statement Senator Byrd made on the Senate floor. It gives them hope to know that he is out here with all his years, his sage years here, and it really helps. It is a great help to me as well as a newer Senator, although one who has been here for 10 years and 10 years on the other side. I wish to pick up on the questions of, as we look at the costs of this war, to set aside the human costs, about which I have spoken at length and about which the Senator from West Virginia has continually been so eloquent, there is also the cost, for example, of payments to our friend and ally, Turkey, which, as I understand it, also is not in the budget request; am I correct?

Mrs. BOXER. We are hearing everything from $6 billion in cash to an additional $10 billion to $20 billion in loan guarantees, and yet not a word in the budget. I wish to ask a final question of my friend, and that is, I was amazed to read that our friend, Carl Levin, on the Armed Services Committee, was asking questions of the Pentagon about how many troops would be needed in the aftermath of war, immediately following perhaps for 2 years, perhaps longer, the number of troops that need to be put out there. The answer was 200,000 troops, and it took the breath of many of our colleagues. Again, I ask my friend a question: Is there any mention of that fact in the 2004 budget and the impact of that on our budget?

Mrs. BOXER. Does my friend know what they are talking about in terms of the number of troops? I suppose a lot would depend upon whether we have a lot of our allies with us, would it not?

Mrs. BOXER. In closing, I again thank my friend very much. The fact that a general, a very highly placed general, would come out with a number that is not correct, is in itself astounding. It means he certainly is not informed either. Not only are we uninformed, but he is uninformed, and this should give even more pause about this whole situation. I thank my friend for the energy he is putting into this issue. Again, my people in California are very grateful for what the Senator from West Virginia is doing.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I take this opportunity to address the Estrada nomination and a couple of other issues that the people in my State care a lot about. Before he leaves, I wanted to say to my friend from Minnesota that I know he was not in the Senate during the last filibuster on the court nominee--actually, there were two including the Abe Fortas nomination in the 1960s--and they occurred in the year 2000. They were launched by Members of the Republican side of the aisle, and they were directed at a woman named Marcia Berzon and a man named Richard Paez. In addition to the filibuster----

Mrs. BOXER. I would be delighted to.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend is incorrect. Here is what happened. It took 4 years, I say to my colleague, to get the Republicans to bring the nomination of Richard Paez to the floor of this Senate. How do I know? Because I had recommended Judge Paez first for the district court, where he got immediate approval. I would like to answer my friend before I yield, and I will be glad to yield to my friend all night long, believe me, if he wants to stay and engage. So relax and we will get to his questions. My friend was not here. It took 4 long years to get the Republicans to relent. This is Republicans, the Senator's party, who voted to seat him on the district court unanimously. When he was nominated for the circuit court, it took 4 years. There was extensive questioning back and forth, written questions, oral questions. Then there was a filibuster. My friend says it only lasted 2 days. It was 4 years and 2 days. I say to my friend, the only reason in the world that filibuster was ended is because we had the votes to stop it. The Senator does not have the votes to stop this filibuster. If he did, it could be done in a minute. The reason there are not the votes is because this man will not answer questions, despite the fact that my friend read some answers. I have a lot of other things to put in the Record tonight that will challenge that. Before he leaves, I say to my friend, in answer to his question and before I yield further, this was a clear filibuster. I am going to give a quote. I must confess to being somewhat baffled that after a filibuster is cut off by cloture the Senate could still delay a final vote on the nomination. I say to my friend, who called what happened to Richard Paez a filibuster? None other than the Senator's chairman, Orrin Hatch. It is in the Congressional Record. I am glad to yield to my friend for a further question.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, the day this nomination was brought to the floor, the Republican side could have filed cloture, just as we did, but they are choosing not to do it. There can be a vote on cloture today. It could be tomorrow. Not only that, when this man answers questions, the vote is going to be won. The Senator is going to have his vote. I have been around a long time in public life, 10 years in the House, and 10 years in the Senate. I have never seen such a systematic plan not to answer basic questions. Can anyone imagine a man who cannot answer a question if there was ever a Supreme Court case that he disagreed with? I daresay I do not know anyone in the country, lawyer or not, who agrees with the Dred Scott decision. I do not know any person who is willing to say now that he believes separate but equal, Plessey v. Ferguson, was rightly decided. This man cannot even say which Justice, dead or alive, he would emulate most. It is unbelievable. Except when it is put in the context of who was advising this man, and we have seen it time and again on the floor. They basically said: Do not answer any questions. This is a lifetime appointment. Do not blow it.

Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.

Mrs. BOXER. The bottom line is who can file cloture? The Democrats can file cloture on this nomination. The question is, Was there a filibuster? My friend stood up and said there has been no filibuster since Abe Fortas in the 1960s, when his own chairman, Orrin Hatch said: I must confess to be somewhat baffled that after a filibuster is cut off by cloture the Senate can still delay a final vote on the nomination. By the way, there was a filibuster on Marsha Berzon. My friend ought to know, in addition to the filibuster, after we had won the cloture vote on the Paez nomination, there was an incredible motion filed to indefinitely postpone the vote on the nomination. Imagine, there is this fight; it lasted 4 years and several days on a filibuster. We win this, we get the votes, and then there is a motion from a Republican to indefinitely delay the vote, and even Senator Hatch was stunned. He said he was baffled that could even happen. So for the Senator to say there has not been a filibuster since the 1960s on a judge is false. His own chairman admitted there was a filibuster. Not only did his side launch a filibuster--my friend was not here; I don't mean to take it out on you--but as someone who knew how fine these two nominees were, they faced that filibuster. They answered the questions over and over again and finally got a vote. That is the system here. It is misleading to the American public to hear this day in and day out. ``This is unprecedented to have a filibuster.'' What is unprecedented is that we have the votes to keep it going. You did not have the votes on your side to keep it going. If my friend has no further questions, I will return to my original statement.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. The point I make tonight, among several, is that we have been charged--those who want more answers from Miguel Estrada--with doing something that has never been done before when, in fact, in the year 2000, two nominees to the Ninth Circuit Court were filibustered and one of the two was not only filibustered, but after he won cloture there was a motion to indefinitely postpone the actual vote on his nomination. I had never seen that. I hope I never see it again. The fact is, there have been two filibusters led by Republican Members and those were defeated. The second fact is that one of those particular individuals was the first Mexican American to serve on the Central District Court of California and the Republicans held him up for 4 years before we were able to break the filibuster. It was quite a situation. My friend from Minnesota said--I don't want to misquote him--something like ``the judicial philosophy of this nominee is an open book,'' I think is what he said. It may be an open book, but it looks like this. This is the book. There is nothing on it. When a candidate cannot say if there was ever a Supreme Court case with which they disagreed, this is going above and beyond stonewalling; or cannot say what Justice, dead or alive, he would emulate most, this is beyond stonewalling. In my State we are very fortunate. We have reached agreement with Republicans in our State. We have a wonderful selection process for judicial nominees for the district court. Those individuals come before us and are screened by a joint committee. It is a great process. They answer questions. There are votes taken. Then Senator Feinstein and I make a recommendation. It is a bipartisan process. This is the point: It is working. And it is a participatory process from both parties and both branches of government. I believe questions ought to be asked and answered and Senators have a right to ask questions and Senators have a right to have those questions answered. It is pretty simple. I started to talk about Judge Paez who made history as a Hispanic because I wanted to make the point for the Senate that he was treated in a way that was totally outrageous, having to wait 4 years to get a vote. He hung on because of his true grit--hearing after hearing; 7 months his nomination languished in 1998. The Republican majority refused to bring him up for a vote. All we were asking for was a vote. And we were refused. In 1999, Judge Paez was nominated for the third time, and 6 months later the Judiciary Committee approved his nomination, but again we could not get the nomination up for a vote. Finally, when the nomination was brought up after more than 1,500 days, it was filibustered. My colleagues say again and again it was not. Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said it and it is in the Congressional Record. This was a filibuster. We had to get cloture. When you have to get cloture, there is a filibuster. That is as simple as it is. We had to get 60 votes. If my Republican friends want to end this, tell the nominee to answer the questions. And believe me, he will get an up-or-down vote and the chips will fall where they fall. It is very clear to me when I look at the way Judge Paez was treated, Marsha Berzon, Margaret Morrow, and a whole slew of others who were nominated and eventually confirmed, they had to answer question after question after question. I will get to that in a minute, the type of questions that Margaret Morrow had to answer just to become a district court judge. Let's go to the floor of the Senate and take you back to the year 2000 to this filibuster against Marsha Berzon and against Judge Paez. Let me quote Senator Smith, that is Bob Smith, of New Hampshire, then Senator: ``it is no secret that I have been the person who has filibustered these two nominations, Judge Berzon and Judge Paez.'' And he goes on to say: ``So don't tell me we haven't filibustered judges and that we don't have the right to filibuster judges on the floor of the Senate. Of course we do. That is our constitutional role.'' This is a Republican, leading the filibuster, against Clinton nominees for the circuit court. He says: ``don't criticize our right to do these things and don't say things didn't happen that did happen.'' And he goes on, more Bob Smith, Republican from New Hampshire, one of the leaders of the filibuster, along with Senator Allard, Senator Brownback, Senator Bunning, Senator Craig, Senators DeWine, Enzi, Frist, Graham, Helms, Hutchinson, Inhofe, Murkowski, and Shelby. And Bob Smith said: Don't come here on the floor and tell me that if I want to block Judge Paez or Judge Berzon, somehow I'm going down some new path. I am not going down any new path. I am following the tradition and precedent of this Senate. That was Republican Bob Smith, one of the leaders of the filibuster, against two judges, one Hispanic, nominated by President Bill Clinton for the Ninth Circuit Court. Senator Bob Smith continues: We have a responsibility to make darn sure these judges are going to represent the views of the majority of the American people in terms of the law. I intend to do that as long as I can stand here to do it. And the Republican Bob Smith continues, one of the leaders of the filibuster, against Hispanic judge Richard Paez. It took him 4 years to get a vote. Bob Smith, Republican: When a nominee has some controversy about him or her, if it gets to the floor, there are normally quite a few discussions; i.e., a filibuster. Now this goes on. I am shocked that my friends on the other side of the aisle didn't read recent history--in the year 2000. Here it goes on. What were the reasons for the filibuster? According to Senator Smith, it was because--what? He didn't get answers to questions. Let me quote former Senator Smith again, leading a filibuster against a Hispanic judge and Marsha Berzon, two qualified appointees. They got the top rating. They were put up by Bill Clinton. I think those questions ought to be answered. I think we should know the answers to those questions about what happened before we put this person on the circuit court. Let me say that again. A Republican colleague of yours, that side of the aisle, leading the charge against these Clinton nominees, leading a filibuster: I think those questions ought to be answered. I think we should know the answers to those questions about what happened before we put this person on the circuit court. More quotes from Bob Smith, in the Congressional Record: Filibuster in the Senate has a purpose. It is not simply to delay for the sake of delay. It is to get information. It is to get information. And do you know what? I disagreed with the filibuster that was led then. It went on and on until they didn't have the votes anymore and we had the votes. You could say: What goes around comes around. Senators on the other side of the aisle launched a filibuster against two of President Clinton's nominees for the Ninth Circuit Court, with the highest qualifications, and there were those on the other side of the aisle who believed they didn't answer questions. They launched a filibuster on that ground, and we had to get the votes. And you have to get the votes. That is the way it is here. We were able to get the votes because--guess what--our nominees answered the questions. They answered the questions, every question. I had worked to help get Margaret Morrow to a district court judgeship. I want to tell you, Margaret Morrow waited 2 to 3 years to get a vote for district court. Do you know what she was asked? She was asked a question that was so abhorrent, I could not believe it. She was asked by one of the Senators on the Republican side of the aisle how she voted for the last 10 years on referenda that were on the ballot in California. Madam President, I know you are not an expert on California. I can tell you, there were hundreds and hundreds of these referenda, and they were on some tough issues for everything you can imagine. No. 1, I always thought this was a secret ballot. When you go in the voting booth it is between you and yourself; you are going to decide these issues. That is No. 1. No. 2, this was an impossible request. How could you even remember all these issues, how you voted on them? So we went to this particular Senator and said: Senator, this is not fair. This is a secret ballot--please. But he wouldn't relent. But he relented to this degree. He said: OK, we won't go back 10 years, just give us the 10 most controversial votes. She did. She did. She respected the process enough, she even went so far as to answer those questions which, in my opinion--I don't