[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 53 (Thursday, May 2, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3795-S3832]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE EXPANSION ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 3009, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       An act (H.R. 3009) to extend the Andean Trade Preference 
     Act, to grant additional trade benefits under that Act, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle amendment No. 3386, in the nature of a substitute.
       Dorgan amendment No. 3387 (to amendment No. 3386), to 
     ensure transparency of investor protection dispute resolution 
     tribunals under the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate began debate on the 
Trade Act of 2002. This legislation includes three bills reported by 
the Senate Finance Committee last year: No. 1, an extension of fast 
track negotiating authority--also known as trade promotion authority; 
No. 2, an expansion and improvement of the Trade Adjustment Assistance 
Program and No. 3, the Finance Committee's version of the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act, or ATPA. As the debate moves forward, I suspect other 
international trade matters may also appropriately be attached to this 
bill.
  The Trade Act of 2002 will be the first major rewrite of 
international trade legislation in 14 years. If passed, it will be, as 
the National Journal has said, ``a historic breakthrough.''
  Why are we taking up a trade bill? What does this bill--and the 
expanded trade that will follow--mean for this country? Trade means 
jobs. Twelve million Americans--one out of every ten workers--depend on 
exports for their jobs. These are jobs that pay more--thousands of 
dollars more per year--than jobs unrelated to trade. Trade supports 
jobs in all sectors. We often think of trade as helping big multi-
national companies. In fact, firms with fewer than 20 workers represent 
two-thirds of American exporters; and U.S. agriculture exports support 
more than 750,000 jobs. Trade also means choice. It means more 
affordable products and more variety for American families. It means 
that hard-earned paychecks go further.
  In many ways, new trade agreements are like a tax cut for working 
families. Studies have suggested that the average family of four sees 
annual benefits of between $1,300 and $2,000 because of the agreements 
we negotiated in the last decade. And according to a recent University 
of Michigan study, if we complete the next round of negotiations under 
the World Trade Organization, it could increase that benefit by as much 
as $2,500--per family, per year.
  But trade is about more than simple economics. When we trade with 
countries, we do not just export corn and cars, we export our ideas, we 
export our values. We export freedom, in a

[[Page S3796]]

sense. Trade between nations creates opportunities for both parties--it 
can help lift countries out of poverty, while strengthening our 
relationships around the world.

  I think Adlai Stevenson probably said it best 50 years ago:

       It is not possible for this nation to be at once 
     politically internationalist and economically isolationist.

  Look at our agreement with Jordan as one example. It has a relatively 
small effect on our economy--our trade with Jordan is only about $600 
million per year. But it has an important impact on Jordan's economy--
and it has cemented our relationship with a key Middle East ally.
  Similarly, part of this legislation provides trades benefits to 
Andean countries. The main benefit of this legislation will be to help 
move workers out of the illegal drug business, and into legitimate 
lines of work. It is not going to solve the problem entirely, but it 
will help. But to do that, they need more access to our market.
  So that is what's at stake in this debate. Let me turn to the bill 
itself.
  The most talked-about provision of this legislation, of course, is 
the extension of fast track trade negotiating authority to the 
President. At its core, the fast track grant in this legislation is 
very similar to the legislation that first granted fast track to 
President Ford in 1974.
  I am often asked why we need fast track--and why now? In essence, 
fast track is a contract between Congress and the administration. It 
allows the President to negotiate trade agreements with foreign trading 
partners with a guarantee that Congress will consider agreement as a 
single package--no amendments and a guarantee of an up-or-down vote by 
a date certain.
  In return, the president must pursue a number of negotiating 
objectives that Congress has outlined in the legislation. And he must 
make Congress a full partner in these negotiations, fully consulting 
with Members as the talks proceed.
  Now make no mistake, fast track is a significant grant of 
congressional power to the President. But it is excruciatingly 
difficult to negotiate the best possible multilateral trade agreements 
unless our trading partners know that Congress will vote on the 
agreement negotiated.
  Indeed, it was our experience in the 1970s--when the Europeans 
refused to negotiate with us after Congress failed to implement an 
agreement--that led to the creation of fast track. Without fast track, 
our trading partners learned that they could anticipate one round of 
negotiations with the President and a second with Congress.
  The reverse is not true. Other countries, because of their 
parliamentary forms of government, have a single legislative body where 
the majority of the legislative body is also the government, so we did 
not have that problem with them.
  Fast track also demonstrates that the President and Congress go into 
negotiations with clearly defined and unified objectives. Again, that 
is critical. If our trading partners are uncertain that the deal will 
stick, they won't put their best deal on the table.

  Is it possible to negotiate some agreements without fast track? It is 
certainly possible with simple bilateral agreements, as was the case 
with Jordan. But, while Jordan is a landmark agreement in many areas, 
it has to be put in context when talking about fast track procedure.
  The Jordan Agreement, as I noted earlier, was a relatively easy 
agreement. It involved only two countries and affects a very small 
amount of trade--roughly $600 million.
  Major multilateral agreements can affect many more countries and 
billions in trade. The FTAA is an agreement involving 34 countries; the 
WTO involves nearly 150. For these agreements, fast track remains a 
necessity.
  Even bilateral agreements will go much more smoothly with fast track. 
In the case of Chile, for example, we are still talking about a much 
more complex agreement than Jordan. It will affect approximately $6 
billion in trade, ten times more than the Jordan Agreement. And 
improving the chances of agreements like Chile is vital to our economy.
  Let me give you one example. Canada has already signed free trade 
agreements with several countries, including Chile. That has an impact 
on U.S. competitiveness. As a result of the Canada-Chile agreement, 
Chile eliminated its tariffs on Canadian wheat. U.S. wheat exports to 
Chile, on the other hand, still face tariffs as high as 30 percent, 
making Canadian wheat much more attractive to Chilean buyers. We must 
negotiate these agreements if we are going to compete, and fast track 
will make it easier.
  People often note that we don't have fast track for treaties, such as 
nuclear arms treaties. That is true. And while these treaties are 
important, they are often less complex in the sense that they don't 
involve literally thousands of interrelating trade-offs and concessions 
as trade agreements do.
  I remember the last arms treaty that came before the Senate. There 
were two or three annexes in it but not all of the host of other 
complications involved in trade agreements.
  But let me turn to the bill itself, and specifically to the 
negotiating objectives on a number of topics.
  With regard to agriculture, a topic near and dear to many in this 
body, and certainly one of my highest priorities--the legislation 
directs the President to seek new markets for American agricultural 
products and to continue to work to lower the trade-distorting 
subsidies of our trading partners. That is vitally important for 
American agriculture.
  On a more traditional topic, the legislation also directs the 
President to continue to negotiate the reduction and elimination of 
tariffs, while recognizing the sensitivity of tariffs in a few sectors. 
The United States has already lowered its average tariff rate to about 
3 percent. Generally, tariffs are similarly low in major developed 
countries. In a few important cases, however, such as Japanese tariffs 
on wood products, and Europe's tariffs on semiconductors, tariffs 
remain a significant trade barrier. And in many developing countries, 
tariffs remain at levels that stifle trade, in some cases 100 percent 
or more.
  The bill also directs the President to address some of the new 
issues, such as e-commerce. By acting to negotiate agreements now, 
before protectionism has taken root, hopefully trade in e-commerce can 
remain relatively free.
  Each of these objectives is critically important. However, most of 
the debate in the other body and in the press has focused not on the 
important issues I have listed, but on three trouble spots in trade 
negotiations: No. 1, labor rights and environmental issues in trade 
agreements; No. 2, protection of the right of the U.S. to promulgate 
environmental and other regulations in connection with so-called 
investor-state dispute settlement provisions, commonly know as 
``Chapter 11'' provisions; and, No. 3, the integrity of US trade laws.
  Let me turn to those difficult issues now.
  First, labor rights and environmental protection issues: These issues 
have now firmly and irreversibly made their way on to the trade 
negotiating agenda. They are here. The world has changed. Those who 
continue to ignore that reality are simply burying their heads in the 
sand.
  The appropriate manner to address those issues, however, is not 
obvious, and it has been the subject of heated debate for more than a 
decade. The dispute over this issue has kept the Congress deadlocked on 
fast track for nearly a decade.
  Fortunately, U.S. trade negotiators have made some important 
progress. In negotiating a free trade agreement with Jordan, the United 
States brought labor rights and environmental protection into the core 
of the trade agreement.
  Two central approaches were taken on these issues. First, both 
parties agreed to strive for the labor standards articulated by the 
International Labor Organization, and for similar improvement in 
environmental protection. Second, both countries agreed to faithfully 
enforce their existing environmental and labor laws and not waive them 
to gain a trade advantage. That is in the agreement.
  In addition, both parties to the Jordan Agreement agreed to pursue a 
number of cooperative efforts to improve labor rights and environmental 
protection. In my opinion, these provisions of the Jordan Agreement 
provide a concrete demonstration of the way to

[[Page S3797]]

break the deadlock on labor rights and the environment.
  Last year, I encouraged some of my colleagues in the other body to 
pursue Jordan-like provisions as the basic model for a fast track bill. 
In drafting the fast track legislation, the House New Democrats and 
Republicans wisely agreed to use those provisions as a model for the 
language in the fast track legislation.
  In the Senate bill, we accepted the legislation on this topic and 
made clear in the report that the legislation fully adopts the Jordan 
standard on labor and environment matters.
  Unfortunately, some in the House opposed this language as not going 
far enough and urged legislation to force compliance with ILO labor 
standards. I support the ILO, and I believe the Jordan-based approach 
moves the trading regime in the right direction; that is, looking to 
the ILO for guidance on appropriate labor standards.
  With due respect, however, I believe that those who advanced this 
proposal and those who may later advance it in the Senate debate are 
simply going too far. The ILO standards are a starting point, but they 
were not meant to be used in this manner.
  It may be that through experimentation we can strengthen the linkages 
between trade agreements and the ILO. Indeed, that is the ultimate goal 
of this legislation. But trying to accomplish this in one fell swoop 
will only set back both agreements and the ILO.
  Quite frankly, whatever the intentions of the authors, proposals like 
this are likely to be fatal both to fast track and future trade 
negotiations.
  Another environment-related issue that has arisen in recent months 
pertains to investor-state dispute settlement, also known as ``Chapter 
11,'' in reference to the provisions of this topic in NAFTA.
  The genesis of Chapter 11 is the legitimate concern of some U.S. 
investors that other countries often do not provide adequate 
protections of their investments. Investors have had many experiences 
of being poorly treated and having little recourse to air their 
legitimate concerns.
  NAFTA's Chapter 11, and similar provisions in other agreements, are 
designed to address this problem. They define a basic set of investor 
rights under international law. The concepts are comparable to basic 
rights under U.S. law. They include the right to just compensation when 
the government takes your property, and the right to be treated fairly 
and equitably by the government.
  Significantly, Chapter 11 provides an alternative to local courts for 
the adjudication of complaints about a government's actions. Investors 
are allowed to challenge such actions before special arbitration 
panels. It is appropriate to pursue such provisions in trade 
agreements. But investor rights are not the only concern. 
Unfortunately, some of the complaints brought under chapter 11 have 
clearly been aimed at stifling legitimate regulations. The challenge by 
the Canadian company Methanex against a legitimate California 
regulation on a gasoline additive is the most visible case in point.
  Defenders of Chapter 11 note that most of these cases have not 
resulted in panel rulings against regulatory authorities. This is 
correct. But it is also part of the problem.
  Chapter 11 panels have demonstrated no ability to rapidly dismiss 
frivolous cases. This results in extended litigation on claims that 
should simply be thrown out, such as the Methanex case.
  These legitimate concerns must also be addressed. The bill before us 
today attempts to balance the needs of U.S. investors with the 
legitimate needs of regulatory agencies, and the concerns of 
environmental and public interest groups.
  The bill directs trade negotiators to seek provisions that keep 
Chapter 11-type standards in line with the standards articulated by 
U.S. courts on similar matters. It urges the creation of a mechanism to 
rapidly dispose of and deter frivolous cases. And it urges the creation 
of a unified appellate body to correct legal errors and ensure 
consistent interpretation of key provisions.
  I know some would like to go further in striking a new balance on 
investor-state issues. As the debate proceeds, I look forward to 
working with them on the issue. But I urge my colleagues to keep in 
mind there are several legitimate interests that need to be balanced; 
that if we go too far in one direction, it is going to upset the 
balance in another. But I very much want to work with Senators who have 
other amendments on this issue.

  The second difficult issue within fast track is how we ensure fair 
trade. After being involved in international trade policy for more than 
two decades, I am struck by how often the issues that shape 
congressional thinking on trade are not trade negotiations but rather 
are the administration's effort to enforce trade laws.
  Although the point is often lost, the United States is the most open 
market in the world. That has to be remembered. Our tariffs are quite 
low, and there are very few nontariff barriers to trade in the United 
States. There are some, but they are few. We do not wear white hats. We 
are not totally pure. Other countries do not wear dark hats. They are 
not Darth Vaders. But it is true the shade of gray of our hat is a lot 
lighter than the shade of gray of other countries; that is, we are more 
open compared to other countries.
  Despite complaints from some of our trading partners, the U.S. market 
is clearly far more open than that of our major trading partners, such 
as Japan and Europe--both of which cast stones at the United States 
from behind titanic barriers of their own to agricultural trade.
  To keep the playing field relatively equal and battle foreign 
protectionism in the form of subsidies and dumping--selling at cut-
throat prices--the United States and most other developed countries 
maintain antidumping and countervailing duty laws.
  Another critical U.S. law is section 201. It aims to give industries 
that are seriously injured by import surges time to adapt. Section 201 
was recently employed to good effect to provide the steel industry with 
that breathing room, but it has previously been used on a range of 
other products, from lamb meat to motorcycles. Indeed, that is why 
Harley-Davidson is doing well today. They were given a breather.
  Although the exact percentages can vary from year to year, over the 
last two decades, these laws collectively have applied duties to less 
than 1 percent of total imports; that is, our trade laws, when 
enforced, when in action, have applied duties to less than 1 percent of 
total imports. And they are completely consistent with U.S. obligations 
under the WTO--a point that must be remembered by all Americans who are 
a little concerned about some of these actions our Government, I think 
in most cases, legitimately takes to protect the United States of 
America because other countries' trade laws and barriers are so heinous 
by comparison and so unfair to Americans.
  Yet somehow the United States has lost the public relations war on 
this topic. Somehow our trading partners and importers have convinced 
some editorial writers that these laws are protectionist. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. They are not protectionist.
  Antidumping and countervailing duty laws combat trading practices 
that have been condemned for a century. Subsidies and dumping are too 
frequently used by foreign countries and companies to devastate U.S. 
industries. Consider the U.S. semiconductor industry in the mid-1980s 
and the U.S. lumber industry today. Rather than being protectionist, 
these laws are the remedy to protectionism. That dumping, those 
subsidies, are trade barriers. They are trade barriers. They are 
barriers to free trade. So our trade laws are meant to remedy that 
protectionism, remedy those trade barriers, by knocking down those 
trade barriers. That is what our trade laws do. It is a very important 
point for all of us to remember.

  On a political level, these laws also serve as a guarantee to U.S. 
industries and U.S. citizens. They say that trade will be fair as well 
as free, and that temporary relief is available if imports rise to 
unexpected levels. Without those critical reassurances, I suspect the 
already sagging public support for free trade would evaporate and new 
trade agreements would simply become impossible.
  Our trade laws help us, not hurt us, and help other countries, too. 
It keeps them honest and keeps them on their toes.
  To address this issue, the bill takes two important steps: First, it 
identifies

[[Page S3798]]

several recent dispute settlement panels under the WTO that have ruled 
against U.S. trade laws and limited their operation in unreasonable 
ways. These decisions clearly go beyond the obligations agreed to in 
the WTO and undermine the credibility of the world trading system. If 
they are not addressed, I suspect public support for trade will erode 
further. That is why our concerns regarding these cases are identified 
at the very outset of the bill as findings and why the administration 
is directed to develop a strategy to counter or reverse these decisions 
or lose fast track.
  This bill also directs negotiators not to negotiate new trade 
agreements that undermine U.S. trade laws. We cannot do that. I am, 
frankly, concerned that this administration has already put itself in a 
position in which U.S. trading partners will push hard to weaken U.S. 
trade laws in WTO negotiations.
  We cannot put ourselves in that situation. This issue is serious 
enough that I carefully weighed whether the benefits of new trade 
agreements are worth that risk. I went forward only because I believe 
there are strong majorities in both Houses of Congress to block efforts 
to weaken U.S. trade laws.
  I am concerned that additional steps on U.S. trade laws may go too 
far, but I hope the administration's trade negotiators take careful 
note of these directions; otherwise, they are headed for conflict with 
the Congress.
  Mr. President, that describes the fast-track portions of this bill. 
They are not perfect. Were it not for the need to address the concerns 
of Senators on the other side of the aisle, I would have gone further 
in several areas. There are also provisions I think are unnecessary. 
That, after all, is the nature of bipartisan compromise. In the end, 
though, the Finance Committee reported the fast-track bill by a vote of 
18 to 3, indicating to me that we are close to finding that balance.
  One final point, especially for my friends on the left. This is the 
most progressive fast-track bill that Congress has ever moved to pass, 
by far. It is a vast improvement over past grants of fast track on many 
of the issues I have just highlighted. It is not perfect, but it is a 
good bill. I urge my colleagues not to allow the perfect to become the 
enemy of the good.
  When I began my remarks, I noted that many people have asked a simple 
question: Why a trade bill? Why now? A big part of the reason is that 
we now have the unique opportunity to expand and approve trade 
adjustment assistance--not TPA, trade promotion authority, but trade 
adjustment assistance. Quite frankly, this would be impossible absent 
fast track. We can only do this in the context of a larger trade bill.
  So let me turn now to what I view as the most important part of this 
legislation--and certainly the part I am most proud of--trade 
adjustment assistance.
  Trade adjustment assistance, sometimes known as TAA, is a program 
with a simple but admirable objective: to assist workers injured by 
imports to adjust and find new jobs. It is that simple. This is an 
objective I suspect almost all Americans support.
  TAA was created back in 1962 as part of an effort to implement the 
results of the so-called Kennedy round agreement to expand world trade. 
That is its genesis, 1962.
  President Kennedy and the Congress agreed there were significant 
benefits to the country as a whole from expanded trade. They also 
recognized, however, that workers and firms would inevitably lose out 
to increased import competition.
  TAA was then created as part of the new social compact that obliged 
the Nation to attend to the legitimate needs of those who lose from 
trade as part of the price for enjoying the benefits from increased 
trade.
  Unfortunately, we have not always upheld the bargain in pursuing new 
trade agreements because, over the years, we have failed to provide 
adequate funding for TAA. We have scaled back some benefits. We have 
tightened eligibility requirements. We have neglected to recognize the 
need for expanded training and health care assistance. We have not kept 
up our part of the deal.
  This legislation aims to fulfill the bargain struck in 1962. It does 
not, as some voices have asserted, make TAA more attractive than having 
a job. That is just not accurate. I think anybody would rather have a 
job, that is clear. But in the end, TAA recipients must still get by on 
about $250 per week while receiving retraining for a new job.
  But it does make several important changes in the TAA program to make 
it more effective. First, it extends the period for which TAA pays out 
income support from 52 weeks to 74 weeks. It is extended. This allows 
TAA recipients to stay in the program long enough to complete training 
for new jobs. It also remedies a shortcoming in the current program 
that many observers, including the General Accounting Office, have 
pointed out.
  Second, this legislation expands eligibility for TAA benefits to so-
called secondary workers. This has been a controversial provision, so I 
will explain it. Secondary workers are secondary only in the minds of 
some of the bureaucrats administering TAA. These are workers who have 
lost their jobs due to imports just as surely as those receiving TAA 
benefits now, but they have the misfortune of working for a company or 
a plant that supplies input products to a plant that closed or reduced 
production because of trade. They are so-called secondary workers.
  The shortcomings of current law are demonstrated in this example: If 
an auto plant must close down because of competition from Japanese 
imports, the workers at that plant would be covered by TAA. That is 
clear. The workers down the road, however--those who make windshield 
wipers or tires for the now closed plant--would be secondary workers 
and not covered. This is simply unjust, and it is why so many, 
including the GAO and the Trade Deficit Review Commission, which 
included two members of the Bush Cabinet, have advocated expanding TAA 
to cover secondary workers.

  When Congress passed the NAFTA in 1994, President Clinton agreed to 
expand TAA to secondary workers for imports from NAFTA countries. We 
also agreed to extend TAA when a U.S. manufacturing plant moves abroad 
to one of the NAFTA countries. These limited applications demonstrate 
that both provision on secondary workers and plant shifts are workable. 
They have been the law and are working. It was the expectation at the 
time that we passed NAFTA that these provisions would be expanded to 
all trade. As Mickey Kantor, who was USTR at the time, has said:

       At the time [that NAFTA was passed] it was everyone's 
     expectation that these programs would be extended to non-
     NAFTA countries.
       And that makes sense--workers who lose their jobs because 
     of imports from Europe, for example, are just as deserving of 
     assistance as workers who lose their jobs because of imports 
     from Canada. The legislation before the Senate harmonizes 
     these programs. This is long overdue.

  Third, this legislation expands benefits for TAA workers. This 
legislation authorizes $300 million for training workers receiving 
TAA--nearly tripling the program. The legislation will also extend 
assistance in obtaining healthcare insurance to TAA recipients. Now, 
the call for extending healthcare insurance assistance has proven the 
most controversial aspect of this legislation.
  But it is important for all Senators to understand that this concept 
was originally advanced by the bipartisan Trade Deficit Review 
Commission--a group that had many prominent Republican members, 
including Ambassador Robert Zoellick, Secretary of Defense Donald 
Rumsfeld, and former USTR Carla Hills. They recommended health 
insurance benefits for dislocated workers.
  I would emphasize that the recommendation for transitional health 
insurance was supported unanimously by the Commission. In our bill, we 
have tried to find an appropriate middle ground.
  For workers who are eligible for COBRA, this bill would provide a 73 
percent tax credit for those payments. For workers not eligible for 
COBRA, this bill would provide a 73 percent tax credit for the purchase 
of certain State-based group coverage options. The tax credits for both 
categories of workers would be fully advanceable and refundable. In 
addition, in recognition of the fact that it may take States some time 
to get these group-coverage

[[Page S3799]]

options up and running, we provide interim assistance through the NEG 
program.
  Fourth, this legislation also extends TAA programs specifically 
targeted to family farmers, ranchers, and fishermen. The legislation 
aims to correct some problems in the current legislation that have kept 
farmers and fishermen--who are typically self-employed--from 
benefitting from TAA. The provision on farmers is taken from 
legislation introduced by Senator Conrad and the ranking member of the 
Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. The provisions on fishermen were 
prepared by Senator Snowe, who has contributed immensely to this 
legislation.

  Finally, this bill creates what amounts to a pilot program on wage 
insurance. Wage insurance is essentially an alternative approach to 
addressing worker adjustment. In essence, wage insurance provides a 
Government payment to older workers who lose their jobs because of 
trade and decide to take a lower paying job rather than go through 
training. The Government payment would run for up to two years and 
would make up half of the difference between the new wage and the old 
wage. The concept is that workers may actually be able to adjust more 
quickly if they move back into the workforce and learn new skills on 
the job. Experience suggests that the workers that do take a lower 
paying job are often able to make up much of the difference between the 
new wage and the old wage as they gain experience.
  There are those who would like to abandon traditional TAA entirely in 
favor of wage insurance. If this experiment succeeds, that may be just 
the course we decide to take in a few years. At this point, however, 
there are just too many questions to be answered to turn TAA entirely 
into a wage insurance program. That would not be right.
  One final point on cost. I should note--we often talk about the vast 
benefits of trade: more jobs, higher paying jobs, cheaper products. I 
indicated earlier that the average family of four sees annual benefits 
in the thousands of dollars. Yet I am sure that some of my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle will complain that TAA costs too much. 
But the reality is, it would cost the average family of four about $12. 
It is an inexpensive way to build support for trade.
  All told, this bill amounts to a major expansion and a historic re-
tooling of TAA--a step that is long overdue. It attempts to adopt the 
positive experiences we have had with expanding TAA to secondary 
workers in the NAFTA, adopt the recommendations of the GAO and the 
Trade Deficit Review Commission, adopt good ideas from the academic 
world, and generally turn TAA into a program that truly works.
  I suspect when we look back on this legislation in 20 years it will 
be these provisions on TAA, which attempt to fulfill the promise made 
by President Kennedy nearly 40 years ago, that are found to be truly 
historically significant.
  Finally, this legislation also extends and expands the trade 
preferences given to the Andean countries--Peru, Bolivia, Colombia, and 
Eduador. The United States had extended these preferences to our 
friends in Andean America until they expired last year because we 
wanted to provide the citizens of those countries with an alternative 
to the illegal drug trade and to shore up our relationship with 
important allies.
  In the legislation we are considering today, the Finance Committee 
chose to expand ATPA to new products, such as textiles and apparel and 
canned tuna. I know these expansions are controversial, but they are 
critical to the beneficiary countries.
  Fighting the war on drugs is an uphill battle for these countries. It 
is tough. They cannot fight that battle unless legitimate, value-added 
sectors of their economies are encouraged and developed. This bill 
expands ATPA in a responsible way.
  The legislation also creates a petition process to give interested 
parties a channel for bringing to the administration's attention issues 
that may warrant limitation of a country's benefits. That could happen. 
This will ensure that the United States pays adequate attention to 
other issues in these relationships, such as labor rights and 
enforcement or arbitral awards.
  Finally, this legislation includes technical changes from the 
committee mark, including an exclusion of certain footwear products.
  Let me end by talking about the importance of trade in my home State 
of Montana. As in most States, trade plays a critical role in Montana's 
economy.
  From 1993 to 2000, Montana's exports grew by 126 percent--nearly 
double the 68 percent growth in total U.S. exports of goods. We have 
expanded proportionately faster than has the Nation. According to the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, nearly 6,000 Montana jobs depend on 
exports of manufactured goods. And more than 730 companies, mostly 
small- and medium-sized businesses, export from Montana. Farmers and 
ranchers are also increasingly dependent on trade and continuing to 
open foreign markets. One in every three U.S. acres is planted for 
export--making U.S. farmers 2\1/2\ times more reliant on trade than the 
rest of the economy.
  Unfortunately, barriers to U.S. agriculture products remain extremely 
high. Agriculture tariffs average more than 60 percent worldwide. By 
comparison, average tariffs on industrial goods are less than 5 
percent. Non-tariff trade barriers, like quotas, have all but vanished 
from trade in manufacturing, but these barriers remain common in 
agriculture. U.S. agriculture exports have suffered as a result of 
these barriers. Indeed, because agriculture is the most distorted 
sector of the global economy, it is also the sector most in need of 
trade liberalization. Some existing agreements have provided 
significant improvements. NAFTA--while far from perfect--has resulted 
in increased agriculture exports to Mexico and Canada.
  In 1993, the year that NAFTA was passed, Montana's agriculture 
exports to Mexico totaled $1.2 million. In 2000, that number had 
increased to nearly $4.7 million. Montana's agriculture exports to 
Canada have increased even more dramatically--from roughly $12 million 
in 1993 to $110 million in 2000.
  The U.S. must make agriculture a priority in future negotiations, and 
in fact, agriculture is the highest priority for new global trade 
negotiations under the WTO. Countries have agreed to work toward 
phasing out all export subsidies; make improvements in market access; 
and eliminate disguised trade barriers such as in the beef hormones 
dispute with the Europe Union. These negotiations can only help in 
leveling the playing field for American farmers and ranchers and open 
markets overseas since 60 percent of the tariffs are in agriculture and 
5 percent are in manufacturing.

  Trade is clearly important for Montana's farmers, ranchers, and 
workers. Support for Montana ranchers and small businesses is important 
for our people. Yet support for trade in Montana--as in the rest of the 
Nation--I think has faded in recent years. Part of that is because 
people are more aware of the downside of trade rather than the upside 
of trade.
  When workers are laid off as a result of imports, that is highly 
publicized and widely noticed. Yet few people realize that trade 
agreements have provided, by some accounts, benefits to families worth 
thousands of dollars annually. We have not done enough in this country 
to help those workers displaced because of trade. That is why a 
comprehensive bill--one that includes both fast track and TAA is so 
important.
  This legislation is certainly controversial. As I have noted, fast 
track alone has proven so divisive that it has been deadlocked in the 
Congress for most of the decade. I know some of my distinguished 
colleagues--Senators Byrd and Hollings, for example--have both 
substantive and procedural concerns. I deeply respect their views, and 
I value their insight. They are very good people. We disagree, however, 
about trade. But their concerns are heard. I will address their 
concerns more fully as this debate continues.
  In the end, though, it can be said that everybody would like to see 
changes in this bill, in one direction or the other. But I believe 
strongly that this legislation represents a sound balance on all 
fronts.
  Forty years ago, President Kennedy asked Congress to grant him new 
trade negotiating authority. It was a much simpler bill, at a time when 
trade issues were more narrowly defined. But it was still quite 
controversial, for

[[Page S3800]]

many of the same reasons that trade remains controversial today.
  President Kennedy emphasized the importance of trade for our economy, 
for our workers, and for American leadership. Yet he recognized even 
then that trade also creates dislocation and that a new program, trade 
adjustment assistance, was needed to aid workers adversely affected by 
trade.
  President John F. Kennedy, urging support for his proposal, said 
this:

       At rare moments in the life of this Nation, an opportunity 
     comes along to fashion out of the confusion of current events 
     a clear and bold action to show the world what we stand for. 
     Such an opportunity is before us now.

