Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I honor and bring to the Senate's attention the exceptional judicial career and service of Myron D. Crocker, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of California. A graduate of California State University at Fresno and the University of California's Boalt Hall School of Law, he was appointed to the Federal bench by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1959. Judge Crocker continued to carry an active caseload after taking senior status in 1981. He is retiring after 43 years of dedicated service as a federal judge. Judge Crocker served under 10 presidents, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and George W. Bush. Our current, President George W. Bush, was just 13 years old when Judge Crocker was named to the bench. He is believed to have served longer than any other sitting Federal judge in the Nation. He has presided over many high profile cases in the Fresno area and during his travels throughout the United States as a visiting judge. Judge Crocker is well respected throughout the legal community. He has served California and the United States with great distinction. I am pleased to pay tribute to him today and I encourage my colleagues to join me in wishing Judge Crocker and his family the very best as he celebrates his retirement from the Eastern District.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to discuss an issue of great importance to our Nation's children: afterschool programs. Children are much more likely to be involved in crime, substance abuse, and teenage pregnancy in the hours after school. In fact, about 10 percent of violent juvenile crimes are committed between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. alone. The Urban Institute estimates that at least 7 million and as many as 15 million ``latchkey kids'' go to an empty house on any given afternoon. These children need a place to go--an empty house should not be an option. It is essential that we provide children with organized activities or programs to go to during the critical afterschool hours. According to the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, extracurricular activities like those provided by afterschool programs have proven to reduce the number of students likely to use drugs by 50 percent and the number of students likely to become teen parents by 33 percent. Furthermore, studies have shown that students who participate in extracurricular activities have better grades, feel greater attachment to school, have lower truancy rates and reach higher levels of achievement in college. We have made great progress in the last 5 years toward making these kinds of programs more widely available. Through the 21st Century Community Learning Center Program, federal support for local afterschool programs increased from $1 million in fiscal year 1997 to $1 billion in fiscal year 2002. As a result, over 900 communities across the Nation are now providing their children with a positive alternative to unsupervised care. In addition, Senator Ensign and I offered an amendment to the Leave No Child Behind Act to increase funding for afterschool programs. As enacted, the bill will raise afterschool funding to $2.5 billion by the year 2007. To highlight the growing need for afterschool programs, the Afterschool Alliance--a nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring that all children and youth have access to quality, affordable afterschool programs by the year 2010--has announced the third annual nationwide day of awareness for afterschool programs called ``Lights On After School!.'' Today, schools, community centers, museums, libraries, and parks across America will host activities to inform families about the places currently open to children after school and the need to provide additional centers where children can participate in engaging, stimulating activities until their parents return from work. I applaud the Afterschool Alliance for recognizing the important role of afterschool programs in the lives of children, families, and communities, and I enthusiastically support the effort to build awareness through ``Lights On After School!.'' Promoting the safety and well-being of our children is the best way to ensure that they have a genuine opportunity to succeed.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carl Levin for his amendment. I thank the State of Michigan for sending Senator Levin to the Senate. His independence, his courage, his clear thinking, his love of country are evident in the work he has put behind this important amendment. I believe his answer to Iraq's challenge is, indeed, the right course for this country. To me, the issue of Iraq should be approached in the following way. Iraq must be held to its word that it will submit to thorough inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. Let me repeat that: Iraq must be held to its word that it will submit to thorough inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. The United Nations should pass an updated resolution ensuring unfettered inspections and disarmament, and that should take place or there will be dire consequences for Iraq. The weapons they have are a threat to the world. The world must respond. If we handle this matter correctly, the way Senator Levin is suggesting, I believe the world will respond. If we handle it wrong--and I think the underlying resolution is the wrong approach--if our allies believe we have not made the case, they believe somehow this is a grudge match, or if they believe they are being manipulated for domestic political reasons, that is going to hurt our Nation and that is going to isolate us. Indeed, this rush to pass unilateral authority--I have never seen anything quite like what has happened in the Senate. The rush to pass unilateral authority, the rush to say to the President, go it alone, don't worry about anybody else, is hurting this debate, and this debate looks political. It looks political. If there are those in the administration who believe this debate could hurt Democrats, they may be surprised. Democrats do not walk in lockstep. We are independent thinking. I believe the people want that. Remember, this administration started out thumbing its nose at the Constitution and the role of Congress in terms of war and peace. This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the Record on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything. Also, as the Presiding Officer knows, they wanted a resolution that gave the authority far beyond Iraq. They wanted to give the President authority to go anywhere in the world. Now that idea is gone from the underlying Lieberman resolution. So checks and