know what I personally would have done. I truly don't know. But I know I told her, if she felt she could do it, do it, because a Senator was asking. That is an amazing comparison, compared to: Can you name any Supreme Court Justice who would emulate or any Supreme Court case that you disagree with? Those are conventional questions asked over and over again. As far as memoranda from the Solicitor General's Office are concerned, there is precedent for that. There is precedent for that. I will give you the people who turned over these previously confidential internal documents. I give the names for the record: Robert Bork, William Bradford Reynolds, Benjamin Civiletti, Stephen Trott, Judge William Rehnquist. These people turned over previously confidential internal documents. Do you know why? I think they respected the Senate enough to say: Do you know what? I could just argue legalese with you, but you have a very important job of advice and consent, and we are willing to give you these memoranda. So there is precedent for that. I am stunned. We went through the Record and my staff pointed out the comments that were made on this floor by Senators over and over again, referring to the fact that they were filibustering Judge Paez, they were filibustering Marsha Berzon. And then to hear there hasn't been a filibuster here since the 1960's--I don't know what to say. It is stunning to me. The fact that we beat it back, that means it is not a filibuster? You get the votes, you beat it back; is it then not going to be a filibuster? I have taken to the floor tonight because I am incredulous on the point. After seeing these words in the Record myself, with my own eyes, after hearing Senator Hatch, who is leading the charge and telling us this is unprecedented, what we are doing, this is unfair to someone, he himself referring to what happened to Richard Paez as a filibuster. Bob Smith not only referred to it as a filibuster that he was actually leading, but that he was leading in order to get information. You could say we took a page out of the book of the Republicans. We didn't. Because we are willing to say we will vote for cloture when he turns over the information. I never heard, frankly, any of them at that time say they were willing to allow a vote if there were more questions answered because, frankly, every question was answered that you could come up with. There wasn't anything else you could know about those nominees--what they thought, or what they dreamed about, or what they wanted to do, or what they believed, or whom they admired, or what meetings they went to. It was extraordinary. I think it was Marsha Berzon who was asked the question--she was on the board of an organization. They said to her: We want to know everything that happened at every meeting of that organization, whether you went to the meeting or not. It took her hours. Why? She respected the role of the Senate to advise and consent. It is in the Constitution, and she understood that, and Miguel Estrada should understand that. I don't care who trained him not to say anything. We have those quotes all over the place. I have seen one saying: Don't answer any of these questions; this is a lifetime opportunity; don't let them see who you are. He was trained not to answer questions. He ought to respect the Senate. I know the members of the Judiciary Committee on our side of the aisle, and I know the members on the other side. I know they work hard. They have a lot of pressure on them on both sides. When my colleagues tell me they were stunned at the stonewalling they received, I believe them because, by the way, I read some of the answers Miguel Estrada put into the record. I will give you questions and answers here. These are questions asked by Senator Schumer: Question: Other than cases in which you were an advocate, please tell us of three cases from the last 40 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence you are most critical of. Answer: I'm not even sure that I could think of three that I would be--that I would have a sort of adverse reaction to, if that's what you are getting at. Question: So, with all of your legal background and your immersion in the legal world, you can't think of three, or even one single case that the Supreme Court has decided that you disagree with? Answer: I don't know that I'm in a position to say that I disagree with any case that the Supreme Court has ever ruled on or that I think the court got it right. Question: I'm not asking how you approach cases. That's a legitimate question and some have asked it. I want to know how you feel about cases. And you have said more broadly than any other witness I have come across--you have given us virtually no opinion on anything because it might come up in the future. Answer: But the problem is the same, Senator Schumer, because taking case A and looking at whether the court got it right or whether I think they got it right I have only the benefit of the opinions. I haven't seen the litigants. The litigants have been dead for a long time in Dred Scott. But, for God's sake, we ought to know. You can't say that slavery is wrong; that you disagree with that decision? You can't say separate but equal