  Congress seized that opportunity and passed the Trade Expansion Act 
of 1962.
  Today, we too can show the world--and America--what we stand for. 
Building not only on the vision of President Kennedy, but on the 
efforts of the Presidents who followed him, we can show the world that 
America can lead the way in building a new consensus on international 
trade. We, too, must seize this opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have attempted to really get the process 
going on trade promotion authority for a week now, with little or no 
success. I think today we moved completely in the wrong direction. I 
am, for the first time, becoming concerned that we may not be 
successful in our effort. I wanted to come to the floor today to talk 
about it.
  Had we brought the trade promotion authority bill to the floor of the 
Senate on Tuesday, the bill that was reported on an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan vote--I think 18 to 3 out of committee--and if we could have 
had an up-or-down vote on it, my guess is that some 70 Members of the 
Senate would have voted for trade promotion authority. And the vote 
ought to be 100.
  If there is anything I think we have learned in the history of 
mankind, it is that trade works, that trade promotes economic growth, 
it promotes better jobs, it expands freedom, it is something that all 
enlightened opinion speaks in favor of; yet it is something that, 
throughout history, has been under assault. It is hard to understand 
trade, and it is so easy to argue against it.
  Every special interest can cloak itself in the American flag and 
argue against trade. It reminds me of the writing of a French 
economist, who, as individual industries were getting protection from 
foreign competition in France while England was blossoming economically 
through free trade--a famous French economist wrote a petition to the 
economic ministry that was granting all these exceptions for one 
industry after another, basically arguing that they had to protect 
dairy products because they had so many jobs tied to it--tending the 
cattle, and all of the people who service the industry--and they had to 
protect this industry to protect that. So this famous economist wrote a 
petition on behalf of candlemakers, arguing that they were 
disadvantaged in selling their products because of the Sun, which had 
an unfair competitive advantage: It seemed to produce light for 
nothing--in overwhelming quantities.
  Anyway, to make a long story short, he goes into this elaborate 
argument about how France could become rich from all the people who 
would be employed in making candles if they would just pass a law 
requiring people to pull their shutters closed during the day and to 
pull down their shades so that they would have to buy more candles. 
What was interesting about his petition was that it made exactly as 
much sense as all the other petitions that had been granted.
  The point is that trade doesn't help every individual producer under 
every individual circumstance, but it helps the whole, it helps 
society.
  We live in a golden age today. We live in an age where consumer 
goods, relative to our wages, are the cheapest they have ever been in 
the history of mankind. The other day I put a shovel in a truck, and 
someone had gone somewhere in the truck. I needed the shovel, but I had 
a limited amount of time. So I went to the hardware store to buy 
another shovel--complaining about how stupid I had been for leaving it 
in the truck. I should have paid attention. I had only one day to do 
what I was going to do. So I went there to buy a shovel, and I bought a 
shovel for $4.52. I submit that never, since man first emerged from the 
Garden of Eden, has any citizen anywhere bought a quality shovel for 
less than I paid for it at the hardware store.
  Today, we all benefit from world trade. I never will forget, as a 
boy, as an economic student, when the professor explained comparative 
advantage and the gains from trade. It didn't take me long to figure 
out these were powerful ideas that people didn't understand. It is so 
easy for a Member to stand up and say: We buy products from some 
country, but they don't buy that product from us. But I could say that 
I buy groceries from Safeway, but they don't buy anything from me. I 
have a totally one-way trade with Safeway. I could claim that that was 
unfair trade. I could stop buying groceries from grocery stores since 
they don't buy anything from me. I could plant my little backyard in 
vegetables. But the price I would pay would be poverty.
  The point is, there is no issue we have debated in this Congress, or 
any Congress, related to the material well-being of our people--which I 
separate from things like our political freedom--there is no issue that 
we have debated that is more important than trade. Trade won the cold 
war. Trade and the wealth that it created, the wealth machine it 
generated rebuilt Japan and Europe after World War II. Trade created 
wealth in Taiwan and Korea where it had never existed. In the process, 
it destroyed the Soviet Union. It gave more freedom to more people than 
any victory in any war in the history of mankind. The first point I am 
trying to make is, trade is very important and trade promotion 
authority, giving our President the tools he needs to negotiate and 
create more good jobs in America through trade, is something that every 
Member of the Senate ought to be for, and thank goodness, a large 
number of our Members are for it.

  If that had been the issue before us, we could have finished our 
business on Tuesday. But for some reason, the majority decided they 
were unwilling to let the Senate vote on trade promotion authority 
alone and that they were going to add other legislation to it, most 
importantly, trade adjustment assistance. Whereas the trade promotion 
authority bill came out of the Finance Committee on a strong bipartisan 
vote, the trade adjustment assistance bill actually passed the 
committee after the expiration of the two-hour rule. It was totally a 
partisan procedure, and it is a very contentious bill.
  I could go into great length about what is in it, but the point I 
wish to make today is that we have been negotiating, I believe, in good 
faith in trying to come up with an agreement that would let us move 
forward and pass this most important legislation--trade promotion 
authority.
  In the midst of these negotiations, yesterday Senator Daschle offered 
this amendment. The astounding thing is that a huge amount of this 
amendment represents material that not only is not in the trade 
promotion authority bill but is not in the trade adjustment assistance 
bill. And there are totally new issues that have not been discussed in 
the context of fast track before. These represent basically an 
undercutting of the whole process of trying to negotiate a compromise.
  I understand that to legislate, it requires a compromise. Nobody gets 
everything they want. I do not think it is asking too much to have a 
straight up-or-down vote on trade promotion authority, something as 
important as that, but now we find hidden in this amendment a provision 
whereby to get trade promotion authority, we are going to have to cover 
legacy costs for the steel industry.
  This provision was not part of trade adjustment assistance, but 
suddenly out of nowhere, if you are part of the legacy cost to the 
steel industry, you are going to get a brand new entitlement benefit 
under this program. Never in our negotiations has there been talk about 
wage insurance. Let me explain this concept and let me explain how 
trade adjustment assistance works.
  First, under the current law, if I lose my job because lightening 
strikes the building I am in and destroys the Capitol or a terrorist 
attack destroys the

[[Page S3801]]

business, I get unemployment insurance until I can find a new job. But 
if foreign competition can be blamed for me losing my job, I get a 
totally different set of benefits, far richer, far more valuable.
  Quite frankly, I never understood why Americans ought to be treated 
differently based on why they lose their jobs. If they are Americans 
and they lose their jobs and Government provides programs, it seems to 
me they ought to get the same benefits. I do not understand treating 
people differently, but I long ago have concluded that my view is 
hopelessly in the minority on that issue.
  Now we are talking about adding new benefits to the differential, and 
I want to talk about two issues in particular.
  The first I mentioned is this whole steel legacy issue, and it really 
boils down to the following thing: Sad as it is, painful as it is, the 
American steel industry promised benefits that they never intended to 
pay, that they never had the resources to pay, and now, having 
negotiated all of these gold-plated benefits, principally to their 
retirees, when the bill has come due, these companies, many of them 
still in business, many of them that have equity values on the New York 
Stock Exchange are saying: Look, we cannot pay these benefits; we 
agreed to them, but we cannot pay them, so we want the taxpayers to pay 
them.
  Now we have a proposal out of the clear blue sky added to the ransom 
that we are supposed to pay to get trade promotion authority passed. We 
have this requirement that these steel legacy costs come under trade 
adjustment assistance. I say to my colleagues, when you are in the 
business we are in, you never say never; you never say that something 
is not going to happen. But let me put it this way: We may adopt a bill 
that funds steel legacy costs as tribute or bribery or ransom to get 
trade promotion authority, but it is not going to happen soon and it is 
not going to happen easily. Within every limit of every rule of the 
Senate, I assure my colleagues, we are going to fight this. And if in 
the end, God forbid, but if in the end it were a choice between trade 
promotion authority, which we need, which is vitally important and 
which I am 100 percent committed to, if I had to choose between trade 
promotion authority and paying steel legacy costs to get it, the answer 
is no, it is not worth it. It is absolutely not worth it.
  If we were talking from now until Jesus came back, I do not know that 
I would be so quick to make that statement. But we know we are going to 
have a new Congress next year. We might actually have a Republican 
majority in that Congress. To simply come in and ask the taxpayers to 
pick up all these legacy costs for operating American businesses that 
promised benefits they could not and they never intended to pay, in 
many cases, is so outrageous it is piracy on such a scale that, in my 
opinion, it is not worth paying, not even for trade promotion 
authority.
  Let me talk about wage insurance. I remind everybody that currently 
in our trade promotion authority bill only about one out of every four 
Americans who lose their jobs where it can in any way be related to 
trade claim benefits under trade promotion authority. About three-
fourths of them simply go on about their business and get other jobs, 
but about one out of every four take trade adjustment assistance 
benefits.
  Under this bill, we create a brand new benefit which will guarantee 
that almost everyone will participate in the program. As a result, the 
cost of the program will skyrocket. This is a brand new entitlement, 
and what it says is, if you earn less than $40,000 a year when you lose 
your job, when that can be in any way related to trade, the Government 
is going to guarantee your wage, and so you will take a new job and the 
Government will come along and pay a portion of the difference between 
the wage you had in your old job and the wage you have in your new job.

  This is a brand new entitlement program, potentially explosive in its 
costs.
  The idea we are suddenly going to start insuring people's wages 
represents a step toward Government domination of the marketplace that 
we have never seen before. This is a provision that cannot be in any 
final compromise.
  I will sum up because I know the distinguished ranking member of the 
committee is present. I know he wants to speak.
  I do not think we are moving in the right direction. I thought it was 
a mistake, I believe it is a mistake, and I believe many of my 
colleagues will not support tying trade adjustment assistance with all 
of these new entitlement programs to trade promotion authority. Now we 
are having all of these new benefits in the trade adjustment assistance 
bill, benefits the cost of which no one knows.
  I hear my colleagues say we are running a deficit, we are spending 
the Social Security trust fund, what an outrage it is, but yet today we 
have an amendment before us offered by the majority leader that would 
create massive new entitlements that, clearly, would end up costing 
billions, perhaps tens of billions of dollars, and no one seems the 
least bit concerned. No one seems concerned that we are creating all 
these new entitlements that will change worker behavior, that will 
induce people not to move to new jobs, that will disrupt the economy 
and in the process create this incredible situation where people who 
are working have no guarantee of wages but people who are unemployed 
do; people who are working do not have a guarantee of health insurance 
but people who are unemployed have a Government guarantee.
  How can we tax people who are working, who have no wage guarantee and 
who have no health insurance, how can we justify taxing them to pay 
benefits to people who are unemployed who are not working? I do not see 
how such a guarantee can be made.
  Ultimately, what we are talking about is a European-type system, 
where we are going to guarantee health coverage ultimately to 
everybody, where we are going back and bailing out the steel industry 
to simply get the right to vote on trade promotion authority, and where 
we are beginning to write guaranteed wages into the American economy.
  The President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today in the paper said 
it well, I think, that we are reaching the point where the price we are 
being asked to pay for trade promotion authority is simply too high; it 
is unacceptable.
  So I urge my colleagues to--and let me speak to my colleagues on my 
side of the aisle. I am never going to support these provisions. I am 
never going to support bailing out the steel industry as a price for 
trade promotion authority. I am not going to support a wage insurance 
program. Every country in the world that has such a program, that has 
the least bit of economic development, is trying to get out of it.
  Europe has not created a job in 30 years because of their wage 
insurance program and the inflexibility that produces. So if you ever 
get a job, you are protected, but in Europe people do not get new jobs 
unless somebody dies or retires. That is not what we want in America. 
So I think this has to be rejected. I do not think this represents any 
kind of good-faith offer. I think this undercuts what we have been 
trying to do, and I think we are moving in the wrong direction.
  We are going to hear today from many of my colleagues who have been 
involved in this debate. I am for trade promotion authority, and I 
understand piracy. I understand that often in the legislative process 
one has to do a lot of things they do not want to do to do some good, 
but the price we are being asked to pay in the Daschle amendment is too 
high. Not even trade, as great as it is, is worth the tribute we are 
being asked to pay in this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, does the assistant majority leader 
have a statement he wishes to make?
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the Senator asking. What we are going to do, 
as soon as the Senator completes his statement, we are going to work 
out a time agreement where Senator Dorgan's amendment will be voted on 
at or around 12:30 today. So Members should be aware that is what we 
are working toward. As soon as the Senator completes his statement, we 
will propound a unanimous consent request. I have checked with the 
Senator and I have

[[Page S3802]]

checked with the manager on our side and that seems to be OK with both 
of them.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, will the Senator yield to me for a 
moment?
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  There is not going to be a unanimous consent agreement on the Dorgan 
amendment. We are not going to do a time limit on it. We are not going 
to vote on it today.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, there are other ways we can vote.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is fine. I am saying we are not going to have a 
unanimous consent agreement today on that amendment or any other 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. The majority leader yesterday finally brought to the 
Senate legislation that contains trade promotion authority, a second 
part called trade adjustment assistance, and a few other items, all 
very important but not getting as much attention as those two.
  I am pleased that the Finance Committee's bipartisan trade promotion 
legislation is now before the Senate. I believe strongly this 
legislation, more than any other, will promote America's constructive 
leadership of the international trading system. Nevertheless, my 
enthusiasm for the trade promotion authority component of the majority 
leader's legislation is tempered by the dismay that I have about how 
this process has been carried on.
  Even though I believe strongly trade promotion authority is badly 
needed, and surely it ought to be passed by the Congress and signed 
into law, I regret we are being forced by the Democrat leadership's 
unnecessary counterproductive, sort of take it or leave it approach--it 
is kind of a partisan attitude in the taking up of trade promotion 
authority and doing it in this fashion.
  When we passed trade promotion authority from the committee 4 months 
ago, the vote was 18 to 3. We did it in an open, cooperative, 
bipartisan spirit. I was greatly heartened by the bill itself and by 
the process in which we achieved a result that was good for America. 
But this bill before us, the one laid down by the Senate majority 
leader, is a much different story. I had hoped after bruising, partisan 
fights on economic stimulus, the Jordan trade bill, judicial 
nominations, and other issues, finally after those other issues that 
are very partisan, because we had an overwhelming vote in committee 
then in favor of trade promotion authority, that we would be able to 
show America's farmers, ranchers, agricultural producers, our workers 
in America's families and tens of millions of American consumers who 
benefit from free trade that we were beyond partisanship, able to do in 
a successful and short manner what the Senate has done on trade in the 
past, to be able to give the President the authority in this bill that 
Presidents since President Ford have had.

  I hoped the Senate could put aside partisan differences and we could 
move forward for the good of the country and this bipartisan spirit 
would carry over into the consideration of trade promotion authority.
  Unfortunately, because of the bill laid down last night, I am very 
sad to say I was wrong. Even after the Finance Committee approved trade 
promotion authority 18 to 3, it took 4 months before the Senate 
Democrat leadership would agree to bring this critically important 
bipartisan bill to the Senate floor. It took 4 months just to get a 
bill which passed out of committee by 18 to 3, to the floor, even 
though the President said time and again that the lack of trade 
negotiating authority was hurting his ability to lead at the 
negotiating table.
  When we finally seemed to be making progress in getting trade 
authority legislation to the floor, we were told the only way we could 
have this debate--a debate that the American people deserve to have, 
particularly the jobs created by trade--was if we agreed to partisan 
trade adjustment assistance legislation with which many Members on our 
side of the aisle disagree.
  I support trade adjustment assistance. I support an enhanced, 
updated, and fine-tuned trade adjustment assistance program. I have 
said that many times. In fact, the trade adjustment assistance 
legislation I support will more than double overall program spending 
because what I support will vastly increase spending on training to 
help the dislocated workers. My program adds health care coverage for 
the first time ever. It will assist so-called secondary workers for the 
first time ever.
  What I find difficult to agree to, and many Members on my side of the 
aisle will not agree, is the partisan, ``my way or the highway'' 
approach taken in the bill laid down by the Democrat leadership. The 
bipartisan way is the best way to get things done in Washington. 
Somehow the Democrat leadership is not listening to either the people 
on my side of the aisle or the people on his side of the aisle who I 
know agree that we need a bipartisan approach. Others have been 
ignored, even beyond this body, groups representing tens of thousands 
of farmers, ranchers, and hard-working American families, those workers 
who have jobs related to trade, those jobs that will be created because 
we pass this bill and have enhanced trade.
  I briefly quote from a letter to the majority leader printed as a 
full-page advertisement on April 11 in the Roll Call newspaper. This 
letter to the Senate majority leader was from the Agricultural 
Coalition for the Trade Promotion Authority, representing 80 food and 
agricultural groups dedicated to the passage of TPA.
  In part, it says:

       The strong bipartisanship that has historically prevailed 
     in the Senate on trade matters must be reestablished to allow 
     rapid action on trade promotion authority. We urge that this 
     bipartisanship extend to work on other trade-related 
     legislation that may need to move in tandem with trade 
     promotion authority so that the U.S. can regain its position 
     as world leader for free and fair trade, and in so doing open 
     a world of opportunity for U.S. agriculture.

  That plea for bipartisanship on trade adjustment assistance is being 
ignored. My pleas for bipartisanship are being ignored, and so were 
those of many other Senators.

  We have a divisive partisan product, laid down last night, a product 
deliberately designed to emphasize differences, not to build bridges 
between Republicans and Democrats, among people of different 
viewpoints. It was meant not to seek common ground, not to restore the 
traditional nonpartisan approach to international trade and foreign 
policy that characterized so much of America's history but otherwise 
put down to simply score partisan political points.
  As disappointed as I am by the process that took place last night, I 
am still hopeful and commit myself to work for a genuine compromise. I 
happen to think it can still come together. I believe we can compromise 
and come together because America's global leadership is at stake. In 
other words, this is a very important bill.
  I don't for 1 second believe any Senator would deliberately want to 
diminish America's standing in the world community. Stakes are very 
high. But that is what will happen if we don't restore the President's 
credibility at the negotiating table. And this bill that came out of 
the committee does that--not the bill before the Senate. The merits of 
the Finance Committee bipartisan trade promotion authority bill are so 
compelling that I believe we will ultimately be able to compromise on 
trade adjustment assistance.
  I summarize the need for the Finance Committee TPA bill simply by 
saying the United States must be in a strong position to pursue our 
Nation's interests at the bargaining table. Without trade promotion 
authority, we are not in a strong position to accomplish that goal, it 
is just that simple.
  Already the United States has been pushed to the sidelines, pushed to 
a point where a great deal of activity on the trade front has taken 
place bilaterally, it has taken place regionally, and now globally in 
new trade negotiations underway through the regime of the WTO.
  There are many examples of how the United States is being left 
behind. The Andean community and Mercosur, for example, have moved 
closer to creating a South American free trade zone comprising 310 
million people. Mercosur and the Andean community together have about 
$128 billion in annual exports. If they have a free trade zone, it will 
strengthen tremendously the economic power of Latin America and be 
negative towards the United States. If

[[Page S3803]]

we fail to give our President trade promotion authority and progress on 
negotiations of the free trade area of the Americas slows as a result, 
or comes to a halt as a result--and this is now the case--then major 
U.S. exporters will be at a major disadvantage in these important Latin 
American markets compared to exporters in countries that do have such 
trade agreements.
  American suppliers seeking to sell in these Latin American countries 
are going to have a heck of a time to have a market for their goods 
that come from the United States. They will face other difficulties as 
well. Just one example from my State of Iowa, the Bandag company, in 
Muscatine, IA, makes and sells retreaded tires. That company is an 
enormously successful company, also in the international market. At one 
point in time, Bandag products went to Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina 
from our country. American workers made those products.
  However, when the Mercorsur agreement was put into effect between 
Brazil and those other three countries, it became more viable for 
Bandag to ship product from a plant that Bandag built in Brazil. Those 
jobs and that investment as well did not stay in my State of Iowa or 
somewhere else in the United States. In fact, out of economic 
necessity, it went to Brazil. That is what happens if the United States 
is not credible at the negotiating table. That is what happens when the 
United States cannot lead in opening new markets and reducing tariffs 
overseas.
  Without trade promotion authority, it is a story that will be told 
over and over again. This is our challenge, then. If we fail in this 
challenge, if we do not seize this opportunity to grant the President 
trade negotiating authority, I believe the process of opening global 
markets through bilateral, regional, and especially global 
negotiations--the process that has been the pattern for the last 50 
years--will be set back for years.
  If that happens, then the future prosperity of millions of Americans 
and the future prosperity of many of this Nation's most competitive 
businesses, and our farmers as well, will be put in doubt.
  Even though this was a flawed process, and regrettably an 
unnecessarily divisive process, laying this bill down last night, it is 
never too late for us to do the right thing. Let us use the commitment 
to good faith that I believe we all share to reach a genuine and fair 
political compromise on trade adjustment assistance and to finally 
resolve the few remaining trade adjustment assistance issues--and maybe 
a few other issues--that are out there.
  We can get this done. Senator Baucus and I have shown 98 other 
Senators that working together we can accomplish a great deal of good. 
He has been doing that with me. But I think the process last night 
detracts from it. Maybe it was not meant to hurt what we are trying to 
do, but I think it has done that.
  I am glad that I will have the opportunity, regardless of this act, 
to continue to sit down with my colleague and work out differences. 
That is what I want all the other 98 Senators--or at least hopefully an 
overwhelming number, 70 or so--to do, work with us in this process. I 
think there are that many people in this body who know trade promotion 
authority is the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I come to the floor this morning to speak 
in behalf of an amendment laid down by my colleague from North Dakota, 
Senator Dorgan, as it relates to a particularly growing concerning that 
we have about a provision within the North American Free Trade 
Agreement. Because we are now on the floor of the Senate with trade 
issues that are so important to our country, we thought this the 
appropriate place to offer this amendment.
  Representing a State such as Idaho, I know the words ``made in 
Idaho'' or ``buy Idaho'' have become a rather important but familiar 
refrain across my State for the last good number of years. What is 
unique about that is it has now become a refrain around the world, as 
products built in my State, as in other States, are now trafficking in 
world commerce and are a growing part of the Idaho economy. Whether it 
is the potato chip, for which we are well known, or the computer chip, 
with which we now dominate world markets because of quality and 
efficiency, Idaho's trade has grown phenomenally in the last decade, 
increasing and improving and diversifying our economy, and at the same 
time supplying increasing numbers of jobs that are important to all 
Idahoans.
  So whether it is trade adjustment or whether it is trade promotion 
authority, all of those become important items that we clearly need to 
debate. I, like the ranking member of the Finance Committee, am 
extremely frustrated by the process and the character of the process 
that has been given to us by the majority leader. We cannot look at 
these different trade issues separately and in a clean fashion and 
debate them in a way that allows us to focus individually on these 
issues from the importance of displaced worker health care, of course, 
to the importance of our President having the authority to negotiate 
trade agreements.
  All of that said, what is most important in any trade agreement is 
the transparency of the process so all of us can understand what our 
negotiators are doing and why they are doing it and the advantages 
those negotiations will bring to us as citizens, as workers, as 
producers within this economy.
  The Dorgan amendment does just that for an agreement that is already 
in place, the North American Free Trade Agreement--that I happened to 
oppose when it came to the floor some years ago.
  I had been a supporter of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement 
originally. But as the Bush administration and then the Clinton 
administration put the final touches to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, there clearly were provisions within it that I thought would 
not only be troublesome to enforce but this country more likely would 
not enforce, and the Canadian Government, on the other side of the 
border, would enforce, making it most difficult for commerce to flow 
evenly in both directions, which would create disadvantages for our 
producers and for our consumers, while creating advantages for the 
producers of Canada.
  Guess what. I was right in many instances. Many of my farmers and 
ranchers in Idaho today do not agree that the Canadian Free Trade 
Agreement was, in fact, a positive move for our country. This 
administration, though, has shown its willingness to enforce trade 
remedy law. With the steel agreement of a few months ago, and now a 
soft wood Canadian timber agreement just penned by the Department of 
Commerce, and being heard by the International Trade Commission as we 
speak today, we see the willingness on the part of this President to 
use law, current law, in a way that will not only force but stabilize 
markets and create level playing fields for producers and create a fair 
trade environment that some of my producers do not think exists.
  While trade is so important to my State, tragically enough some of my 
producers and workers are beginning to believe that free trade means 
that it all comes here and is sold in America, displacing our workers 
and changing our economy because we have had administrations in the 
past that were not willing to enforce trade remedy situations and level 
the playing field and create fair and equitable environments.
  I know the positive nature of trade and the importance of it. At the 
same time, chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement does 
something that is increasingly important as it relates to what are 
called Investor Protection Tribunals. That means when one government 
takes an action that may cause a dislocation of a product within the 
commerce of another country under the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, there is a procedure, a process by which it can be 
determined whether that was a fair and equitable process.
  The tragedy of that is the tribunals have been closed and the public 
has not been allowed to see them. I must tell you, this administration 
recognizes it, understands its problems. It is important we try to deal 
with those as rapidly as we can.
  Last July, our U.S. Trade Representative, Bob Zoellick, together with 
his Canadian and Mexican trade counterparts, discussed the secretive 
nature of

[[Page S3804]]

these unique dispute tribunals. They recognized that these tribunals 
needed to be more open and they announced they would take steps to open 
up the deliberations of the tribunals.
  On July 31, they issued an interpretation of chapter 11 stating that 
tribunals should operate as transparently as possible. That very 
wording, tragically enough, gave those who operate the tribunals an 
opportunity to operate in a less than transparent environment.
  As a result of that, Senator Dorgan and I have brought this amendment 
to the floor--I am a cosponsor of it--simply saying that this is a 
requirement, that the President needs to move in this direction, to 
certify that these tribunals are open, and to respond as quickly as 
possible in a time certain. We believe that is critically important.
  If we are going to get the American producer, the American worker, 
and the American consumer to understand the international character of 
our commerce and the international character of our economy, they also 
have to know that on the government side of the process--and there is a 
government side to trade when you move across international borders and 
when you move across political jurisdictions--that the government's 
side of it will be aggressive, balanced, fair, and that the proceedings 
of that government be transparent so that the public can understand why 
a certain action is taken and why a certain remedy is produced. We 
think that is all very critical and very necessary.
  I suggest that the Dorgan amendment is in fact a perfecting amendment 
to the North American Free Trade Agreement.
  We believe it was the intent originally that these dispute tribunals 
be allowed to be open, and appropriately so. Yet it has not occurred. 
All of them have been secretive in the past.
  We had a tribunal against MTBE because of the action of the State 
that dramatically impacted the producing company in Canada. At the same 
time, it was the right of the State of California to do what they did.
  Regulatory activity that changes a market environment needs to be 
understood, and the transparency of those tribunals simply allows that 
to happen. That is, in my opinion, the importance of the Dorgan 
amendment.
  The Washington Times has recognized this problem, as have other 
publications, as it relates to, again, the kind of transparency that we 
think is important.
  In the character of the tribunal, Bill Moyers--I don't always agree 
with him and what he says on PBS, but I think in this instance we 
agree--talked about the balance and the importance. Other publications 
have recognized that this is a growing problem within the North 
American free trade environment--that what we do is not as open and 
transparent as it ought to be.
  It is my understanding that we are going to have an opportunity to 
vote on this issue sometime in the immediate future. I hope my 
colleagues, recognizing that this is a perfecting amendment which 
directs the President to move in a positive direction to certify the 
openness and the transparency of these actions within the North 
American Free Trade Agreement and within the tribunals of jurisdiction, 
will do so under what we call the chapter 11 tribunal.
  With those comments, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 7 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 2446 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. SPECTER. I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I would like to say a few words about 
the pending amendment offered by my good friend from North Dakota, 
Senator Dorgan. It was offered yesterday evening.
  His amendment calls for greater transparency in dispute settlement 
under NAFTA chapter 11--that is the so-called investor-State dispute 
settlement. I think that is a very important objective.
  I agree that lack of transparency is one of the major flaws in how 
chapter 11 has operated. It is clear that it makes no sense whatsoever 
that when the United States is negotiating or companies are negotiating 
or trying to resolve a dispute with a Canadian company, the proceedings 
are, in effect, secret, that they are not open to the public. That 
makes no sense.
  I might say, too, that the issues in dispute before chapter 11 
tribunals clearly implicate essential functions of Government, 
including protection of the environment. They raise issues concerning 
public health and safety. I think any body deliberating on such 
important questions--it is axiomatic; it is a priority--should be open 
to the public. That is just a given.
  Moreover, interested parties must be able to convey their views in 
such a body, as is the case in our judicial process, where an 
interested party can file a brief, say, an amicus curiae brief, say, 
with the Supreme Court.
  Fortunately, this is a matter under which I think there is a growing 
consensus. I note that last year the United States, Canada, and Mexico 
adopted an interpretive note that provides for greater transparency in 
chapter 11 proceedings. The parties agreed, ``to make available to the 
public in a timely manner all documents submitted to, or issued by, a 
Chapter eleven tribunal,'' subject to redaction of confidential 
material. The United States, Canada, and Mexico did agree, in an 
interpretive note, to provide for greater transparency, at least with 
respect to making public documents more available.
  I think this interpretive note is a good start, but it is clear it is 
only a start. We have far more to do in opening up proceedings.
  I might say, I raised this issue with European negotiators at the 
infamous Seattle administerial on trade not so long ago, and I was 
surprised at the resistance I received, particularly from European 
negotiators. They did not seem to be automatically agreeing that, yes, 
that is good for the process. To me, it indicates we are going to have 
to move further and work a little more aggressively to help accomplish 
our objective, and that is transparency. For that reason, the Finance 
Committee bill currently on the floor included in the TPA bill a 
detailed negotiating objective precisely on this subject.
  Let me read it. These are the primary negotiating objectives 
contained in the bill: provide for ensuring that all requests for 
dispute settlement, and all proceedings, submissions, findings, and 
decisions in dispute settlement are promptly made public; ensuring that 
all hearings are open to the public; and establishing a mechanism for 
acceptance of amicus curiae briefs from businesses, unions, and 
nongovernmental organizations.
  It is a huge step, frankly. It is very clear that this is a primary 
negotiating objective on the part of the U.S. Government.
  I think we in America sometimes take it for granted that important 
decisions--that is, judicial decisions, legislative, and executive 
decisions--are made openly, made in public, with adequate opportunity 
for all sides to be heard. I think we take that for granted; it is so 
common in our country.

  I think the same ought to be true when important Government 
regulations are being considered in international dispute settlements. 
I firmly believe the trade bill makes that objective clear.
  Having said that, I must say I have some concerns about the amendment 
of my friend from North Dakota. And that is because his amendment would 
mandate that the President pursue negotiations with Canada and Mexico 
and require that the Trade Representative certify that the negotiations 
have been accomplished within 12 months.
  There is no mandating language in this bill--for good reason. First, 
it is unconstitutional. The courts will strike it because the 
legislative branch cannot mandate the executive branch what to do in 
negotiating agreements. It is unconstitutional. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, even if it were constitutional, if we mandate in one area, we 
necessarily give up significantly in other areas. One other area would 
be the agricultural provisions. We are trying to get Canada, for 
example, to dismantle

[[Page S3805]]

its trading commission, the Wheat Board. It is an unfair trade barrier 
and hurts our American farmers. If you mandate transparency, what will 
happen?
  First, the Canadians will say, if you want us to do that, we will ask 
you to give up someplace else or we will not be as amenable to your 
suggestion that we give up on the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not 
make good sense in trying to get good, solid trade agreements.
  We have avoided using mandates in the bill. Rather, in the tradition 
of these kinds of measures, we laid out negotiated objectives and 
agreed to consider implementing legislation under special rules; that 
is, if the President makes progress in achieving these objectives.
  I think it should give all Senators some concern that this mandate 
also requires the President to, in 1 year, certify that the USTR has 
fulfilled the requirements set forth in this section. I don't know how 
in the world the President of the United States in 1 year will be able 
to certify that the mandate called for in this amendment is fully 
implemented; that is, full transparency. It is just not going to 
happen. It is unconstitutional anyway because the legislative branch, 
under the Constitution, cannot mandate to the executive branch what to 
do in negotiating agreements with other countries. That is an 
unconstitutional provision.

