[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 17 (Thursday, January 30, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1775-S1781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     TRIP TO EUROPE AND THE MIDEAST

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on a 
trip I made to Europe and the Mideast from December 23 until January 7.
  The information I found bears on the current problems of the Mideast 
peace process and the Israeli-Palestinian issues, but also on the 
opinions of a variety of the countries we visited on the

[[Page S1776]]

issue of Iraq and Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. In 
Great Britain, in talking to executive branch officials, we heard there 
would be an effort made on the Mideast peace process to bring in the 
Palestinians in mid-January in advance of the Israeli elections in late 
January to try to keep the peace process stimulated.
  We learned that in a recent trip which had been made by Syrian 
President Bashar al-Assad, who is married to a woman raised in England, 
and we heard obviously considerable talk about the Iraq issue.
  Prime Minister Tony Blair has been one of the strongest allies of the 
United States and has stated his willingness to partner with the United 
States to see to it that Saddam does not maintain weapons of mass 
destruction regardless of what the United Nations does. We heard talk 
that Prime Minister Blair had taken credit for the United States going 
to the United Nations--or at least partial credit. And that was very 
well received by the British populous. But there remains a general 
feeling in Great Britain of opposition to a war against Iraq unless it 
is sanctioned by the United Nations.
  We heard pretty much the same sentiment in Germany where we met with 
members of the Bundestag and officials in the executive branch, and 
with German and U.S. businessmen and women on the Chamber of Commerce 
there.
  The situation in Germany is surprising to the extent that we heard 
repeated talk that it is politically incorrect to say, ``I am proud to 
be a German.'' I found that surprising. It is a result of perhaps 
German instigation in two wars in the 20th century. In a country where 
we are so proud to be Americans, I found it surprising the people would 
not say, ``I am proud to be a German.'' The Germans won't say that. 
Chancellor Schroder, we are told, referred to the ``German way,'' and 
it drew criticism and the abandoning of that kind of expression. The 
sentiment in Germany seems to be pretty solidly against a war with 
Iraq. The members of the Bundestag with whom we met urged the U.S. to 
go back for a second resolution to authorize the use of force. I asked 
him if such a resolution was obtained would that make a difference to 
Germany on joining in. He said no it wouldn't; that there was a feeling 
of pacifism against war as a result of what happened in World War II 
and the predecessor war, and that the Germans were just opposed to it. 
Chancellor Schroder had problems within his own party when they changed 
party strength if he would deviate from the political position he took 
to win reelection--really running against, in effect, the United States 
and U.S. policy on taking action against Saddam Hussein.
  In the Mideast we met with Egyptian President Mubarak who expressed 
great concern about what the reaction would be in the Mideast and in 
Arab countries to a war against Iraq. President Mubarak thought some 
countries would have trouble containing the people in the streets. He 
felt confident he could but was worried about other countries. He 
thought U.S. installations would be at risk where the Arab sentiments 
run so strongly against the United States.
  In Syria, I had an extensive talk with Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad and Foreign Minister al-Shara. The view there was that they are 
very much opposed to military action against Iraq. We noted that Syria 
had joined in the unanimous Security Council Resolution on 1441. But 
that, of course, fell short of the use of military force.
  On January 6 I attended a session of the United States-Syrian dialog 
which had been initiated by the James Baker Institute last May in 
Houston, TX. There was an effort made to bring the Syrian and U.S. 
officials together to talk about problems of mutual concern. The 
principal area was the question of Syria playing host to terrorist 
organizations. I raised that issue in a meeting with President Assad 
and told him that if he wanted to get off the terrorist list there 
would have to be something done about that, the terrorist groups would 
have to leave Syria. He declined, saying that they were representatives 
of the Palestinians, and they were carrying out a political agenda and 
he would not ask them to depart from Damascus.
  In the U.S.-Syrian dialog, and in talks with President Assad, we 
discussed the support of Syria and Iran for Hezbollah and the rockets 
which are pointed at the Israelis. I had conveyed to President Assad 
Prime Minister Sharon's willingness to meet with Syrian officials on a 
second peace track. When we met with Prime Minister Sharon in Israel, 
the subject came up of the possibility of Israeli-Syrian peace 
talks. And Prime Minister Sharon said he favors that. I asked him if he 
would mind if I passed that message on to President Assad, and he said: 
You are authorized to do that. President Assad responded that he 
thought peace talks would be a good idea. He said he would not want to 
finish them before the Israeli-Palestinian talks were concluded, but we 
talked about the negotiations which had been brokered by President 
Clinton in the mid-1990s where they came very close to a peace 
agreement between Prime Minister Rabin and President Hafez al-Assad.

  Candidly, I do not expect things to blossom in that direction, but I 
do think it would be useful, always, to keep the conversations going 
and to see if peace could be attained.
  Hearing the sentiments in Great Britain, in Germany, in Egypt and in 
Syria as to the general concerns about a military confrontation without 
explicit United Nations authorization, it is my hope that authorization 
will yet be obtained.
  I thought the President's speech on Tuesday night was right on the 
mark, right on target, laid down the gauntlet in a very clear way. It 
is a different world after September 11, when we learned a bitter 
lesson by not taking action against Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida after 
we had ample warning to do so.
  We cannot ignore imminent threats. There is a basis in international 
law, as I said when we discussed the resolution authorizing the use of 
force, to take action, sanctified by international law where there is 
an imminent threat.
  I was encouraged by President Bush's statement that he was going to 
send Secretary of State Powell back to the United Nations to produce 
specific evidence. I believe there is evidence to show that Saddam 
Hussein has not complied with Resolution 1441.
  When there is all this talk about a smoking gun, I think that 
metaphor misses the point. You do not need a smoking gun to get a 
conviction. In fact, you do not even need a gun to get a conviction 
where you have other evidence. I believe the evidence is very strong, 
as Hans Blix and the other U.N. inspectors have said in their 
preliminary report, that Saddam has not accounted for the weapons of 
mass destruction which we knew he had when the U.N. inspectors were 
kicked out in December of 1998.
  I believe there is other evidence. And the word is the decisions are 
now being made as to how much of that information can be transmitted to 
the United Nations without tipping Saddam off so he will move his 
weapons of mass destruction, which are mobile, or so that we will 
compromise sources and methods.
  The media reported earlier this week that Britain was in support of a 
German plan to have a second interim report on February 14. If that 
does come about, it will give the U.N. inspectors a little additional 
time, perhaps, to act on additional information which Secretary of 
State Colin Powell can provide.
  As I said on the floor of the Senate when we discussed the resolution 
for the authorization for the use of force, I think the hand of the 
United States would be much stronger if a second U.N. resolution is 
obtained. I believe there is a considerable body of evidence on the 
record at the present time to warrant a second United Nations 
resolution, which would authorize the use of force. But there is no 
doubt there is resistance from France and Germany.
  I think the President is absolutely correct, we cannot allow our 
national interests and our national policy to be determined by anybody 
but the United States, and we cannot be subjected to a French veto.
  It is my thinking that the French may be satisfied. If they are, I 
think the Russians will not veto nor will the Chinese, and we can move 
ahead for a second United Nations resolution.
  The President has emphasized his hope to avoid a war. If the Iraqis 
and Saddam Hussein face a united United Nations, perhaps that is 
possible.