balances do work. I think what we ought to do is continue those checks and balances by passing the Levin amendment. The Levin amendment puts America front and center in a way that will win over the civilized world. This is what it does. No. 1, it urges the U.N. Security Council to quickly adopt a resolution for inspections of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the dismantlement of those weapons. No. 2, this new U.N. Security Council resolution urges that we will back up the resolution with the use of force, including the United States. And the President gets that authority in Senator Levin's resolution. No. 3, it reaffirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has the inherent right to self- defense. So anybody who says, my God, we are giving everything over to the U.N., has not read the resolution. Last, it states the Congress will not adjourn sine die so that in a moment's notice we can return if the President believes we need to go it alone. Some have said that the Levin amendment, again, gives veto power to the U.N. Security Council. That is not true. Again, under the Levin amendment, if the President cannot secure a new U.N. resolution that will ensure disarmament of Iraq, he can come back, he can lay out the case and answer the questions that have not been answered. I have looked back through history. I never have seen a situation where the President of the United States asked for the ability to go to war alone and yet has not told the American people what that would mean. How many troops would be involved? How many casualties might there be? Would the U.S. have to foot the entire cost of using force against Iraq? If not, which nations are ready to provide financial support? Troop support? What will the cost be to rebuild Iraq? How long would our troops have to stay there? What if our troops become a target for terrorists? We have seen in Kuwait, a very secure place for our people; we have had terrorist incidents already against our young people there. Will weapons of mass destruction be launched against our troops? Against Israel? If you read the CIA declassified report--declassified report--they are telling us that the chance that he will use them is greater if he feels his back is up against the wall. Everybody knows the underlying resolution implies regime change. It implies regime change. What I think is important about the Levin resolution is that it goes to the heart, the core of the matter, which is dismantlement of the weapons of mass destruction. If Saddam knows his back is against the wall, he will use these.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in 1991, just prior to the Persian Gulf war, I was the author of legislation that would have allowed one parent of a dual military couple to receive a waiver from deployment to areas where combat is imminent. I remain very concerned about this issue and fear that if the President decides to use force against Iraq, minor children may face a situation in which both parents are deployed. The Military Family Resource Center estimates that there are approximately 35,000 dual military couples with children serving in the military today. According to the Department of Defense, request for combat exceptions can be submitted at any time and military personnel may apply for reassignment for humanitarian or compassionate reasons. However, there are no specific policies restricting both parents from being assigned to a war zone. I hope the Senator from Virginia, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, will join me in urging the Secretary of Defense to do everything possible to see that dual military couples are not deployed concurrently to a war zone.

Mrs. BOXER. This is a quick question. Some of our colleagues on the other side have basically said the Senator is relying totally on the United Nations. I have read the Senator's resolution over and over. He is so clear on the point that at any time the President can take action in self-defense and, in addition, at any time the President can come back and make the case for unilateral action. Am I correct on that reading, that at any time he can come back and answer the questions he has yet to answer and lay out what it would mean to us to go it alone? Is that correct?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the President. So let's be careful. Why not take the conservative approach, the two- step approach of the Levin resolution, when it comes to the life and death of our people? There are more questions that have not been answered, and I have put them in the Record. Yet the President wants the authority to go it alone and he has not answered even one of those questions to Members of this Senate, let alone to the American people. I cannot vote for a blank check for unilateral action. I cannot vote for a go-it-alone approach before any of these fundamental questions have been answered. Twice in the past 4 years I voted to use force: once against Milosevic, once after September 11. So it is not that this Senator will never vote for force, but in this case, when the President is proposing to go it alone, I think we have the right on behalf of the people we represent to have the questions answered. In closing, the Levin resolution gives us that two-step approach. It says to this President: If you want to go as part of a world force and make sure that we get the dismantlement of these weapons, we give you the authority and the blessing. If not, come back and ask us and we will debate then and we will vote then. I hope we will vote for the Levin resolution. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. If I might ask just a couple of questions--I wanted to say to my friend that not only did they say in August this was a frenzy, and the press was paying so much attention to it, and chastising the press for talking about Iraq--no. They were in a frenzy. But just two nights ago, our President said he has not made a decision to go to war. Colin Powell said that before the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I proudly serve. Condoleezza Rice repeated it. Ari Fleischer repeated it. I tried to check out the history where the President has not made the decision to go to war--over and over again through his operatives, and he himself said it--yet he is coming to this Congress and quickly wants to have a resolution, not just backing a new United Nations resolution, which I think we all feel is very important, and with tough inspections. In fact, most of us believe there should be enforcement of inspections, if need be, which is in Carl Levin's amendment, which I look forward to voting on. But our President is asking us to give him the authority to go to war alone--alone, with