was wrong because you didn't know the litigants? Where are we? I am stunned. He said the case is ruled on but he didn't get to see what made it into the opinion. This is outrageous. He didn't see what made it into the opinion; the court ruled that slavery was constitutional and he didn't disagree with it? He has to meet the litigants? I am stunned. The Senate has a very sacred job. It is in the Constitution. It doesn't say roll over and play dead when a President picks a nominee to a court. In fact, the Founders disagreed over who should have the responsibility to choose justices. And they came out with this very balanced decision of equal power. Presidents do not like that. I can tell you. I don't know one President who likes the fact we have this advise and consent role. It is very annoying to the executive branch that we are here. I don't care whether they are Democrats and Republicans. I say that when our constituents sent us here they want us to do the job we swear to do. We hold up our hand here on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution says advise and consent on judicial nominees. It doesn't say roll over and play dead. It doesn't say, oh, give them a break. It doesn't say that. We have a lot of other things to do. It doesn't say that. It says the Senate shall advise and consent. At home in California, the way people pick district court nominees, it is true--we advise and consent. I have to say there are a lot of people who do not like it. Some conservative groups in California are saying they do not like the way we are doing it. But it is fair. We are appointing moderate Republican judges to the district bench. That is the way the President said he wanted to do it. We are able to do it because in our State we have an agreement where Democrats and Republicans sit side by side and choose. We have two Democratic Senators. That is why this happens. But if the President is going to send us judicial nominees who won't answer questions, he is not going to get very far. It isn't going to work. Frankly, from my perspective, if people are off the charts on the right wing, I am not going to vote for them. I will not filibuster them. Once they give us the information, I am ready to vote. I will retain my right for a Supreme Court Justice, however, on that point on the filibuster. But, in general, if people answer questions, I will vote no. But I want the answers. I don't want a judicial selection process that excludes the Senate. It is the worst thing that can happen in this country. If you look around, it is the courts that have stood up for the rights of our people--free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, civil rights, human rights, environmental rights, so many rights that we hold dear, and the right to choose. Madam President, you and I have worked hard on that. If we didn't have a court that found in the early stages of a pregnancy a woman has the right to choose, I don't even know where we would be for women. The courts have held the line. We know it is very shaky right now. The courts play a very important role. It is part of the check and balance in our society. It seems to me, if we think that we don't have enough information and just sit back and say it would be a lot easier to let it go, I will vote no to let it go. I don't think that is right for those who come here. Bob Smith, a Republican from New Hampshire, said he didn't have enough information. I disagreed with him. We beat him on the filibuster. But there was a filibuster. I think recent history is showing us that there is precedent for asking the important questions. I wish to say one more thing about the Paez nomination. After we won on the filibuster of both Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez, there was a motion made by a Republican Senator to indefinitely postpone the final vote on one of the two, the Hispanic, Richard Paez. It was stunning. It was unprecedented. Let me make a statement. I believe it is a precedent that never should be occurring here again because the whole purpose of a filibuster is to determine whether you are going to move ahead on a vote. Once there is no filibuster, you have to have a vote. Then we had this intervening motion about indefinitely postponing the vote. It just undercuts what cloture is supposed to be about. I thought that was unbelievable. Basically a Senator wanted to kill the nomination even after we had won cloture. That was so unprecedented that Senator Hatch himself said he had never seen it. He had never heard of it, and he was perplexed. He was baffled by it. Let me quote Senator Sessions who moved to stop the final vote on this Hispanic Judge, Richard Paez, after we won cloture. He said: I move in a postcloture environment to postpone indefinitely the nomination of Richard Paez-- Listen to this-- in order for this body to get the answers I believe every Senator deserves with regard to the concerns I have raised about Judge Paez over the last several days. On Judge Paez, because this Senator thought he didn't have the information after 4 years, after pages of questions, after cloture was invoked then he did something unprecedented and moved to indefinitely postpone the final