[[Page S1777]]

  Back in January of 1990, Senator Shelby and I had an opportunity to 
meet with Saddam Hussein for about an hour and a quarter. And although 
he is brutal--he has a record for using chemicals on his own people, 
the Kurds, in the Iran-Iraq war--and is venal, I think it may be 
accurate to say he is not suicidal. I believe that if he sees the noose 
around him, perhaps there is some opportunity he may step aside or that 
the military or others in Iraq may take action to dislodge him from a 
leadership position.
  If war can be avoided, obviously, that is in the interests of 
everyone, to avoid putting our fighting forces in harm's way and to 
avoid casualties of the Iraqi civilian population and the Iraqi 
military population.
  In essence, the trip to Europe and the Mideast showed me a state of 
substantial unrest. People are uneasy about a prospective war for many 
reasons. If the United Nations were to authorize it, I think that would 
allay a great many concerns and might even present the setting for 
deposing Saddam Hussein without the necessity of war.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my report on foreign 
travel to Europe and the Middle East and op-ed pieces which I have 
published in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Harrisburg Patriot be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           CODEL Trip Report

       In accordance with my custom of reporting on my foreign 
     travel, this is a brief summary of my trip from December 23, 
     2002-January 7, 2003 to England, Lithuania, Germany, Israel, 
     Egypt, and Syria.


                                ENGLAND

       On December 24th, our first full day in London, in the 
     company of Charge Morton Dworkin, we met with William Ehrman, 
     Director General of Defense and International Affairs, and 
     Edward Chaplin, Director of Middle East Affairs, and former 
     Ambassador to Jordan. We discussed the Israeli/Palestinian 
     issues and the British position that it was preferable to 
     follow the road map adopted by the so-called quartet which 
     consisted of the United States, the UN, the EU, and Russia. 
     Mr. Chaplin pointed out that Great Britain was holding a 
     meeting in January with the Palestinians to try to move along 
     the peace process in the interim before the Israeli elections 
     scheduled for January. He expressed the opinion that Chairman 
     Arafat should not be deposed because it will make him a 
     martyr and strengthen him.
       We discussed the efforts by Egyptian President Mubarak to 
     persuade Hamas and Islam Jihad to accept a cease-fire. It was 
     pointed out that Syrian President Bashar had been in England 
     for several days visiting the parents of his wife who is 
     British.
       As to Iraq, our British hosts agreed that Saddam definitely 
     had weapons of mass destruction and that he had not 
     adequately explained what happened to such weapons after the 
     UN inspectors had been ousted in 1998. It was noted that 
     public opinion in Great Britain opposes military action 
     against Saddam unless it is sanctioned by the UN and, even 
     then, there are many dissenters. Prime Minister Tony Blair 
     had taken credit for persuading President Bush to go to the 
     UN for Resolution 1441. It was further observed that 
     sentiment in Great Britain favors another UN resolution 
     authorizing force before a military confrontation occurs with 
     Iraq.
       On December 26th, we received another supplemental team 
     briefing by Charge Dworkin including an intelligence 
     briefing.


                               LITHUANIA

       We arrived at the Vilnius International Airport on the 
     afternoon of Friday, December 27. We were greeted by 
     Ambassador John Tefft, Marilyn Ereshefsky, and Randolph Flay 
     of the United States Embassy. From the airport we drove to 
     the U.S. Embassy for a Country Team briefing. During the 
     drive from the airport, the Ambassador provided us with a 
     brief background of the Country. He began his summary of 
     Lithuania's history at the thirteenth century when it was the 
     largest state of Central and Eastern Europe. In 1795 
     Lithuania was incorporated into the Russian Empire and 
     remained that way until gaining their independence in 1918. 
     In 1940 the country was occupied and annexed by the Soviet 
     Union where it remained under Soviet control until 1990 when 
     it again rejoined the community of free and democratic states 
     after the fall of the Soviet Union.
       Upon arrival at the embassy, Ambassador Tefft introduced us 
     to his core team which included Marilyn Ereshefsky, the 
     Section Chief, Randolf Flay, Political Officer, Michael 
     Sessums, Economic Officer, Brent Barker, Attache, and Ruta 
     Eluikis, Consul. Ambassador Tefft opened the meeting by 
     informing us that we were visiting Lithuania at a special 
     time in history as Lithuanians were still basking in the glow 
     of the recent visit by President Bush and the acceptance into 
     NATO and the European Union (EU). Ambassador Tefft recounted 
     President Bush's very moving speech given in the heart of 
     Vilnius where he said ``an enemy of Lithuania is now an enemy 
     of the United States.''
       I inquired about the attitude of the Russians toward 
     Lithuanian acceptance into NATO and was informed that 
     Russians were tolerant but not particularly happy about the 
     expansion. Ambassador Tefft then commented to me that 
     Lithuania had been independent in their past and very much 
     wants to continue in that tradition as they look toward the 
     future. However, there are still many remnants of the Soviet-
     era throughout the Country. For example, a Chernobyl-style 
     nuclear power station is responsible for producing eighty 
     percent of Lithuania's energy. As a condition of acceptance 
     into the EU and after pressure from the international 
     community, Lithuania has agreed to terminate the plant 
     between 2005 and 2009.
       Our conversation then turned to the economy. I was pleased 
     to learn that the economy in Lithuania is undergoing a boom 
     of sorts. Since independence, Lithuania has made substantial 
     progress in economic reform. The GDP has risen from 5.9 
     percent in 2001 to 6.9 percent in 2002. According to the 
     Ambassador, Lithuania is the only European country where the 
     economy is significantly growing. He further advised that the 
     majority of the EU economy is flat which poses large problems 
     from Germany to the United Kingdom. Although unemployment in 
     Lithuania is still a serious issue, it is not as bad as 
     neighboring countries. The challenge now is to encourage a 
     movement from agricultural jobs to more productive employment 
     for many Lithuanians. Whereas twenty percent of the 
     population is agricultural, these are mainly small family run 
     farms and they account for only seven percent of the Gross 
     Domestic Product. There is still considerable poverty in the 
     rural areas.
       Lithuania produces products for export for companies such 
     as the furniture maker Ikea, textiles for Oscar de la Renta, 
     and cheese for many U.S. frozen food manufacturers. They also 
     have a growing high-tech sector which produces software for 
     such U.S. companies as Kemper Insurance. Consumer goods are 
     also doing well. The biggest U.S. investors in Lithuania are 
     Phillip Morris and Kraft foods. Currently, U.S. companies 
     invest almost $350 million in Lithuania each year. Where 
     Lithuania has made great strides economically since gaining 
     their independence in the early nineties, they still have 
     major economic challenges ahead.
       The discussion the moved to the population of Lithuania. 
     Currently Lithuania has 3.7 million people living here. 
     Largely, they are Roman Catholic. I inquired about the size 
     of the Jewish population and was told there are currently 
     about 5,000 Jews living in Lithuania. Lithuania's Jews can be 
     traced back to the 13th century. By the 18th century, Vilnius 
     had become the world capital of traditional--Talmudic, 
     learning, often referred to as the Jerusalem of the North 
     with over 250,000 Jews living in the Country. Tragically, 94 
     percent of the population, including 80,000 Jews living in 
     Vilnius perished in the Holocaust, the highest percentage of 
     genocide in Europe. Almost no Jewish cultural sites or homes 
     of renowned Jewish personalities are remembered.
       On Saturday, December 28th, we took a walking tour of the 
     Old Town of the Lithuanian capital which is one of the 
     largest in Eastern and Middle Europe. In the ancient part of 
     Vilnius we could see the fusion of nature and architecture 
     and the overlapping of cultures and traditions. Throughout 
     Vilnius' history, inhabitants built synagogues, mosques, and 
     Catholic churches next to one another.
       Following our tour we proceeded to the Presidential Palace 
     for a meeting with Valdas Adamkus, the President of 
     Lithuania. President Adamkus, a former U.S. citizen and 
     Administrator at the Environmental Protection Agency for the 
     Great Lakes Region is in the middle of his second 
     Presidential campaign. He faced 16 opponents in the 
     general election on December 22 and now has a run-off 
     which will take place on January 5th. Although President 
     Adamkus was expected to win, his run-off opponent has made 
     his age of 76 years an issue.
       Our conversation then turned to Lithuania's acceptance into 
     NATO and the Russian attitude toward expansion. President 
     Adamkus said that Russia does not pose a significant threat 
     to any of the Baltic countries and that President Vladimir 
     Putin has become milder over the years. I asked about the 
     mission of NATO now that the threat is gone. President 
     Adamkus said that NATO provides an internal European security 
     structure. Although he agreed with me that the role has 
     changed, it is nonetheless important to all member countries 
     including the United States.
       Economically, the President said, NATO membership provides 
     almost instant foreign investment increase. He is confident 
     that an additional $5 billion in revenue will come into 
     Lithuania in the next three years and by the end of the 
     decade Lithuania will look completely different. President 
     Adamkus is determined to bring the standard of living up 
     throughout the country. He feels there is still too much 
     poverty, particularly in rural areas.
       We then discussed the state of the current Judicial system. 
     The President indicated that the country has significantly 
     restructured the Judiciary in the past several years, 
     particularly the past six months, but there is still a long 
     way to go. He is proud of the fact that a large number of 
     young, western educated Judges were recently sworn in but 
     acknowledged that there are still many Judges