no one else. Other Senators will say that is silly, Senator Boxer. We are not going it alone. Read the resolution of Senator McCain. He can go it alone. That is the deal. Some say we are doing it because we want to force the U.N. to act. I agree with Senator Levin. I think it takes the heat off the United Nations. But the question I ask of my friend is this: In closing, here we are being asked to give the President authority to take this country to war without any help, without any other nation, without any of our allies, before he has made a decision to do so. And I want to ask my friend this because I know he has been here a very long time. He is an Officer of the Senate. Has my friend been briefed on how many of our military people, men and women, it will take to go to this war? What will the casualties be? How much will it cost? How long will we have to stay there? What happens afterward? What is the impact in the region? Will Saddam Hussein use his weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield against our people? And what protections do they have? Those are just a few questions. I want to ask my friend, have those questions been answered? I have asked them. They have not been answered. Perhaps my friend, having so many more years here, might have the privilege of a response to that before we are asked to take our people to war.

Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for putting this debate in the proper context and for pointing out what the solemn duty really is in the Senate. I want to ask my friend a couple of questions. Has my friend heard, as I have, the President himself and many of his representatives, including Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Ari Fleischer, repeat over and over again that the President has not yet made a decision to go to war? Has my friend heard that?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take this moment to reflect on the exceptional work of Anne and Kirk Douglas, who will be honored by TreePeople on October 19 for their extraordinary commitment to children. In 1997, Anne and Kirk Douglas established the Anne and Kirk Douglas Playground Award to improve Los Angeles school campuses. Collaborating with TreePeople's Campus Forestry Program, community members and organizations, Anne and Kirk have helped fund new playground equipment, tree planting, outdoor classrooms, and other worthy projects throughout Los Angeles County. Improving schools is a wonderful community service. Because of Anne and Kirk's work, many children can play on safe equipment, enjoy the beauty and shade trees provide, and admire the natural environment. Anne and Kirk have every reason to be proud of their dedication to improving the lives of countless children. The Anne and Kirk Douglas Playground Award not only makes schools better, but also strengthens the bond among community members. Parents, students, school staff and local businesses work together for the betterment of the community. This is truly a win-win situation for all involved. I am proud to extend my sincere congratulations to Anne and Kirk on this special honor from TreePeople, and wish them much continued success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to my friend from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator, a great leader in the Senate, that he has been a voice of sanity and reason. He has been a voice that the Americans have wanted to hear. This is one of the most solemn duties we have, and the fact that it was going to be rushed and the fact that it came right before an election and the fact that we have so many unanswered questions, those things are weighing on this Senator's shoulders. I am so pleased the Senator from West Virginia, from his perspective, as someone who has served so well and for so long, was able to speak out as he has. I do not know where we will wind up on this, but I do know we are going to have alternatives. I think the fact that we will have alternatives, in many ways, is because the Senator from West Virginia from day 1--remember the day 1--when our President did not even want to come to Congress, when his staff was saying to the President it was not necessary, that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, said, just a moment, read the Constitution. So before I begin, I thank my friend for his remarks.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it means a great deal to me that the Senator has said these words. One of the most sacred, one of the most humbling, one of the most important--let me say the most important--roles Congress has to play is determining whether our country should send its sons and daughters to war. The role of Congress in war and peace must not be ignored. We can read it right out of the Constitution. Article I, section 8, says the following: The Congress shall have power to declare war. What has made me proud is that the American people understand this. I believe they understand it better than some in the administration who started off in August saying the President did not have to come to Congress in order to go to war with Iraq. To be specific, on August 26, the Washington Post quoted a senior administration official who said: We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the President already has the full authority. We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary. It is clear the American people will not support a war against Iraq without the agreement of Congress. According to a USA Today-CNN poll, 69 percent of the American people favored military action with the support of Congress; only 37 percent favored military action if Congress opposed the move. It is also important to point out that 79 percent of the American people support the use of force if it were supported by the United Nations; only 37 percent favored action without United Nations support. This is not a minor point. This administration did not want to come to Congress; and then, when it decided to do so because--frankly, they understood the views of the American people--they sent over a resolution which was the most incredible blank check I have ever seen. Its provisions basically said that even if Iraq complied with inspection and dismantlement, the administration could still go to war if Iraq failed to provide documentation, for example, on Kuwaiti POWs or because of its illicit trade outside the Oil-for-Food Program. Those issues certainly need to be addressed. There are very few people--I don't know of any--who believe those reasons should be enough to send our men and women and our bombs to Iraq. In addition, the original resolution gave the President the authority to use force not only in Iraq but in the entire region. When those in Congress--mostly Democrats but some Republicans, too--said we needed to deliberate on this important issue, take time to debate it and discuss it and ask questions, we were hit by a barrage of criticism from the Republican leadership and immediately the issue was made political. Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: People are going to want to know before the election where their representatives stand. Now, despite this pressure, I am proud to say my colleagues are not sitting back. We are going to fulfill our obligations under the Constitution. We are fulfilling our obligations to debate war and peace. We are not allowing this administration to ignore our views, our opinions, and our heartfelt concerns about America's sons and daughters and the innocent victims of war. While there are some in the administration who believe taking up the Iraq issue now will hurt Democrats, I am not so sure. I am not so sure the American people want us to roll over and be silent on this. I am not so sure the American people don't want us to see it as our duty to check and balance this administration. Already, because of our voices, the resolution offered by the President has been changed. In my view, it is still a very blank check for war with Iraq. I certainly cannot support a blank check. I think it is an affront to the people of this country to do that. Originally, it was an even blanker check, allowing the President to go to war anyplace in the region. The role of checks and balances that we play is already evident. I know that. I also know in the greatest country on the face of this Earth, in the country that is great because of its middle class and its productivity, in that country, in our country, it is necessary to not only deal with the issue of Iraq, to deal with the issue of terrorism, to protect our people when they fly in an airplane or walk past a nuclear plant or a chemical plant or cross a bridge, it is also important to deal with the impact of this administration's economic record: The worse stock market decline in 70 years, the worst economic growth in 50 years, the greatest loss of jobs in the private sector in 50 years, and the threat that people feel from retirement insecurity and job insecurity, runaway health care costs, and a falling median income. Now, there are those who say the administration is bringing up Iraq now to avoid scrutiny from this volatile and miserable economy. There have been memos that show this to be their strategy. There have been anonymous statements to this effect. And whether that is true or not, I leave to the American people. I trust the American people to look at this. We must take care of the security of the American people. Economic security is part of that. I believe this administration is AWOL in this regard. As we deal with foreign policy challenges, we Democrats will insist we deal with domestic challenges, too. And again, let the people decide if they agree with us or not. This I will also say clearly: We are told constantly that the President has not decided yet whether he wants to go to war with Iraq. We hear it over and over. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am proud to sit on that committee. I chair the terrorism subcommittee. Recently, Colin Powell said to us in an open hearing: Of course the President has not made any decision with regard to military action. He's still hopeful for a political solution, a diplomatic solution. Secretary Rumsfeld said: The President's not made a decision with respect to Iraq. National Security Adviser Rice said: The President has not made a decision that the use of military force is the best option. Ari Fleischer, the press spokesman, makes that same statement day after day after day. I ask, if the President hasn't decided to go to war yet, if the administration has not decided to go to war yet, if the military has not been told there is going to be a war, then why is the President coming to Congress now, before he has made a somber decision, and before he has answered many key questions? If our questions could be answered, the many questions we have, it would be one thing. However, I want to say unequivocally that the myriad of questions I have asked have not been answered. In good conscience, how can I vote to take our country to war alone, which is what the President wants from us, without allies and without the facts that I need to fulfill my responsibilities to the people of California. Madam President, you know my State very well. We have more than 30 million people. Out of the 880,000 reservists in the military, 61,000 are from California. I owe them the best decision I can make. Those reservists, as Senator Inouye has pointed out, many of them have families. At times you will have a wife and a husband called up to go into the danger zone. I need my questions answered before I could vote to send this country, alone--alone--into battle. Here are the questions I have asked in one forum or another. Here are the questions that I either do not have answers to or the answers I have are incomplete. If we give the President the blank check he is asking for, which I will not vote for, if we give him the go-it-alone preemptive strike authority, which I will not vote for, then I think those who are considering voting for that ought to ask these questions. I will lay them out. How many U.S. troops would be involved? What are the projected casualties? Would the United States have to foot the entire cost of using force against Iraq? If not, which nations will provide financial support? Which nations will provide military support? What will the cost be to rebuild Iraq? How long would our troops need to stay there? Would they be a target for terrorists? What will the impact be on our fight against terrorism? Will Iraq use chemical or biological weapons against our troops? Will Iraq launch chemical or biological weapons against Israel? How will Israel respond? What impact will that have? How will we secure Iraqi chemical and biological weapons once the fighting starts? How do we make sure such weapons do not get into the hands of terrorists or terrorist nations? How do we make sure that Iraqi weapons experts, from Iraq, do not migrate to terrorist organizations or terrorist states? Have we given enough thought to alternatives to avoid war? Why haven't we worked with the United Nations to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal? He is a war criminal. During the Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Secretary Albright, I raised the idea put forward by the Carnegie Endowment on coerced inspections. Has this or a similar idea been pursued? If we are concerned about Saddam Hussein acquiring