vote. At that time, Senator Hatch was perplexed. I was certainly perplexed. Colleagues were amazed. And here is in full what Senator Hatch said at that time. I have served a number of years in the Senate, and I have never seen a ``motion to postpone indefinitely'' that was brought to delay the consideration of a judicial nomination post-cloture. Indeed, I must confess to being somewhat baffled that, after the filibuster is cut off by cloture, the Senate could still delay a final vote on a nomination. Senator Hatch was right on the point. He called the filibuster a filibuster at that time. He was baffled by the kind of a postfilibuster-filibuster in the guise of postponing the final vote. Clearly, we had to get the votes for Judge Paez, and we did. And he is serving and doing us all proud, I might say, on the Ninth Circuit right now. Iraq

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I have a couple of things to say about another subject in a brief period. It has to do with the issue of Iraq. I spent a week during the last break in California and doing several events--many events, doing the normal things you do when you go home; going shopping, taking a walk in the park and around the neighborhood. I don't think I have ever seen my people in California as distressed and on edge and anxious as they are at this particular point in our history. I want to tell you that this cuts across party lines. As a matter of fact, there was a poll in the paper today about the views of Californians very much concerned about going to war. My constituents are saying: Senator, is there any way in your mind that the President will not take this country into war? And my answer-- because I am searching for it; the President says he has not made a decision--but to be as honest as I can, I say: Here is what I think on that matter. If the true goal is to disarm Saddam Hussein and Iraq, then there is a chance that this could be resolved short of war. But if the true desire is to replace Saddam Hussein, have a regime change, unless Saddam Hussein agrees to go--which would be a wonderful prospect--I do not see how you get there. The people in my State are very concerned. Then they say: Well, Senator, do inspections really work? And I tell them that the facts are out there, that in fact there were more weapons of mass destruction dismantled after the gulf war than there were by our bombs. I asked for the list of weapons of mass destruction that were in fact destroyed after the Gulf war. I am going to read the list of weapons that were destroyed during the inspections. In the missile area: 48 operational long-range missiles, 14 conventional missile warheads, 6 operational mobile launchers, 28 operational fixed launchpads, 32 fixed launchpads under construction, 30 missile chemical warheads, other missile support equipment and materiel, supervision of the destruction of a variety of assembled and nonassembled supergun components. In the chemical area: 38,537 filled and empty chemical munitions were destroyed by the inspectors, 690 tons of chemical weapons agent, more than 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, 426 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment, 91 pieces of related analytical instruments. In the biological area: an entire biological weapons production facility called Al-Hakam, a variety of biological weapons production equipment and materiel. So the fact is, the inspectors discovered and dismantled more weapons of mass destruction than were in fact destroyed by our bombs. Sadly, there was a period where there were no inspectors in Iraq. And I do not trust, for a minute, that Iraq did not start to rebuild these stocks. The fact is, Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. That is why I supported the Levin resolution that said he must be disarmed--but not for us to go it alone, without the world with us, as the world was with us in the first gulf war. My constituents are coming up to me and saying: What happened here? Everything feels out of control. Why? The world isn't even with us anymore. We are having fights and sniping with our allies. What happened? I started to think about that. And I will never forget--none of us will ever forget where we were on 9/11, when we were attacked by al- Qaida. Osama bin Laden, remember his name? He attacked us. He hurt us on our own shores. I will never forget that. And I will never forget, on 9/12, that the whole world was with us. There is a song called ``He Has the Whole World in His Hands.'' It is a beautiful song. President Bush had the whole world in his hands on 9/ 12. Countries around the world--every one of them; even some that we really do not have such a close relationship with--expressed that they were with us. We had the world in our hands. Yes, we were the leader of the free world before 9/11, but on 9/12 the world was so with us and against terror. And somehow, some way, this has been squandered. This has been squandered. There has been this intensity on Iraq and what I call a designed neglect of the rest of the world. Even in our own hemisphere, we see what is happening in Colombia, in Venezuela. I met with the Mexican Foreign Minister, I say to my friend from