[[Page S1778]]

     left over from the fifty years of the Soviet occupation. The 
     Supreme Court however, is free from Judges from that era.
       I then inquired about the position of Lithuania on Iraq and 
     Saddam Hussein and where Lithuania would stand if it is 
     proven that Iraq has reestablished a program of weapons of 
     mass destruction. President Adamkus believes that it is 
     inevitable that Hussein is lying and that Lithuania will 
     stand by its allies and will be part of the overall effort if 
     it comes to that point. President Adamkus then reminded me 
     that Lithuania has been exchanging small groups of officers 
     with the United States for training exercises. He then noted 
     to me that the Pennsylvania National Guard recently sent 
     seventy troops to Lithuania to perform a joint training 
     missions with our troops.
       After our meeting with the President, we departed for a 
     meeting with Foreign Affairs Minister, Antana Valionis. Our 
     conversation focused on Lithuania's invitation to join the 
     NATO alliance at the recent summit in Prague and the European 
     Commission report that included Lithuania on a list of ten 
     countries expected to join the EU in 2004. Lithuania has made 
     great strides, politically and economically, over the past 
     decade and their invitation to join both NATO and the EU are 
     a reflection of those efforts.
       We discussed Lithuania's support for the War on Terrorism. 
     They have deployed a 40-man Special Operations force to 
     Afghanistan and have committed a medical support unit to the 
     International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). It should be 
     noted that Lithuania also contributed to operations in 
     Bonsia-Herzegovina and Kosovo and currently have over fifty 
     troops in the area. That evening I attended the opera Aida, 
     at the Russian built Opera house. Following the Opera, I 
     departed for the U.S. Marine Barracks to watch the 
     Philadelphia Eagles play the New York Giants on the Armed 
     Forces channel.
       On the morning of Sunday, December 29th, we departed for a 
     tour of Zydu, the Jewish section of Vilnius with our guide 
     Yulik Gurvitch. This area was once a thriving spot for 
     Jewish culture, but was desecrated by the Nazis occupation 
     and later torn down by the Soviets. The area served as a 
     prison camp for 60,000 Jews, of which most perished in the 
     neighboring Paneriai forest. Vilnius was also home to the 
     famed Yiddish Institute for Higher Learning and the 
     Strashum Library which housed the world's largest 
     collection of Yiddish-language books. It was known 
     throughout the world for its thriving Yiddish-language 
     theaters and libraries and schools and was coined the 
     Jerusalem of the north.
       I was pleased to learn of Lithuania's commitment to deal 
     with its difficult past as it pertains to the Jewish faith. 
     In 2002, the government returned hundreds of Torah scrolls to 
     Jewish groups and announced its plan to restore and 
     revitalize the Jewish Quarter. A program to educate its 
     soldiers and students about the Holocaust is also in place. 
     We departed Lithuania around mid-day bound for Germany.