  I very much hope my friend from North Dakota will work to modify the 
amendment. I strongly agree with the intent and the import of what he 
is trying to do. This puts me in a very difficult position because I do 
agree with what he is trying to do. But the goal here is to be 
effective. The goal here is to get the job done.
  Frankly, I would like to ask the Senator from North Dakota if he 
would yield for a question; that is, if there is some way we can modify 
this amendment to make it effective, because the current draft is 
unconstitutional and also because of the flaws of the mandating 
approach and the impracticality of getting this accomplished within 1 
year. I ask my good friend from North Dakota if he is willing to modify 
given those flaws?
  Mr. DORGAN. In response to the Senator from Montana, I certainly 
respect his view, but I don't share his view that this amendment would 
in any way be unconstitutional. I believe the amendment, if I modify 
it, would be less likely to achieve its purpose. If I don't modify it, 
I think it is a stronger initiative that says to the administration, 
this is what the Congress aspires to achieve with respect to changing 
the secrecy by which dispute tribunals in NAFTA are now conducted. I 
would prefer we not modify it in order that it be a stronger 
initiative.
  I do not see this as in any way being unconstitutional. It is in 
perfect concert with our constitutional responsibilities.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I thank my good friend, but it is just a matter of 
judgment. It clearly is unconstitutional because Congress cannot 
mandate to the President telling the President what he must do in 
negotiating agreements with other countries. That is clearly an 
unconstitutional mandate of authority. I must say, I doubt this 
provision will survive in conference for those reasons.
  I fully understand the Senator. The goal here is to be as effective 
as we possibly can because the Senator and I agree with the same 
objective. The objective is full transparency in these proceedings. 
That is clearly going to be in the public interest. It is going to help 
Americans and help people all around the world.
  I thank my good friend and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, my colleague, Senator Craig from Idaho, 
spoke in support of the amendment. It is an amendment we offered 
jointly. I ask unanimous consent that others in the Senate who have 
asked this morning be added as cosponsors: Senators Byrd, Dayton, and 
Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me describe again what it is we are attempting to 
achieve. We have now, under NAFTA, dispute tribunals or tribunals that 
are created for the purposes of resolving disputes. Regrettably, those 
tribunals are conducted in secret. They are secret tribunals. The 
American people are excluded from knowing what they have done, what 
they are doing, what they are going to do, how they reached a decision. 
We are not entitled to review any of the information they have or the 
information they might have used to reach a decision. They lock the 
door, and behind locked closed doors, they discuss this country's 
future with respect to international trade disputes.
  We ought not be a party to that. That is not what we signed up for. 
That is not what the U.S. Government is about--secrecy, closed, locked 
doors in some foreign land. That is not what we ought to be about. This 
amendment says: Let's stop that. Let's not have the dispute tribunals 
be secret.
  Let me give an example of why this is important: what is happening 
with respect to NAFTA and a fuel additive called MTBE. This is all 
under something called chapter 11. You might think chapter 11 has to do 
with bankruptcy. It does not. Chapter 11 was put in NAFTA at the 
request of negotiators thinking that U.S. investors in Mexico might 
have their assets seized by the Mexican Government or Mexican 
regulators and the Mexican legal system probably wouldn't provide 
sufficient protection. So U.S. negotiators actually asked to have 
chapter 11 included in NAFTA. It was. It was designed to create 
tribunals that would consider claims from foreign investors that they 
had property taken by Government regulation.
  By design, these tribunals were given leeway to operate in secrecy. 
They were bound only by international arbitration rules. That allowed 
the tribunals to act however they saw fit. If any of the parties to the 
claim wanted to keep the proceedings secret, the briefs would not be 
disclosed and the hearings would be closed. And that is exactly what 
has happened.
  Let me describe what has happened here with respect to chapter 11 and 
the tribunals and what this Government, what the United States of 
America, is part of. It involves Methanex, a Canadian company that 
makes MTBE, a fuel additive. We have been talking about MTBE recently 
in the debate over the energy bill so most Members are familiar with 
this fuel additive.
  In 1999, California decided to ban MTBE because they began to find it 
in their ground water and drinking water. All of a sudden they began to 
measure this fuel additive, which is harmful to human health in their 
water system. They decided they better ban MTBE. And so California did 
that. Fourteen other States are considering limitations to the use of 
MTBE. It was 1990, in fact, when California first discovered traces of 
MTBE in the drinking water.
  In 1995, 71 percent of Santa Monica's drinking water was shut down. 
Their supply was shut down due to the presence of MTBE. In 1996, MTBE 
was discovered in Lake Tahoe. In 1998, an EPA blue-ribbon panel called 
for substantial reduction in the usage of MTBE.
  Then California decided, in 1999, they were going to ban MTBE 
altogether. A Canadian corporation that makes it called Methanex heard 
about the California decision, and they realized they stood to lose a 
lot of money. If California bans MTBE, this corporation stands to lose 
money. So Methanex filed a chapter 11 claim against the United States 
for $970 million. Think of this. Methanex, a Canadian corporation, 
files a $970 million claim against the United States of America because 
California decided to ban MTBE because it was discovering it was 
showing up in drinking water and ground water and that it is harmful to 
human health. So a foreign corporation sues our country because we are 
taking action to protect human health in this country.

  This claim has had an incredibly chilling effect on environmental 
regulatory activity. If a State wants to keep poisons out of its rivers 
and streams, it now has to worry about a chapter 11 complaint being 
filed. The producers of that poison will file a chapter 11 claim and 
claim a billion dollars in injury against the United States. But, then, 
that claim, when considered under a tribunal in chapter 11, will be 
resolved in secret.
  Let me restate this so people will understand it. A State finds a 
poison in its drinking water and in its ground

[[Page S3806]]

water. It takes action to ban the use of that fuel additive that 
creates it and which has allowed it to show up in the drinking water; 
and a foreign company that produces it sues us for almost $1 billion 
because that is the injury that will exist to that company. By the way, 
they would sue us and go to chapter 11, and they will have an advantage 
in a three-person tribunal under chapter 11 of having secret 
proceedings. The American people are told it is none of your business. 
It is none of our business when we take action to stop poisons from 
finding their way to our drinking water? That is none of our business?
  Well, I am using one example--MTBE. This amendment says it shall not 
be secret any longer, that the dispute resolution under chapter 11--the 
tribunals, their behavior, actions and their considerations--shall not 
be secret. You cannot keep that information from the American people. 
We will not allow it. Our amendment says the President shall negotiate 
a change with Canada and Mexico to the conditions under which these 
tribunals meet and shall report back to Congress within 1 year; that 
these tribunals shall be held in the open; that the secrecy has ended, 
and that transparency will exist. That is our amendment.
  My colleague from Montana said the amendment is unconstitutional. If 
I might, without providing a lecture on the Constitution, I will put up 
a chart. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution says the Congress 
shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. It 
doesn't say Ambassador Zoellick shall have the power, or President 
Clinton or President Bush shall have the power; it says the Congress 
shall have the power.
  We have a lot of people here who have forgotten that or have decided 
to ignore it. But that is what the Constitution of the United States 
says--Congress shall have the power. Fifty-five people wrote that over 
200 years ago. This Congress, well over two centuries later, has 
apparently decided that it wishes to consider giving the President the 
authority on trade with something called fast track. So it is 
apparently not unconstitutional in the minds of some to give the 
President this authority, despite the fact that the Constitution says 
it is the Congress's authority. They would say it is not 
unconstitutional to give the President the authority to do this, but it 
is unconstitutional to direct the President to end secrecy in the 
tribunals. I don't understand that. That doesn't make any sense to me. 
Of course, we have a right to direct our trade negotiators to direct 
this administration to negotiate an end to the secrecy in 
these tribunals. Of course, we have a right to do that. Are we kidding? 
The Constitution says we have the right.

  This isn't some idle piece of paper. It is the Constitution of the 
United States. I don't want to hear that we don't have the authority to 
do this. Of course we do.
  The question for the Senate is this: In the future, both in this case 
and the next one, when one of our States, or our Government, takes 
action to protect our citizens against someone poisoning our water or 
polluting our air, and somebody files a large claim against the United 
States for protecting its citizens, saying, by the way, you have 
violated our trade laws and injured us; do you want the consideration 
of that dispute to be resolved in deep secrecy, behind closed doors, 
perhaps in a foreign land, with three people who will not tell you what 
they are doing, what they have done, or why they have done it? Is that 
what you want for this country? I don't think so.
  If you believe in open government, and in democracy, and in fair 
trade, and in the Constitution, then you have to believe in this 
amendment. This is not rocket science. This is common sense. Often, 
common sense finds a difficult road here in the Congress because it 
attracts comments by people who say, well, I know it sounds good, but 
it is not as easy as it sounds. This is as easy as it sounds, believe 
me. It is as easy as it sounds. All this country has to do, with 
respect to Canada and Mexico, is to say with respect to our trade 
agreement that we will not be involved in secret tribunals. That is not 
the American way and not something Congress will any longer support.
  Why do we have to do this in this legislation? Because we have had 
our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, already tell us that he would 
like to end the secrecy.
  Trade ministers from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico last year tried to 
impose greater openness on a procedure under NAFTA that allows 
companies to sue governments for millions in monetary damages, but the 
effort has so far failed.
  That is according to the Washington Times last month.
  Charges of secrecy have dogged the chapter 11 process since its 
inception. Many NAFTA supporters now concede that the closed tribunals 
have contributed to public distrust of the agreement, and advocate 
greater openness for the procedure.
  Our Trade Representative, Mr. Zoellick, has spoken on this issue. He 
wants more openness. But the fact is, these tribunals ignore it. The 
openness doesn't now exist. There is still a veil of secrecy. That dis-
serves the interests of this country. That is why this amendment is 
necessary, and that is why the amendment is necessary now. No, it is 
not unconstitutional--not at all.
  This Congress has every right to speak on this subject. In fact, this 
Congress has a responsibility to speak on this subject. We know it is 
wrong to have a foreign corporation suing our Government because our 
Government is taking action to protect our consumers against poison in 
the water. And then to throw that into a tribunal and tell the American 
people, by the way, it is none of their business; they can't see it, 
hear it, or be a part of it, we know that is wrong. Everybody in this 
Chamber knows that is wrong.
  So we are going to vote on this amendment. As I said when I started, 
it is a bipartisan amendment. I have been joined by Senator Craig from 
Idaho, from the other party. I appreciate his cosponsorship and his 
work with me on it. I think he believes, as I do--in fact, he expressed 
that a few minutes ago on this floor--that we must take action to end 
this secrecy. This is the place to do it and this is the time to do it. 
We are now considering international trade. We are considering fast-
track trade authority. This is the place and time to add this 
amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to table the Dorgan amendment and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from 
Utah (Mr. Bennett) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no'' and the Senator from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 29, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]

                                YEAS--29

     Allen
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Chafee
     Cochran
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed

[[Page S3807]]


     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Bunning
     Helms
     Torricelli
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been informed by staff--I hope I 
have been informed wrongly--that we are now not going to be allowed to 
vote on the underlying amendment, the Dorgan amendment.
  Normally what happens here is that when a motion to table is defeated 
and the amendment is there, and it is such an overwhelming vote, it is 
just adopted by voice. But I have been told the minority will not allow 
us to do this.
  I am troubled for a number of reasons, not the least of which is what 
happened when the majority leader had breakfast with the President 
yesterday. I believe it was yesterday. It could have been the day 
before, but I am almost certain it was yesterday. At that breakfast, 
the President told the majority leader and those other people assembled 
that his No. 1 priority was this trade bill.
  On the first amendment we offered, there is a filibuster.
  If there is something in this bill that someone doesn't like, let him 
move to strike that portion of the bill. There are all kinds of things 
that can be done. But for us to be told that we cannot vote on this 
says there is a filibuster taking place. I suggest--certainly the 
decision is not mine, but I think the majority leader would have to 
strongly consider filing a motion to invoke cloture. Certainly, when 
the motion is defeated by such an overwhelming margin and we are now 
told we cannot adopt the measure, it seems it is totally unfair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield?
  Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota, for a question, 
without losing the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I inquire whether the Senator has been 
informed of the delay here being a delay because someone needs more 
time to speak on this amendment. That is certainly reasonable.
  I spoke on the amendment yesterday. I spoke on it this morning. 
Others spoke on it this morning. Senator Craig, who is a cosponsor, 
spoke on it.
  Unless there are others who wish to speak on the amendment--certainly 
that is reasonable. But if that is not the reason, we have had plenty 
of time on this amendment. I thought we had. Then there was a tabling 
motion. We should be ready to adopt the amendment. After all, 67 people 
voted against tabling. One would expect there would be a pretty strong 
expression here with respect to this amendment.
  Was the Senator informed about the manner of the delay? Is it because 
there needs to be more discussion on the underlying amendment or is 
there some other reason?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from North Dakota in answer to his 
question, we have just been through 6 or 7 weeks on the energy bill. On 
that bill, we had a series of amendments pending. I think we got up to 
maybe 15 or 16 amendments pending where people would offer amendments 
and then there would be no resolution of that amendment. It made it 
very difficult to work through that bill.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, who had the wisdom and 
foresight to offer this amendment, that it appears clear we have an 
effort to stop the bill. I commented as the Senator from Texas was 
giving his statement this morning, I have great respect for him. He 
obviously was a great professor. We know he has a Ph.D. in economics. 
His statement was one that gave me the desire to listen to what he had 
to say.
  As I was going through this, I said to myself: If I were on the other 
side and I didn't like this, I would simply move to strike part of it. 
But the Senator has made his decision, and I respect that. As a result 
of that--I think it is too bad--I say to my friend from North Dakota, I 
think the majority leader this afternoon should strongly consider 
invoking cloture on this bill.


                Amendment No. 3389 to Amendment No. 3387

  Madam President, while I have the floor, on behalf of Senator 
Lieberman I call up an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Lieberman, for 
     himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
     Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mrs. Carnahan, Mr. Cleland, Mrs. 
     Clinton, Ms. Collins, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. Warner, Mr. Baucus, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
     Corzine, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Graham, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Harkin, 
     Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Nelson of 
     Florida, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3389 to amendment No. 3387.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To express solidarity with Israel in its fight against 
                               terrorism)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. EXPRESSING SOLIDARTIY WITH ISRAEL IN ITS FIGHT 
                   AGAINST TERRORISM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and Israel are now engaged in a 
     common struggle against terrorism and are on the frontlines 
     of a conflict thrust upon them against their will.
       (2) President George W. Bush declared on November 21, 2001, 
     ``We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give 
     them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: 
     If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or 
     arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist 
     or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist, and you will be 
     held accountable by the United States and our friends.''.
       (3) The United States has committed to provide resources to 
     states on the frontline in the war against terrorism.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--The Congress--
       (1) stands in solidarity with Israel, a frontline state in 
     the war against terrorism, as it takes necessary steps to 
     provide security to its people by dismantling the terrorist 
     infrastructure in the Palestinian areas;
       (2) remains committed to Israel's right to self-defense;
       (3) will continue to assist Israel in strengthening its 
     homeland defenses;
       (4) condemns Palestinian suicide bombings;
       (5) demands that the Palestinian Authority fulfill its 
     commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the 
     Palestinian areas;
       (6) urges all Arab states, particularly the United States 
     allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to declare their unqualified 
     opposition to all forms of terrorism, particularly suicide 
     bombing, and to act in concert with the United States to stop 
     the violence; and
       (7) urges all parties in the region to pursue vigorously 
     efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace 
     in the Middle East.

  Mr. REID. I extend my appreciation to the Senator from Connecticut 
for the work he has done on this amendment.
  During the time we have served together in the Senate, we have become 
friends. But from my own perspective, I have come to rely on the 
Senator from Connecticut as someone who never does anything in a hurry. 
He is very deliberate, thoughtful, and this amendment is in the style 
of Lieberman. So I want him to understand how much I appreciate--and I 
think I speak for the whole Senate--the work he has done on this very 
difficult matter that is going to be brought before the Senate. I hope 
we can have some debate and vote very quickly.
  I think the people of our country are expecting a good strong vote on 
this issue, and they will get a good strong vote. There are a lot of 
reasons, not the least of which is the work done by the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Nevada, whose words were unexpected. They are unnecessary. But they are 
deeply appreciated--in general and on the specific thanks for his 
support of this resolution.
  I am proud to stand and urge adoption of this amendment, which 
embodies a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight 
against terrorism.
  This amendment is a statement of fundamental principles. It is 
cosponsored by Senator Smith of Oregon, with

[[Page S3808]]

whom it has been a pleasure to work. The underlying resolution is also 
cosponsored by the majority leader, Senator Daschle, and the Republican 
leader, Senator Lott. At last count, we had well over a majority of 
Members of the Senate cosponsoring the resolution which has now become 
this amendment and, notably and encouragingly, with just about equal 
support from both Democrats and Republicans.
  It is a fundamental principle of our foreign policy that terrorism is 
evil. It is not an acceptable form of political expression. It is also 
a fundamental tenet of our policy that a government, a society, should 
and must protect itself against violent terrorism. Those policies 
underlay most of recent memory, since the ugly head of terrorism reared 
itself in our history.
  We have felt it with a particular intensity, pain and resolve, since 
September 11 when we in America were brutally attacked by terrorists 
and lost the lives of more than 3,000 of our fellow Americans and 
family members in that attack.
  After that attack, President Bush came before Congress with a very 
stirring, strong, and principled speech. Among other things, he 
enunciated a series of principles which have come to be known as ``The 
Bush Doctrine.''
  To state it as simply as I can, as I recall those words, the 
President spoke to the Joint Session of Congress in September. He said 
to the nations of the world:

       Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

  Then on November 22, 2001, the President said:

       We fight the terrorists, and we fight all those who give 
     them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world. 
     If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or 
     arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a 
     terrorist, or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist, and you 
     will be held accountable by the United States and our 
     friends.

  The intention of this amendment, which Senator Smith, I, and others 
have worked on--and which we have tried to fashion in a way to 
encourage the broadest statement by this Senate representing the 
American people--is to embody and express those last words that I 
quoted from President Bush: If you support a terrorist in any way, you 
will be held accountable by the United States and by our friends.
  Israel is and has been a great friend of the United States. The 
United States has been a great friend to Israel. Our two nations are 
tied together by common values, by a common political system--
democracy--by common strategic interests, and by the closest of 
relationships between our military and intelligence systems.
  Our friend, Israel, has been under siege from a systematic and 
deliberate campaign of suicide and homicide attacks by terrorists. 
Their essence is identical to the attacks on our country on September 
11. Those suicide bombers striking innocent Israelis in supermarkets, 
buses, public squares, pizza restaurants, schools, and religious 
observances are cut from the same cloth of evil as the terrorists who 
turned airplanes into weapons and struck the United States on September 
11.
  So our country is engaged now with Israel and other allies in a 
common struggle against terrorism. But Israel, in particular, among our 
allies has found itself now on the front lines of a conflict thrust 
upon it against its will. In the absence of action by the Palestinian 
Authority to suppress these acts of terrorism--in particular the 
abhorrent and inhumane practice of suicide and homicide bombings--the 
Israeli Government has acted to protect its homeland, just as we have 
acted in so many ways, so courageously, so proudly, and so effectively 
since September 11, to protect our homeland and our people in America.
  The intention of this amendment is to put the Senate of the United 
States on record in support of Israel's right to self-defense.
  To state it in words that are direct, Congress stands in solidarity 
with Israel--a front-line state in the war against terrorism--as it 
takes necessary steps to provide security to its people, by dismantling 
the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas, and remain 
committed to Israel's right to self-defense.
  I welcome the easing of a recent standoff between Israel and the 
Palestinians achieved in the last few days, thanks in good measure to 
effective diplomacy by the Bush administration.

  It is my fervent hope now that Chairman Arafat and Palestinian 
leaders will use this opportunity, as this amendment states, to 
``dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas and 
to pursue vigorously efforts to establish a just, lasting and 
comprehensive peace.''
  That is what the majority of Israelis want. I continue to hope and 
believe that is what the majority of Palestinians want--that the 
established leadership of the majority of the Palestinian people, whose 
lives have been so difficult, will take back the legitimate cause of 
Palestinian statehood from the suicide bombers and terrorists who have 
hijacked it.
  A just, lasting, and comprehensive peace is also clearly what we in 
America want. It has been our national policy for years now--certainly 
since the Declaration of Principles that originated in Oslo and which 
was signed on the White House lawn in September of 1993. The hope of 
our policy has been that we could be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian, 
but united together against terrorism. That is the thrust of this 
amendment.
  I also call on other friends in the region--in the Arab world 
particularly--to work with us, to use all their best efforts to help 
bring about an end to the violence and a dismantling of the 
infrastructure of terror, not only in the Palestinian territories but 
also the elements in their own countries that have aided and abetted 
terrorists, or that give militant, extremist, hateful ideas legitimacy.
  America will never countenance terrorism. We stand with those who 
oppose terrorism and against those who support it in any form. That is 
the message of this amendment--a message which I hope will have the 
overwhelming support of the Members of this body.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Edwards). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am privileged to stand on the 
Senate floor today with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman, as a cosponsor of this amendment. He and I stand here 
against the wishes of the administration that we--the Congress, and 
specifically the Senate--would involve ourselves at this delicate time. 
And we are not here to be indelicate. We are here because the Founders 
of this country set up a framework in which the Congress--the Senate 
specifically--has responsibilities when it comes to foreign affairs.
  I remember during the Clinton administration we would often do this, 
and it would upset their apple cart.
  I am proud as a Republican to be here to do this and upset the apple 
cart of the Bush administration--not with any malignancy but because of 
a principle I feel very personally and deeply about; that is, we as 
elected Members of this body have a right, and indeed an obligation, to 
stand up and be counted right now at this critical hour no matter what 
apple cart is overturned in the process.
  Most of us who serve in this body are of an age when our earliest 
memories of life are of a black and white television set with 
flickering pictures. I recall as a little boy seeing accounts of the 
20th century--my century. I was born in this meridian. I remember the 
pictures indelibly impressed on my mind of the Holocaust that occurred 
in Europe.
  I remember seeing the pictures of the bodies of the children of 
Israel being bulldozed into mass graves. And I remember, at an early 
age, as somebody who has always been interested in public life, feeling 
pride that my country stood by as an ally to the children of Israel as 
they sought to establish a homeland in their ancestral land.
  Many people can differ on interpretations of Scripture. I remember in 
the Presidential election, Joe Lieberman was once asked a question. I 
loved his answer. He was asked: Senator, if you could interview anybody 
in history, who would it be? And he said: I would interview Moses, and 
I would interview Jesus. And he as a Jew and I as a Christian, I think, 
would answer the same way. I would like to interview Moses. I would 
like to interview Jesus to better understand this great conflict that 
has the whole world consumed by it.

[[Page S3809]]

  I am pleased to stand in this Chamber in support of this amendment 
because we need to be on record as a nation, as a Senate, as a body 
here, in unity with Israel at this critical hour.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article by George Will in this morning's Washington Post. It is 
entitled `` `Final Solution,' Phase 2.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 2, 2002]

                      ``Final Solution,'' Phase 2

                          (By George F. Will)

       Such is the richness of European culture, even its 
     decadence is creative. Since 1945 it has produced the truly 
     remarkable phenomenon of anti-Semitism without Jews. How does 
     Europe do that?
       Now it offers Christian anti-Semitism without the 
     Christianity. An example of this is the recent cartoon in La 
     Stampa--a liberal Italian newspaper--depicting the infant 
     Jesus in a manger, menaced by an Israeli tank and saying 
     ``Don't tell me they want to kill me again.'' This reprise of 
     that hardy perennial, Jews as Christ-killers, clearly still 
     strikes a chord in contemporary Italy, where the culture is 
     as secular as a supermarket.
       In Britain the climate created by much of the 
     intelligentsia, including the elite press, is so toxic that 
     the Sun, a tabloid with more readers than any other British 
     newspaper, recently was moved to offer a contrapuntal 
     editorial headlined ``The Jewish faith is not an evil 
     religion.'' Contrary to what Europeans are encouraged to 
     think. And Ron Rosenbaum, author of the brilliant book 
     ``Explaining Hitler,'' acidly notes the scandal of European 
     leaders supporting the Palestinians' ``right of return''--the 
     right to inundate and eliminate the state created in response 
     to European genocide--``when so many Europeans are still 
     living in homes stolen from Jews they helped murder.''
       It is time to face a sickening fact that is much more 
     obvious today than it was 11 years ago, when Ruth R. Wisse 
     asserted it. In a dark and brilliant essay in Commentary 
     magazine, she argued that anti-Semitism has proved to be 
     ``the most durable and successful'' ideology of the ideology-
     besotted 20th century.
       Successful? Did not Hitler, the foremost avatar of anti-
     Semitism, fail? No, he did not. Yes, his 1,000-year Reich 
     fell 988 years short. But its primary work was mostly done. 
     Hitler's primary objective, as he made clear in words and 
     deeds, was the destruction of European Jewry.
       Wisse, who in 1991 was a professor of Yiddish literature at 
     McGill University and who now is at Harvard, noted that many 
     fighting faiths, including socialism and communism, had 
     arisen in the 19th century to ``explain and to rectify the 
     problems'' of modern society. Fascism soon followed. But 
     communism is a cold intellectual corpse. Socialism, born and 
     raised in France, is unpersuasive even to the promiscuously 
     persuadable French: The socialist presidential candidate has 
     suffered the condign humiliation of failing to qualify for 
     this Sunday's runoff, having been defeated by an anti-Semitic 
     ``populist'' preaching watery fascism.
       Meanwhile, anti-Semitism is a stronger force in world 
     affairs than it has been since it went into a remarkably 
     brief eclipse after the liberation of the Nazi extermination 
     camps in 1945. The United Nations, supposedly an embodiment 
     of lessons learned from the war that ended in 1945, is not 
     the instrument for lending spurious legitimacy to the anti-
     Semites' war against the Jewish state founded by survivors of 
     that war.
       Anti-Semitism's malignant strength derives from its 
     simplicity--its stupidity, actually. It is a primitivism 
     which, Wisse wrote, makes up in vigor what it lacks in 
     philosophic heft, and does so precisely because it ``has no 
     prescription for the improvement of society beyond the 
     elimination of part of society.'' This howl of negation has 
     no more affirmative content than did the scream of the 
     airliner tearing down the Hudson, heading for the World Trade 
     Center.
       Today many people say that the Arabs and their European 
     echoes would be mollified if Israel would change its 
     behavior. People who say that do not understand the 
     centrality of anti-Semitism in the current crisis. This 
     crisis has become the second--and final?--phase of the 
     struggle for a ``final solution to the Jewish question.'' As 
     Wisse said 11 years ago, and as cannot be said too often, 
     anti-Semitism is not directed against the behavior of the 
     Jews but against the existence of the Jews.
       If the percentage of the world's population that was Jewish 
     in the era of the Roman Empire were Jewish today, there would 
     be 200 million Jews. There are 13 million. Five million are 
     clustered in an embattled salient on the eastern shore of the 
     Mediterranean, facing hundreds of millions of enemies. Ron 
     Rosenbaum writes, ``The concentration of so many Jews in one 
     place--and I use the word `concentration' advisedly--gives 
     the world a chance to kill the Jews en masse again.''
       Israel holds just one one-thousandth of the world's 
     population, but holds all the hopes for the continuation of 
     the Jewish experience as a portion of the human narrative. 
     Will Israel be more durable than anti-Semitism? Few things 
     have been.

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I would like to read briefly a couple of 
paragraphs from his article because I think they encapsulate why it is 
so important that America not waiver at this critical hour. Writes Mr. 
Will:

       Today many people say that the Arabs and their European 
     echoes would be mollified if Israel would change its 
     behavior. People who say that do not understand the 
     centrality of anti-Semitism in the current crisis. This 
     crisis has become the second--and final?--phase of the 
     struggle for a ``final solution to the Jewish question.'' As 
     [Ruth] Wisse said 11 years ago, and as cannot be said too 
     often, anti-Semitism is not directed against the behavior of 
     Jews but against the existence of the Jews.
       If the percentage of the world's population that was Jewish 
     in the era of the Roman Empire were Jewish today, there would 
     be 200 million Jews [in the world]. There are [only] 13 
     million. Five million are clustered in an embattled salient 
     on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean, facing hundreds of 
     millions of enemies. Ron Rosenbaum writes, ``The 
     concentration of so many Jews in one place--and I use the 
     word 'concentration' advisedly--gives the world a chance to 
     kill the Jews en masse again.''