weapons of mass destruction, why are we not fully supporting the Nunn-Lugar weapons dismantlement program? I do not doubt that Iraq is up to no good. I know they are. That is why I voted for the Iraq Liberation Act. We know that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and that they used them against Iran and against its own Kurdish minority. We know that following the Persian Gulf war, Iraq promised to abide by the demands of the U.N. but failed to live up to its commitment. They have not allowed unfettered inspections. They have lied about chemical and biological weapons programs. And they continue to seek the capability to produce nuclear weapons. I do not doubt that there are some members of al-Qaida in Iraq. But there is al-Qaida in Syria. There is al-Qaida in Africa. There is al- Qaida in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. There are cells in 60 nations, including the United States of America. The fight against bin Laden and his organization must not be weakened. I want to quote what the head of our Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bob Graham, has to say about this. You and I know he is not a man of overstatement. He said: At this point I think Iraq is a primary distraction from achieving our goals of reducing the threat of international terrorism. Listen to what Wesley Clark has said. He headed our NATO troops. Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaida. Despite statements by staff to the contrary, the President appears to want to go it alone in war when we are already in a war. According to the President, we are in a war, one that will require all of our wits and lots of our treasure, both in human capital and in tax dollars. I do not think it is enough to be critical of this blank check resolution the President is supporting. I want to say how I would approach this question. Iraq must be held to its word, as expressed in U.N. resolutions, that it will submit to thorough inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction, period. Let's repeat that. Iraq must be held to its word that it will submit to thorough inspections, unfettered inspections, and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction, period. That is what they agreed to. They signed on the dotted line to do it. And that is what must happen. Those were United Nations resolutions, and we must work for an updated resolution ensuring that such unfettered inspections do take place or there will be consequences. These weapons are a threat to the world, and the world must respond. I believe if we handle this right, the world will respond. But if our allies believe we have not made the case, if they believe this is a political issue here, or if they believe it is a grudge match here, or if they believe that the whole thing is being manipulated for domestic political reasons, I believe that will hurt our Nation. I believe that will isolate us. I do not think that is a good path for our country. Can we rule the world with our weapons and our guns and our might? I am sure we can. I know we can. Can we win every military confrontation that anyone could ever imagine? Yes. We can. But I believe the greatness of our Nation has been built on other things: The power of our persuasion, not the power of our arsenal; the power of our ideals, not the power of our threats; the power and greatness of our people, not the power and the greatness of our machines. America at her best has been seen as a beacon of hope, not fear; an example not of ``Might makes right,'' but ``Might backing right.'' What is right at a time like this? I believe it is laying out a path for peace, not just a path for war; trying everything we can to avoid chaos and devastation to our own and to innocent civilians who may well be used as pawns in urban warfare. I believed that Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under President Clinton, and Dr. Henry Kissinger laid out a path for peace when they spoke before the Foreign Relations Committee. They talked about unfettered inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. As they said, and I agree, it will not be easy. Maybe it will be impossible. But there is no doubt in my mind that we should lay out that path and try for complete, unfettered inspections, with nothing off limits, to be followed by dismantlement of those weapons. For those who say it will never work, maybe they are right. But we have never pulled the massive trigger of our weapons on a nation that has not attacked us first. At the least--at the least--we should see if we can exhaust all other options. That is why I support the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin, and his resolution that will be introduced. This is what it does: No. 1, it urges the United Nations Security Council to quickly adopt a resolution that demands immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access for U.N. inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited missiles will be destroyed. No. 2, it urges this new U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states to enforce the resolution if Iraq refuses to comply. No. 3, it reaffirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has the inherent right to self-defense. No. 4, it authorizes the use U.S. Armed Forces pursuant to the new U.N. Security Council resolution that deals with weapons of mass destruction. In closing, let me say very clearly that I will not vote for a blank check for unilateral action. I also will not vote for a resolution that is dressed up to look like Congress has powers when, in fact, all the words really call for are consultations and determinations. That is when Senator Byrd said ``pretty'' words. He said, ``Pretty, pretty, pretty words.'' Sounds good--consultations and determinations. What does it really mean? Nothing. It means the administration tells us what they think. We already know what they think. To me, consultations and determinations without a vote by Congress are like a computer that is not plugged in. It looks good, it looks powerful, it looks impressive, but it does nothing. I didn't come to the Senate for the title. I didn't come to the Senate to debate meaninglessly on the Senate floor. I didn't come to the Senate to do nothing. I didn't come to the Senate to run away from a hard vote. I came to uphold the duties of my office. I came to represent the people of California. In the past 4 years, I have voted to use force twice--once against Milosevic to stop a genocide and once after September 11 when we suffered a barbarous attack. But, in this case, if any President wants to go to war alone or outside the type of coalitions we have built for the war on terror, or the last Persian Gulf war, then