                                germany

       On the afternoon of Sunday, December 29th, we arrived in 
     Berlin, Germany and were met by Franz Seitz, our control 
     officer at the U.S. Embassy. He notified us that former 
     Senator Dan Coats, who now serves as Ambassador to Germany, 
     was back home in the United States celebrating the birth of 
     his grandchild. From the airport, we drove through Berlin 
     toward our hotel. It was gratifying to see first-hand 
     Berlin's progress since the infamous fall of the Berlin Wall 
     on November 9, 1989. Berlin is a modern city embracing the 
     21st century while maintaining a sense of its rich history.
       Monday morning, December 30th, we met with members of the 
     Country Team at the U.S. Embassy including Terry Snell, the 
     Deputy Chief of Mission, John Lister, Deputy Counselor for 
     Political affairs, and Franz Seitz. The briefing began with 
     discussions of the poor state of relations between Germany 
     and the United States which has reached its lowest level in 
     decades. Relations between the two countries soured in 
     September 2002 when, during the German election campaign, Mr. 
     Schroeder repeatedly voiced his opposition to military action 
     against Iraq--a position which angered the U.S. The 
     Administration was also infuriated by comments from former 
     German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin, who likened 
     President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Although Chancellor Schroeder 
     eventually apologized and fired the Justice Minister, the 
     comment significantly strained the relationship between our 
     two countries.
       After the election took place, the German people were 
     incensed to learn that the Chancellor had painted a false 
     picture of the state of the German economy. He inflated the 
     status of the fiscal situation of the Germany only to release 
     data after the election indicating the deficit was 
     significantly larger than previously indicated. In fact, they 
     are facing a terrible recession and have the slowest economy 
     in Europe.
       I then questioned the team on anti-Semitism in Germany and 
     was discouraged to hear that it is on the rise in certain 
     areas particularly among young people. One argument for the 
     increase in anti-Semitic attitudes among young people is the 
     simple fact that because of the economy there are very few 
     activities or jobs for youth in Germany. Right wing, anti-
     Semitic, anti-foreigner, anti-American groups host events for 
     young teens and provide entertainment as well as a social 
     setting while instilling these troubling ideas. These groups 
     are also closely allied to the ``skinhead'' movement. The 
     embassy also indicated that there is a rise in anti-Semitic 
     contact in German media reports.
       I than explored the idea of whether there was any concern 
     that Germany could go back to the ways of World War I or II. 
     The country team seemed confident that this could never 
     happen because there is no political energy to increase 
     the size or strength of the military or return to a 
     militaristic society. I was further explained to me that 
     Germans are morally horrified by what happened in this 
     country during World War II and have a moral revulsion to 
     much of their past. The Germans are making a conscientious 
     effort to teach the holocaust in their text books and 
     classrooms and are facing their history head on. They make 
     no effort to hide the atrocities committed in the past.
       The current German attitude was illustrated by the 
     sentiment that in Germany today it is politically incorrect 
     to make the statement that you are proud to be a German. The 
     German people are well-aware of how they are perceived by the 
     world for their actions of yesterday and are very cautious 
     about perpetuating the idea that they are becoming too 
     nationalistic or militaristic. For example, last year a 
     cabinet minister almost lost his job for saying those words. 
     Further, Chancellor Schroeder used the phrase ``the German 
     way'' in a campaign statement last year and was so widely 
     criticized he was forced to stop using the statement. It 
     appears that because of Germans instigation of World War I 
     and II that the most pervasive attitude in Germany is 
     passivism.
       After the country team briefing, we met with Wolfgang 
     Bosbach, a member of the Bundestag, who is the Chair of the 
     Domestic and Legal Affairs Committee and member of the 
     Christian Democratic Union, the opposition party. Bosbach as 
     been a vocal supporter of U.S. initiatives in the war of 
     terrorism. Our discussion centered on U.S. German relations 
     and the issue of Iraq. I asked him if the United Nations has 
     a second resolution authorizing the use of force where will 
     the Germans stand. He felt there would still be no change of 
     opinion in Germany. For Schroeder, there is no way back, he 
     was extremely vocal in his opposition to a war in Iraq 
     throughout the campaign and he will not change course now. He 
     continued on to say that the majority of Germans were also 
     opposed to action in Afghanistan, but Schroeder was able to 
     proceed there by calling for a vote of confidence on the 
     coalition. He did feel, however, that Germany would be active 
     in any reconstruction efforts in Iraq.
       Bosbach felt that Schroeder made two critical mistakes in 
     dealing with the United States. First, he said that the U.S. 
     and Germany are friends and that friends don't speak publicly 
     against one another in any circumstance. He felt that 
     Schroeder handled the situation of his Justice Minister's 
     comments very poorly. Secondly, he felt that Schroeder should 
     have never come out publicly against action in Iraq without 
     having had a private conversation with President Bush first.
       As a member of the opposition party, Mr. Bosbach is 
     convinced that the German government hasn't done enough in 
     the war on terror. As an example, he believes that in 
     Germany, if the government has adequate proof that an 
     individual belongs to a terrorist organization, they should 
     automatically lose their citizenship. Germans cannot expel or 
     deport anybody and with German citizenship, an individual can 
     pass freely into many countries. Last year alone Germany 
     issued three hundred and forty thousand visas to individuals 
     from rogue states. Mr. Bosbach believes there is a network of 
     terrorists in Germany as three of the September 11th pilots 
     had lived in Germany.
       After our meeting with Mr. Bosbach, we headed for a 
     luncheon hosted by the Berlin chapter of the American Chamber 
     of Commerce. The Chamber members in attendance were both 
     Germans and Americans. I was interested to learn that there 
     are over two thousand American Companies in Germany which 
     have invested one hundred billion dollars and employ over 
     eight hundred thousand people.
       I inquired about the overall attitude of the group 
     regarding the U.S.-German relationship. There was widespread 
     agreement that the members were disappointed about the 
     position the German government took during the election. As 
     one member put it, the relationship which took fifty years to 
     rebuild was destroyed in five seconds. However, many in the 
     group felt that a majority of Germans are not anti-American. 
     When I asked if they thought Germany would go along with a 
     United Nations resolution against Iraqi if there was 
     sufficient proof that Saddam is lying, it was clear nobody 
     thought the government would support action in Iraq.
       I expressed surprise that the economy was in the difficult 
     situation it is today as I have always had a great respect 
     for German ingenuity, efficiency, and technology. Many of the 
     group were keenly interested in how the international 
     situation and the relationship of our two counties was going 
     to affect future business and trade. I believe that business 
     people still want to do business regardless of any comments 
     made by Chancellor Schroeder.