  I say, Mr. President, that the pride I felt as a young boy in Harry 
Truman's defense of Israel in its infancy is pride that I feel as an 
American today. And I call upon our Government not to waiver but to 
make sure that since the Holocaust, on America's watch, when America is 
a leader in the world, we never stand idly by and see the children of 
Israel subjected to another Holocaust.
  Joe Lieberman and I have crafted an amendment that I think fairly 
calls upon all the parties to produce a just and lasting peace. But it 
does state, without equivocation, we stand with Israel on the front 
line in the war against terrorism, and we support it in taking 
``necessary steps to provide security to its people by dismantling the 
terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas. . . .''
  We would do no less if terrorists came into our country, into our 
shopping malls, into our schools, and murdered our children. And we 
should demand nothing less of Israel's Government.
  Yes, we do condemn the Palestinian suicide bombers. But we call upon 
both sides to pursue efforts to establish a just and lasting peace in 
the Middle East. But America must stand firmly, and we must be unique 
among the nations of the world in rejecting anti-Semitism and standing 
by the ancestral home of the children of Judah.
  Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to come and vote for this 
amendment, and with conviction, so that when the Prime Minister of 
Israel comes here next week, he will know that he has friends in high 
places in this Government.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Oregon for the work we have done together on this amendment, but 
really, for the moment, for the statement he has just made, which is a 
statement of moral clarity and principles that are consistent with the 
highest ideals of our country.
  That is exactly what this amendment is about: The moral clarity of 
our own war against terrorism, and the understanding that gives us of 
the right of self-defense that the Israelis have, but the universalist 
principles that have been at the foundation of the American experience 
from the very beginning in the Declaration of Independence, when those 
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were declared as 
self-evident truths, from where endowed were not from the Founders, not 
from any philosophers of the Enlightenment, but from the Creator. And 
that unity that flows from that, the humanity that flows from that, the 
principles and policies that flow from that are exactly the ones that 
are upheld in this amendment and have been eloquently expressed by my 
friend from Oregon.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and 
Senator Smith, for bringing this amendment forth. They are serving an 
important purpose today to bring clarity back into the debate--a 
clarity

[[Page S3810]]

which has eluded some pundits and some talking heads and others who 
appear on the news and as result of which confuses the situation at a 
time when it requires a very clear-eyed approach by the United States.
  Like it or not, we are in a position where everyone calls upon us to 
help solve problems of the world, including this most intractable 
problem in the Middle East. But as it turns out, we are in a unique 
position to influence matters in the right way, if we look at the 
situation clearly.
  What I appreciate about this amendment being brought to the floor 
today is that it brings us back to the first principles. It says, let's 
get back to where we started in our war on terror in analyzing where 
others are, where they should be.
  It makes the point that the United States and Israel are on the front 
line in this war on terrorism, that our goals and objectives are the 
same, and that therefore the United States is not only obligated to 
recognize Israel's rights for its sake but also for the sake of the war 
we are conducting.
  It brings us back to a position of clarity in the way we analyze the 
situation, which is why the amendment is so important today.
  I appreciate their bringing it forth and look forward to expressing 
my support through voting for it as well.
  I am so disappointed, in talking with some close friends and watching 
the news to see the kind of confusion that creeps into the debate when 
propagandists, who have their own agenda, and people without a clear 
understanding combine to create disinformation and misimpressions about 
what really is at stake.
  When I see talk about a cycle of violence, when I see a great 
emphasis placed on the question of when the Israelis are going to 
withdraw, to the exclusion of any expressed concern about the horror of 
the terror that is being visited upon the Israeli people, when I see 
questions about why we would not allow the United Nations to come in 
and investigate a massacre--an alleged massacre--without any seeming 
concern for the obvious massacre, which is essentially undenied, that 
has occurred week after week after week for the last 18 months, there 
seems to be such a distortion of the picture here that it almost 
boggles the mind. It requires an amendment of this sort to bring us 
back to the reality of what is happening. It is almost as if there is a 
clouded lens in front of some people's eyes and an amendment such as 
this is necessary to remove that cloud so that we can clearly see what 
is happening. And what is happening is that just as the United States 
was attacked by terrorists, Israel has been attacked by terrorists.

  The President has said whatever grievance one might have, terrorism 
is an illegitimate response which the whole world must rise up to 
defeat and those who temporize with it, those who rationalize it are 
just as bad as those who support it and harbor it because they allow it 
to continue. They allow a great confusion to exist which makes it more 
difficult for us to do what has to be done in fighting the war on 
terror.
  That is why this measure which brings us back to the clarity of 
purpose is so timely and why it is so important.
  Mr. President, I conclude with this thought: The United States is not 
right in everything, but one reason that most of the world has looked 
up to us most of the time is because of the moral clarity of our 
positions. People will disagree with us, they will be uncomfortable 
with what that moral clarity requires them to do, they will find 
reasons not to join us in these activities, but at the end of the day, 
if you give people a choice of whether you would like to come to the 
United States of America to live, ``What do you think about the moral 
positions of the United States,'' more often than not people would have 
to admit, at least in their heart of hearts, that the United States 
pursues its action out of what we fundamentally believe is right for 
the reasons that do not have so much to do with our own vested 
interests as they do with the good of humanity, of mankind.
  When the President commits the United States to conducting this war 
on terror, it is not just for the American people, but it is to help 
rid the world of a form of evil which can afflict all people of the 
world. The President is able to galvanize not only American public 
support but support around the world because of the moral clarity of 
that purpose.
  Terrorism is evil. It has to be defeated. There is no compromise with 
it. Therefore, at some point in time you have to choose to be with us 
or against us in fighting it. You cannot remain on the sidelines. You 
cannot be neutral about something that is so terrible.
  Therefore, it is critical for leaders in the United States to keep 
reminding people of the fundamental, clear rationale for American 
action. When we get back to that clear, fundamental rationale of good 
versus evil, then we can see clearly how the principle applies in other 
situations. The other situation that we are referring to today is the 
situation in the Middle East in which certain terrorists, who are 
Palestinian by and large, are attacking innocent civilians who, by and 
large, are Israeli citizens in a way which is clearly evil: Terrorism 
against innocent people.
  No amount of testimony temporizing or rationalizing or expression of 
grievance or pointing of fingers or anything else can change that 
fundamental fact. Unless we are able to look at this that clearly, it 
is possible to become confused, to begin to support compromises, to 
begin to suggest negotiations of fundamental principle. All of those 
things are a slippery slope which lead to disaster, which do nothing 
but ultimately demonstrate to terrorists that there is hope for them in 
their terror.
  As was pointed out by former Prime Minister Netanyahu, the key to 
fighting terrorism is to remove the hope that terrorists have that by 
conducting this evil enterprise, they can actually succeed in what they 
are attempting to achieve. Once that hope is removed, then reasonable 
people can discuss reasonable solutions to the real problems of 
Palestinians and Israelis, a Palestinian State can be created and all 
of the things that right-thinking people in the region hope for can 
come to pass. But that is not possible as long as a small group of 
people believe and hope that they can achieve their radical aims 
through the means of terror.
  That hope has to be removed. It will not be removed if leaders of the 
world temporize and suggest that you can reach accommodations with 
these people for one reason or another, in one way or another. That 
hope can only be realized if there is a continuing commitment to a 
clear principle that terrorism is wrong; you cannot compromise with it. 
You have to face up to it. Tough. Deal with it. And if that means that 
the United States has to support the Government of Israel in rolling 
back the terror that it has been faced with, then so be it. That is our 
goal as much as it is Israel's goal.
  This amendment gets back to that first principle and expresses the 
United States commitment not only to fight the war on terrorism but to 
join others who are doing so, such as our good friend and ally, Israel. 
That is what this amendment brings us back to--moral clarity, as the 
Senator from Connecticut just said.
  We have to be clear-eyed in our fight here or the rest of the world 
is not going to support us. They will view our effort as unclear, as 
compromisable, and, therefore, one which is not assured of victory. It 
will only be assured of victory if we hold this beacon out here that we 
are going to continue to pursue, which is clear, which is unassailable 
from its moral perspective. If we remain true to that, then we will be 
victorious in this war of terror and the good people of Israel will be 
happy for that future as well.
  I commend my colleagues for bringing this amendment to the floor, and 
I very much look forward to supporting it with my vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Chair.
  I want to commend my colleagues, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Lieberman, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, for putting together 
this amendment. I will say first, I want to take my hat off to both of 
them. There have not been two Senators who have been more stalwart and 
more farsighted and stronger in their support of what is right in the 
Middle East. I think it is great that we are considering this 
amendment. I think it is timely, and I really do again wish to commend 
both Senator Lieberman and

[[Page S3811]]

Senator Smith not only for this amendment but for their strong, 
unwavering support on this issue.
  Let me say first that I read the amendment and I said, finally. 
Because it is almost as if the rest of the world sees the Middle East 
through a kaleidescope that changes everything upside down: right 
becomes wrong, wrong becomes right; defending yourself is worse than 
committing the offense; terrorism is explainable, and you sympathize 
with it. And yet you can justify--and so many do, not just Palestinians 
but in the rest of world--shooting a 5-year-old girl in her bed, taking 
a bomb and bringing it to a discotheque filled with teenagers, filled 
with life and hope, and it seems the rest of the world is bending 
itself and contorting itself to understand why that has happened 
instead of looking at the world as it is and saying the beleaguered 
nation here is Israel.
  That is the bottom line. That is what this amendment talks about in 
part. That is the truth.
  I was at a department store a few weeks back and two gentlemen came 
over to me and said: Senator Schumer, we like your policies, but we 
really don't agree with Israel. When we got into it, they said: Why 
would young people kill themselves unless they were truly aggrieved? I 
said to them: Do you believe that about Mr. Atta and the 19 hijackers; 
do you believe that about Osama bin Laden and all of those he asks to 
kill themselves? Just because somebody will take extreme means does not 
mean they are right. And to some, particularly some of my friends at 
the far left side of the political spectrum, there is almost a knee-
jerk reaction in that regard. This amendment sets things straight. Let 
me make a couple of points about it.

  First, the war on terrorism is the world's war on terrorism. We 
cannot make an exception. Once we make one exception, there are others.
  What is terrorism? We all know what it is. It is deliberately killing 
innocent civilians within a nation's homeland. The bottom line is 
simple: If you condemn terrorism in Afghanistan, if you condemn 
terrorism in Europe, and if you condemn terrorism in Asia, it is 
inexorable; to be consistent, you must condemn it when it is exacted 
against Israel.
  I do not know why so many--the Arab world and particularly some in 
Europe--seem to have a double standard and seem to believe that 
terrorism is intolerable in the rest of the world and when directed at 
them, but it is OK to be directed at Israel.
  My second point is, we have to face a hard truth, I say to my 
colleagues, and that is this: A vast majority of Israelis want peace 
and want to live side by side in peace--no violence--with the 
Palestinians. Unfortunately, I do not think it is true on the other 
side.
  A majority of Palestinians--there is a minority who do--do not 
believe in the State of Israel. They have been taught by the 
Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat that all of Israel is theirs. 
The Palestinian Authority textbooks show not just Jerusalem, but Tel 
Aviv, Ashdod, Ashqeion, cities on the coast, as belonging to the 
greater Palestine. Add that to the fact they believe terrorism is a 
proper means to achieve their goal, and peace is almost impossible.
  Unless that attitude is pushed back, as this amendment attempts to 
do, I do not think you can achieve peace.
  Third, as this amendment states, Israel has every right to defend 
herself. Who would ask any nation when every day the bombs were going 
off in pizza shops, on buses, in streets, to understand and sit down 
and talk with the very people who, if they did not create the bombings, 
allowed it to occur and were joyous when they did occur--who would ask 
any nation to do that? No. Why are some--thank God not too many in this 
country--why are some saying that is OK?
  This amendment tries to restore some balance. When Israel defended 
herself against these suicide bombings--and thank God thus far it seems 
successful; there are still some, but not every day, not with the same 
horrible consequences of the earlier ones--she did so in a careful way. 
She did not bomb from the air. Even in Jenin, the Israeli soldiers 
knocked on doors: Is there anyone here? Please get out; you may be in 
danger. I do not know of many countries that would do that, and that 
does not seem to even get recognized.
  Another point is the U.N. The U.N. sets itself up as an arbiter of 
peace when it wants to and then resumes its one-sided actions. We have 
one Israel and one United States and just about no one else in the 
United Nations understanding the fairness and balance that need to be 
done. But when Israel says she does not want the United Nations to set 
itself up as an impartial arbiter, who can blame Israel? I know Mr. 
Kofi Annan, but I have been terribly disappointed in his failure to be 
evenhanded as he proceeds.
  I have one criticism of this amendment. I am fully supportive of it. 
I am a cosponsor. But I think the amendment is missing six letters--A-
R-A-F-A-T. We should be naming Yasser Arafat in this amendment because 
the bottom line is, Yasser Arafat, as everyone admits, as our own 
President has spoken, is not an implement to peace; he is an obstacle 
to peace.

  Dennis Ross, President Clinton's previous adviser who labored so hard 
to produce a peaceful solution, afterward said--and he said it 
repeatedly and now has said it publicly--that their biggest mistake was 
relying on Yasser Arafat.
  Yasser Arafat is in charge of the Al Aqsa brigade which our country 
has branded a terrorist organization. Yasser Arafat cheers the homicide 
bombers who blow themselves up and take innocent people with them. 
Yasser Arafat had to be told by our Secretary of State to say the same 
thing in Arabic and English. If that is not saying you speak with 
duplicity and forked tongue, what is?
  He has to be asked to step up to the plate, and I hope that as this 
amendment wends its way through the process, we will explicitly mention 
him by name because, at the very minimum, he is like the Taliban, and 
probably he is more like al-Qaida itself. We cannot let him slip away 
from this inexorable equation that terrorism is bad and if you are not 
against it, you are not on our side. With Arafat it is even worse, 
because he is for it and uses it as an instrument to policy.
  This is a fine amendment, and I am proud to support it. As I say, I 
wish it had explicitly mentioned Yasser Arafat who has been an obstacle 
to peace. But the beauty of this amendment, the strength of this 
amendment is it does restore some right to what every fairminded person 
sees as going on in the world. I thank my colleagues for doing it.
  I have one final point. This backward vision of so many is 
confounding. When I read in the newspaper that there was an attempt to 
take the Nobel Peace Prize away from Shimon Peres but not Yasser Arafat 
from some on the Nobel committee, I had to scratch my head and wonder: 
What is going on in so much of the world and why isn't even a bit of 
truth seen?
  This amendment I hope will be read not only by our colleagues and 
American citizens but by citizens throughout the world because it does 
restore some fairness and balance, particularly at a time when 
beleaguered people, the Israelis, are trying to defend themselves 
against the evil force of terrorism.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, quite often we are not together on 
legislation. In this case, we are. It was my wish we would have a 
stronger amendment. There was one in the House that mentioned Yasser 
Arafat. I think we should be mentioning Yasser Arafat.
  We are in a war on terrorism. He is a terrorist. Sometimes we forget 
that in 1973 he gunned down three of our diplomats, including our U.S. 
Ambassador. He fits every description, every definition of a terrorist. 
All of us need to rise up and fight our battles, including Israel. This 
amendment is not strong enough, but I do support it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague. It is a fine amendment. I wish it 
mentioned Yasser Arafat, but I am fully in support of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join other colleagues in commending our 
distinguished junior Senator from the State of Connecticut, with whom I 
am privileged to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee, for his

[[Page S3812]]

leadership, and my colleague from Oregon for his service on the Foreign 
Relations Committee and for taking this initiative.
  This is done in a true spirit of bipartisan leadership in our 
wonderful Senate. It comes at a timely moment. I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor because I firmly believe the portions of this amendment that 
relate to this conflict are well stated and should be studied and read 
by all.
  I am grateful that the leadership of the Senate, in my understanding, 
working with the executive branch, has decided it is timely for the 
Senate to act on this particular amendment. As I have often noted, the 
executive branch proposes, but the Congress disposes. In matters of 
foreign policy, however, the President has a principal role in guiding 
the affairs of the United States, and the Congress should follow his 
lead, wherever possible. Timely, informed debate about matters, such as 
the one before us, that include divergent views and new ideas are 
intended to assist the executive branch as they perform their 
challenging, often daunting responsibilities.
  I rise today to express my profound and growing concern about the 
conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people, and to express my 
support for the amendment before the Senate, which recognizes that 
Israel is engaged in an all-out war against terrorism in its homeland.
  Implicitly, the amendment recognizes the loss of life and the human 
suffering of both sides of this conflict. I feel strongly that this 
current conflict is of such gravity as to demand the attention of 
Congress and, most specifically, the Senate, and also demands our most 
valued resources and our best possible effort.
  There is an ill wind blowing out of the Middle East that we have not 
experienced before. We have seen conflict, indeed, for centuries. But 
this one is different. It is a force that could fan the flames of 
conflict out of control, unless we act soon to stop this unending 
violence and human suffering.
  All of us have listened for years as this problem has erupted from 
time to time. We have discussed it and debated it. The unfortunate end 
of much of this discussion is a grim resignation by some that this is 
an insoluble problem. I do not believe it is insoluble. We cannot 
accept that as an answer, and I join those who refuse to recognize it 
as unsolvable. But it is solvable only if we work together for a common 
solution--only if we put forward our own ideas, which may not be 
consistent, or expressed, or affirmed by others. That is basically what 
I am about to do.
  I commend our President, the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and 
Secretary Rumsfeld, with whom a group of us met yesterday, for the 
persistence this administration has shown and for its leadership role. 
Understandably, there is a legitimate debate as to whether certain 
actions they have taken, or not taken, were timely or done in a manner 
that fully reflects the need to stop this terrible conflict. But I 
think we can examine the past at another time. It seems to me that, 
just by keeping both sides talking, our President and the 
administration are renewing hope in a region that is virtually devoid 
of any optimism. Hope is important in the near term, but hope is not a 
method for a long-term solution. Bold ideas are needed, and they are 
needed now.

  Something has changed in this chapter of the long history of conflict 
in the Middle East, and it is time we recognize it and face up to it 
and give our best judgment as to how to end it. The anti-Israeli and 
anti-United States sentiments in the Arab world are stronger than they 
have ever been before. I have had the opportunity to associate with 
that part of the world ever since I was Under Secretary of the Navy and 
first visited there early in 1970-71. Thereafter, I have been back many 
times. At that time, our Navy put an installation in Bahrain, and I 
worked on other military installations in the region. I have been back 
a number of times, as have others.
  Unfortunately, certain negative sentiments are growing as young, 
frustrated Arabs, with few prospects for ever enjoying happiness or 
opportunities--such as we enjoy in this country or are enjoyed 
elsewhere in the world--believe all is lost. They have a distorted 
image and understanding of the Israeli people and the need for the 
Israeli people to live safely within the safe, recognized borders.
  The recent suicide bombings are something that I personally have 
difficulty comprehending. Only once before in history can I recall this 
scale of suicide, and that was in the closing months of World War II. I 
was a young sailor in a training command and we witnessed from afar the 
tragic suicide operations in the Battle of Okinawa, where Japanese 
pilots were strapped into their aircraft and their aircraft were used 
as missiles, devouring them and their lives. That was a tragic chapter 
in the war in the Pacific. It was shortly thereafter that President 
Truman made the decision to end that war as quickly as possible, 
utilizing means that we all recognize now.
  Unfortunately, the negative sentiments in the Arab world that foment 
irrational suicides and other radical actions are growing and we have 
to do everything we can to reverse it. If we do not act to preserve the 
will of the vast majority of peoples in the Middle East, the radical 
minorities may well gain further advantage, and that we cannot allow. 
The result would be increased killing, and, indeed, it threatens to 
undermine the position of the United States in that part of the world--
a position that many administrations have worked hard on, and that many 
individuals have conscientiously worked on over the years. We cannot 
allow that to be further eroded. Our position in the Middle East and 
our ability to successfully wage war against terrorism globally is at 
stake. I share these thoughts with my colleagues.
  There has been no shortage of experts and observers offering opinions 
and ideas for ending the violence and solving--or at least mitigating--
this crisis. I add my voice with this idea: First and foremost, we must 
foster in every way possible a cease-fire. Clearly, this has been 
elusive in the past, and other cease-fires have lasted only for brief 
periods. But this one must take on a permanence. The Israelis want the 
acknowledged right to exist in the region within safe and secure 
borders. The Palestinians want an independent state. The Bush 
administration has stated its support for both goals. I commend our 
President. This must be the basis of any cease-fire.
  At the time of the cease-fire, of course, the parties must attempt, 
in good faith, to reconcile the many differences that exist. That will 
take time and careful, conscientious negotiations. During that period 
of negotiation, there must be stability in that region. By stability, I 
mean stopping the suicide bombings, stopping the incursion of armored 
vehicles into the areas where the Palestinians live. That must be 
maintained, for an indefinite period, while the negotiations take 
place. To guarantee that this cease-fire is effective, it is my hope 
that there will be a recognition by both the Palestinians and the 
Israelis of the need to have an outside, independent, objective force--
call them peacekeepers--come in and establish a cessation of the 
conflict, such that conscientious negotiations can take place--
establish a cessation of the conflict so one cannot resume the conflict 
in order to gain some point or points in the course of the 
negotiations. It must remain absolutely static until the negotiations 
have run their course--hopefully successfully--with the conclusion that 
will be accepted by both sides in the form of a peace agreement, or 
treaty, or whatever the case may be.

  Those are the two fundamentals--a cease-fire and a willingness by 
both sides to recognize that an independent, impartial force must come 
in for peacekeeping purposes. It must be at the invitation of both 
sides. You cannot thrust such a military force upon either side. It has 
to be jointly accepted.
  Now, who should undertake that? Others have their views, and I have 
mine. I feel very strongly--and this is not a well-received thought at 
the moment, but it should be considered--that the NATO forces are the 
logical, best force to come in at this time, following the cease-fire 
and the willingness of both parties to accept outside military forces.
  They are the best choice because, No. 1, they are trained and they 
are ready to go on short notice. They are trained in peacekeeping--
Bosnia and Kosovo being examples.

[[Page S3813]]

  It represents 19 nations, so the coalition is in place. Any other 
peacekeeping option would require building a political coalition, which 
would require considerable time. We have to act promptly. We have to 
move with trained forces, and we have to move with a coalition that has 
been in place and has the internal structure, command, and control to 
take on this serious and very difficult mission.
  NATO troops, as I said, are ready to roll. NATO is an established 
coalition, as I mentioned, with a proven record of success.
  Then there is the added advantage--and again this is my own thought--
there is a perception that the United States has a bias towards only 
the Israeli perspective in this conflict, and I am not going to try and 
reconcile that now. Indeed, we value a strong relationship with the 
State of Israel and we have done so for a very long period of time, and 
we will continue, in my judgment, to do that.
  On the other side, there is a perception that the European nations 
have a bias in favor of the Palestinian interests. I am not here to 
debate that.
  To me, there is an advantage to bringing the United States and our 
NATO partners in Europe together to assume responsibility, with their 
military forces, for the peacekeeping mission. To me, that would lessen 
some of the debate on which side has a perception that the other side 
is not looking at this conflict in a manner that truly will resolve it, 
resolve it such that both parties can accept eventually a peace 
agreement.
  In April of 1999, at its 50th anniversary summit in Washington, DC, 
NATO adopted a new strategic concept which expanded NATO's 
responsibilities in overall global security issues. I will read from 
it. This is found in part 1, paragraph 10 of the strategic concept 
adopted roughly 23-24 April 1999. I remember it well. I was not 
entirely in favor and so expressed my concerns about NATO moving beyond 
what I felt was the parameters of the original charter. The strategic 
concept identifies the ``fundamental security tasks'' of NATO and 
includes in those tasks to do the following: `` . . . to stand ready to 
contribute to effective conflict prevention and to engage actively in 
crisis management, including crisis response operations.'' I read 
directly from the document.
  The current situation, in my judgment, demands immediate concern and 
support for all those who want a civilized, peaceful future in the 
Middle East. Decisive action is now called upon. This is a concept that 
should be carefully considered in the course of the days and weeks to 
come as we work to achieve a cease-fire and then in working for a 
peaceful solution.
  I also will read from two articles that appeared in the press. One on 
Wednesday, April 17, Wall Street Journal, by Eliot Cohen, ``Keepers of 
What Peace?'' he states a position contrary to mine:

       As an alternative, there is more and more talk of sending 
     American troops, possibly as part of an international 
     operation, to separate the two sides and keep the peace. Such 
     notions have been bruited about before, most notably on the 
     Golan Heights, but never in this context. It is an 
     appallingly bad idea.
       Peacekeeping works best under one of two situations: When 
     both sides want the peacekeepers to ratify a cease fire line 
     or boundary that both can live with almost indefinitely as, 
     for example, Cyprus, or once one side has been decisively 
     beaten, as in today's Yugoslavia. Peacekeeping is not like 
     normal military activities.

  I ask unanimous consent that the entire article be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 17, 2002]

                         Keepers of What Peace?

                            (By Eliot Cohen)

       The viciousness of the Israeli-Palestinian war that erupted 
     a year and a half ago following the collapse of a decade of 
     assiduous mediation by the United States and others has given 
     birth to a number of bad ideas for restoring peace. Most of 
     these involve invocations of the Tenet and Mitchell plans, 
     whose texts few have read, but which are premised upon some 
     degree of Israeli-Palestinian trust. Such confidence does 
     not, and cannot exist in the near-term.
       As an alternative, there is more and more talk of sending 
     American troops, possibly as part of an international 
     operation, to separate the two sides and keep the peace. Such 
     notions have been bruited about before (most notably on the 
     Golan Heights), but never in this context. It is an 
     appallingly bad idea.
       Peacekeeping works best under one of two situations: When 
     both sides want the peacekeepers to ratify a cease-fire line 
     or boundary that both can live with almost indefinitely (as, 
     for example, in Cyprus), or once one side has been decisively 
     beaten (as in today's Yugoslavia). Peacekeeping is not like 
     normal military activity. Soldiers preparing to fight try to 
     be stealthy, collect intelligence clandestinely, and devise 
     ways to surprise an enemy with sudden and effective violence. 
     Peacekeepers must be visible, have communications that are 
     largely transparent to both sides, and avoid surprise while 
     using minimum violence.
       It is, despite what some say, a job for soldiers, but a job 
     for specially trained soldiers and one which often interferes 
     with their preparation for combat. It is a draining effort, 
     as well: the rule of thumb has it that for every peacekeeper, 
     another two soldiers are tied up, either preparing to deploy 
     or recovering from deployment. When one takes into account 
     the various forms of support needed for peacekeepers in the 
     field a more realistic ratio is five to one.
       To be sure, what we now call peacekeeping is a necessary 
     military function at some times--it is important today in 
     Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, as it was half a century ago in 
     Germany and Japan. But no one should doubt the level of 
     effort it would require--an increase in military end strength 
     of 100,000 or more troops would not be an unrealistic 
     estimate of what it would take. More importantly, though, 
     Israel and the Palestinian territories are profoundly unripe 
     for such a venture.
       Between Israel and the Palestinian Authority there is no 
     trust, no agreed demarcations of a cease-fire line, let alone 
     a boundary. The threat to security comes not, on the 
     Palestinian side, from a regular armed force with which one 
     can have conventional liaison relationships, but from several 
     shadowy organizations, several of which operate independently 
     of the Palestinian Authority.
       One conundrum of the current war is Yasser Arafat's degree 
     of control of terror in areas controlled by the Palestinian 
     Authority. If he has control, it is obvious that he has 
     approved and supported the repeated attacks on Israeli 
     civilians over the past year and a half (a view which 
     captured documents and other intelligence seems to confirm). 
     If he does not have control, the peacekeepers would have to 
     establish it themselves.
       To do that, if they were serious, would involve doing just 
     what the Israelis are doing now on the West Bank, but with 
     fewer resources, less local knowledge, and infinitely less 
     will-power. The more likely alternative is not to be 
     serious--that is, not to intercept or preempt terrorists.
       Thus arises the ultimate problem with any of the solutions 
     floated by the European Union, in particular: what to do if 
     one side simply does not play along. What happens if 
     terrorist attacks on Israel were to continue, which they 
     almost certainly would? Would the external powers expect the 
     Israelis to absorb them? Would they permit retaliation, and, 
     if so, of what kind? Until those who propose such plans can 
     come up with a realistic proposal for what would happen in 
     the face of an aggressive campaign of terror waged despite 
     the presence of an international peacekeeping force, they 
     cannot be taken seriously.
       Nor should the technical problems be brushed off. Israel is 
     a small place, about the size of New Jersey, but the 
     intercommunal boundary with Palestine is hundreds of 
     kilometers long. The inability of even the Israeli Defense 
     Forces--a manpower-rich force that draws on universal male 
     and female conscription, plus a sophisticated reserve 
     system--to prevent Palestinian infiltration is sobering. Tens 
     of thousands of troops would be required to make it all work, 
     and even then only by imposing an obtrusive presence that 
     would attract, in the end, its own resentments and hostility 
     from the local population. One should note, of course, that 
     the extreme hostility expressed by most Palestinians towards 
     the United States, and the political interest of groups like 
     Hamas and Islamic Jihad give them every reason to target 
     American peacekeepers for violence.
       We have been here once before. The place was called Beirut, 
     the year was 1983, and it took 241 dead Marines to teach us 
     the lesson that peacekeeping in the midst of a shooting war 
     waged by terrorist groups using suicide bombers is folly. We 
     would be better advised to recognize war for what it is, and 
     to understand that, however terrible it may be, there are 
     times when the logic of war has a hold which even the best of 
     intentions cannot break. Indeed, hard as it may be to accept, 
     there are times when well-intentioned measures can only make 
     matters worse.

  Mr. WARNER. Another view that was expressed in the New York Times on 
April 3 by Thomas Friedman states as follows:

       President Bush needs to be careful that America does not 
     get sucked into something very dangerous here. Mr. Bush has 
     rightly condemned Palestinian suicide bombing as beyond the 
     pale, but he is not making clear that Israel's war against 
     this terrorism has to be accompanied by a real plan for 
     getting out of the territories. Why? Because President Bush, 
     like all other key players, does not want to face the central 
     dilemma in this conflict, which is that while Israel must get 
     out of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians cannot at 
     this moment be trusted to run those territories on their own, 
     without making them a base of future operations against 
     Israel. That means some outside power has

[[Page S3814]]

     to come in to secure the borders, and the only trusted powers 
     would be the U.S. or NATO.

  Of course, the United States would be a vital complement of NATO.

       The only solution is a new U.N. mandate for U.S. and NATO 
     troops to supervise the gradual emergence of a Palestinian 
     state, after a phased Israeli withdrawal, and then to control 
     its borders, says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen.
       People say that U.S. troops there would be shot at like 
     U.S. troops in Beirut. I disagree. U.S. troops that are the 
     midwife of a Palestinian state and supervise a return of 
     Muslim sovereignty over the holy mosques in Jerusalem would 
     be the key to solving all the contradictions of U.S. policy 
     in the Middle East, not new targets.

