[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.
____________________