[[Page S1779]]

       In the afternoon, we arrived at the German Federal Ministry 
     of the Interior for a meeting with Reinhardt Peters the 
     Minister-Director in the Police Bureau. Mr. Peters informed 
     me that he is responsible for coordinating police responses 
     to major crime including terrorism, and plays a key role in 
     cooperative law enforcement efforts within the EU and with 
     other nations. He is also involved with Germany's lead-nation 
     role in building an Afghan national police force. We 
     discussed such subjects as the death penalty, which Germany 
     does not have and how the Germans are prepared to deal with 
     terrorism.
       Following the Ministry of Interior meeting we proceeded to 
     the Federal Ministry of Justice for a meeting with Minister-
     Director for Criminal Law, Christian Lehmann. Earlier this 
     month, the German government agreed to provide evidence 
     requested by the U.S. pertaining to suspected ``20th 
     hijacker'' Zacarias Moussaoui. Germany had initially refused 
     to provide the evidence, arguing that its constitution 
     forbids providing evidence that could lead to enforcement of 
     a death sentence. The U.S. Justice Department agreed to use 
     the evidence only during the guilt determination portion of 
     the trial, and not the sentencing portion of the trial. Given 
     its original reluctance in the Moussaoui case, it is not 
     clear how much cooperation Germany is providing in other 
     terrorist investigations relating to September 11th and any 
     other al-Qaeda investigation. Germany is currently 
     prosecuting Mounir el-Motassadeq for his alleged involvement 
     with the Hamburg terrorist cell connected with the September 
     11th attacks, having charged him with ``aiding and abetting'' 
     the murder of the over thousand victims of September 11th.
       The following day we had the opportunity to attend a lunch 
     meeting at the offices of the American Jewish Committee 
     (AJC). Lunch was hosted by the managing director, Deidre 
     Berger and Greg Caplan, the assistant director of the AJC in 
     Berlin. Our discussion primarily focused on the attitudes of 
     Germans toward Jews. They were encouraging on many fronts. 
     First, they were confident that the majority of young people 
     are interested in maintaining memory of the holocaust and 
     lessons of their dark past are widely taught in German 
     schools today. Further, the AJC commended the German 
     government for their willingness to teach about racism and 
     tolerance and their cooperation with the AJC on this front. 
     Less positive however, were the results from their recent 
     survey indicating that negative attitudes toward Jews are 
     widespread in German society today. Sixty percent of Germans 
     acknowledge that anti-Semitism is currently a problem in 
     Germany according to the survey.
       Keeping with the theme of the day, we headed to the Jewish 
     Museum which had an exhibit of 2000 years of German-Jewish 
     history. On New Years Day, 2003, we departed Berlin for 
     Israel.


                                 ISRAEL

       Thursday, January 2nd provided us the chance to meet with 
     representatives of the Palestinian Authority and Israeli 
     leaders. In the morning we met with United States Ambassador 
     Daniel Kurtzer, and Salam Fayyad, the new Minister of Finance 
     for the Palestinian National Authority. Mr. Fayyad was 
     certainly a breath of fresh air in the Palestinian Authority. 
     Mr. Fayyad, who was raised in the West Bank has worked with 
     the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve in 
     St. Louis. He received his Ph.D in Texas and has spent time 
     living in Washington, DC.
       At the time of our meeting, he had just submitted the 2003 
     Palestinian Budget proposal. This is the first publicly 
     disclosed budget of the Palestinian Authority. He identified 
     significant reforms that he has instituted. First, he has 
     centralized the Treasury. This means that all revenues will 
     now be going directly to the department of the Treasury. 
     Prior to his reform, Palestinian finances went into many 
     different accounts with no centralized control. This enabled 
     monies to be used for such purposes as arms purchases and 
     terrorism financing. Second, Mr. Fayyad took control of 
     public hiring. In the past, there was no management of the 
     public payroll. There were literally hundreds of people 
     within the system who could hire government employees. This 
     encouraged corruption and patronage leading to more violence. 
     Now, under Mr. Fayyad, no additions to the payroll can be 
     made without the express permission of the Ministry of 
     Finance. He also took control of the internal auditing 
     system.
       I then met with Foreign Minister Netanyahu and we discussed 
     a number of subjects including the peace process, Iraq, and 
     the issue of the prosecution of criminals for terrorist acts 
     committed against Americans abroad. I expressed an interest 
     to extradite to the United States terrorists whom we know are 
     responsible for the death of Americans. I provided the 
     Foreign Minister with a list of several known assassins, some 
     of which were either currently in Israeli prisons or whom 
     Israel had adequate knowledge of their whereabouts. I 
     encouraged the Israelis to work with the United States 
     Justice Department in prosecuting these terrorists.
       During a lunch meeting with Saeb Erakat, we discussed 
     Chairman Yasser Arafat's leadership abilities and my opinion 
     of the need for the Chairman to step aside. I told him I 
     thought it unrealistic to rely upon Chairman Arafat in the 
     peace process because of the evidence implicating him in 
     terrorism. It had been established that he knew about the 
     shipment of arms from Iran early last year and his 
     handwriting was on documents funding terrorism. I raised the 
     possibility that Chairman Arafat might be regulated to a 
     titular position. Mr. Erakat said that he believes there is 
     no other alternative to Chairman Arafat and that he was 
     working to promote peace and he even gave a recent speech 
     calling for a cease fire. He then went on to say that 
     Chairman Arafat was one of the first leaders to call for a 
     dialogue. Mr. Erakat stated that there is no trust on either 
     side and that under those circumstances it will be almost 
     impossible to begin the process of a recovery.
       When I asked if he thought there was a chance for the 
     suicide bombings to stop, he said he hoped it was possible, 
     but it will be very difficult because all a person needs is a 
     ``mind-void of hope'' and two hundred dollars to bring about 
     terror. He said that the circumstance on the ground in the 
     Palestinian territories was hopeless for so many.
       I then went on to meet with the Israeli Attorney General, 
     Elyakim Rubenstein. I further probed the topic of extradition 
     of terrorists accused of killing Americans in Israel and 
     further solicited the cooperation of the Israeli Government 
     in an effort that would support a U.S. prosecution of these 
     terrorists. I noted that I had spoken with Foreign Minister 
     Netanyahu regarding this issue and provided him with a list 
     of suspects. He said that he generally agreed with this idea 
     and pledged full cooperation and willingness to work with the 
     U.S. Justice Department. We acknowledged that it is a high 
     priority for both of our governments to ensure that 
     perpetrators are brought to justice. I responded that I 
     recognize Israel's sovereign right to prosecute terrorists 
     who attack and murder its citizens, but pointed out that 
     there is a valid role for the U.S. Government to play when 
     Americans are killed.
       Following my meeting in Jerusalem with the Attorney 
     General, I proceeded to Tel Aviv to meet with Prime Minister 
     Ariel Sharon where we discussed a wide range of topics 
     including Palestinian terrorism, Israeli military response, 
     Iraq, and Yasser Arafat. Prime Minister Sharon complained 
     about the ten thousand Hizballah rockets in Lebanon which are 
     pointed toward Israel. He said Damascus was the center and 
     headquarters for the most radical terrorist groups and said 
     they should immediately be dismantled. In context of his 
     focus on Syria, I then asked the Prime Minister if he would 
     be willing to go to Syria to discuss this. He said he was 
     interested in going to Damascus and would be willing to sit 
     down at the negotiating table with President Bashar al-Assad 
     of Syria so long as there were no preconditions. I asked if 
     he would object if I conveyed that message to President Assad 
     when I was in Damascus and he said no.
       I then went on to meet with former Prime Minister Ehud 
     Barak at his private office in Tel Aviv. Mr. Barak was in 
     good spirits and we had a conversation covering many subjects 
     including the peace process, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq. Mr. 
     Barak indicated that he supported the efforts the Bush 
     Administration is making toward trying to achieve a lasting 
     peace in the area and believes it represents a very good 
     opportunity. We also discussed the effort that Prime Minister 
     Tony Blair was making by meeting with President Assad and 
     others in the region.
       Our final meeting of the day was with former Prime Minister 
     Shimon Peres. My first observation was that he didn't age. I 
     asked him about this and he advised me that his philosophy of 
     life keeps him young--he is an optimist. Our meeting was 
     brief as the hour was late and he had another appointment 
     that day. We spoke about Chairman Arafat and the possibility 
     of his moving into a position of less power within the 
     Palestinian Authority. He doubted that would happen.
       We then discussed his approach to peace discussions. He 
     believes the process should move forward in several 
     directions at once, as opposed to the widely discussed 
     strategy of achieving individual milestones. He compared it 
     to sending a fleet out instead of a train. On the topic of 
     Syria, Mr. Peres did not discount the idea of peace 
     negotiations, but expressed his feeling that Israel should 
     not lose sight of the Palestinian issue, the matter of prime 
     importance.