  I ask unanimous consent to have the entire article printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Apr. 3, 2002]

                             The Hard Truth

                        (By Thomas L. Friedman)

       A terrible disaster is in the making in the Middle East. 
     What Osama bin Laden failed to achieve on Sept. 11 is now 
     being unleashed by the Israeli-Palestinian war in the West 
     Bank: a clash of civilizations.
       In the wake of repeated suicide bombings, it is no surprise 
     that the Israeli Army has gone on the offensive in the West 
     Bank. Any other nation would have done the same. But Ariel 
     Sharon's operation will succeed only if it is designed to 
     make the Israeli-occupied territories safe for Israel to 
     leave as soon as possible. Israel's goal must be a withdrawal 
     from these areas captured in the 1967 war; otherwise it will 
     never know a day's peace, and it will undermine every 
     legitimate U.S. effort to fight terrorism around the globe.
       What I fear, though, is that Mr. Sharon wants to get rid of 
     Mr. Arafat in order to keep Israeli West Bank settlements, 
     not to create the conditions for them to be withdrawn.
       President Bush needs to be careful that America doesn't get 
     sucked into something very dangerous here. Mr. Bush has 
     rightly condemned Palestinian suicide bombing as beyond the 
     pale, but he is not making clear that Israel's war against 
     this terrorism has to be accompanied by a real plan for 
     getting out of the territories.
       Why? Because President Bush, like all the other key 
     players, doesn't want to face the central dilemma in this 
     conflict--which is that while Israel must get out of the West 
     Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians cannot, at this moment, be 
     trusted to run those territories on their own, without making 
     them a base of future operations against Israel. That means 
     some outside power has to come in to secure the borders, and 
     the only trusted powers would be the U.S. or NATO.
       Palestinians who use suicide bombers to blow up Israelis at 
     a Passover meal and then declare ``Just end the occupation 
     and everything will be fine'' are not believable. No Israeli 
     in his right mind would trust Yasir Arafat, who has used 
     suicide bombers when it suited his purposes, not to do the 
     same thing if he got the West Bank back and some of his 
     people started demanding Tel Aviv.
       ``The only solution is a new U.N. mandate for U.S. and NATO 
     troops to supervise the gradual emergence of a Palestinian 
     State--after a phased Israel withdrawal--and then to control 
     its borders,'' says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen.
       People say that U.S. troops there would be shot at like 
     U.S. troops in Beirut. I disagree. U.S. troops that are the 
     midwife of a Palestinian state and supervise a return of 
     Muslim sovereignty over the holy mosques in Jerusalem would 
     be the key to solving all the contradictions of U.S. policy 
     in the Middle East, not new targets.
       The Arab leaders don't want to face this hard fact either, 
     because most are illegitimate, unelected autocrats who are 
     afraid of ever speaking the truth in public to the 
     Palestinians. The Arab leaders are as disingenuous as Mr. 
     Sharon; he says ending ``terrorism'' alone will bring peace 
     to the occupied territories, and the Arab leaders say ending 
     ``the occupation'' alone will end all terrorism.
       Like Mr. Sharon, the Arab leaders need to face facts--that 
     while the occupation needs to end, they independently need to 
     address issues like suicide terrorism in the name of Islam. 
     As Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, courageously 
     just declared about suicide bombing: ``Bitter and angry 
     though we may be, we must demonstrate to the world that 
     Muslims are rational people when fighting for our rights, and 
     do not resort to acts of terror.''
       If Arab leaders have only the moral courage to draw lines 
     around Israel's behavior, but no moral courage to decry the 
     utterly corrupt and inept Palestinian leadership, or the 
     depravity of suicide bombers in the name of Islam, then we're 
     going nowhere.
       The other people who have not wanted to face facts are the 
     feckless American Jewish leaders, fundamentalist Christians 
     and neoconservatives who together have helped make it 
     impossible for anyone in the U.S. administration to talk 
     seriously about halting Israeli settlement-building without 
     being accused of being anti-Israel. Their collaboration has 
     helped prolong a colonial Israeli occupation that now 
     threatens the entire Zionist enterprise.
       So there you have it. Either leaders of good will get 
     together and acknowledge that Israel can't stay in the 
     territories but can't just pick up and leave, without a U.S.-
     NATO force helping Palestinians oversee their state, or Osama 
     wins--and the war of civilizations will be coming to a 
     theater near your.

  Mr. WARNER. What I propose today is the idea of one Senator, shared 
by some and disagreed by others, but I do hope it is worthy of 
consideration by those who will undertake to resolve this conflict. 
Again, I thank the sponsors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment being 
offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Smith of Oregon and so many 
others on a bipartisan basis. This is an important amendment, and it is 
a timely amendment, dealing with the Middle East. It is brief, but it 
gets to the point in a hurry. It says clearly what our principles of 
conduct should be and establishes standards and values which I believe 
the vast majority of Americans would agree.
  I commend those who authored this very thoughtful and prudent 
amendment. It is presented to us in words and terms that are not 
inflammatory. We are doing our best at this level to express our 
solidarity with Israel, without in any way jeopardizing the efforts of 
the Bush administration or others to try to find peace in the Middle 
East.
  It is important that our voice be heard, that the Senate pass this 
amendment, and the people across America and around the world who would 
take note of it understand why we are doing this.
  In the morning hours of September 11, America was awakened to the 
reality of terrorism. The calm and safety of our great Nation was 
broken by explosion, bloodshed, and death. Our lives were changed 
forever on that day by the senseless violence. Our hearts were broken 
by the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans. You can still see, to 
this day, the full page of the New York Times every single day, since 
September 11, with the photographs and biographies of the victims. Our 
Nation was united, though, by this event. We were united to protect our 
people and to stop the threat of terrorism.
  September 11, 2001, is a day in our history that America will never, 
ever forget. In Israel, each dawn seems to bring September 11--
another horror, another tragedy, to a nation which bears its grief as a 
lifetime burden.

  A city bus in Jerusalem was lifted 2 feet off the street by a 
powerful bomb, killing and maiming innocent passengers. A bar mitzvah 
in Tel Aviv, a seder in Netanay, was ripped by explosions, leaving a 
trail. This last weekend in Adora, 5-year-old Danielle Shefi was gunned 
down in her home, in her bed, in front of her mother by a Palestinian 
gunman.
  Today we gather as Americans, as Senators, as survivors of September 
11 to consider this important amendment, and with it to tell our 
friends in Israel: You will not grieve alone; you will not stand alone; 
you will not fight terrorism alone. From the moment Israel became a 
sovereign nation, the United States of America has stood by its side. 
And from that same moment, Israel has stood by the side of the United 
States. We are allies. We are friends. We are brothers and sisters in 
this battle for peace and an end to terrorism.
  Our Nation believes the people of Palestine should have a safe and 
sovereign land but not at the expense of the safety and sovereignty of 
Israel. We believe the Palestinians deserve a voice in deciding their 
destiny, but that voice cannot be the roar of a suicide bomb killing 
innocent children. We believe the Palestinians deserve real leadership.
  Recall for just a moment the brief history leading up to the current 
state of events when President Clinton, in his closing days in office, 
brought then-Prime Minister Barak to Camp David, along with Chairman 
Arafat, in a desperate last-minute effort in his administration to try 
to finally forge peace in the Middle East. They debated back and forth. 
They bargained for days at a time. They left and went back to the 
Middle East, those two leaders, and in Taba had a follow-up meeting to 
talk about details. When it was all done, when it was finished, 97 
percent of the

[[Page S3815]]

disputed territory between the Palestinians and the Israelis had been 
resolved after 50 years of fighting, 50 years of an impasse and that 
much progress was made.
  What happened? Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority rejected 
that peace offering, rejected that peace agreement. And they didn't 
answer it with a strong letter. They answered it with violence in the 
street, the beginning of terrorism against the people of Israel. They 
rejected the peace agreement propounded by President Clinton and Prime 
Minister Barak and answered it with violence.
  There were doubts in the minds of some as to whether the Israeli 
people would have even agreed to this, it was so broad, so sweeping, 
with 97 percent of the territory resolved. Yet Prime Minister Barak had 
the courage to come forward and say: I am prepared to put my political 
future on the line and offer it to the Israeli people. And he was 
rejected by the Palestinian side. And they answered with violence.
  The ensuing election is now a matter of history. Mr. Barak lost to 
Mr. Sharon with the most overwhelming majority in the history of 
Israel. So if Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority want to 
point a finger of blame at Ariel Sharon, they should be ready to 
acknowledge that they brought him to power. They did it with their 
response to this offering, this overture of peace.
  I was in Israel this last January and had an opportunity to meet with 
many of the leaders before I came to Israel. While I was there, people 
from our Embassy and intelligence sources told me about the shipment of 
the Karine A. This was a ship intercepted by the Israelis carrying 50 
tons of military armaments to the Palestinian Authority, with new 
rockets that made the whole nation of Israel vulnerable for the first 
time to rocket attack and 2,000 kilograms of C-4 plastic explosives, 
the weapon of choice of suicide and homicide bombers.

  It was because of that shipment that I made a conscious decision not 
to meet with Chairman Arafat while I was there. I could not believe 
that as an American I could stand with President Bush in condemning 
terrorism and those who harbor terrorists and then turn a blind eye to 
this armed shipment.
  So we stand today with a violent situation in the Middle East, one 
that needs to be resolved in peace. Let the violence and terrorism come 
to an end immediately. Let all innocent victims, whether they are 
Israelis or Palestinians, know that tomorrow is a safer day. Let the 
United States show the leadership needed to make certain we move toward 
peace in the Middle East. But never should we turn our back on the fact 
that poor Israeli citizens have been victimized by the same type of 
careless terrorism and violence we saw on September 11 in this Nation.
  I sincerely hope the leadership will come forward to make this 
happen. We believe today as we have from the moment the nation of 
Israel came into existence that the Jewish people have a right to a 
homeland, that Israel and its people have a right to be safe and 
secure, that Israel and the United States are bound together in a 
commitment to democracy, freedom, tolerance, and peace. I hope this 
amendment and this debate will move toward negotiations and lasting 
peace.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have a brief statement. It has to do with part of this 
amendment that I think is so crucial. I thank my friend for offering it 
so carefully. It calls on Arab States to condemn the suicide bombing.
  Mr. SPECTER. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to ask a question in about 15 seconds, if my 
friend allows me to pose it.
  I am stunned that we have heard few voices from the Arab States. I 
ask my friend this, as he voted, as did all my colleagues in the 
Senate, for a resolution expressing our horror at the women suicide 
bombers. I wonder if the Senator is struck by this deafening silence 
and how he felt when Mrs. Arafat said if she had a son, in fact, it 
would be an honor for that son to die. It is a stunning statement.
  Mr. SPECTER. Regular order, Mr. President.
  Mrs. BOXER. I wonder if the Senator feels the same?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will answer briefly because the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has been waiting patiently.
  I have to say to the Senator from California that I am taken aback by 
the fact that people have not come forward to condemn the violence and 
terrorism on both sides.
  When I was in Egypt and faced the press, they looked at me 
incredulously when I described to them that we saw happening in the 
Middle East as the same kind of violence as September 11. They could 
not understand the connection. I think Americans understand that 
connection.
  I hope with this amendment we can move toward a peaceful outcome in 
this sad and bloody chapter of the violence in the Middle East.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER. I called for regular order for those who might be 
watching because it is the practice of the Senate to arrive and wait a 
turn. I conferred with the principal sponsor, Senator Lieberman, and 
was queued up behind Senator Durbin.
  It is not an uncommon practice for Senators, under the guise of a 
question, to make speeches. While the Senate permits a question to 
interrupt a speaker, or when I have sought recognition, the rules of 
the Senate do not permit speeches. I think we had a speech and that is 
why I twice asked for regular order in accordance with the decorum of 
the Senate to take a turn.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a request I want to make to 
be allowed to follow the Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. SPECTER. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to follow the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, I do not want to object. I 
have a committee hearing on homeland security to begin at 2:30, and I 
believe the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor; does he not?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do, Mr. President.
  Mr. BYRD. I had hoped to speak before that hearing. I don't think I 
will be able to because the Senator from Pennsylvania has the floor and 
the distinguished Senator from Minnesota wishes to speak. I don't want 
to be late for my own committee hearing. I have say to the Senate, the 
Members of the Senate, I want to speak on this Resolution before it 
passes. So the Senate is on notice of that fact. My speech won't be 
long, but I have a few things I want to say. I thank the Senator for 
allowing me to proceed.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut, 
Mr. Lieberman, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, for bringing 
forward this amendment because it is important that there be a unified 
fight against terrorism. The suicide bombers who have threatened Israel 
are identical to the suicide bombers who struck the United States on 
September 11, 2001. The only difference is that the suicide bombers on 
September 11th were a little more sophisticated. They hijacked planes 
and they flew them into the World Trade Center Towers. One, I think, 
was headed for the Capitol of the United States, the one which went 
down in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. One was headed for the White 
House, the one which struck the Pentagon.
  The situation today in Israel is one of abject terror, and I can 
testify to that personally because I was in Israel in late March. In 
fact, I was there on March 26, 2002, and visited Chairman Arafat in his 
compound on the evening of March 26, leaving there close to midnight. 
The next day there was the suicide bombing at the Passover seder in 
Netanya.
  Being in Israel is a terrifying experience, simply stated. There are 
suicide bombings in buses, suicide bombings in restaurants, suicide 
bombings at checkpoints, and suicide bombings on the streets. There is 
an undeniable right of self-defense under those circumstances. That is 
the essence of

[[Page S3816]]

what the Lieberman-Smith amendment calls for.
  People talk about the cycle of violence. I do not think it is a cycle 
because that suggests there is some sort of mutuality. The suicide 
bombers provide the violence. The Israeli response is a matter of self-
defense.
  We face an imminent threat in the United States. We get alerts from 
time to time. I think President Bush's statement, which is cited in 
this amendment, is worth repeating. He said, on November 21, 2001:

       We fight the terrorists and we fight all of those who give 
     them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world. 
     If you harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or 
     arm a terrorist, you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist 
     or fund a terrorist, you are a terrorist and you will be held 
     accountable by the United States and our friends.

  What the Senate is saying in this amendment is that we are going to 
hold the terrorists accountable and we are going to stand with Israel 
in its fight against terrorism.
  I know Senator Byrd wishes to make a presentation in advance of his 
hearing and Senator Wellstone has asked for recognition, so I am going 
to limit my comments to these 4 minutes and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Pennsylvania before he 
leaves, Senator Byrd has now gone to the hearing. If my colleague needs 
to continue, I will wait. Senator Byrd has actually now gone to 
committee. I am pleased to speak now but I want my colleague to be 
clear on the situation.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I 
thought Senator Byrd was going to speak and therefore, I limited my 
comments.
  I would make one additional observation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
  Mr. SPECTER. The additional observation is that the amendment is 
sanguine in calling for assistance from Saudi Arabia. It is my hope 
that the Saudis will pursue their initiative in normalizing relations 
with Israel. That is a real breakthrough. I was pleased to see that 
Syria followed the Saudi lead.
  I had a chance on my trip to the Mideast to talk to Bashar Asad, the 
new President of Syria. It is very important to set the stage for 
normalized relations. When there has been agreement on a Palestinian 
State, which is the principle of Oslo, and when Prime Minister Sharon 
has agreed on a Palestinian State, it is my hope that the principles of 
the plans advanced by CIA Director Tenet and former Senator George 
Mitchell can be carried through and that there can be a discussion of 
the Palestinian State to provide a framework for hope for the 
Palestinians.
  However, the critical ingredient is normalizing relations. I 
compliment the President and Crown Prince Abdallah of Saudi Arabia for 
their meeting--candidly, providing that the Saudis follow through. We 
should not lose sight of the fact that 15 of the 19 terrorists who 
struck the United States on September 11th were Saudis, and that Saudi 
Arabia has also given us Osama bin Laden. The Saudis appear to have 
been financing some of the terrorists by paying money to their 
families. In statements on the Sunday news talk shows, representatives 
of Saudi Arabia did not deny that. In a circuitous way, they said what 
might be considered to be an admission. So let us hope that the Saudis 
will provide leadership. Chairman Arafat cannot be relied upon. He 
writes in disappearing ink.
  If there is to be an agreement, it is going to have to be enforced by 
the moderate Arab States, by Egypt, by Saudi Arabia, by King Hussein of 
Jordan, and by King Mohamed of Morocco.
  This amendment that Senator Lieberman and Senator Gordon Smith 
offered is a very important statement. It is tempered and I think it 
will not adversely affect what President Bush and his administration 
seek to do. So I, again, commend my colleague Senator Lieberman and my 
colleague Senator Gordon Smith, and hope that this will produce a very 
resounding vote in the affirmative.
  I thank my colleague from Minnesota and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am going to speak briefly about this 
amendment. I will vote for this amendment because I believe Israel has 
a right to address the concerns of its citizens. As Camus once said:

       Murder is never legitimate.

  When men and women are murdered at a seder meal, or there is the 
deliberate targeting of teenagers at pizza parlors, it is not at all 
surprising that Israel, the Government of Israel, wants to protect its 
own citizens and will respond.
  I support this amendment because I believe it is about Israel's need 
and right to protect its citizens against terrorism. The amendment also 
states that many of the Arab States have been silent in the face of 
this unacceptable violence. I believe they must unequivocally declare 
their opposition to all forms of terrorism, particularly the suicide 
bombing, and work with the Palestinians, in concert with the United 
States, to stop this violence.
  I wish also to say something more personal to my colleague from 
Connecticut. I am, if you will, a son of Israel. I am a first-
generation American. My father, a Jewish immigrant, fled persecution. 
He was born in Odessa, and his family moved to Russia to stay ahead of 
the pogroms. I remember, as a little boy, watching my parents watch TV, 
and they would weep when Israel was at war. I never really understood 
the strong feeling that they had for Israel. I do now.

  While the amendment before us affirms Israel's right and freedom to 
protect its people against terror, I do not read this amendment as an 
explicit or implicit endorsement of every action that the Government of 
Israel and its forces have taken in the occupied territory over the 
last several weeks.
  There is a distinction in my mind between affirming my solidarity 
with Israel and not equating that with support of every policy of the 
Sharon administration.
  I also want to talk briefly about the role of our government. I 
believe the real test ahead will be whether or not the Bush 
administration stays engaged in the Middle East.
  Over and over again, I have pointed out that I believe Secretary 
Powell's efforts have been extremely important--that the administration 
has finally left the sidelines and is on the playing field of Middle 
East diplomacy. It must stay in the game. Israeli officials say the 
conditions could worsen in the days to come. We may see more suicide 
bombings.
  But if the Bush administration, facing such an escalation of violence 
in the region, withdraws, as it has before, history will judge it 
harshly.
  We have to stay engaged. I believe we must pursue a courageous 
approach which seeks to meet both the critical needs of the Israeli 
people to be free from terrorism and violence, and acknowledges the 
legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for their own state, a 
state which is economically and politically viable.
  Even in this horrific time, we should not lose sight of what should 
be our ultimate goal--Israel and a new Palestinian State living side by 
side with peace and with secure borders. There is no question in my 
mind--and I could go on for hours about this--about the need to end the 
culture of violence and the culture of incitement in Palestinian and 
Arab media, in the schools, and elsewhere. It has gone on for too long.
  But I also think it is terribly important that Israel shows respect 
for and concern about the human rights and dignity of the Palestinian 
people who are now and will continue to be their neighbors.
  It is critically important--I believe this amendment embraces this, 
and maybe my colleague from Connecticut would like to respond--to 
distinguish between the terrorists, who must be confronted, and 
ordinary, innocent Palestinians who are trying to provide for their 
families and live an otherwise normal existence.
  This is a critical distinction. We don't want to see Palestinians 
subjected to daily and humiliating reminders that they lack basic 
freedoms and control over their lives.
  I have had certain discussions with people, which have been quite 
painful. I have had people come into my office who have been very 
critical of what Israel is doing. I listen to them. They

[[Page S3817]]

make the distinction between defending against terrorists, and harming 
innocent civilians--a distinction I agree with--and say repeatedly, 
what about the innocent Palestinians? I say it is a Jewish thing for me 
to be concerned about the loss of all innocent lives. But then I say to 
them, I want you to also talk to me about the loss of innocent Israeli 
life. I want you to talk to me about the Jews that were murdered at 
their seder meal.
  These are people who feel strongly, and who condemn Israel's actions. 
When I meet with them, they don't say anything about the murder of 
Israelis. My God. I wonder why.
  I have also met with other people who never utter a word about the 
loss of innocent Palestinians. This is not an argument about moral 
equivalency--I know the difference between innocent civilians who are 
deliberately targeted and murdered, as is the case with suicide 
bombings, and when they are not deliberately targeted or not 
deliberately harmed. But if my mother and father were alive, they would 
be weeping for the loss of innocent Israelis, and they would also be 
weeping for the loss of innocent life everywhere. They would say: Paul, 
we want you as our son to express your solidarity for Israel. We love 
Israel. You are a son of Israel. But we also, Paul, want you to be 
clear on the floor of the Senate that supporting this amendment--which 
I do--does not mean it should be viewed as an endorsement of every 
single, specific policy or action by the Sharon administration.
  I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
his very principled and impassioned statement.
  I wish to briefly respond, and in particular say, as a personal 
statement, that it seems to me it is self-evident and compelling that 
the only way peace will be established between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians is when each side recognizes the right of the other to 
have a homeland there and to live in peace.
  That is a personal statement. But it also seems to me that has been 
at least an implicit, if not an explicit, part of American foreign 
policy, certainly since the Oslo Declaration of Principles was signed 
on the White House lawn in September of 1993. It remains to this day a 
fundamental objective.
  As to the claims on both sides and the death on both sides, I think 
it is so critical, as I believe the Senator was saying, that neither 
side--this is difficult sometimes in the heat of violence and fear and 
anger--can be allowed to come to a point where they deny or forget the 
humanity of everybody on the other side.
  There is a famous statement made by Golda Meir, the former Prime 
Minister of Israel. I will paraphrase it because I don't remember it 
exactly. She said at one point: We Israelis will someday forgive the 
Arabs for killing our children. What will be more difficult for us is 
to forgive the Arabs for forcing our children to kill their children.
  That spirit, so eloquently expressed, really should guide our 
deliberations.
  I consider this amendment to be a statement of American principles, a 
statement of solidarity with our ally, Israel, and a statement that is 
consistent with the war on terrorism and the doctrine that President 
Bush has articulated. It is intentionally not in any sense anti-
Palestinian. It is antiterrorist. It is intentionally drafted that way 
with the hope that it will draw the broadest possible support and be an 
expression of solidarity and an expression of support for Israel's 
right centrally, fundamentally to defend itself against terrorism.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. 
I think it is a supremely important statement.
  As an example of my definition of hope--I had a chance to talk about 
this at Temple Israel in Minneapolis--is the story of the Israeli man 
who was one of the Israelis murdered at the bombing of the seder. His 
organs were donated to save the life of a Palestinian woman. His 
children said: Our father would be very proud.
  I believe this is hope. I say to my colleague from Connecticut and 
South Carolina, that is the hope. I do not believe I am being naive 
when I say there are a lot of people--a majority of the people--who 
understand that we have to get from where we are now to where we all 
know we need to be. The terrorists will not get us there.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend from Minnesota. I could not agree 
with him more. I think what is at issue now is whether we can create a 
circumstance where the Palestinian leadership will seize the initiative 
from the suicide bombers, from the terrorists, who have captured it, 
who have, in that sense, hijacked, as I said earlier in this debate, 
the legitimate cause of Palestinian statehood. When that happens, I am 
confident they will meet with an overall majority of the Israeli people 
who want nothing more than to live in peace and security with their 
neighbors.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota--South Carolina. 
Excuse me.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I will probably be from South Dakota 
after I make a few comments because I think the amendment is ill-timed 
and not in the best interests of the United States and not in the best 
interests of Israel.
  I say not in the best interests of Israel--I agree, with the various 
items listed in the ``Sense of Congress''--and you can go through (1) 
through (7)--``(1) stands in solidarity with Israel . . . ''--there is 
no question about that--``(2) remains committed to Israel's right to 
self-defense''--and on down the particular seven points.
  I do not have to explain it. I have a 35-year voting record for 
Israel. But as to what the amendment does not say--it is not what it 
says; it is what is not said that bothers me.
  The distinguished colleague from Connecticut talks about the 
humanity. Well, where is the humanity on the Palestinian side here? 
That is what we are looking for. Five years from now, 10 years from 
now, 50 years from now, there is bound to be an Israel. I think there 
is going to be a Palestine. The task is to get these folks as neighbors 
living together.
  Where is the humanity? This comes at a particularly tenuous time. We 
just got the President engaged. I say that advisedly. It was an 
affirmative action plan that we are not going to fool with Israel. All 
these other Presidents did. Let them do what they are going to do. But 
we got him engaged.
  Now we have Crown Prince Abdullah from Saudi Arabia engaged and 
visiting. And he is offering, categorically, recognition of the Israeli 
state. He says Syria and the rest of them--including Egypt and Jordan--
will all go along. They all will join in. Some say that is propaganda. 
Don't give me that propaganda stuff. Let's try it.
  We have Secretary Powell making his visits, and then along comes this 
political amendment. I have been up here a long time, and it would be 
easier for me to just walk to the desk, vote aye, go home, and not have 
to answer the phone.
  I know because I made a comment in the earlier part of the year that 
I thought Ariel Sharon was the Bull Conner of Israel. As for Arafat--I 
think he wants to be a martyr, he wants to be killed, he cannot be 
trusted.
  In any event, I know what it is to be critical. I finally found some 
solace the other day for saying anything at all.
  Here is a column by Richard Cohen, from the day before yesterday in 
the Washington Post. I ask unanimous consent the article in its 
entirety be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Apr. 30, 2002]

                          Who's Anti-Semitic?

                           (By Richard Cohen)

       If I weren't a Jew, I might be called an anti-Semite. I 
     have occasionally been critical of Israel. I have 
     occasionally taken the Palestinians' side. I have always 
     maintained that the occupation of the West Bank is wrong and 
     while I am, to my marrow, a supporter of Israel, I insist 
     that the Palestinian cause--although sullied by terrorism--is 
     a worthy one.
       In Israel itself, these positions would hardly be 
     considered remarkable. People with similar views serve in 
     parliament. They write columns for the newspapers. And while 
     they are sometimes vehemently criticized--

[[Page S3818]]

     such is the rambunctious nature of Israel's democratic din--
     they are not called either anti-Semites or self-hating Jews.
       I cannot say the same about America. Here, criticism of 
     Israel, particularly anti-Zionism, is equated with anti-
     Semitism. The Anti-Defamation League, one of the most 
     important American Jewish organizations, comes right out and 
     says so. ``Anti-Zionism is showing its true colors as deep-
     rooted anti-Semitism,'' the organization says in a full-page 
     ad that I have seen in the New Republic as well as other 
     magazines. ``No longer are the Arab nations camouflaging 
     their hatred of Jews in the guise of attacking Israel.''
       I feel compelled to pause here and assert my credentials. 
     Few people have written more often about Arab anti-Semitism 
     than I. I have come at this subject time and time again, so 
     often that I have feared becoming a bore. Arab anti-Semitism 
     not only exists, it is often either state-sponsored or state-
     condoned, and it is only getting worse. It makes the Arabs 
     look like fools. How can anyone take seriously a person who 
     believes that Jews engage in ritual murder?
       But that hardly means that anti-Zionism--hating, opposing, 
     fighting Israel--is the same as anti-Semitism, hating Jews 
     anywhere on account of supposedly inherently characteristics. 
     If I were a Palestinian living in a refugee camp, I might 
     very well hate Israel for my plight--never mind its actual 
     cause--and I even might not like Jews in general.
       After all, Israel proclaims itself the Jewish state. It 
     officially celebrates Jewish holidays, including the Sabbath 
     on Saturday. It allows the orthodox rabbinate to control 
     secular matters, such as marriage, and, of course, it offers 
     citizenship to any person who can reasonably claim to be 
     Jewish. This so-called right of return permits such a person 
     to ``return'' to a place where he or she has never been. 
     Palestinians must find this simply astonishing.
       To equate anti-Zionists or critics of Israel in general 
     with anti-Semites is to liken them to the Nazis or the 
     rampaging mobs of the pogroms. It says that their hatred is 
     unreasonable, unfathomable, based on some crackpot racial 
     theory or some misguided religious zealotry. It dismisses all 
     criticism, no matter how legitimate, as rooted in prejudice 
     and therefore without any validity.
       No doubt there has been an upsurge of anti-Semitic 
     incidents in Europe. But there has also been an upsurge of 
     legitimate criticism of Israel that is not in the least anti-
     Semitic. When Israel recently jailed and then deported four 
     pro-Palestinian Swedes, two of whom are physicians, under the 
     misguided policy of seeing all the Palestinians' sympathizers 
     as enemies of the state, it was an action that ought to be 
     condemned--and the Swedes who have done so ought not be 
     considered anti-Semites.
       When the same thing happens to a Japanese physician, that 
     too ought to be condemned--and it was, as it happens, in the 
     Israeli newspaper Haaretz. A column by Gideon Levy made the 
     point that Israel cannot reject and rebut all criticism by 
     reciting the mantra: ``The whole world is against us.''
       The same holds for American Jews. To turn a deaf ear to the 
     demands of Palestinians, to dehumanize them all as bigots, 
     only exacerbates the hatred on both sides. The Palestinians 
     do have a case. Their methods are sometimes--maybe often--
     execrable, but that does not change the fact that they are a 
     people without a state. As long as that persists so too will 
     their struggle.
       The only way out of the current mess is for each side to 
     listen to what the other is saying. To protest living 
     conditions on the West Bank is not anti-Semitism. To condemn 
     the increasing encroachment of Jewish settlements is not 
     anti-Semitism. To protest the cuffing that the Israelis 
     sometimes give the international press is not anti-Semitism 
     either.
       To suggest, finally, that Ariel Sharon is a rejectionist 
     who provocatively egged on the Palestinians is not anti-
     Semitism. It is a criticism no more steeped in bigotry than 
     the assertion that Yasser Arafat is a liar who cannot be 
     trusted. That does not make me anti-Arab--just a realist who 
     is sick and tired of lazy labels.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. He says, in concluding:

       ``The only way out of the current mess is for each side to 
     listen. . . .

  Nobody in America believes we are not for Israel. It is perfectly 
obvious. We have given them all the equipment. We have given them the 
economic aid. We will give them what is necessary. We admire that 
little country right in the middle of the Mideast, the progress she is 
making. Yitzhak Rabin could see it. But his own folks killed him. And 
Anwar Sadat could see the progress Egypt was making, and his own folks 
killed him.
  We talk about the Palestinian Authority in one breath and in the next 
breath say: Who has the authority? The Palestinians? No. The Israelis 
have the authority. This is a very complex issue.
  I remember back in World War II, in the occupation, where the French 
would take out a German soldier on the corner, and then the Germans 
would retaliate and then just wipe out the block. We all know about 
that.
  Several years ago, I was in Kosovo. And some Albanians would get 
feeling good, and they would take out a Serb policeman on the corner, 
and along would come the Serbian army and they would clean out the 
block. Now along comes Sharon, and he must learn the lessons of the 
past. He is making more terrorists than he is getting rid of.
  He sounds formal--``I am getting rid of the infrastructure''--like 
there is a structure. There is no structure to this mess. Anybody who 
thinks Arafat is in charge, to the extent that he is in charge because 
we have a deal with somebody. He is in charge, but Hamas, Hezbollah, 
and all, they use him. This is a tricky part of the world.
  And we are looking for friends in the war on terrorism. And they have 
been going along with us. Now we could come along and start losing 
friends with this kind of leadership and the categorical one-sided 
endorsement of it.
  I was not prepared to talk about this, but I did not know this was 
going to come up today. But in conscience, I cannot support it.
  Let me cite what Richard Cohen says:

       The only way out of the current mess is for each side to 
     listen. . . .