let him come to the American people, through the Congress for another debate and a vote. It is one thing to go with a coalition. It is one thing to determine that we will be part of a multinational force. It is another thing to do it alone, without a specific vote of the Congress before the President has decided to do so. As I have said, his aides keep telling us he has not made the decision. So why do we have to give him a blank check today? If he wants to go it alone, if he wants to send my people to a place where we don't even know if chemical or biological weapons will be used, we don't even know what the estimates of casualties are, we don't even know what it is going to cost, we don't even know how long we are going to have to stay there, we don't know what will happen if Israel responds--we don't know so many things--I don't think it is asking too much to ask my colleagues to support a resolution by Senator Levin. He said that if he wants to go it alone, then the President has to come back. In the Carl Levin resolution, it is implicit that he must come back if he wants to go it alone. Carl Levin's resolution authorizes force as part of the U.N. enforcement action to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But again, if the President wants to go it alone, he must come back to us. I believe the people of my State expect me, on their behalf, to get my questions and their questions answered, not to engage in guesswork, and, above all, not to abdicate my responsibility as a Senator to anyone else. If our Founders wanted the President--or any President--to have the power to go to war without our consent, they would have said so. But, again, this is what our Founders said in article I, section 8: Congress shall have power to declare war. Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the conference report rules I be allowed to speak for up to an hour and do it on the subject of Iraq.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to take this opportunity to recognize the 100th Anniversary of the city of Mountain View in my home State of California. The city of Mountain View began as a stagecoach stop and agricultural center for the Santa Clara Valley. Like other areas in the Santa Clara Valley, Mountain View was once filled with bountiful orchards and vineyards. When Mountain View was incorporated as a city in 1902, there were fewer than one thousand residents living there; today there are 72,200. The population grew after World War II alongside the electronic and aerospace industries. Today, Mountain View is located in the heart of California's Silicon Valley, the technology capital of the world. From orchard and vineyard country to high tech mecca, Mountain View has been part of the rich history of California. Mountain View combines innovative development efforts with a commitment to strong and diverse neighborhoods and resident involvement. In recent years, Mountain View has received three awards for outstanding city planning, including two at the national level. The American Planning Association, APA, gave Mountain View the ``Outstanding Planning Award for Implementation'' in honor of the city's Integrated Transit Oriented Development. Mountain View received a wonderful honor when these transit projects were selected to be part of a special exhibit at the Winter Olympics. The exhibit highlighted state-of-the-art architecture, urban design and transportation projects from cities throughout the world. And California's Local Government Commission awarded Mountain View the 2001-2002 Ahwahnee Award Certificate of Merit for Integrated Transit Oriented Development that ``reflects the continued evolution toward more livable and sustainable communities.'' I am delighted that Mountain View has been recognized around the nation as an outstanding place to live. While the city receives national attention, it also has been recognized around the San Francisco Bay Area for a wide array of neighborhood parks, the Shoreline at Mountain View regional park created from reclaimed landfill, a civic center that includes the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts, a state-of-the-art library and the Shoreline Amphitheatre. Mountain View's community pride is also evident by the locally organized neighborhood associations that exist to address resident needs. This local pride is one of the things that makes this city such a California treasure. I am thrilled that the city of Mountain View, its local government and its residents maintain such a strong community spirit while its high-tech companies provide new products to change the way we live. The city's mission statement, to ``provide quality services and facilities that meet the needs of a caring and diverse community in a financially responsible manner,'' could not be more appropriate. I hope the people of Mountain View enjoy this community-wide centennial celebration, and I wish them another 100 years of success.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. The people at home are agitated, I say to my friend, because they expect to see this respect go both ways between the parties and even, frankly, within the parties. We have Republicans who are asking questions and others who are not. We have Democrats who are ready to vote today for the Bush resolution and others, such as myself, who frankly could not because I believe it is a blank check. I thank my friend for his engagement in this colloquy. Let me conclude in this way: I have thought to myself, why is this happening? I believe there is a political decision that has been made to keep this country focused on the foreign policy questions and not focused on the everyday kitchen table issues, the domestic issues that need to be addressed. I am going to go to some charts very quickly. We have seen long-term unemployment more than doubling since this administration came in. We have seen the worst performance of the stock market since Hoover. That means pensions are going down the tubes, as well as 401(k)s, and people's hopes and dreams for their retirement. We have seen an average rate change in the real gross domestic product, which is the worst in generations. It is the worst of all Presidents from Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, the first George Bush, and President Clinton. It is the worst growth rate. That is what we have seen. In summing up the economic record, we have seen record job losses, weak economic growth, declining business investment, falling stock market, shrinking retirement accounts, eroding consumer confidence, rising health care costs, escalating foreclosures, vanishing surpluses, higher interest rates on the horizon, raiding Social Security, record executive pay and