                                 EGYPT

       We arrived at Cairo International Airport on Friday, 
     January 3rd where we were met by our control officer Steven 
     Bondy. From the airport we immediately went to tour the 
     impressive Egyptian Museum where we toured King Tut's tomb 
     and other historical artifacts.
       Following the Museum, we went to the U.S. embassy where I 
     had the opportunity sit down with a group of Egyptian 
     reporters for a roundtable discussion of current affairs.
       I then proceeded to the Foreign Ministry for a meeting with 
     Minister Ahmed Maher and U.S. Ambassador David Welch. We 
     discussed my upcoming trip to Damascus for the U.S.-Syrian 
     dialogue. Mr. Maher encouraged my participation and expressed 
     praise for the initiative by the James A. Baker III Institute 
     for Public Policy at Rice University. We discussed Syria in 
     some detail afterward and Mr. Maher's support for President 
     Assad. We then discussed the issue of violence in the 
     Palestinian territories and Mr. Maher expressed his 
     disappointment and view that seemingly eveyday there is 
     another ``incursion'' by Israeli forces. On the

[[Page S1780]]

     upside, he noted that there were forces on both sides 
     amenable to change.
       The following day we flew to Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt to meet 
     with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. As usual, President 
     Mubarak was a gracious host. We met in his private office and 
     then were invited to join him for brunch. We discussed his 
     recent visit by Prime Minister Tony Blair and his view on 
     prospects for peace. President Mubarak noted that the world 
     has changed very much since our first visit with one another 
     in 1982 but one thing that hasn't changed is that he is still 
     willing to answer any question. I asked him if he thought it 
     was possible for the violence to stop and he said he 
     continued to work for a ``cease-fire'' by all parties. He 
     indicated that he is willing to do whatever he can to help, 
     but that the United States has to be in the center of any 
     deal that is worked out. He said the same was true for a 
     Syrian-Israeli deal as well. We went on to discuss Iran and 
     Iraq and their individual relationships with the United 
     States and Egypt and the reaction of the Egyptian people if 
     President Bush returns to the United Nations for another 
     resolution. He said there was great concern in the Arab world 
     about a war with Iraq. He indicated that there would likely 
     be protests in the street and although he could handle that 
     in Egypt it would be difficult for other Arab leaders. 
     President Mubarak commented that the war with Iraq will have 
     a negative effect on the Egyptian economy and the economics 
     in the region generally.
       Finally, on the local Pennsylvania scene, I urged President 
     Mubarak to finalize a $100 million deal with Norfolk 
     Southern, which has agreed to rehabilitate 100 Egyptian 
     locomotives. Norfolk Southern is still negotiating the terms 
     of the contract, but it is my hope that the deal can be 
     worked quickly. President Mubarak responded that if the 
     funding was in the pipeline from USAID it would be completed. 
     I offered my thanks to President Mubarak for Egyptian support 
     for the war on terrorism.