  Don't you think it would be good for Congress, as the President asked 
over on the House side--that this is not the right time for us to vote 
on this resolution. I heard earlier today that the White House is not 
taking a position, but we know they do not support it. Can't we help 
the President in this tenuous situation?
  Quoting Richard Cohen again:

       The only way out of the current mess is for each side to 
     listen to what the other is saying. To protest living 
     conditions on the West Bank is not anti-Semitism. To condemn 
     the increasing encroachment of Jewish settlements is not 
     anti-Semitism. To protest the cuffing that the Israelis 
     sometimes give the international press is not anti-Semitism 
     either.
       To suggest, finally, that Ariel Sharon is a rejectionist 
     who provocatively egged on the Palestinians is not anti-
     Semitism.
       It is a criticism no more steeped in bigotry than the 
     assertion that Yasser Arafat is a liar who cannot be trusted. 
     That does not make me anti-Arab--just a realist who is sick 
     and tired of lazy labels.

  Let's go in the resolution to the labels and the whereas. How can you 
live with that? We fight the terrorists and we fight all those who give 
them aid. America has a message for the nations of the world: If you 
harbor terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm a terrorist, 
you are a terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you 
are a terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the United States 
and our friends.

  Crown Prince Abdullah just left Crawford, TX. The Saudis are funding 
terrorism, I can tell you that. Go to the religious schools in 
Pakistan. As we saw on TV, the Saudis have been funding them for a long 
time. But we can't say that about the Saudis, we have to get oil. In 
any event, who is the terrorist here with respect to the situation? Do 
the Saudis qualify as terrorists under this resolution?
  Madam President, the situation in the Middle East is such that you 
have the creation of more terrorists under this approach. The Arabs, by 
the way, think we are terrorists. In fact, that is what they call us. 
In the U.N., they have brought resolutions against the United States in 
the past. The U.N. passed resolutions to send weapons inspectors into 
Iraq. We condemned Saddam for not letting them in. Now the U.N. formed 
a team to investigate the incursion into Jenin. Sharon refuses to let 
the U.N. investigate, so in a way he's acting like Saddam Hussein.
  Max Rodenbeck, in an article on April 17 in the New York Times, 
wrote:

       While other Arabs have always taken the Palestinians' side, 
     the violent images are increasing the sense of personal 
     interest in the conflict. When half a million Moroccans 
     marched in a recent protest against Israel, many carried 
     placards saying: We are all Palestinians.

  So according to this amendment, everybody in Morocco is a terrorist. 
Any Palestinian you see defending his house, as we have been watching 
on TV--even if he had no connection whatsoever to any of these 
individuals with the explosives or the suicidal terrorists, or even if 
he doesn't like Arafat--is a terrorist.
  Incidentally, there have been five attempts that someone just told me 
about on Arafat's life--not by Israelis,

[[Page S3819]]

but by Arabs, by Palestinians. So if I am in my home, defending my 
home, and I see a soldier come shooting his way in, and I shoot him, 
all of a sudden I am a terrorist. If you don't have uniforms, I guess 
you are terrorists. If you have uniforms, then you are soldiers.
  How do you deal with Arafat if you are going to call him a terrorist 
in one breath and the Palestinian leader in the next breath? This is 
too simplistic. We have had enough blood on both sides. Now we are 
getting to where the administration is taking charge--and I commend 
them for it. We are making some progress, and they have freed Arafat. 
But section No. 5 calls on the Palestinian Authority, actually it 
demands that the Palestinian Authority fulfill its commitment to 
dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the Palestinian areas. And 
the Palestinian Authority--that is what we call an oxymoron. Let's not 
kid ourselves, this isn't any authority, but it's the best term we 
have.
  Sharon--and I am quoting Andy Rooney, who said the other night on 
``60 Minutes'':

       Sharon is not our friend and President Bush should stop 
     pussy-footing and say so.

  Both sides are coming in and calling names, and that is what this 
amendment does. It doesn't help anybody but us Washington politicians.
  This is the London Economist, of April 20. I ask unanimous consent 
that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the London Economist, Apr. 20, 2002]

                             Friendly Fire

       Thanks mainly to his comportment since September 11th, 
     George Bush stands tall in American opinion. America's 
     standing in the world is another matter. As the sympathy that 
     followed the destruction of the twin towers fades, the 
     admiration Mr. Bush earned for victory in Afghanistan is 
     being pushed aside by complaints about the rest of the ``war 
     against terrorism''. In the Muslim world, of course, but also 
     in much of Europe, the uneven battles on the West Bank have 
     encouraged demonstrators to burn the American flag on the 
     streets, alongside the flag of Israel. But even before those 
     battles, European politicians were lining up to denounce Mr. 
     Bush's ``simplistic'' foreign policy and deplore America's 
     preponderance in the world. The loyalty to Mr. Bush shown by 
     Britian's prime minister, Tony Blair, had begun to alienate 
     not only Britian's EU partners but also his own Labour Party.


                          Guilt by Association

       This rift was visible before Ariel Sharon invaded the West 
     Bank. But Mr. Sharon has made the rift suddenly deeper. 
     America is not responsible for the fighting, still less for 
     its grisly climax in what may turn out to have been a war 
     crime in Jenin (see next leader). But as the provider of 
     Israel's sword and furnisher of its diplomatic shield, 
     America is being held responsible in most of the world, but 
     not America, picture of the bulldozer refugee camp plaster 
     the front pages. To an extent that Americans do not realize 
     being blamed for Israel's actions is ripping up the coalition 
     Mr. Bush took such pains to knit together last September. How 
     can he patch it back together?
       From Europe, the answer looks simple. To save his 
     coalition, Mr. Bush needs to put the squeeze on Mr. Sharon. 
     Only thus, it is argued, can Israel be persuaded to make the 
     compromises necessary for peace. And even if squeezing Mr. 
     Sharon does not lead to peace, being seen by the Arab street 
     to squeeze him is the only way to persuade fragile Arab 
     regimes to stay on America's side in the larger war against 
     terrorism. Instead, Mr. Bush appeared, first, to give 
     Israel's invasion of the West Bank a green light; and then 
     not to mean what he said when he called a fortnight ago for 
     Israel to withdraw ``immediately''. At best, Europeans say, 
     this makes America look ineffectual. At worst, it plays into 
     the hands of Osama bin Laden and his associates, who accuse 
     ``the Jews and the Americans'' of waging war against Islam. 
     Europe cannot understand America's failure to see this.
       What Europeans fail to see is that, precisely because of 
     his steadfastness in the war against terrorism, Mr. Bush is 
     widely admired in America. When he is criticized there, it is 
     not for arming and shielding Israel but for sending Colin 
     Powell, his secretary of state, to talk to Yasser Arafat, 
     terrorist recidivist, and for suggesting that Israel might 
     curtail its own was against terrorism. This, say the critics, 
     smudges his previous ``moral clarity''. September 11th gave 
     Americans at large--not just Jews, and not just politicians 
     influenced by the Israel lobby--special reason to shudder at 
     the onslaught on Israel by Muslim suicide bombers determined 
     to kill as many civilians as possible. Long before then, 
     Americans learnt to identify more with the beleaguered 
     Israelis than the thwarted Palestinians. Above all, Americans 
     cannot understand why some Europeans dignify terrorism as 
     legitimate ``resistance'' to an occupation which, but for 
     Palestinian intransigence, Israel's previous government would 
     have ended anyway.
       You do not have to resolve the merits of these two views of 
     the conflict to see the danger that this cross-Atlantic 
     incomprehension poses to the post-September coalition. 
     European leaders were squeamish enough before Mr. Sharon's 
     war about Mr. Bush's plans to take his campaign on to Iraq 
     and other members of the ``axis of evil''. The accelerated 
     killing gives them every reason to say that this must not 
     happen while the West Bank is on fire, lest it unleashes the 
     pan-Islamic rage Mr. bin Laden was aiming to provoke. 
     America's Arab friends say so too--though they made it clear 
     at the Beirut summit that ended before Mr. Sharon's re-
     invasion that they were not up for another swipe against 
     Saddam anyways. In a funny way, Palestine gets Mr. Bush's 
     reluctant allies off the hook. While Mr. Sharon is on the 
     rampage, they are less likely to be roped into unwanted 
     American adventures further afield.
       How does Mr. Bush proposed to end this rift? Not by selling 
     Israel down the river: Mr. Powell flew home with Israeli 
     tanks still in the West Bank and Mr. Arafat still stewing 
     under siege in Ramallah. Nor, probably, by resuming the 
     aloofness that characterized his initial handling of the 
     Middle East. For all their criticism of American zigzagging, 
     Mr. Bush's European critics need to recognize that this is a 
     president improvising responses to a baffling crisis. It 
     would be wrong to confuse his immediate plan to achieve 
     quiet--by piling pressure on Mr. Arafat to call off the 
     intifada--with his longer-term thinking. Mr. Bush has, after 
     all, spent the past weeks stating more plainly than any 
     predecessor that America wants an independent Palestine and 
     Israel back more or less to its 1967 border.


                           Timing The squeeze

       Empty words? At some point, it is true, getting an Israel 
     under a Mr. Sharon to accept such terms will require Mr. Bush 
     to apply that squeeze. With the domestic political capital he 
     has collected since September 11th, he could certainly do so, 
     especially if it seemed that supporting Israel was beginning 
     to damage America's own security. But remember ``moral 
     clarity'': the Europeans should not expect Mr. Bush to 
     pressurize Israel in circumstances that seemed to appease 
     terrorism. In other words, Mr. Arafat must accept--in good 
     faith, this time--the principle underpinning the Oslo 
     accords, which is that negotiating peace is not compatible 
     with a terrorist war.
       If they were serious about helping the Palestinians to 
     statehood, Europeans would explain this to the Palestinians 
     morning and night, instead of hailing the intrifada, as many 
     do, as ``resistance''. The intifada it was that helped Mr. 
     Sharon to power, destroyed Israel's peace camp and turned 
     Americans off the Palestinian cause. After September 11th, 
     Americans feel that they too are at risk, and at war. 
     Europeans do not.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. It says:

       But as the provider of Israel's sword and furnisher of its 
     diplomatic shield, America is being held responsible. In most 
     of the world, but not America, pictures of the bulldozed 
     refugee camps plaster the front pages. To an extent that 
     Americans do not realize, being blamed for Israel's actions 
     is ripping up the coalition Mr. Bush took such pains to knit 
     together last September. How can he patch it back together?

  Well, he is trying, and this amendment doesn't help him. It doesn't 
help him a bit. We know that. Since September 11, times are different. 
Yes, there is a war on terrorism, and how do we succeed in that war? We 
cannot do it alone, as the President says. We need the assistance of 
everyone--particularly in the Mideast which, in a general sense, has 
the majority, I would say, of terrorism and terrorists. So we have to 
go about it in a very careful fashion.
  For this Senator's interest, I think we can go after Saddam Hussein, 
but first let's stabilize our friend Israel. You have to have first 
things first. We found in the artillery in World War II, no matter how 
well the gun was aimed, if the recoil would kill the gun crew, you 
don't fire. So before we start firing on countries, let's take care of 
the countries that are being fired upon. Let's take care of Israel. 
Let's give solidarity to Israel--solidarity of support.
  In my judgment, it was wrong for Ariel Sharon to go to the Temple 
Mount with in-your-face kind of politics and leadership; to bulldoze 
the camps; and to extend settlements, all condemned by the United 
States. Then along comes this one-sided amendment like there is no 
cognizance or awareness of the complexity of this situation.
  Our credibility is at stake and everybody should pay particular 
attention. Now we are working with Pakistan, who we were formerly 
against, in the war on terrorism. We got their help. We are going to 
Jordan and getting their help. We are going to Egypt, but Mubarak is in 
a tenuous position that he had to cut off contacts with Israel.
  So this is a complicated thing. But to come with this simplistic one-
sided

[[Page S3820]]

amendment is not in the interest of Israel and not in the interest of 
the United States. We ought to do like Richard Cohen says: Let's listen 
awhile, set this aside, and move on and continue our 100-percent 
solidarity with Israel. This doesn't furnish it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, briefly and respectfully, I reply to 
my friend from South Carolina. Particularly, I want to pick up on the 
point at the end as to whether this is in the interest of the United 
States and our credibility.
  It seems to me that our credibility depends, in good measure, on our 
clarity--our moral clarity--and our consistency. That is what this 
amendment is about. It states that we, after September 11, are in a war 
against terrorism, effectively declared by the Congress 2 or 3 days 
after September 11, that our Nation's policy is now guided by a 
doctrine that President Bush articulated in his address to a joint 
session of Congress last September, now known as the Bush doctrine: 
Terrorism is evil; the use of violence to accomplish political ends--
including legitimate political ends, such as in this case, as I have 
said earlier in this debate, Palestinian statehood--is unacceptable; 
you cannot use terrorism to accomplish legitimate ends.

  It is a time of decision: Either you are with us or you are with the 
terrorists.
  This amendment is a carefully drafted affirmative statement of moral 
clarity for the United States, that we see Israel as now a front-line 
state in the war against terrorism. Just as this administration has 
sent American soldiers, in fact, to the Philippines, to Yemen, to the 
country of Georgia, to assist regimes in their front-line status 
fighting terrorism, so, too, do we at least respect the right of the 
Israelis to do the same: to defend their people against terrorism.
  It is not, with all respect, a political amendment. It is, in my 
opinion--and I was involved most deeply with Senator Smith of Oregon in 
drafting it--a principled amendment. It goes to the principles 
articulated in the Bush doctrine and the moral clarity of our war 
against terrorism, which, with all respect, has been not so 
consistently applied over the last 2 or 3 weeks by this administration: 
On one day calling for the Israelis to withdraw, and the next day 
expressing understanding about why they would take military action 
against the terrorism.
  The truth is, no regime, no democracy could do other than they have 
done. This is not to defend every particular act of every particular 
soldier. I do not know what every particular soldier did.
  If we put this in American terms, if we think about young people out 
at night at a cafe getting blown to death by a suicide bomber; working 
people waiting at a bus stop; people at a religious service; and this 
past weekend a mother with two children in their home, while the father 
is off at synagogue on Sabbath morning, a terrorist comes in disguised 
in an Israeli military uniform and kills a 5-year-old girl, no 
civilized nation can do anything other than put a stop to that 
behavior.
  That is what this amendment says: We respect and stand in solidarity 
with Israel as it takes the necessary steps to provide security to its 
people, and we remain committed to Israel's right to self-defense.
  This is not in any sense an anti-Palestinian statement. It was 
carefully drafted to make sure it was not. It is an antiterrorism 
statement.
  It is in that sense that I hope the great majority of my colleagues 
will support it today.
  I note the presence in the Chamber of the Senator from Tennessee. I 
yield the floor at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I thank Senator Lieberman and Senator Gordon Smith 
for this amendment. It is entirely appropriate for the legislative 
branch of Government to express itself on something that is so 
important to so many Americans.
  The President has stated this country is not going to abandon Israel. 
I know he means what he says. I do not think there is much doubt in 
terms of the Congress of the United States, but we need to make sure 
there is none. Quite frankly, I am surprised at some of the misreadings 
that our friends in Europe and other places have sometimes of our body 
and our intentions.
  It appears to me that Israel is in a struggle for its very existence. 
I do not think that is an overstatement. We read about skirmishes, and 
we hear of the historical difficulties we have had in that region. We 
tend to, in my mind, sometimes downplay the significance of what is 
going on there, but it is more significant probably than most people 
realize.
  No. 1, it is quite apparent that the Israelis believe they are in a 
struggle for their existence. It is clear to them, as it is to me, that 
the driving force among the Palestinians--not all Palestinians--is 
intent to drive the Israelis out of their country.
  If we look at Arafat's map, we will see that it does not have Israel 
on it. When those people talk about a Palestinian homeland, they are 
talking about Tel Aviv, they are not talking about the West Bank.
  When the Israelis see that and they are subjected to organized, 
orchestrated, systematic terrorist activity where their children are 
being murdered, they take that very seriously. They are doing right now 
what is necessary to protect themselves.
  I am afraid their enemies in this region are not interested in just a 
Palestinian state, which I think the entire international community now 
is saying has to be a part of any long-term resolution of this problem. 
They certainly are not interested in a peace process, not at this stage 
of the game anyway.
  Mr. Arafat was offered what in most people's minds was the best deal 
that had ever been placed on the table during the prior Israeli 
administration. The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has put a proposition 
on the table that the Palestinians have shown no indication they want 
to accept.
  Is there any doubt that if the violence stopped, the Israelis would 
be willing to sit down at the table? Of course not. Is there any doubt, 
on the other hand, that if the Israelis pull out of Jenin and the other 
places in the West Bank, the Palestinians will be willing to sit down 
at the table? The answer to that is no.
  Why is this the case? I am afraid it is the case because they still 
think they are winning the battle, they are winning the struggle. How 
can that be when they undergo tremendous losses? I think it is because 
the Palestinians believe they are winning the battle in the 
international community.
  It has been absolutely amazing to me to watch this occur. It is 
Orwellian to see person after person--young people--being strapped up 
with dynamite--with the encouragement of their families who are being 
paid off in many cases by Saddam Hussein and others--to kill innocent 
men, women, and children in public places in Israel, and to see the 
massacre and carnage of people who are not military people, who are not 
government leaders, but just kids out having a good time, and then to 
have this situation twist and turn a few times and come out as outrage 
against the Israelis in the world community.
  Somehow this brutal activity against civilians is equated with 
military operations the Israelis conduct against Palestinian militant 
leaders. I do not understand how that can come about. I am sure it 
boggles the minds of the Israelis, and I am sure it encourages the 
Palestinian leadership that wishes to drive Israel into the sea. That 
is the reason they still believe they have a chance, because our 
European friends are more critical of Israel as they defend themselves 
from these massacres than they are of the Palestinians. They believe 
that because our moderate Arab friends feel the same way about it. They 
believe that because the United Nations itself is more intent on 
investigating a war zone where people get killed, where the Israelis, 
instead of dropping bombs the way the United States often does, went 
house to house to save innocent lives and get the guilty and get the 
people who are responsible for so much of this destruction, losing 
people--they conduct this house-to-house kind of activity and bulldoze 
some buildings. This is the activity that the leadership of the United 
Nations wants to investigate.

  Of course, as it turns out, there was not anything to investigate. 
All of the

[[Page S3821]]

charges against the Israelis proved false before they even got there. 
At the same time, the blood is hardly dry in downtown Tel Aviv from 
innocent children who were murdered by the leadership of the PLO and 
other radicals among that group. As the Senator said, 5-year-old 
children are being shot and killed in their bed, but it is a war zone 
that the United Nations wants to investigate. So that is why I think 
the PLO and Mr. Arafat and his kind believe they may be winning. They 
are willing to sacrifice any number of their people in order to have 
the political victory.
  I think the toughest thing in the world for political leaders to do 
is to acknowledge sometimes that there is nothing that can be done in 
short order. It does not matter in the end what the Europeans, the 
United Nations, the Americans, or the moderate Arabs think. Until these 
two parties are willing to sit down and work out a peace arrangement, 
we are not going to have peace. There is nothing in the world that any 
of us can do to force them to do that.
  In my opinion, nothing is going to force them to do that until they 
are both either exhausted or they both believe it is in their best 
interest to sit down. As I said, I am afraid Mr. Arafat and the PLO do 
not see that in their best interest right now.
  I suggest to our friends around the world to reassess what they are 
doing. I think they are contributing to the problem. They are keeping 
hope alive among these people who would drive Israel out of existence 
and into the sea. That is not going to happen. They are endangering the 
entire region because Israel is not going to let that happen. We all 
know Israel has the capability to keep that from happening. No one 
wants a conflagration in that part of the world, but that will happen 
before Israel allows itself to once again be exterminated.
  By encouraging the kind of activity that has driven Israel to that 
point, we are prolonging the conflict and making the world a more 
dangerous place. I say to our moderate Arab friends, including our 
friends the Saudis, with whom we do have an important relationship--
they are important to us. We are important to them. It is not one-
sided. We have worked with each other for a long time. Hopefully, we 
can work with each other again. But it is no testimonial to friendship 
to not be honest.
  Part of what our friends there need to remember is, it is their 
country who furnished most of the terrorists on September 11 who did so 
much damage to us. It was their diplomat ambassador to Great Britain 
who was quoted as praising these suicide bombers and terrorists. It is 
their country and some of their own people who are raising money or 
allowing money to be raised in that country that finds its way to 
terrorists all over the world. It is their people, in many instances, 
who are raising money for the families who send these children in to 
blow themselves up and kill innocent Israelis. And it is their leaders, 
many times in their controlled press, who call the United States, along 
with the Israelis, terrorists. These are the folks we should be worried 
about, oil or no oil.
  The United States will not continue to be the United States that we 
all know and love and grew up in if we let these people dictate our 
policies contrary to our own interests and to the interests of our only 
democratic ally in that part of the world. I know that is not going to 
happen, and our friends, the Saudis, need to understand that is not 
going to happen.

  The United Nations, over the years, has had every kind of conceivable 
condemning resolution against the Israelis, while atrocity after 
atrocity has occurred against the Israelis. The United Nations, instead 
of investigating and looking into these places in the world where 
people are getting butchered by the tens of thousands, are more 
interested in the supposed human rights violations that the Israelis 
are conducting than anything else. These are supposed to be the 
objective analyzers of the situation in Jenin and other places.
  I urge that perhaps they take a look at their own behavior and their 
own attitudes. Our European friends, I hope, would reassess their 
attitudes and their public statements of their leaders at a time when 
anti-Semitism is breaking out once again in key European countries.
  As we watch the elections, as we watch the synagogues being burned, 
we are getting condemning lectures from them because we are supporting 
the only democracy in the Middle East. What in the world are they 
thinking? What kind of reaction do they think that is going to engender 
on our part?
  I think it is very important that we send a strong, clear message, as 
I think the President has done, and that we in this body send a clear 
message we will not bow to such wrong-headed public opinion, no matter 
how universal it is at the present time. We should be the leaders and 
we should point out the error of their ways. They should change their 
opinions because we are not about to turn our backs on an ally who has 
been our ally for so many years; that is a democracy, is not 
aggressively pursuing anyone except in self-defense, and who is now 
being subjected to a new kind of warfare that is, I believe, designed 
to wipe them off the face of the Earth in the end. Otherwise, we would 
have had at least a peace process that meant something instead of one 
that is in name only and is violated as soon as the ink is dry on the 
paper.
  So I again commend my friends from Connecticut and Oregon for giving 
us an opportunity to vote on this and to add our voices to those who 
are so wishful for a resolution in this troubled part of the world, who 
understand that it is in the interest of the United States to have a 
resolution in this part of the world. It is the right thing to do. It 
is the humane thing to do, to engage in that kind of process. It serves 
our interest with regard to our war and fight on terrorism in other 
countries in that region, but at the same time, realizing that it 
cannot happen, we cannot force it to happen until the parties are 
there, and one of the parties is not going to be there as long as the 
entire world is encouraging them to conduct continued terrorist 
activities that, up until this point, would have been universally 
condemned but for some reason is not being now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I want to thank my friend and 
colleague from Tennessee for a superb statement. I thank him not only 
for his support of the amendment that Senator Smith of Oregon and I 
have put before the Senate today, but for the principled and compelling 
logic of the additional statements that he made.
  I was just about to use a term to describe the remarks of the Senator 
from Tennessee, which I was going to say is normally associated with a 
colleague who sits near him, and that colleague walked into the 
Chamber. I was going to say his remarks were definitely straight talk, 
and I appreciate them very much.
  Does the Senator from Arizona wish to speak?
  Mr. McCAIN. If I could.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes. I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut, 
Mr. Lieberman, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith. There has been 
discussion whether it is appropriate at this time, and whether this 
would be viewed by some as undercutting the position or weakening the 
position of the President and the Secretary of State in their efforts 
to obtain peace in the Middle East. Those concerns are legitimate. The 
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Oregon considered 
seriously those concerns.
  We are not entirely totally comfortable moving forward with this 
amendment. We ought to return to our constitutional responsibilities as 
a coequal branch of government. No one denies that there is a crisis in 
the Middle East today, that there is the possibility of a wider 
conflict. There is no doubt that you can draw many scenarios in which 
the national security interests of the United States are threatened. If 
we accept those premises I articulated, then there does come a time 
when the Congress of the United States, as a coequal branch of 
government, exercising particularly in the Senate our responsibilities 
of advise and consent, should speak out.
  I know there are very strong feelings about what has happened to the 
State

[[Page S3822]]

of Israel in the last several months. I hold those strong views. If you 
look at the strong views we hold compared to the language in this 
amendment, one would interpret that as rather mild language.
  As I read the amendment--and the Senator from Oregon and the Senator 
from Connecticut can correct me if I am wrong--there is no criticism of 
the Palestinians in this amendment, there is no criticism of the 
Saudis, who continue to fund the madrasahs which teach not only the 
destruction of Israel but the destruction of the West and everything in 
which we believe. There is no criticism of the Saudis who are still 
paying money to the families of those who are ``martyrs.'' There is no 
criticism of the Saudi Ambassador who wrote an ode to the martyrs. 
There is no criticism of other ``moderate states in the region'' that 
have failed--utterly, miserably failed--to renounce these suicide 
bombers not as martyrs but as an offense to Islam and an impediment to 
any possibility of peace. The language of this amendment is measured. 
It is thoughtful. I know each word was carefully examined before it was 
put into this amendment.
  I say to our Arab friends--and there are many Arab friends in the 
region--if there is not a condemnation of the kinds of attacks that are 
being orchestrated, encouraged, applauded, and in some cases even 
compensated for, we may see a stronger amendment from the Senate. I 
don't believe the overwhelming membership of this body is ``pro-
israel,'' but I do believe there is a deep and profound recognition 
that the State of Israel is the only democratically elected government 
in the region. The 22 members of the Arab League are all dictators.
  There is a basic and fundamental principle of a nation's right to 
exist which is at play. Israel recognizes the right of other nations to 
exist in the region. The Israeli Government and people right now are 
fighting for the simple fundamental right to exist, and not only the 
right to exist but the ability to exist.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Oregon. We 
support the President of the United States and his efforts to bring 
about peace in the region. We support Colin Powell, our distinguished 
and respected Secretary of State. We support Condoleezza Rice and all 
other efforts to bring about peace and all the members of the 
administration who are working so hard. We applaud their efforts.
  We also believe we, as a body, the Senate, should go on record as to 
our position and our desire to see this little country survive and our 
commitment to seeing what we can do to ensure its survival.
  I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Arizona for 
his strong and principled statement. I could not agree with him more. I 
pick up for a moment on what the Senator from Arizona and the Senator 
from Tennessee suggested earlier: This amendment might affect the 
conduct of foreign policy by the President and this administration.
  I strongly believe adoption of this amendment will be supportive of 
the policy of this administration and will strengthen the hand of the 
President and the Secretary of State, particularly as they proceed in 
their diplomacy in the Middle East, and more particularly in the 
Israel-Palestinian conflict.
  Why do I say that? Because America is always at its strongest when we 
are true to our principles. The President articulated those principles 
post-September 11 in the Bush doctrine. They say we will stand with 
those who fight terrorism as we are fighting terrorism ourselves; all 
the more so when it comes to a fellow democracy, a longtime ally, such 
as the State of Israel.
  A nation gains strength by being true to its principles but also by 
being true to its allies and not compromising longstanding 
relationships as a result of the pressures of the moment, no matter how 
compelling those pressures.
  We are a great nation. We are the mightiest nation in the history of 
the world. If any nation has the strength to stand by its principles, 
it is, thank God, the United States of America. That is what in simple, 
direct terms this amendment says.
  We made a stand after September 11 against terrorism. The Israelis 
are fighting the same enemy as we are now. They are not fighting the 
Palestinians; they are fighting terrorism. In that battle, no matter 
what the economic or political or strategic or diplomatic pressures 
that some may attempt to put upon the United States, we will be true to 
principle and we will be true to our alliances. That is what my 
colleagues have spoken eloquently on. For that, I thank my colleagues.
  When this Senate adopts this amendment overwhelmingly, it will send a 
message to those who may be equivocating, who may be remaining silent. 
Remember that line from Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved 
for those who in time of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. Great 
powers in the world are doing that right now.
  We say as the representatives of the people of the United States in 
this amendment, for the United States, we are not going to remain 
silent. We are going to stand by our principles and by our friends. 
That will strengthen us in our relationship with our friends and with 
our enemies.
  I am pleased to note the presence in the Chamber of the Senator from 
Utah. I yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I compliment both my colleagues to whom I 
have been listening, Senator McCain from Arizona, a leader on this 
floor and of course a friend for whom I have tremendous respect, and 
his Democratic counterpart, Senator Lieberman, a dear, dear friend, 
someone with whom I have passed legislation where he has made a great 
deal of difference and who has spoken eloquently and reasonably and in 
a way that should advance the cause of peace in this world.
  I also rise to address this amendment. I am joined with a large 
number of colleagues as cosponsors to do so.
  This amendment is a reiteration of what Congress has overwhelmingly 
stated through the years, that this body stands in solidarity with 
Israel.
  Israel is a front-line state against terrorism. What they do is very 
important with regard to the battle against terrorism because it takes 
necessary steps--to provide and bring about security to its people from 
these suicide bombers by dismantling the terrorist infrastructure in 
the Palestinian areas.
  We have all watched with growing alarm the explosion of suicidal 
violence that wracked Israel in the last couple of months. I am greatly 
relieved that, for the time being, those suicide attacks have ceased.
  But what has happened in the interim to lead to this cessation of 
suicide bombings?
  Was it a newfound political will in the offices of the Palestinian 
Authority that declared unambiguously that terrorism would no longer be 
promoted or tolerated from the territories over which the PA holds 
power?
  Was it a statement by Chairman Arafat, in Arabic, denouncing suicidal 
murderers as nihilistic and counter productive to any cause of peace?
  Was it a deployment of Yasser Arafat's multiple security services to 
disrupt, capture and imprison the perpetrators of terrorism against 
Israeli citizens?
  No, we all know that the cessation of suicide bombings, at least for 
the time being, was not the result of political will on the part of the 
leaders of the Palestinian Authority. It was the result of a military 
deployment by the government Israel, a deployment by the Israeli 
Defense Forces that was costly, controversial, and . . . for the moment 
. . . successful.
  What nation do we believe could exempt itself from the right of self-
defense? Isn't such an exemption fundamentally against the natural 
state of nationhood? Have we ever expected any nation let alone a long-
standing friend and ally to exempt itself from its right of self-
defense? Of course not.
  Yet Israel has faced a great deal of criticism for its action in the 
last month. Certainly Israel is not above criticism--any more than it 
is exempt from the right of self-defense. But I, for one, cannot 
criticize its right to self-defense, its need to act in its self-
defense, and its responsibility to use its professional military to 
destroy the terrorist infrastructure that is still