a stagnating minimum wage. So I believe that a decision was made to deal with a foreign policy issue at the exclusion of what is happening on the ground with our families. Mr. President, that is distressing. We need to do both. We need to rise to the foreign policy challenges we face. On the war against terrorism, we have a long way to go. In Afghanistan, in Pakistan, right here, with the cells that exist in our country, we have a long way to go. We need to step to the plate on that fight. We need to step to the plate on the Iraq challenge and handle it correctly with our allies, with a plan that will lead us perhaps to a peaceful end without having to shed blood. Maybe there is a chance. We should at least explore it. We have to step to the plate on the economic issues and we need to do that across party lines. We have to do it with the Republicans, with the Independents, with the Democrats--together. One course we do not want is for one party to say about the other: They don't care about the security of the American people. If one party does that, as the Republicans did today, as the President did, as reported today, we will lose all these other battles. We will have a divided country. We will not be able to work together in good will. My leader, Tom Daschle, the leader of the Senate, was right to say what he said, was right to express himself in the way he did. I hope the answer will be that in the future we will join hands as Americans and, even where we might disagree on a strategy, on an amendment, on a bill, work together as Americans. That is when the people are most proud of us. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. When Senator Reid made the request, he did not apply the 10 minutes to this speaker, but I ask unanimous consent to continue for 5 additional minutes before Senator Feinstein proceeds.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right. I want to say for the benefit of my senior Senator for California, I will be talking another 5 minutes and then I will yield. I want to underscore that what the Senator says is so right. After that debate that took place on the first gulf war, about 80 percent of the American people said they were so proud. Clearly, they may not have agreed with my position, your position, or any other Senator on the other side of the debate, but they saw debate free and open, respectful debate, among colleagues, asking questions, posing ideas, other solutions, other paths to resolve the issue. In some cases, there was strong support for the President. They realized then that we are a representative democracy. They were calm. When I went home this past weekend, I found out the people in my State are not calm. They are very agitated, and it is because they are worried that debate is being stifled. They are worried that a resolution is----

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. I say to my friend, I learned of this quote reading the front page today of the Washington Post, and I am going to read what it says. It says four times in the past 2 days Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is ``not interested in the security of the American people.'' His remarks, intensifying the theme he introduced last month, were quickly seconded and disseminated by Republican House majority whip Tom DeLay of Texas. I was unaware of this, although it is interesting to me, because that particular race, of course, in New Jersey, which is pivotal to the future of this Senate, and adds to the political nature of this comment.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I will continue to yield to both my colleagues.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, let me respond to my friend from New York. The phone calls, letters, and e-mails we have been getting have been one-sided against an open, blank-check resolution, as they are phrasing it, as was sent over. They are very much against what the President sent over. More importantly are my conversations with my constituents. They clearly are very pleased that Senator Feinstein has made remarks regarding Iraq, and I have spoken out. I have received calls now because I raised a number of questions in the Foreign Relations Committee regarding working with our allies, working through the U.N., asking: Is there a path to peace here? What I pointed out is in recent years, I have voted for two resolutions to go to war: One was to stop the genocide by Milosevic, that was with a Democratic President, and one with current President Bush to respond to the brutal, inhumane terrorist attack on 9/11 for which every single Democrat in this particular body voted. To me, it is not a question of will I ever vote for such action. It is a question of what is the best way to proceed. My constituents want to hear what I am thinking. I have been in Congress for 20 years. They do not want to see debates where one party is saying to another: You do not care about the American people. My friend is so correct. They look to us to engage in a rational debate, not to have one-line zingers as the President put out. This is not what they want. Then Ari Fleischer, who is the press secretary for the President, said this today: It's time for everyone to work well together to protect our national security. That was his remark after he was questioned about the President's statement. That is the point that Senator Daschle was making, but not as rhetoric, as fact. There is an expression, I believe it was John Adams said: Facts are stubborn things. The facts are this President said very clearly: The Democrat-controlled Senate ``is not interested in the security of the American people.'' My people at home are appalled at that.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in many ways, this has been a very hard day. I thank the majority leader of the Senate, Tom Daschle, for the remarks he just made and for the remarks he made earlier today. He actually spoke in defense of the Senate. Anyone who knows Tom Daschle--and I think most people around here do--knows that Tom Daschle is a very soft spoken man. They know that Tom Daschle does not rise to anger or fights, if ever, very often. Therefore, one has to really look at why this occurred. In my mind, this is not an isolated example of what has been happening. It is a continuum of what has been happening, starting with Andrew Card, the President's chief of staff, who, when asked, why didn't you start discussing this this summer, if you were ready to move such a resolution in October or September, answered, in essence: You don't roll out a new product in the summer. This kind of thing just seems to continue. We have the Vice President campaigning and essentially saying to the campaigns of the