                                 SYRIA

       On Saturday, January 3rd, we left Egypt and arrived in 
     Damascus, Syria where we were met by Ambassador Theodore H. 
     Kattouf and our Control Officer, Jen Rasamimanana. Ambassador 
     Kattouf is a native of Altoona, Pennsylvania and a graduate 
     of Pennsylvania State University. After attaining the rank of 
     Captain in the United States Army, he began a distinguished 
     career in the foreign service including assignments in 
     Kuwait, Tunis, Beirut, and Baghdad.
       The following morning I met with Syrian President Bashar 
     al-Assad. President Assad has been meeting with many of my 
     House and senate colleagues in recent months and I 
     complimented him for his willingness to have a dialogue with 
     the different groups. I told him how useful I think it is for 
     Members to have these meetings and how useful I thought it 
     could be for him.
       W discussed my trip to Israel and my meeting with Prime 
     Minister Ariel Sharon where he indicated his willingness to 
     discuss peace. President Assad said anytime is a good time 
     for peace, but that he believes the United States needs to be 
     involved in any negotiations. I asked him if he thought 
     negotiations could take place prior to an Israeli-Palestinian 
     negotiation. He commented that he thought negotiations could 
     get started, but likely no agreement could occur until the 
     Palestinian issue is resolved. I told President Assad that 
     the U.S. remains committed to resolving the conflict.
       I then raised the issue which has been brought up by Prime 
     Minister Sharon in Israel regarding terror organizations 
     residing in Syria. I asked that his country work to eliminate 
     groups with Syria's borders who continue to fan the fire in 
     the region. President Assad asserted that these groups, 
     including Hizballah and Hamas, do not conduct terrorist 
     operations out of Syria and that they represent thousands of 
     Palestinians whom he would have to dislocate. He said he was 
     unwilling to do so. I responded that if Syria wanted to be 
     removed from the U.S. terrorist list, Syria would have to 
     oust those terrorist groups from Syria and end support for 
     Hizballah.
       With regard to Israel we also discussed Prime Minister 
     Sharon's complaint that Syria controlled over ten thousands 
     Katyusha rockets, which were pointed toward Israel. President 
     Assad said these would not be used against the Israeli 
     people.
       President Assad emphasized Syria's desire to be removed 
     from the U.S. Department of State's list of state sponsors of 
     terrorism and his unhappiness about the Syrian Accountability 
     Act which was introduced in the last Congress and signed by 
     over 45 of my colleagues. I told President Assad if the 
     terrorist groups were to leave Syria, it would go a long way 
     toward their legislative goals in the United States.
       I commended President Assad on Syria's willingness to 
     support renewed weapons inspections in Iraq and sanctions 
     aimed at disallowing that country's re-armament, which are 
     steps in the right direction. I asked that Syria continue to 
     cooperate with the U.S. against al-Qaeda.
       I raised with President Assad the issue of an American, 
     Mrs. Liz Henry Murad of New York, who has requested 
     assistance in locating her children who are believed to be in 
     Damascus. Her children were forcibly kidnaped by their 
     father, Mr. Ruwayn Murad, and reportedly taken to Syria. 
     After alerting President Assad, Foreign Minister Farouk at-
     Shara, and Rustom al-Zoubi, Syrian Ambassador to the United 
     States, of this abduction in separate letters dated February 
     8, 2002, I raised the case with President Assad personally 
     during my previous visit to Damascus in March 2002. Then, on 
     April 4, 2002, I wrote to President Assad and Major General 
     Ali Houri, the Syrian Minister of Interior, requesting that 
     Syrian officials pursue a Lebanese warrant for Mr. Murad. In 
     this meeting with President Assad, he indicated he was 
     willing to work with the Lebanese Government to resolve this 
     case.
       I also asked President Assad about Guy Hever, a missing 
     Israeli soldier, who is believed by his family to be a 
     prisoner in a Syrian jail. Mr. Hever was last seen on the 
     Golan Heights near the Syrian border on August 17, 1997, I 
     met with the mother of Mr. Hever in my Washington, DC office 
     on November 6, 2002 to hear of her son's mysterious 
     disappearance. Thereafter, I wrote to President Assad 
     asking him to order an inquiry into Mr. Hever's 
     whereabouts and pursued the subject in our meeting. 
     President Assad said he would have the matter 
     investigated.
       We spent most of the day Monday, January 6th at a U.S.-
     Syrian dialogue, which was a continuation of the event that 
     took place last May at the Baker Institute at Rice University 
     in Texas. The event was attended by many experts on U.S.-
     Syrian relations including former U.S. ambassador Edward P. 
     Djerejian, former Ambassador Richard Murphy, Syrian Deputy 
     Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem, Buthayna Shaaban, head of 
     the Foreign Ministry's foreign media and public relations 
     department, Riad Ismet, director of the state radio and 
     television service, and Mohammad Aziz Shukri, a professor of 
     international law at state-run Damascus University.
       The dialog focused on Iraq as well as the Israeli/
     Palestinian issues. The Syrian interlocutors were adamant in 
     opposition to war against Iraq although they condemned Saddam 
     Hussein's conduct. The Syrians welcomed my opinion, even 
     though I emphasized it was President Bush's ultimate 
     decision, that the U.S. should return to the UN for another 
     resolution supporting the use of force before acting.
       Notwithstanding the heated comments and diverse points of 
     view, the exchanges were constructive. The Syrians left with 
     a better understanding of our revulsion to suicide bombings 
     targeting civilians after our own experience of 9/11. Both 
     sides agreed that the killing of Israeli and Palestinian non-
     combatants had to be stopped. The only real agreement came on 
     the utility of ``dialogue'' even in the absence of any 
     agreement on any proposed solution.
       With the opportunity presented by a new young, British 
     educated President in Damascus, we should accelerate our 
     efforts to improve U.S./Syrian relations, persuade the 
     Syrians on our views on terrorism and strive for an Israeli/
     Syrian Peace Treaty.
       We left Syria on the afternoon of January 6th, made an 
     overnight stop in London to change planes, and headed back to 
     Washington, DC on January 7th to begin a new session of 
     Congress.

           [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 15, 2003]

 A Tour Through Europe and the Mideast Reveals the Lack of Enthusiasm 
                   for a U.S. Military Attack On Iraq

       My ten-day fact finding visit to Europe and the Mid-East in 
     late December and early January found little support for a 
     U.S. war against Iraq. The Germans were outspoken in 
     opposition. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, personally a 
     strong supporter of President Bush, appeared to be a leader 
     without many followers on this issue.
       The strongest opposition and most dire warnings came from 
     nations in the Mid-East with the exception of Israel. Egypt's 
     President Mubarak, a solid U.S. ally for more than two 
     decades, predicted violence against U.S. interests in the 
     region if Iraq is attacked. U.S. Embassy personnel in Syria 
     are on alert to evacuate in advance of any war.
       Recollections are still fresh on the Syrian mob which 
     ransacked our Ambassador's residence in Damascus in December 
     1998 following a U.S. missile attack on Bagdad. Ambassador 
     Ryan Crocker's wife was rescued just before the mob 
     threatened to break through the steel door in the so-called 
     ``safe haven''. The bricks and mortar of the residence have 
     been repaired, but the psychological damage lingers on.
       I was in Damascus on that night in December 1998 when that 
     attack occurred and was awakened at 2 A.M. to watch CNN's 
     coverage of the missiles striking Bagdad. Leaving Syria on 
     schedule at 6:30 that morning, I then traveled to Egypt and 
     Jordan and heard strong Arab protests on the U.S. military 
     action which was minuscule compared to what is now planned.
       On January 6th in Damascus, the ``US/Syrian Dialogue'', a 
     forum initiated by the Baker Public Policy Institute in 
     Houston last May, focused on Iraq as well as the Israeli/
     Palestinian issues. The Syrian interlocutors were adamant in 
     opposition to war against Iraq although they condemned Saddam 
     Hussein's conduct. The Syrians welcomed my opinion, even 
     though I emphasized it was President Bush's ultimate 
     decision, that the U.S. should return to the UN for another 
     resolution supporting the use of force before acting.
       In a separate meeting, President Bashar al Assad and 
     Foreign Minister Shara complained to me about the UN's 
     refusal to give all members of the Security Council the full

[[Page S1781]]

     12,000 pages turned over by Iraq after Syria and all the 
     other 14 nations had voted unanimously for Iraq to comply 
     with its obligation to disarm. I agreed that all member 
     nations, which are asked to vote for sanctions including UN 
     military action, are entitled to all the Iraqi documents and 
     whatever data the U.S. can supply establishing Iraq's non-
     compliance.
       While the Syrians strongly favored a second UN resolution, 
     they left no doubt they would not join in any UN military 
     action as they had in 1991. They emphasized their 1991 
     joinder was based on Iraq's attack of Kuwait, another Arab 
     nation, which was not present now.
       German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to war 
     against Iraq was echoed in our January 2nd meeting with 
     Wolfgang Busbach, a member of the Bundestag. He explained 
     that his country's experience in two 21st century wars had 
     made Germans irreversibly pacifists. Even though he persisted 
     in asserting Germany would not participate in military action 
     even if the UN voted for it, he hoped the U.S. would seek 
     another resolution before acting.
       I was surprised to hear so much sentiment that it was 
     politically incorrect for Germans to express pride in being 
     German. Chancellor Schroeder was criticized for referring to 
     the ``German Way'' in their recent election and stopped using 
     that phrase. That attitude indicates Germany's reluctance to 
     participate in any military action which might revive 
     international sentiment against German nationalism.
       These meetings confirmed my strong sense that the U.S. 
     position would be greatly strengthened by a second UN 
     resolution. UN Inspector Hans Blix has already noted Iraq is 
     in default in not explaining what happened to the weapons of 
     mass destruction which it had in 1998 before the UN was 
     ousted. Perhaps the U.S. will be able to bolster the case 
     showing Saddam's falsification from testimony from Iraq's 
     scientists or evidence from U.S. Intelligence sources which 
     can be disclosed without compromising sources or methods.
       The final determinant on whether there will be war may be 
     the vague and unpredictable state of Saddam's mind. Is he 
     suicidal?
       While the evidence is overwhelming on his venality and 
     brutality, my 75 minute meeting with him in January 1990 
     persuaded me he was not a madman. Saddam has surprised many 
     by submitting to UN inspections, even opening up his palaces, 
     apologizing to Kuwait and making his scientists available for 
     interrogation. Perhaps he has a surprise ending in mind.