[[Page S3823]]

dedicated to the military defeat of the only country in the Middle East 
that fully shares our western values. You're never going to see 
criticism of that type coming from this Senator.
  I recognize that there are long-standing, unresolved political issues 
between Israel and the Palestinians. I recognize that many Palestinians 
now have generations of being uprooted, frustrated and impoverished 
from which to feed a legitimate sense of injustice.
  I also recognize, Mr. President, that there have been many Israelis, 
in their government, in their elites, but, more important, throughout 
their society, who have desired, sought and worked for a peaceful 
solution between the two peoples.
  I was amazed myself with the offer Prime Minister Barak made to 
Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians. It went way beyond anything most 
people I talked with thought that Israel should do. It should have been 
snapped up by Yasser Arafat, and certainly it should become at least a 
basis for trying to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and 
the Israelis.
  I have my doubts if Yasser Arafat can be a partner for peace. His 
duplicity is well-known; he talks peace in English on the White House 
lawn and before some aid agencies. He speaks jihad in Arabic before 
young Palestinian crowds and in the courts of Arab leaders. The man 
who, nearly 20 years ago, could not address the United Nations, a body 
dedicated to the resolution of conflicts without violence, without the 
symbol of a pistol holster on his hip, clearly today continues to 
believe that there is a legitimate role for terrorism.
  The reason there have been no suicide bombings in Israel in the last 
few days is not because Yasser Arafat has preached the renunciation of 
terror. It is because the IDF went after the terrorists that Arafat's 
Palestinian Authority harbors. It is an old lesson that we dare forget 
at our own peril: Tolerate terrorism and it will grow and multiply, 
feeding every angry and hateful cause. Negotiate with terrorism and you 
will legitimize it, creating incentives for more terrorism and the 
promoting the deadly illusion that terrorism is some form of legitimate 
political expression.
  We all recognize that the IDF actions of the past month do not 
guarantee that suicide bombings will cease, and I say this with a sense 
of reality and deep regret. I even recognize that those absolutely 
dedicated to terrorism have most likely not been dissuaded from their 
nihilistic path. I also know that perhaps some of those living in 
despair in the Palestinian territories may have been made more 
desperate, and that their desperation may be used by the cynical 
manipulators behind the suicide attacks.
  I long for the day when all the peoples of the Middle East are freed 
from regimes that harbor hatred rather than promote growth, that plan 
for war rather than development, that delude their peoples while 
denying them a future of prosperity.
  I strongly support the Administration's efforts to help find a just 
political solution to this conflict, and to begin talking, at this 
early stage but generations too late, about economic development that 
will give the Palestinians outlets to channel their work toward 
building secure and prosperous futures for their families and future 
generations. I empathize with the Palestinians who have unemployment 
rates well in excess of 50 percent. No wonder there is unrest and 
discord over there. I support, even, calls for immediate reconstruction 
assistance to the Palestinian territories, to be channeled, I would 
hasten to add, by legitimate non-governmental organizations, and not by 
the Palestinian Authority.
  I encourage the Administration's efforts to bring the so-called 
moderate Arab nations into this effort. Those nations will not only 
have to dedicate their diplomatic efforts toward encouraging the 
leaders of the Palestinian Authority to accepting a political solution. 
Those countries will not only have to dedicate substantial funds for 
promoting economic development that channels the energies of the 
Palestinians into productive and peaceful endeavors. But if those 
countries are to succeed in their diplomacy and with their assistance, 
they will have to stop encouraging anti-Semitic and anti-American 
hatred in their own societies. I certainly wish the Administration the 
best of luck in this very difficult endeavor.
  We will need to see a political solution before we seen economic 
development, Mr. President. But to have a political solution, there 
must be political will, on both sides, to reach an settlement. A 
political solution cannot be begun under a wave of terrorist attacks. I 
don't see how anybody can criticize Israel under the circumstances. 
Terrorism requires a military response. We are finding that is so true.

  While I have always believed this country should support Israel in 
its effort to seek peace, I strongly believe that we must remain 
equally dedicated to Israel's right to self-defense. For this reason, I 
am proud to cosponsor this amendment, and I urge the unanimous support 
of my colleagues with a vote for it.
  Madam President, I have been talking about Israel and terrorism and 
what we have to do about it. But now I want to shift for a minute and 
talk about the extreme dissatisfaction registered by Senator Grassley, 
the ranking Republican member of the Finance Committee, Senator Phil 
Gramm, and others on our side of the aisle in regard to the trade 
promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance--the Andean Trade 
Preferences Act and trade promotion authority.
  Trade creates jobs both at home and abroad.
  Trade can also help promote political stability in many regions of 
the world.
  It is in our national interest to foster free trade.
  Let us look at the facts.
  Ninety-six percent of the world's consumers live outside our borders.
  Based on that fact alone, the United States would be foolish not to 
pursue a vigorous trade agenda. But let me go on.
  Exports accounted for about 30 percent of U.S. economic growth over 
the last decade, representing one of the fastest growing sectors in our 
economy.
  Almost 97 percent of exporters are small or medium-sized companies 
and, as my colleagues are aware, small businessmen are the engines of 
job growth.
  In fact, almost 10 percent of all U.S. jobs--an estimated 12 million 
workers--now depend on America's ability to export to the rest of the 
world. Export-related jobs typically pay 13 percent to 18 percent more 
than the average U.S. wage.
  And there are many reasons to believe that the best is yet to come in 
this dynamic sector.
  Economists predict that there could be a 33 percent reduction in 
worldwide tariffs on agricultural and industrial products in the next 
WTO trade round. This action alone could inject an additional $177.3 
billion into the American economy in the next 10 years. That is a lot 
of money.
  I strongly support Congressional passage of Trade Promotion Authority 
legislation this year. I was the one who made the motion and got it 
passed out of the Senate Finance Committee upon which I sit.
  TPA will provide a measure of certainty to our trading partners that 
any agreement reached with USTR will receive timely Congressional 
consideration and will not die a slow death by amendment.
  Look, the Finance Committee passed the trade promotion authority 
legislation by a wide, bipartisan 18 to 3 vote back in December.
  I agree with Senator Gramm that if we had an up/down vote of this bi-
partisan bill permitted by the Majority Leader, it would probably pass 
with over 70 votes.
  I believe it would pass by an over whelming majority of 70 or more 
votes.
  The majority leader knows this. We all know this.
  Instead, the bill that was laid down last night was a thumb in the 
eye of bi-partisanship.
  It is bad for America.
  It should not and will not be adopted by the Senate this week, next 
week, this month, next month, this year, or next year.
  Members of the Finance Committee know that all last year, I took the 
position that Congress must pass both trade promotion authority 
legislation and trade adjustment assistance legislation.
  If both bills do not pass, neither will pass. That is the truth of 
the matter.

[[Page S3824]]

  That is the political reality.
  It is also true that there is little we can do in Congress to help 
the prosperity of American families--and help the prosperity of nations 
around the world--other than TPA.
  We need trade promotion authority to open up new markets for American 
goods.
  We also need trade adjustment assistance to provide retraining and 
other benefits to workers who lose their jobs due to the effects of 
international trade.
  Let me acknowledge that there are some in my caucus who are leery of 
TAA because they are justifiably concerned about expanding yet another 
federal entitlement program.
  In my state of Utah, we have felt the effects of the dumping of 
imported steel by the closing of the Geneva Steel production 
facilities, and the loss of almost 2,000 jobs.
  I commend the action the President took on steel.
  I support TAA to help displaced workers, but it must have reasonable 
limits.
  The TAA bill that was before the Finance Committee last fall was 
already too big.
  I was going to say, the TAA bill that was reported by the Finance 
Committee, but I am not sure that is an accurate statement.
  Anyone present that day will tell you that the vote on the bill 
appeared to take place in violation of Senate rules--specifically, the 
rule against conducting Committee meetings for more than two hours 
after the full Senate was in session was invoked.
  The gavel went down after time had expired.
  Let us face it. Unlike the bipartisan trade promotion authority 
legislation, this TAA bill has had a strange partisan bent to it from 
start to finish.
  Last night a bad TAA bill got worse.
  While I remain hopeful that we can do what we should do, and pass 
both TPA and TAA.
  I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to know that 
there is little sentiment on our side for passing TPA at any cost.
  That is what Senator Grassley and Senator Gramm said earlier today, 
and I agree with them.
  Let us get this process back on track.
  I think if we can do that we will find that a strong consensus can 
develop on trade issues--both on TPA and TAA.
  I am mindful that there will be those on both sides of the aisle that 
will remain inalterably opposed to either trade promotion authority or 
trade adjustment assistance.
  For the good of the American people, we cannot afford to let that 
occur.
  I have a lot of faith in Senator Grassley. He is a good man. He is a 
hard worker. I have trust in the fact that Senator Baucus wants to do 
the right thing. He is a good man. He works hard on the Finance 
Committee. I hope they get the chance to help bring us together.
  My fear is that the bill that was laid down last night may put the 
Senate on a glide path to disaster.
  Just as there appeared to be a narrowing of the issues of the health 
care aspects of the TAA bill, a host of new issues were suddenly put on 
the table for the first time.
  As I read it, the Majority Leader's bill includes measures that were 
not included in any of the bills that were reported by the Finance 
Committee.
  It is my understanding that never in any of the negotiating meetings 
has the issue of wage insurance been raised--but it then suddenly 
appears in the majority leader's bill.
  I do not want to see these important talks over this legislation 
stall, but my colleagues on the other side must be willing to come to 
the table with reasonable proposals.
  I believe that there is a way that my Republicans and Democratic 
Colleagues can come together and pass both TPA and TAA.

  Frankly the measures that we are discussing today were all reported 
by the Committee separately as free-standing bills.
  Let me be clear. I would like to see the Senate take up and pass the 
Andean Trade Preference Act, Trade Promotion Authority, and Trade 
Adjustment Assistance this year.
  Perhaps we would be better off by taking them up one at a time.
  As I recall, we didn't approve an omnibus trade bill in the Finance 
Committee.
  It appears to many that the bill laid down last night was hastily-
crafted with apparently a partisan purpose in mind.
  Just let me give you one example. I ask my colleagues to turn to page 
23 of the bill distributed last night. This section is entitled 
``Action by the Secretary'' and deals with appeals of the TAA 
certification process.
  Now turn to page 41 of the bill. You will see this entire section 
repeated verbatim.
  One of the reasons for careful consideration of legislation by the 
Committees of jurisdiction is to avoid these types of embarrassing 
drafting errors that occur when complex laws are rewritten in the dead 
of night outside the regular order.
  As the ranking Republican member on the International Trade 
Subcommittee and as a member of the Intelligence Committee, I can tell 
the Senate that international trade has long been one of the most 
important foreign policy tools of the United States.
  The Bush administration--led by Commerce Secretary Don Evans and our 
United States Trade Representative Bob Zoellick--has helped launch a 
new round of international trade talks. We all have an interest in 
making the next World Trade Organization ministerial succeed.
  In order to make the next ministerial a success, it is important that 
the United States signal to the world that we will continue to make 
trade a very high priority. We can do this best by passing TPA.
  I will say again that I recognize, in all likelihood, the Senate will 
need to act on Trade Adjustment Assistance legislation if there is a 
chance of passing the TPA bill.
  So be it.
  I am for both TPA and TAA.
  But let me be clear, I am not for a loaded up TAA bill with 
unrealistic health care provisions.
  On a related issue, I am deeply disappointed by the health care 
provisions of the Daschle substitute.
  As someone who has worked very much in a bipartisan way during my 26 
years in the Senate on all health care issues, this has become a 
partisan issue. It shouldn't be.
  I am a strong advocate of getting Trade Promotion Authority for the 
President--but Senator Daschle's amendment includes health care 
provisions that are just unacceptable to me and other members of the 
Senate Finance Committee.
  Let me take a minute to highlight some of the more egregious health 
provisions in the Daschle substitute.
  The Daschle amendment has a 73 percent advanceable, refundable tax 
credit that may be used for COBRA coverage or other pooled insurance 
coverage.
  S. 1209, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act that was rammed through 
the Finance Committee required the Treasury Secretary to create a 
program that would pay 75 percent of the COBRA subsidies. These 
subsidies could only be used for COBRA benefits.
  What Senator Daschle is promoting is only a slight improvement over 
what was included in S. 1209--hardly a compromise, in my opinion. 
Subsidizing health insurance by 73 percent is just too high.
  It is my understanding that the discussion between Senators Grassley 
and Baucus were much more constructive on this issue and now the 
majority leader's substitute goes in the direction away from a 
reasonable compromise.
  The Daschle substitute also allocates $200 million for National 
Emergency Grants to States in order to provide assistance and support 
services to eligible workers. This grant money could be used to pay for 
health care coverage; however, States may also use this money to 
provide benefits through the Medicaid program or my CHIP program we 
passed a few years ago.
  Both the Medicaid and Child Health Insurance programs are programs 
for the low-income; however, the way I understand the Daschle 
substitute, anyone would be eligible to participate in these programs 
no matter how wealthy.
  While this is an improvement over the TAA legislation approved by the 
Finance Committee, which essentially gave States the option to offer 
Medicaid coverage to uninsured workers, it is still unacceptable.

[[Page S3825]]

  In fact, during the Finance Committee's consideration of S. 1209, I 
expressed my strong opposition to the Medicaid expansions included in 
S. 1209.
  Those of us who are familiar with the history of the Medicaid program 
know that State options usually end up becoming permanent fixtures of 
the Medicare program.
  While the Daschle substitute doesn't include the blatant Medicaid 
expansions of S. 1209, I believe it is a backdoor way of expanding both 
the Medicaid and CHIP programs.
  And if I had to make a prediction, chances are that these 
``temporary'' provisions--I will put ``temporary'' in quotes--will end 
up becoming permanent. It is as if we are not even listening to our 
State Governors.
  They keep telling us that the States' budgets are in financial 
disarray. My State can't even afford to cover children eligible for the 
CHIP program--3,000 more children than the 27,000 who are currently 
covered.
  I believe that the Daschle provisions on Medicaid and CHIP could have 
very serious financial impacts on both the State and Federal budgets, 
especially when both are experiencing budget shortfalls.
  What is most troubling to me is that the Daschle substitute provides 
the uninsured far more generous health benefits than those who have 
existing health coverage.
  I don't understand why any Member of the U.S. Congress would want to 
promote a provision that actually acts to encourage individuals to 
remain unemployed because they can get better health coverage.
  By offering such generous health benefits, this bill encourages 
people to remain unemployed.
  Is this the American way?
  Is this the way to fulfill the American dream?
  Is this what we in the Congress want--more uninsured Americans?
  I hope not. In my opinion, this bill contains an unintended incentive 
that promotes joblessness.
  And even more disturbing, the drafting of this partisan bill may send 
a very clear message--take it or leave it.
  Is there room for bipartisan discussions here?
  Can we work together?
  These are the areas we ought to work together on to bring a consensus 
about.
  Can we work out our differences?
  Can we find a fair compromise?
  I sure hope so. But, I have my doubts about it because of the way 
that this debate has started. And that is just not acceptable for the 
American people.
  Senator Grassley does have the right idea--there are health care 
provisions that can be included in TAA in order to get trade promotion 
authority approved by the Senate.
  I, for one, would be willing to support tax credits for the purchase 
of COBRA, pooled insurance, or individual insurance, so long as the 
individual has a choice of coverage, not a take-it-or-leave it 
requirement set right here in Washington.
  In addition, I believe it makes sense to provide funds to States in 
order to create and operate insurance pooling arrangements.
  I also support providing funds for National Emergency Grants so 
States can subsidize health insurance for TAA eligibles.
  In my view, we are not that far apart that we cannot come together.
  I think we can if we just have some good-faith effort here on the 
floor and behind the scenes.
  I only hope that we do not let this opportunity to pass both trade 
promotion authority and provide reasonable health insurance subsidies 
to uninsured Americans slip away.
  I am committed to working with my Senate colleagues, for as long as 
it takes, to get this job done. So, I urge my colleagues: let's quit 
the partisan bickering, let's roll up our sleeves, and let's get the 
job done.
  In closing, I urge passage of both the trade promotion authority 
legislation and the trade adjustment assistance bill. But let's make 
sure these bills are bills we can live with, bills that are bipartisan 
in nature, bills where we have worked out the kinks and the 
difficulties, bills that are not a partisan benefit to one side or the 
other, bills that will do the best for our individual citizens in this 
country who need this help.

  I hope we can get this job done before Memorial Day.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the presence of the two main 
sponsors of the amendment in the Chamber. We have had a number of 
speakers. I wonder if it would be Senator Lieberman's intention to have 
a vote on this amendment fairly soon.
  I ask unanimous consent to yield to Senator Lieberman for purposes of 
a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, responding to my good friend from Arizona, it 
certainly is our intention to have a vote on this amendment this 
afternoon. I think it is important to do so. And it is my understanding 
that that is also the intention of the leadership of the Senate. I 
gather some conversations may be going on with the senior Senator from 
West Virginia, who was in the Chamber earlier, before going to a 
hearing, who said he had a statement to make of limited duration. I 
believe there is an attempt to have him come to the floor as soon as 
possible. I do not know of any other Senators at this time who wish to 
speak on this amendment.
  I thank my friend.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, I had hoped we could encourage any Senators who want 
to speak to come to the floor, but I am not sure there is any really 
compelling reason to continue to hold up the business of the Senate, 
particularly since we have other pending issues to address. So I hope 
we can do that fairly soon. Maybe around 4, in the next 15 or 20 
minutes, if possible.
  Mr. President, I want to talk, just for a minute, about this 
imbroglio in which we find ourselves over the Trade Preference Act, the 
Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, the trade promotion 
authority and trade adjustment assistance, and the Generalized System 
of Preferences. I do not intend to take a lot of time, except to note 
that this is a very serious issue. It is unfortunate that we seem to be 
diverging rather than converging in our efforts to reach some kind of 
agreement.
  I would like to say a few words about the Andean Trade Promotion and 
Drug Eradication Act. All of these issues we are trying to address are 
very important. But I point out, there is an extreme time sensitivity 
associated with what I will refer to from now on as ATPA, the Andean 
Trade Preference Act.
  I remind my colleagues that as of the 16th of this month--in 2 
weeks--if we do not act, then this legislation will expire, customs 
that are retroactive will be levied on goods that have been brought 
into the country. And I want to emphasize the serious impact this would 
have on these four struggling democracies in our hemisphere: Bolivia, 
Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
  I remind my colleagues that this ATPA grew out of a commitment that 
the former President Bush made at the February 1990 Cartegena Drug 
Summit to provide economic benefits to these four Andean countries. The 
reason for it was, it was an effort to reduce illegal drug production 
and trafficking in these countries by promoting legitimate economic 
activity in these countries. Well, that was in 1990. The legislation 
was passed in 1991.
  We have now had 11 years of ATPA. What happened in these four 
countries? First, the good news is that Bolivia's coca production has 
been reduced to practically zero. The bad news is that Colombia is in a 
very serious situation. As we know, the FARC leaders--who have just 
been indicted by the United States of America and controlled a large 
tract of the country--have continued to engage in narcotrafficking, and 
the overall supply of cocaine into the United States has not been 
reduced. That is actually in spite of the valiant efforts of the 
Government and the people of Colombia, with the assistance and help of 
the United States of America, and other countries, to try to

[[Page S3826]]

bring about a peaceful resolution to this very serious insurgency 
situation in Colombia.
  Have no doubt, the funding for the FARC, to a large degree, has been 
made possible because of the trafficking in drugs. Peru has gone 
through a very difficult time, as we know. The former President was 
overthrown. There was a scandal the likes of which only bad novels are 
made from, where the former chief of intelligence was videotaped while 
providing bribes to Members of their Congress and judges. And a former 
President is now residing in Japan. There is a new President of Peru, 
whom I had the opportunity to meet. I think he is doing his very best.
  Let me say, finally, that in Ecuador they have been dramatically 
affected by the whole situation in Colombia. In summary, because I see 
the majority leader on the floor, I will just say that the situation, 
as far as ATPA is concerned, is serious. We should consider carving 
that out from the other trade provisions and perhaps moving that piece 
of legislation on its own. It is time sensitive and critical. We made a 
commitment a long time ago to these countries. I see no reason to 
renege on that commitment now to four struggling nations in our own 
hemisphere.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of amendment No. 
3389 offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Gordon Smith. This 
amendment is an important expression of our Nation's solidarity with 
the Israeli people during these attacks against their people. Civilized 
peoples must come together to fight and defeat terrorism wherever it 
occurs.
  There can be no negotiations with terrorists. On September 11, the 
American people experienced the depravity of international terrorism. 
The Israeli people have been subjected to a barrage of terrorist 
attacks that have been specifically targeted at civilians. It is 
incumbent on the United States to send the message throughout the world 
that these acts will not tolerated.
  It has been made evident that the Palestinian leadership uses suicide 
bombings as a means to accomplish political goals. This is simply 
unacceptable, and must not be tolerated. We must continue to ensure 
that Israel has all the necessary resources in order to defend itself. 
We must make it clear to all nations in the region that there will be 
consequences for support of terrorism. But most of all, we must send a 
message to the world that the United States stands in unity with 
Israel.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor today's 
amendment expressing solidarity with Israel. Like many Americans, I 
have a very personal connection to the Israeli people and to the State 
of Israel. And it is with a heavy heart that I join my colleagues today 
in mourning the innocent lives lost in the recent terrorist violence in 
Israel.
  The U.S.-Israeli relationship is one of the strongest and most 
important of all of our bilateral relationships. Within that context, 
it is my sincere hope that this amendment will send a clear signal by 
expressing the overwhelming sense of the Senate that America is now and 
always will be firmly committed to a future in which the state of 
Israel can live in security and peace with all of its neighbors. It is 
my greatest hope that our ongoing commitment to these principles, and 
through them to peace in the region, will demonstrate our country's 
respect for the dignity and future of the Israeli people, while 
establishing the basis for a political settlement to the conflict.
  I also want to state clearly, and for the record, that I supported 
President Bush's decision last month to send Secretary Powell to the 
Middle East to help bring the current crisis to a close and to bring 
Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table. Intense U.S. 
engagement remains an essential ingredient in the resolution of the 
crisis, although nothing will be accomplished without the added 
leadership and foresight of the Israeli and Palestinian people. I also 
believe that the President was right to call on both the Palestinians 
and the Arab states in the region to take responsibility for ending 
terror and the culture of hatred that threatens peace in the region. 
And he has also been justified in calling on Israel to take a number of 
concrete and compassionate steps to ease the pressure on Palestinian 
civilians. In the end, only through continued efforts at the highest 
level will the United States be in a position to assist our strongest 
ally in the region and give the Israeli people an opportunity to seize 
a secure future.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
amendment submitted by Senators Lieberman and Smith demonstrating our 
continued solidarity with our ally, Israel, in its efforts to defend 
itself against terrorism. Suicide bombings and the taking of lives of 
innocent civilians are terrorist acts by anyone's definition. No moral 
or political justification exists for the bombing of civilians on buses 
or in restaurants or at religious celebrations. This resolution makes 
it clear that we oppose these acts of terrorism and that we recognize 
and support Israel's right to defend itself against them.
  Now that Yasser Arafat is no longer confined to his headquarters in 
Ramallah, it is imperative that he make every effort possible to stem 
the tide of Palestinian terrorism and to break up whatever elements 
remain of the terrorist networks. And it is equally important that 
those Arab states who say they want to work with us in the war on 
terrorism do all that they can to help bring about an end to all forms 
of terrorism. They must make it clear that like us, they too oppose 
suicide bombings and that they expect the leadership of the Palestinian 
authority to live up to its responsibility to bring them to a halt.
  Israel exercised its legitimate right to self-defense when it used 
force to root out and break up the terrorist networks threatening its 
own civilians. But force alone cannot ensure the security of the Israel 
and its people over the long term. I am convinced that the only way to 
truly enhance Israel's security is to replace the dynamic of violence 
with hope and political settlement.
  This amendment acknowledges that reality. It calls upon all parties 
in the region to pursue vigorously efforts to establish a just and 
lasting comprehensive peace. When I was in the region in January, I met 
with all the key players. At that time I came away convinced that we 
must find a way to get back to a peace process. That need is even more 
urgent now.
  Ultimately the Israelis and Palestinians are going to have to live 
with each other as neighbors, not enemies. Passions are so high at this 
point that it is difficult if not impossible for either side to imagine 
that future. It is our responsibility, as the one country with the 
greatest influence over both sides, to help them see beyond the current 
impasse and to move them toward the prospect of reopening political 
discussions particularly now that some semblance of calm has been 
established. Now that the Administration has finally gotten engaged it 
must stay engaged. Our role as broker is vital and we must be willing 
to undertake it if we are serious about Israel's long-term security, 
peace in the Middle East and combating terrorism.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as we debate this amendment expressing our 
Nation's support for Israel, we must recognize the unique relationship 
that exists between our two nations.
  Israel has been the starting point of United States foreign policy in 
the Middle East since 1948, when the United States under President 
Harry S Truman became the first country to formally recognize the state 
of Israel.
  Good relations with Israel are of vital importance to the United 
States' interests in the Middle East. It is the only democracy in the 
region and a reliable ally of America.
  This bond is even deeper. Israel is a nation that we mirror--in our 
culture and in our historical values. It is essential that we continue 
to work with Israel on advancement of these commonalities.
  Our relationship with Israel is reminiscent of the American role in 
the French Revolution, which at the time many considered a foolish 
position. Although America was a new and small nation on the other side 
of the Atlantic, we empathized with the French aspirations for liberty 
and equality. To understand our motivation, we should look at the words 
of Thomas Jefferson. ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with 
certain unalienable rights'' he wrote, enshrining in the Declaration of

[[Page S3827]]

Independence the concept of all men being created equal. To Jefferson 
and all the signers of the Constitution, the quest for equality at that 
time was to be pursued not just within America, but throughout the 
world.
  America's role in the French Revolution was an extension of the 
liberty and freedom that we stood for, exercised through our foreign 
policy. Today, this same concept applies to our foreign policy and 
contributes to our special relationship with Israel.
  As an ally and friend of the state of Israel, America provides the 
Jewish state $3 billion a year in military and economic support--the 
largest amount of direct aid provided to any nation by the United 
States. Israel is also the beneficiary of a preferential trade 
relationship with the United States.
  The ability of the people of Israel and the region to lead normal 
lives has been shattered by acts of violence and terrorism. It is 
impossible to observe the tragic situation that has been dragging on 
over the past 18 months without recognizing that no one--Israelis, 
Palestinians, or any of their neighbors--is interested in continuing to 
live their lives this way.
  There is no doubt after September 11 that our Nation has a new 
understanding of the plight of our friends in Israel. There can be no 
question that the Middle East harbors a significant percentage of the 
world's terrorists, including many individuals who share the philosophy 
of those who attacked America.
  This is why we must support this amendment and stand in solidarity 
with our brothers and sisters in Israel.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will vote for this amendment because I 
agree with its general purpose--to reaffirm unequivocally U.S. support 
for Israel's right to defend itself against acts of terrorism or other 
forms of aggression. Israel is a friend and ally, and it has faced 
threats to its survival for over half a century. Since its birth in 
1947, we have provided Israel over $50 billion in aid. There is no 
doubt about our support.
  While I will vote for this amendment I am uneasy that we are 
considering this matter at just the time when we are finally seeing 
real progress in defusing the recent crisis. While some wish it 
reflected a more balanced approach, this is the only amendment to be 
considered.
  The amendment expresses support for Israel ``as it takes necessary 
steps to provide security for its people.'' I fully support that. But 
as so many have said, some of the steps taken by Israel in the past 
weeks and months have been both unnecessary and counterproductive. I 
fear that, in the long run, these steps may have weakened the security 
of the Israeli people because of the bitterness and the desire for 
vengeance that they caused among Palestinian civilians--many of whom 
had previously shunned violence. And there appears to be far more 
support for Yasser Arafat today among average Palestinians than there 
was just a few months ago.
  The amendment demands that the Palestinian Authority ``dismantle the 
terrorist infrastructure.'' I fully agree that this needs to happen. I 
also know, as Secretary of State Powell has said, that Yasser Arafat, 
whose security apparatus has been largely destroyed by the Israelis, 
cannot do everything himself even if he wanted to, but he can and must 
do more. I also know there are people in the West Bank and Gaza who 
will do anything to sabotage progress toward peace.
  The amendment singles out Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ``act in concert 
with the United States to stop the violence.'' They should do that, and 
condemn more forcefully the suicide bombings. These governments have 
many problems, and certainly the Saudi Government, with all its wealth, 
has not always played the constructive role it could. But it is 
important to recognize the positive things they have done, which this 
resolution fails to do. The Saudi Government has put forward the only 
viable peace proposal in the past 18 months. Not even the U.S. 
administration has done that. Egypt, according to Secretary Powell, has 
been supportive of U.S. policies in the region.
  Mr. President, this amendment, which addresses a number of issues, is 
silent on others that need to be addressed. Given the vastly 
conflicting reports of what happened at Jenin, an impartial 
investigation should be done. The use of U.S. weapons also needs to be 
looked at, particularly since the State Department reports of 
``numerous serious human rights abuses perpetrated by Israeli security 
forces during the year.''
  And most important, there needs to be a recognition of the role of 
the Israeli settlements in the recent explosion of violence. For this 
amendment to not even mention the role that the settlements play 
strikes me as a serious omission because until that issue is resolved, 
I am afraid the bloodshed will continue.
  It has been widely recognized for years that the United States is the 
only country that can play the role of intermediary in the Middle East. 
The situation has become so polarized, and steeped in hatred, that our 
task is now infinitely harder.
  It is time for a more forceful strategy for peace because it is clear 
that normal diplomatic efforts have failed. Both sides say they want to 
live in peace, but whatever they have gained or suffered in the past 
few weeks has, I believe, only made peace more elusive.
  A two-state solution is the only solution, and that means a 
Palestinian State that is viable, that is worth living for, not a state 
in name only.
  And for Israelis, it means being able to live free of terror and 
fear. Suicide bombings or other deliberate attacks against civilians 
are acts of terrorism that can never, ever be justified. These bombings 
should be condemned by everyone, including countries in the Middle East 
that have either expressly condoned them or tacitly approved them by 
their silence.
  The strategy of the Palestinian leadership has been a disaster for 
Israelis, for Palestinians, for the entire region. Mr. Arafat has 
repeatedly deceived his own people. Palestinians are an industrious, 
compassionate, proud people. They deserve far better. Mr. Arafat has 
survived this latest storm, but he needs to act immediately to prove 
that he wants peace and can be trusted.
  As long as either side deprives the other of the freedom, the 
dignity, and the security to which all people are entitled, the 
bloodshed will continue. The President was right when he said there has 
been a lack of leadership on both sides. That is why, more than ever, 
stronger U.S. leadership is needed--leadership that receives the 
support of both sides.
  I hope this amendment encourages that leadership.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today and join my 
colleagues in expressing solidarity with Israel.
  The Senate includes members of different faiths, ethnic backgrounds, 
and political ideologies. But despite our differences, we have shown 
our ability to come together at important moments and unite around 
common principles.
  We rallied together, Democrats and Republicans, to support the war on 
terrorism after our country was attacked.
  And we have worked together in a bipartisan manner not only to meet 
America's national security and homeland security needs, but also on 
issues such as education reform.
  I am pleased that so many of my colleagues--Democrats and 
Republicans--are joining me to express solidarity with Israel.
  We stand with Israel because Israel has been a friend and partner of 
the United States.
  We stand with Israel because Israel is a democracy and shares our 
values.
  We stand with Israel because we have an obligation to secure the 
continuance of a Jewish state. We have seen--and must not forget--the 
horrors of the Holocaust when too many people, leaders and governments 
failed to intervene.
  ``Never Again'' will the world fail to see, or hear, or speak, or act 
when the Jewish people are being persecuted and murdered.
  It is important for the people of Israel to know that we continue to 
stand with them, and it is important for Israel's enemies to know that 
America will not abandon her. Furthermore, our continued support of 
Israel sends a powerful and unequivocal message to terrorists 
everywhere that the United States will not retreat in our war against 
terror.
  This is a critical moment for Israel and for the prospects of peace 
in the Middle East.