Nevada, who has a good-sized Hispanic population in his State. And the Mexican Foreign Minister told me: We had such high hopes when this administration took office, and we see nothing. We are getting no attention for our issues. We must work with your country. And, actually, he quit his post because there was no communication. We then see what is happening in North Korea, amazing developments in North Korea. And we cannot seem to get the administration to focus on it at all. Let me tell you, those of us on the west coast, yes, that is why my constituents are coming up to me in the supermarket and pulling at my sleeve, because the North Koreans have a missile that can reach America. They already have the nuclear weapon. They already have kicked out the inspectors. And what is the answer? When the President put them in the ``axis of evil,'' I asked, from my seat on the Foreign Relations Committee, the State Department: Before the President put North Korea in the ``axis of evil,'' was there a conversation about the ramifications of that? And the answer came back to me, I say to my friend: Well, we did go in and we did see the President--this is the highest levels of the State Department--and we said we agreed that North Korea deserved to be on the ``axis of evil.'' I said: That was not my question. There are a lot of people who could be termed evil in this world. My question was, did you discuss the ramifications? The answer was: No, we did not. I asked: Well, did you call up our friends, our allies, with whom we share classified information every day--South Korea, Japan--to talk to them about the ramifications of putting North Korea in the ``axis of evil''? Oh, no, came the answer, we do not share State of the Union speeches with other countries. Well, that was not the point about the State of the Union speech. It is South Korea that looks across the line at North Korea. I have been on that line, that DMZ. By the way, what a failure to humankind that situation is--one people divided. It is just the saddest situation, one of the saddest failures of humanity. So we had the situation on 9/12/01, where the whole world was with us--the whole world. And after that, that whole situation has been squandered. I heard Senator Leahy make similar remarks today about this. I think we have to understand where we are today. And we need to understand there are problems all over this globe, and that for us to go it alone--or almost alone--in a war with Iraq will make matters worse, I am afraid. As a leader, you have to win over your friends, and others, through your reasoning, through your evidence, through your power of persuasion, not just buying people off or giving them money. There has been a lot of talk about what we are going to give Turkey for their cooperation. Look, I understand an ally is an ally, a friend is a friend, and so on; but this thing is still not resolved, and the costs go up. I don't think the American people understand that this is their tax dollars we are talking about--$5 billion in grants, when we are about to kick off the rolls almost 600,000 children from afterschool programs, according to the President's budget, and not fully funding our disabled kids in school, and the cleanup of only 40 Superfund sites instead of the 87 President Clinton did during his tenure. These things just don't come about in a vacuum. I thought Senator Byrd was so well spoken when he made the point that we don't even know the cost. Remember Larry Lindsey, I say to my friend from Nevada, the President's economic advisor? He put out--I think last summer--a statement saying it is going to cost us between $100 billion and $200 billion for a war in Iraq.

Mrs. BOXER. Fired, let go. It is going to cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Now they are saying it is $95 billion. They started off saying it was going to be $30 billion, $40 billion, $50 billion, or $60 billion, but that doesn't count what they want to pay to Turkey. When you add in the loan guarantees and the rest, some people are saying that is $26 billion. And we are not reimbursing our States for the work our local police, our firemen, and our emergency workers are doing. We are neglecting port security. I read today--and this is close to my heart--a little article, which I will send to my colleagues. It is very important. It says that many terrorist groups now have stinger missiles, shoulder-fired missiles. We have seen five, six, seven examples of terrorist groups over the years aiming at commercial aircraft. Admiral Loy's Deputy has said this is worrisome. It is going to cost money to prepare our commercial fleet, to have an antimissile system put on, just as the Israelis reportedly do. The technology is there. Yes, it is going to cost a million dollars per plane, but we are busy giving money out around the world. We are busy giving money out. We don't hear the name Osama bin Laden. One of my colleagues, Senator Dorgan, calls him Osama ``been forgotten'' because you don't hear anything about him.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. My staff mentioned that they had watched it. I did not see it myself. (Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the Chair.)