Republican candidates: Gee, we really need you because the Democrats won't help our war effort. I don't know where this President has been, but I have heard many Democrats, including, for example, the individual presiding in the chair, indicating their support. We are an umbrella party. We do represent different views. Frankly, it makes our party stronger. Everyone wants to go after Saddam Hussein. Everyone wants to get rid of those weapons of mass destruction. We may have a different path to get there. Some of us may want to go it alone and give the President the authority he asks for. Some may want to go with our allies. Some may want to see more U.N. resolutions, as the British have said they want. The bottom line is, this makes us a strong party. Frankly, it makes us a strong Nation. I have heard members of the President's party express some concerns. What Tom Daschle did was essentially come to the floor and defend the honor of the Senate and this democracy. Why did he have to do it? In today's paper, and also on television, we have seen this quote reiterated over and over. We have the President of the United States saying that the Senate is ``not interested in the security of the American people.'' I know of no one in the Senate, Republican or Democrat, who has slept well after 9/11. I know of no colleague on either side who doesn't think about it every day: How do we protect our people; how do we make the airlines safer; how do we protect this country from chemical warfare; how do we protect ourselves from a possible smallpox epidemic; how do we protect our nuclear powerplants; how do we protect our people night, day, in the air, on the ground? I don't know many Members in this Chamber on either side who have ever slept as well as they did before 9/11, who don't wake up in the middle of the night thinking about it or turn on the radio at 6 or 7 a.m. and pray that there isn't something there. This kind of statement, that the Senate ``is not interested in the security of the American people,'' is very hurtful. It is hurtful to this institution. It is hurtful to our democracy. It is, in particular, very hurtful because I have talked to my colleagues who served in Vietnam or who served in World War II or even some in Korea. Nobody asks in the military, Are you registered Democrat or Republican? This is a horrible turn of events. If we don't express ourselves, it is dangerous for our country to put partisanship ahead of being unified as a nation, standing for the rule of law, for free debate, for discussion, for tough debate. That is good for this country. We have a lot of points of view out there. Everyone in this country needs to know that somehow, some way, somewhere their voice is being heard, not being stifled. Because if you dare to say something that questions anything, whether it is this homeland bill, which is a major reshuffling, the biggest reshuffling of the Federal Government in many years, since the creation of the Department of Defense, if you dare say, are we doing the right thing, are we taking our time, if you dare say that, you will find yourself being criticized in the middle of a campaign. That isn't right. Of course, we will disagree on certain issues. That is the strength of this Nation. People died for that right. When Senator Daschle came down here and said he thought it was important to get an apology, I believed that apology should have been given. Not saying, well, we didn't mean this had to do with Iraq. It had to do with something else. The statement stands on its own--it could be applied to anything-- ``the Senate is not interested in the security of the American people.'' That is why Senator Daschle came to the floor. That is why Senator Daschle for a moment even lost his voice, because he was so filled with emotion. He looked behind him at Senator Inouye who lost a limb in World War II. He thought of other colleagues who lost their limbs fighting for this country, who faced the posttraumatic stress of Vietnam, who came home and had to deal with that. Are the Vietnam vets Democrats? Are they Republicans? Are they Independents? I can't tell you that. But some of them are homeless. We need to stand united because they faced a war at a time that our country was divided. We need to make sure we give full debate, not some open-ended resolution. I sat through a hearing today at the Foreign Relations Committee. It was a very important hearing. We had Ambassador Holbrooke there and Robert McFarlane. We had a Democrat and a Republican. We had a very important debate. Many different viewpoints were reflected on both sides of the aisle. Some were saying: We are ready. They were ready to give the President whatever he needed, whatever he wanted, now, ready, today, go. Others on both sides of the aisle said, as I said: Where are our allies? Would we be in better shape to go in after another U.N. resolution? I asked: Is there a path to peace? Is there some way we can avoid the bloody war that may ensue? Is there a path to that peace? Let's talk about it. If we must have a war, what is this President's intention following that war? These are important questions. One question that never was raised by anyone in that committee was: Is anyone on this committee motivated by anything other than patriotism and wanting to do what is right for this country, whether they support the resolution or they do not; whether they support the resolution of the White House or a resolution that may be written by some other Republican or Democrat? No one ever suggested that anyone of either party sitting in that hearing did not have the best motivation at heart for our country. It is extremely disheartening when we hear the statement of Andrew Card that basically says: We did not want to roll out our new product-- meaning resolution--in the summer, talking about it as if it was toothpaste or a new car. It is about life and death. If anyone says: Excuse me, what is it going to cost us in lives, in blood, in treasure, that person ought to be respected, not told they do not believe in the security of the people, whether it is questioning the homeland security bill or maybe a better way to do that or questioning an open-ended, blank-check resolution which I think has come over and I personally cannot support. The people in my State are telling me they do not want me to support it. They do not want me or Senator Daschle to come here and not speak what is in our hearts, in our souls, in our minds. Senator Daschle did a very brave thing today. He did something I believe we do not see often enough in politics today. He spoke from his heart. He spoke the truth, unvarnished. He did not go through a committee. He did not bring it to a political adviser.