[[Page S3828]]

  For far too long, that region has been plagued by war and bloodshed.
  Israelis have suffered violent attacks against them since the state 
of Israel was born more than 50 years ago. Israel is a small country, 
and really a small community where it seems everyone knows each other, 
so when tragedy strikes, the loss is felt intensely by all.
  Israelis have somehow learned to endure attack after attack, and 
almost to view terrorism as a normal part of life. Certainly, deadly 
attacks have occurred frequently, but for them to be seen as normal is 
itself a tragedy.
  We stand with Israel because we too mourn the loss of innocent lives.
  In the past 18 months, the violence has escalated to an unprecedented 
and completely unacceptable level.
  During the Jewish festival of Passover, 28 Israelis who gathered for 
a Seder were butchered; 28 innocent victims including children, 
mothers, fathers, grandparents.
  This past week, on the Jewish Sabbath, more innocent Israeli 
civilians--including a 5-year-old girl inside her home, and a husband 
and wife lying in bed--were killed in cold blood by Palestinian 
terrorists.
  We recall other incidents like the joyous Bat Mitzvah celebration 
that suddenly became a killing field, and we think of Israelis 
participating in typical activities like stopping for a nosh at the 
pizzeria, riding a bus to school or work, enjoying a night at the 
disco--not realizing that they would instead be killed. But these are 
the conditions Israelis face.
  While we admire Israel's bravery and perseverance in the face of 
constant threats, we must not accept a world in which terrorism is so 
commonplace.
  Americans do not want to be victims of terror again, nor can we 
expect Israel to stand idle while her citizens are being slaughtered. 
Once we identified those responsible for the attacks on the World Trade 
Center and the Pentagon, we sent our troops to Afghanistan to bring the 
terrorists to justice and end their ability to strike again. We vowed 
to stamp out evil and to continue our fight as long as necessary.
  How then can we--or anyone--reasonably ask Israel to allow the 
terrorists responsible for murdering innocent Israelis to remain free 
and continue to plan more attacks? We cannot.
  So we reaffirm our commitment to Israel's security and right to self-
defense.
  We stand with Israel because Israel's enemy--terrorism--is also our 
enemy, and the U.S. has no better ally than Israel in our war on 
terrorism.
  We stand with the people of Israel who want a safe, peaceful and 
prosperous future not only for themselves but also for their neighbors.
  We all pray and hope for peace so that all the people in the region 
can live free from danger and without fear.
  I have in the past called on the administration to be more actively 
engaged in brokering peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.
  I believe the President neglected the region and the issue for too 
long, and as a consequence hostilities increased and more innocent 
lives were lost.
  But now the administration has become more engaged, recognizing that 
the United States has important reasons for promoting peace and 
fighting terrorism there as elsewhere around the globe.
  And we have a unique position of leadership that also comes with a 
responsibility to be actively involved in efforts to bring about 
lasting peace.
  So the United States should do all it can to support peace, and reach 
out to Israelis, Palestinians, neighboring Arab states, and all other 
interested parties willing to work towards a solution.
  But in doing so, we must be clear in expressing our solidarity with 
the people of Israel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
being accommodating to me and other Senators.
  I strongly support the Lieberman amendment reaffirming this Nation's 
solidarity with Israel. It is a timely resolution, and I am proud to be 
a cosponsor.
  I have said many times that the terrorist attacks on our country on 
September 11 brought us closer to Israel. Every American now better 
understands the terrifying reality that Israelis have lived with day in 
and day out since Israel was founded 54 years ago.
  Today we send a message to the people of Israel: We stand with you in 
this time of great challenge.
  Each of us recalls the hundreds of letters and resolutions that 
poured into our offices from foreign capitals around the world in the 
aftermath of September 11. Their message was clear: The world will not 
allow terrorism to triumph. We are right to send that same message to 
our friends in Israel today.
  This amendment rightly calls on Chairman Arafat to fulfill his 
commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the 
territories. Without a clear and demonstrable commitment to battle 
terrorists, the world will remain skeptical of his intentions and his 
goals.
  As Arafat acts, so must the rest of us. We all have a role to play, 
and this amendment calls on ``all parties in the region to pursue 
vigorously efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive 
peace.''
  This land is home to three of the world's greatest faiths. And what 
happens there affects our common future.
  That means we all have responsibilities.
  The Arab States, particularly our key allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, 
must provide the same kind of leadership in the battle against 
Palestinian terrorism that they have demonstrated in our common efforts 
against extremism in Afghanistan.
  Israel, too, must act. At Oslo, at Wye, and again at Camp David, 
Israel has taken risks for peace. It must be--and I believe it is--
ready to do so again.
  We must all recognize Israel's right to defend itself against attack. 
That is a basic right of every nation and this amendment affirms it 
clearly.
  At the same time, we call on Israel to distinguish between those who 
seek only to provide for their families, and the agents of terror who 
seek Israel's destruction.
  Lastly, the United States must remain engaged in this vital region. 
We must remain actively involved in negotiations. More than any other 
country in the world, we can help to bring the parties together. We 
must continue to do so.
  The President's initiative to deepen United States involvement in the 
region is right for America, and it is right for Israel.
  The United States is--and will remain--Israel's best friend. We 
must--and will--honor our commitment to preserve Israel's military 
superiority. And we must continue to make clear--as this resolution 
does--that our bonds with Israel are unshakeable.
  We must also recognize that part of the war on terrorism must be to 
build productive societies. Right now, in Afghanistan, we are 
rebuilding that country and showing Afghanistan, and the world, that 
our war is with the Taliban and al Qaeda, and not the Afghan people.
  We must do the same in the territories--held rebuild the West Bank 
and repair the infrastructure of Palestinian society.
  In doing so, we will send a message to the Palestinian people and the 
world: Terrorists destroy, democracies build. And we will build.
  The names and the details in this resolution are different than those 
messages we received from around the world in those dark days last 
September. But the fundamental principle is the same: In the battle 
against terrorism, the world must be united. We are right to send that 
same message today to our friends in Israel, and to all of the people 
in the region who long for peace.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. President, there comes a time when, as leader, one has to make 
decisions about schedule that are not always in keeping with every 
Senator's wishes. But if anybody has looked out the window, they know 
that the storm which is forecast is virtually upon us. There are 
Senators who wish to catch airplanes prior to the time the airport is 
shut down. I have had numerous requests all afternoon for a vote on the 
Lieberman amendment to accommodate those Senators who need to leave.

[[Page S3829]]

  So while I fully appreciate the fact that there are some Senators who 
have yet to speak, given the circumstances we face weather-wise and the 
need for Senators to accommodate their schedules, I have made the 
decision that we will have a vote.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Torricelli) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from 
Utah (Mr. Bennett), are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would 
each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--2

     Byrd
     Hollings
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Bennett
     Bunning
     Helms
     Torricelli
  The amendment (No. 3389) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, first let me say, I cannot understand the 
rush to act on this amendment. This is a resolution. It was called up 
today as an amendment to the pending legislation. I had hoped to speak 
before the vote, not that my speech would have made any difference 
insofar as other votes are concerned, but I wanted to speak before the 
vote. I sent word to the leadership that I wanted to speak before the 
vote.
  For several days I have had hearings scheduled in the Appropriations 
Committee, hearings on homeland security, hearings on the supplemental 
appropriations bill. Those are important hearings. A couple of weeks 
ago, the Appropriations Committee conducted hearings on the 
supplemental and the homeland security request, and we heard from 
people at the local level, the local responders: The firefighters, the 
policemen, the health personnel. We had a good hearing.
  On the day before yesterday, the committee continued its hearings and 
we had administration witnesses. We again had administration witnesses 
today. The distinguished Senator from Washington, who is now presiding 
over this Senate, was there today at those hearings. The hearings were 
set. They were announced in advance. We had important witnesses today--
Secretary of HHS, Tommy Thompson; we had the Attorney General; we had 
the head of FEMA. And there was good attendance in the committee. 
Several Senators on both sides of the aisle were there to ask 
questions.
  All of a sudden, here comes, right out of the blue, this resolution 
expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. I had 
wanted to speak on that resolution before it passed. I am under no 
illusions as to whether or not my remarks would have made any 
difference. They would not have. I know that. I know that. The die is 
cast.
  On this subject, the American people should understand that when this 
subject is before the Senate, the vote can be predicted--any matter of 
this nature, where Israel is involved.
  I am as much a supporter of Israel as any Senator in this body. I 
have spent my years, in considerable measure, studying about the 
history and the creation of that great people, God's chosen people. I 
have read it in the Book of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, 
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel, First and Second Kings, 
First and Second Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job--and so on. I 
am a student of the history of this people.
  If the Bible were as small as the Constitution, I would carry it also 
in my shirt pocket; the Old and the New Testament. So the people of 
Israel have no greater defender of their national integrity than this 
Senator from the State of West Virginia.
  But I think it was a mistake to bring this resolution up before this 
Senate at this time. I do not think it is very helpful to the efforts 
that are being made to bring the two sides together.
  As the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I know what this 
Senate every year votes by way of appropriations in support of Israel. 
I know that each year, almost without any questions asked, we 
appropriate roughly $3 billion--$3 billion--to the State of Israel. We 
appropriate roughly $2 billion to the Government of Egypt. Those two 
countries count on these moneys as if they were entitlements. They 
count on receiving those moneys. Three-billion dollars. That is what 
the American taxpayers give them.

  I am not sure the American people are fully aware that this 
Government, this Congress, appropriates $3 billion every year--every 
year, as sure as the calendar rolls around--$3 billion for Israel, and 
$2 billion for Egypt.
  Despite the progress made over the past few days to ease tensions on 
the West bank and end the standoff over Yasser Arafat's headquarters in 
Ramallah, the Middle East remains a tinderbox. It is a tinderbox. Even 
the slightest spark could ignite another conflagration.
  Why do we have to come here with this resolution today? Why all the 
rush?
  I informed the leadership--I will say it again--that I wanted to 
speak on this resolution before the vote. I will not make too much of 
that. In the annals of history, that won't even merit an asterisk. But, 
as a Senator who has been a Member of this body and in my 44th year in 
this body, as a senior Democrat, as the President pro tempore of the 
Senate, as one who has served as majority leader, as minority leader, 
as one who has served as chairman and as ranking member of the Senate 
Committee on Appropriations, I was denied what I asked for. I asked to 
speak on the resolution before the vote. That is fairly easy to 
interpret. That is not difficult language to understand. I was denied 
that.
  What is the hurry? Oh, the airport was going to be closed. So what? 
There is a storm. Senators need to go. OK. Senators have a right to go 
when they want to go. I was conducting a hearing. It was my duty as 
chairman to proceed with that hearing. I was told that the need was 
great. I sent word that I wanted to speak. Finally, realizing that the 
vote might occur anyway, I asked Senator Leahy to take the gavel in the 
Committee. And he had to go. I asked Senator Stevens, my Republican 
counterpart, my colleague, to take the gavel, and continue so I could 
come to the floor and speak. When I got to my office, they were already 
into the vote 5, 6, or 7 minutes--I don't know. So I

[[Page S3830]]

found that the vote was already taking place. Well, that was 
unfortunate.
  This is not a time for chest-thumping rhetoric. This is a time for 
quiet diplomacy, measured speech, and clear direction. This is not the 
moment for Congress to stir the Mideast pot. Unfortunately, that is 
just what the resolution before us does.
  I am sure it is a well-intentioned resolution. I know there are many 
Members of this body who feel passionately about the devastating 
suicide bombers who have caused so much chaos and heartbreak in Israel. 
I recognize that there are many Senators who are aching to express in 
some tangible way their support for Israel. I understand their anguish, 
and I sympathize with their frustration. But this is not the time to 
express that frustration. It is not the time.
  According to the news reports I have read, the White House has 
strongly urged Congress not to inflame passions by staging a vote on 
Israel. The fear is that even a symbolic vote by Congress in favor of 
Israel would jeopardize the already precarious role of the United 
States in the Middle East peace negotiations and could even backfire by 
aggravating tensions and possibly provoking more violence in the Middle 
East.
  Does anyone actually believe--does anyone, anyone, anywhere actually 
believe--that the U.S. Senate needs to manufacture a vote to 
demonstrate its support of Israel? Do we not have an unblemished record 
of support stretching back to the founding of the State of Israel in 
1948?
  According to the Congressional Research Service, since 1976 Israel 
has been the largest--the largest--annual recipient of United States 
foreign assistance and is the largest cumulative recipient since World 
War II. Since 1985, we have provided about $3 billion a year to Israel 
in foreign assistance. If Israel does not know by now the depth of 
United States support and solidarity, it never will.
  I object not only to the timing of this resolution--and I believe the 
timing is fraught with peril--I also object to the slant of the 
resolution.
  Yes. The United States Senate supports the State of Israel and abhors 
the violence that has been perpetrated against its citizens by 
Palestinian suicide bombers. The United States Senate also supports 
peace in the Middle East. And peace in the Middle East is a two-way 
street. Nowhere in this resolution--nowhere in this resolution--is 
Israel called upon to fulfill its role in working for peace in the 
Middle East.
  Why was this resolution written so hurriedly? Why was it incumbent 
upon this Senate to vote today?
  This resolution condemns Palestinian suicide bombing, demands that 
the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in 
Palestinian areas, and urges all Arab States to act in concert with the 
United States to stop the violence.
  Where are the demands that Israel withdraw from Palestinian lands and 
cooperate in establishment of a Palestinian State? Where is the 
denunciation of the destruction of homes and water lines and roads and 
basic infrastructure in Jenin and Nablus and elsewhere in the West 
Bank? Where is the expression of support for humanitarian and 
reconstruction aid to the innocent Palestinian victims of Israel's 
incursions into the West Bank? Where?

  If the Senate is serious about promoting peace in the Middle East--
and I believe to the depths of my soul that the Senate is serious--then 
we should leave the grandstanding to others. We should support the real 
work of peacekeeping. For better or worse, the United States has been 
cast in the role of honest broker in the Middle East. But resolutions 
like this one do not enhance our ability to perform that role. The 
Middle East today is balanced on the head of a pin. This is not the 
time for the U.S. Senate to wade into the fray, waving an ill-timed, 
ill-advised, and one-sided resolution.
  I voted against it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold his suggestion?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I withhold my suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senate just voted on an amendment 
expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. I 
voted for the amendment. But I also thought it necessary to explain my 
views so my vote and my position on this current Middle East situation 
is fully understood.
  I strongly agree with the main thrust of the amendment as I 
understand it; that is, the United States has a historically unique 
relationship with Israel; that we condemn violence; that we condemn 
terrorist attacks; that we condemn the loss of innocent lives of 
Israeli citizens; and we vigorously support efforts to achieve peace in 
the Middle East.
  I have a couple of concerns that I want to raise, concerns with the 
language of the amendment. The first concern is that the language 
implies--or can be read to imply--a blanket support for any and all 
actions that Israel may choose to take in this fight against terrorism.
  In my view, our President was right when he called upon Ariel Sharon 
to immediately withdraw troops and Israeli forces from Palestinian 
territories. He first made that demand on April 4 of this year. He 
repeated the demand that Israeli forces be withdrawn on the 6th of 
April. Our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reiterated that position 
on behalf of our Government when he visited the Middle East on April 8.
  In my opinion, this recent occupation of Palestinian territories by 
Israeli troops is an obstacle--the continued occupation is an 
obstacle--to renewed negotiations for peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians. It is very much in the interest of everyone involved that 
Israel withdraw those troops.
  While I understand fully that Israel views the current situation as a 
struggle for its very survival, a viable peace process requires 
temperance and compromise on both sides. A blanket statement of support 
for any U.S. ally causes me concern because there are times--and this 
is one of those times--when the United States needs to disagree with 
the actions of an ally, whether they are military actions or otherwise. 
In my view, when we believe our statements will serve the cause of 
peace, we should not be reluctant to state that disagreement.
  Long term, the only vision of peace that holds out hope for the 
Israelis and the Palestinians both is for Israel to live in a secure 
Israel that is not threatened by its neighbors and for the Palestinians 
to live in a secure Palestine. In the short term, the suicide bombings 
and violence against civilians in Israel must stop, and Palestinians 
must be allowed to rebuild their communities and return to some 
semblance of normalcy in their lives. The current violence and military 
reaction to that violence has led to a dangerous downward spiral that 
prevents any serious consideration of a negotiated settlement.
  I also point out one other shortcoming of the amendment that we have 
adopted; that is, that it says nothing about the need to assist the 
Palestinian people to live lives marked by peace and a reasonable 
standard of living. It is essential that the entire Palestinian people 
not be allowed to lose hope that some reconciliation between themselves 
and the Israelis can be achieved.
  While the United States has a unique relationship with Israel, as the 
amendment states, as a superpower, we also have a unique responsibility 
to bring the two sides together. We will lose that opportunity if we 
fail to acknowledge our concern and responsibility for the well-being 
of the Palestinian people.

  I hope very much that in the appropriations process which is still 
unfolding this year in Congress, aid will be provided both to Israel 
and to help with the rebuilding of communities in the Palestinian 
territories. Such aid, hopefully, will assist not only in establishing 
a reliable security regime for Israel and for the Palestinian people 
but also help both societies to rebuild their social and physical 
infrastructure to provide hope for their children and for future 
generations.
  Mr. President, I would also like to speak briefly about trade 
adjustment assistance, which is the subject we have been discussing 
most of this week, prior to consideration of this amendment related to 
Israel.
  I rise today in strong support of the trade adjustment assistance 
legislation

[[Page S3831]]

offered in the Daschle trade amendment. I am extremely pleased that it 
has come to the floor and I look forward to the debate over the next 
few weeks. From my perspective, this is legislation that takes a very 
significant, positive, and long overdue step forward for American 
workers, firms, and communities.
  In 1962, when the Trade Expansion Act was being considered in 
Congress, the Kennedy administration established a basic rule 
concerning international trade and American workers. When someone loses 
their job as a result of trade agreements entered into by the U.S. 
Government, we have an obligation to assist these Americans in finding 
new employment.
  I think this is a very simple proposition really, one that recognizes 
that if the U.S. Government supports an open trading system, it is 
ultimately responsible for the negative impacts this policy has on its 
people. It suggests that if the U.S. Government believes that an open 
trading system provides long-term advantages for the United States, the 
short-terms costs must be addressed if the policy is to continue and 
the United States is to remain competitive. It suggests that if there 
is a collective interest that must be pursued by the United States in 
the international trading system, our individual and community 
interests must be simultaneously protected for the greater good of our 
country.
  In my view, the proposition makes even more sense now, as we are, 
unfortunately, facing a very different economic climate than we were 
just a few years ago. The way it is now, most people who lose their 
jobs cannot simply go across the street and get the same kind of work. 
Their old jobs are gone, and they need something different to make a 
decent living. These are people who have been dedicated to their 
companies and have played by the rules over the years. They deserve a 
program that creates skills, that quickly moves them into better jobs, 
that provides opportunities for the future, that keeps families and 
communities intact. They deserve something more than an apology that 
this is just the way the market works. They deserve the recognition 
that they are important, that they matter, and that we need them to 
make our country strong. There are people who are being hurt by trade 
in every State, and they need our support.
  My interest in this legislation was reinforced in 1997 in Roswell, 
New Mexico, when the Levi-Strauss plant closed and I saw first hand how 
trade adjustment assistance worked. Unfortunately, the importance of 
the program has only increased over the years. In Las Cruces, in 
Albuquerque, in Questa, in Alamogordo, in my own hometown of Silver 
City--time and again we have seen the negative impacts of trade in my 
State. Since 1994, we have had over 10,000 people in New Mexico 
certified for trade adjustment assistance. The number would be closer 
to 20,000 if we added secondary workers and contract workers.
  I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have similar 
stories from their States. Many are worse than my own. Department of 
Labor statistics show that since 1994 over a million Americans have 
been certified to receive trade adjustment assistance. And these are 
the people who are actually eligible for trade adjustment assistance 
and have applied. There are literally hundreds of thousands of others 
who deserve these benefits but are not eligible, or who are eligible 
but don't know it. They have suffered--they continue to suffer--because 
of the shortcomings of existing law, and we need to change that.
  To reach our goal of strengthening existing law, we talked to the 
people in my State and other States who had been laid off and had a 
story to tell. We talked to the community leaders who had to rebuild 
their towns after economic disaster had struck. We talked to the local 
organizations that had to work with their people to get their lives 
back on track. We listened to where the program worked, and where it 
hadn't worked, and where it needed to be improved. We asked the GAO to 
write several reports on the program, so we had an objective analysis 
to use as a guideline for reform. Then, and only then, did we begin to 
write new legislation.

  What we have here today is the outcome of several years of work. This 
trade adjustment assistance legislation was not created in a vacuum. It 
is not trade policy in the abstract. Every step along the way we 
connected real people to specific language in the legislation. Every 
provision has a story behind it. Every line in this legislation will 
help someone make his or her life better in communities in New Mexico 
and across the United States.
  Trade adjustment assistance is a program that is absolutely 
essential--that much is clear from the comments I have heard from my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle--but it needs to be changed in a 
way that it works more efficiently and effectively. I am convinced the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program should be both solidified and 
expanded at this time, and we need a stronger and more consistent 
safety net for American workers and communities. Let me quickly explain 
how we have improved the program and why we feel it is necessary.
  Our first objective was to combine existing trade adjustment 
assistance programs and harmonize their various requirements so they 
would provide more effective and efficient results for individuals who 
need help. Currently there are substantial differences in coverage 
between the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and the NAFTA Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program, and we make sure those differences are 
eliminated in the bill. We have taken the NAFTA Trade Adjustment 
Assistance program as a model and expanded available allowances from 52 
to 78 weeks. This allows individuals to enroll in the specific kind of 
program they need to get a new job.
  We have also expanded coverage to secondary workers and workers 
impacted by shifts in production to any country. Currently these 
categories of workers are only covered under the NAFTA Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program, not the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, and we 
feel this distinction is both artificial and arbitrary. In an 
international economy, there is simply no logical reason that coverage 
should be limited to individuals dislocated by trade with Mexico and 
Canada alone. Basic fairness and common sense dictates that anyone hurt 
by trade deserves the same treatment as that which is currently 
available under NAFTA trade adjustment assistance.
  Our second objective was to address the issue of health care in a way 
that makes a substantial difference in people's lives. Currently 
individuals certified for trade adjustment assistance only receive in 
the range of $250 a week. Then they must make a choice between paying 
for the range of expenses--health care, rents and mortgages, childcare, 
education, transportation, and so on--that they face in their daily 
lives. This is especially difficult when they are enrolled in the 
training they need to get a new job. Realistically, they must sacrifice 
something, and frequently the first thing they sacrifice is their 
health care.
  This can't continue. We have addressed this problem by providing a 73 
percent advanceable, refundable tax credit towards COBRA coverage, the 
purchase of State-based insurance coverage, or, for those currently 
purchasing individual insurance, coverage through the individual 
market.
  Our third objective was to encourage greater cooperation between 
Federal, regional, and local agencies that handle individuals receiving 
trade adjustment assistance. Currently, individuals who are receiving 
trade adjustment assistance obtain counseling from Workforce Investment 
Act one-stop shops in their region, but typically receive no 
information other than that related to their allowances and training. 
No information is given concerning assistance and funds available 
through other Federal Departments and agencies. This means most people 
have no real idea of what options are available to them.
  To increase coordination between Federal and State agencies and 
increase the availability of information for trade adjustment 
assistance recipients, we have created an inter-agency working group on 
trade adjustment assistance and established stronger links between the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and the Workforce Investment Act 
one-stop shops. This way the state-based delivery system remains intact 
but response times to

[[Page S3832]]

trade adjustment assistance applications will be quicker and more 
effective.

  Our fourth objective was to recognize the direct correlation between 
job dislocation, job training, and economic development, especially in 
communities that have been hit hard by trade. Currently, trade 
adjustment assistance focuses specifically on individual retraining, 
but does not address the possibility that unemployment might be so high 
in a community that jobs are not available once an individual has 
completed a training program.
  To fix this problem, we created a community Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Program, based at the Department of Commerce, specifically 
designed to provide strategic planning assistance and economic 
development funding to communities that have suffered substantially 
from a trade-related economic downturn. Significantly, this is a 
bottom-up approach, as we emphasized the responsibility of local 
agencies and organizations to create a community-based recovery plan 
that fits the economic needs of their region.
  Our fifth objective was to help family farmers and ranchers. At 
present, trade adjustment assistance is available for employees of 
agricultural firms, but only when they become unemployed. This doesn't 
help family farmers and ranchers since they can't lose their job, there 
is no way for them to become eligible for trade adjustment assistance.
  We fix this problem by offering trade adjustment assistance 
allowances to family farmers and ranchers but allow them to opt out of 
the training program. This allows them to keep their land and get 
through the hard times that come as a result of international trade.
  The administration has focused their efforts on obtaining fast-track 
authority, stating that it is necessary for the United States to 
continue its leadership role in the international system. I do not 
disagree with the view that new, more comprehensive trade agreements 
will help U.S. corporations become more competitive in the 
international market. I am prepared to vote for an acceptable fast-
track bill, as I think it is a valuable tool in opening the markets of 
other countries. But I will vote for fast-track only if a strong Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Program is part of the package. I think it is 
unacceptable to move forward on new trade agreements if we do not 
address the problems that American workers and communities face at this 
time.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration 
to get a meaningful trade package through the Senate and to the 
President for signature.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I heard the senior Senator from Utah speak 
this afternoon. I wanted to respond to what he said, but I didn't have 
that opportunity because of the intervening events. The Senator from 
Utah and I are good friends. I think the world of Senator Hatch. But I 
think on this issue regarding trade he is absolutely wrong. I say that 
because the trade bill has been laid down. There are a number of 
important issues in it. In fact, one of the few things I really support 
is what is being done to try to protect the steelworkers.
  First of all, what is in this bill is very modest. It covers 1 year 
of retirement for steelworkers. When these people worked in the steel 
mills, they were promised they would have retirement benefits. Those 
retirement benefits are now gone. I bet those bosses who worked at the 
steel companies have pensions.
  The people who oppose this legislation, and have a filibuster going 
on it now, should do what they have to do. If they don't like that part 
of the bill, move to strike it. Let's debate it on the floor and find 
out who has the most votes. Don't filibuster the bill. This is a bill 
the President says is a most important bill. I don't necessarily agree 
with his priorities, but that is what he said.
  So it seems somewhat unusual to me that members of his own party are 
holding up this legislation. The first amendment is up and we cannot 
vote on it; there is a filibuster. We have all been through the energy 
bill, and we know how long that was held up. We were finally able to 
pass that. We want to bring up hate crimes; they will not let us do 
that.
  Terrorism insurance, I have spoken on this floor several times about 
the importance of that terrorism insurance. Realtors, developers, 
bankers, and people in the financial markets say that is extremely 
important.
  The Secretary of the Treasury for the United States testified this 
week that if that is not passed, it will have at least a 1-percent 
effect on the gross domestic product of this country. Now, my friend, 
the Presiding Officer, Senator Reed, is chairman of the Joint Economic 
Committee, which renders reports to the Senate on a frequent basis 
about the state of the economy of this country. Whether the Secretary 
is right or not, I think it is something we should take into 
consideration.
  We on the Democratic side have agreed to have this legislation go 
forward. We have tried everything we can to bring it to the floor. We 
have even agreed to have four amendments. So I hope everybody 
understands that we want this legislation to go forward. There isn't a 
single Democrat holding up this legislation.
  I hope the President and the people who work with him will send a 
message to the Republican Senators that this terrorism insurance should 
be passed. I hope we can get that done as quickly as possible. People 
are awaiting construction projects, some are even talking about 
stopping some of it. We have a large shopping center in Las Vegas, one 
of the largest construction projects; it is in a mall. There are a lot 
of stores there. They are talking about stopping in the middle of 
construction because they can't get a continuation of their insurance.
  So I hope the President will do that during the break we have. We 
don't need to be involved in a filibuster on the trade legislation. We 
need to move forward with hate crimes, terrorism insurance, and so many 
other items. I hope we can do that as soon as possible.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________