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, if we are to be relevant--this is the word the President talks about when referring to the U.N.--that is what we ought to be doing because, when I went home, people wanted to talk about this because they are nervous about it. Frankly, they don't want us to go it alone. At least the vast majority of people in my State feel that way. They are asking me what it is going to cost. I say I have my own guess, but we really have no idea. A man got fired because he said it would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Now they are saying $95 billion. And now they are offering Turkey $26 billion. One general said they will need to stay there with 200,000 troops for years. Another general said that was wrong. We cannot get an answer to that. We don't know if Saddam Hussein will use these weapons of mass destruction, or what he will do with the oil fields if we go in there. My own view on this is that the American people are very concerned. I agree with my friend. We are spending a whole lot of time on the nomination of one judicial nominee who, frankly, in my view, cannot really want the job that much because he won't answer the questions. He will not answer the questions. If he answers the questions, we would say immediately, vote cloture, then give him a vote, and that is the end of it.

Mrs. BOXER. Of course.

Mrs. BOXER. My friend, the Democratic whip, is absolutely correct. Our records show that the first gulf war cost $61 billion. Remember that we stopped well short of Baghdad, when you are thinking what this war will cost. That is a long time ago and there has been inflation. It was $61 billion then, and $54 billion was paid for by our friends around the world. That is more than 80 percent, when you figure it all out. I further say to my friend that we had many countries sending troops, over 20. In this case, the administration is telling us we need 250,000 troops for this war, and Britain is sending in 26,000 troops. That is about right, 26,000 troops and 250,000. That is pretty much in terms of combat troops. That's it.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. It is an unprecedented handout type of situation, which is offensive to me in many ways. This is a go-it-alone situation where it stands today. I will finish where I started this conversation about Iraq. We had everyone with us after 9/11--the whole world. We lost that. People around the world are looking at us, and many are saying this was something the President had decided and he just went to the United Nations because he was kind of pushed there--and as one of the people who pushed him there, I am glad he went there. Believe me, I give credit where credit is due. I give credit to Colin Powell. But going there and winking and nodding and saying, I am going to go to the U.N.--but really I know what I want to do--I will give a particular case in point. Whenever there is a little progress in finding some of these weapons, the President says things such as: Oh, that is the tip of the iceberg, and he may be right. But wouldn't it be better to say something such as: This is the tip of the iceberg, Saddam Hussein, and I am asking you to give us the rest of the iceberg, to do it now to avoid war, to avoid bloodshed. The world is watching. We do not seem to hear those words. What we really hear is: Inspections mean nothing. Maybe it means nothing, and if it means nothing, then the U.N. eventually is going to call this guy on it. They are going to call him on it, just like they did before. By the way, these weapons are a threat to the world, and a lot of the world is a lot closer to him than we are, and a lot of the world could potentially be reached by his missiles. The question for me, as one Senator, has never been should Saddam be disarmed--absolutely he should. Back in August when the President was saying we are going to go to war, I said: Wait a minute, the issue is weapons of mass destruction; let's see if we can get intrusive inspections back in there and pick up where we left off with the inspections which destroyed--and I read the list into the Record already--more weapons of mass destruction than we did with our bombs. If this is really about that, then we know the proven way to do it. And if Saddam ever so much as kicks the inspectors out, does not cooperate with them, thwarts them, we will know it, and we will be on the moral high ground. We will have the whole world back in our hands, and we can move forward with the world community, just as my friend pointed out happened in 1990. I thank the Presiding Officer. I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada for another question.

Mrs. BOXER. I heard of the group. I do not know of the poll.

Mrs. BOXER. Correct.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, this does not surprise me. We are seeing the worst economic record of any administration in 50 years in terms of jobs lost, in terms of mortgages defaulted, in terms of loss of stock market value. We are talking $8 trillion of loss, in terms of fear about retirement, fear about losing health care, fear about the cost of health care, fear about cost of prescription drugs, fear about being able to afford to send your kids to get an education. My friend has given me a number that makes eminent sense, and I say it is going to continue to plummet because every plan this President comes up with is giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among us in the hopes they will trickle down to the working people. It never worked before, and it is not going to work. I am very worried, and that is why people also are very anxious in my State about the war and about the economy. It is a two-front challenge we face.