                 [From the Patriot-News, Jan. 21, 2003]

                Young Syrian Could Provide Mideast Hope

       A suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv bus terminal murdering 23 
     more civilians on January 5th cast a pall over discussions on 
     the Mid-East peace process which I had last week with Prime 
     Minister Sharon in Israel, President Mubarak in Egypt and 
     President Assad in Syria.
       In Israel, Prime Minister Sharon insisted that negotiations 
     could not be conducted with Chairman Arafat because of his 
     proved complicity in supporting Palestinian terrorists. When 
     I suggested to Sa'ab-Erekat, Arafat's chief negotiator, that 
     the Chairman step aside to a titular position without power, 
     Erekat responded that Arafat was determined to stay on as the 
     duly elected leader. Egypt's President Mubarak and Syrian 
     President Bashar al Assad agreed there was no one else on the 
     scene to speak for the Palestinians although neither would 
     vouch for Arafat's word or his non-involvement in terrorism.
       So, the stalemate continues with no sign of the tunnel let 
     alone a light at the end of the tunnel. The Arabs, who 
     vociferously argue that Prime Minister Sharon does not want 
     peace, must know that this January suicide bombing 
     strengthens his appeal in elections scheduled for later this 
     month. Those who oppose peace, while perhaps not more 
     numerous, appear to be more effective than those who favor 
     peace.
       Our Mid-East visits did produce some bright spots. The new 
     Palestinian Finance Minister offers real hope that 
     transparency may be forthcoming and corruption may be 
     restrained. A University of Texas Ph.D. in economics and a 
     former official at both the IMF and the Federal Revenue, 
     Salam Fayyad, a native Palestinian, returned to his homeland 
     after living in the U.S. from 1987 to 1995. In our meeting at 
     the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, Minister Fayyad outlined 
     impressive reforms: (1) requiring all revenues to be paid to 
     the Ministry of Finance eliminating the potential for 
     diversion for corruption or terrorism; (2) consolidating all 
     hiring in his department to eliminate patronage and 
     kickbacks; and (3) activating both internal and external 
     audits. His just released January 2003 budget was the first 
     public budget in the history of the Palestinian Authority.
       If corruption and violence could be eliminated, or at least 
     curtailed, the stage could be set for resumption of 
     contributions by the donor nations to rebuild the Palestinian 
     Authority infrastructure and compensate Israel for its 
     losses. In a relaxed setting in the resort town of Sharm el-
     Sheik, President Mubarak reiterated his longstanding efforts 
     to broker a ``cease fire''. With Hamas and Islam Jihad 
     continuing to claim credit for suicide bombings and evidence 
     linking Chairman Arafat personally to supporting terrorists, 
     such a ``cease fire'' appears remote, but worth the 
     continuing effort.
       After Prime Minister Sharon denounced Syria's harboring 
     terrorist organizations in Damascus and supporting Hezbollah 
     in southern Lebanon, I asked him if he would be willing to 
     enter into peace negotiations with Syria as Prime Minister 
     Rabin had in the mid-1990s which were brokered by President 
     Clinton. He said he would providing there were no pre-
     conditions and asked me to convey that offer to President 
     Assad which I did three days later in Damascus.
       President Assad said he was willing to open peace talks 
     with Israel. He said he did not think it appropriate to 
     conclude a treaty before Israel and the Palestinian Authority 
     had reached a final settlement, but that Syrian/Israeli talks 
     could proceed on separate tracks. I do not expect Syria and 
     Israel to immediately activate such discussions, but the 
     reactions were more positive than I heard in many visits to 
     Damascus and Jerusalem a decade earlier.
       I then asked President Assad about Hezbollah and terrorist 
     organizations in Damascus both in terms of Prime Minister 
     Sharon's complaints and Syria being on the U.S. terrorist 
     list. He responded that the organizations in Damascus were 
     not involved in terrorism in Israel, but represented 
     thousands of Palestinians who lived in Syria. As to 
     Hezbollah, President Assad insisted that the Lebanese/Israeli 
     border had been quiet, except for one or two skirmishes, 
     since April 1986 when Secretary of State Warren Christopher 
     worked out an agreement between the parties.
       Notwithstanding those responses, I urged him to do more to 
     satisfy the demands of our State Department for Syria's 
     removal from the terrorist list. I remind him that the Syrian 
     Accountability Act in the 107th Congress had obtained 35 co-
     sponsors in the Senate which represented real concern on the 
     terrorism issue even though opposed by the Bush 
     Administration. Should it become law, it would probably cause 
     a downgrading of relations even to the possible extent of 
     withdrawing ambassadors.
       At the conclusion of my trip, I attended the opening of the 
     second U.S./Syrian Dialogue on January 6th in Damascus. The 
     first ``Dialogue'' was held last May in Houston under the co-
     sponsorship of the Government of Syria and the James Baker 
     Institute of Public Policy. The ``Dialogue'' focused on the 
     Israeli/Palestinian controversies and Iraq. Notwithstanding 
     the heated comments and diverse points of view, the exchanges 
     were constructive. The Syrians left with a better 
     understanding of our revulsion to suicide bombings targeting 
     civilians after our own experience of 9/11. Both sides agreed 
     that the killing of Israeli and Palestinian non-combatants 
     had to be stopped. The only real agreement came on the 
     utility of ``dialogue'' even in the absence of any agreement 
     on any proposed solution.
       With the opportunity presented by a new young, British 
     educated President in Damascus, we should accelerate our 
     efforts to improve U.S./Syrian relations, persuade the 
     Syrians on our views on terrorism and strive for an Israeli/
     Syrian Peace Treaty.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in the absence of any other Senator 
seeking recognition, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Durbin pertaining to the introduction of S. 250 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

                          ____________________