[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 141 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2021-E2022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EDITORIALS COMMENT ON ``BUY AMERICA'' PROVISIONS, ISRAELI ATTACKS ON 
                                 SYRIA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 8, 2003

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues two 
editorials.
  First, this Member hopes his colleagues will consider the October 8, 
2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, which describes the 
drawbacks of ``Buy America'' provisions with respect to peacekeeping 
and reconstruction projects in Iraq. Obviously, given the size of the 
supplemental request for these activities, ``Buy America'' provisions 
have strong appeal on the surface. As a representative who has specific 
responsibilities for trans-Atlantic relations, this Member urges his 
colleagues to think twice before supporting ``Buy America'' provisions 
and consider the contents of this brief editorial.
  Second, this Member commends the October 8, 2003, Omaha World-Herald 
editorial entitled ``An ill-advised raid.'' Indeed, this editorial 
discusses the short-term and long-term consequences of the recent 
Israeli attack upon camps that may well have been used for training and 
harboring terrorists. Israel's grief over its continued casualties from 
suicide bombings is absolutely understandable, and the U.S. shares its 
disgust of these tactics. Nevertheless, recent Israeli military air 
attack in Syria even without prior notice to the U.S. Government may 
create even further difficulties for the U.S. in Iraq and the Middle 
East. That is the view of the Omaha World-Herald--a view which should 
be taken quite seriously by all of us in Congress.
       Furthermore . . . British soldiers showed admirable 
     determination last spring in carrying some of the harshest 
     fighting, in Iraq. But some in Congress are now trying to 
     kick the British (and other U.S. allies) in the teeth by 
     insisting on a rigid ``buy American'' requirement for U.S. 
     military purchases. That is a recipe for tripping up efforts 
     at

[[Page E2022]]

     international contributions to the rebuilding in Iraq. Such a 
     step would also disrupt long-standing and constructive 
     trading relationships. Dump this loser of an idea.
                                  ____


              [From the Omaha World-Herald, Oct. 8, 2003]

                          An Ill-Advised Raid

       Hours after Israel conducted a Sunday bombing raid deep 
     inside neighboring Syria, President Bush defended the action 
     by saying Israel ``has got a right to defend herself.'' True. 
     But a picture is beginning to emerge that Prime Minister 
     Ariel Sharon was doing something else--something quite 
     possibly dangerous to his own nation, to the region and 
     ultimately to the United States.
       Israel, of course, was acting in the wake of an especially 
     horrible suicide bombing in Haifa that took 19 innocent 
     lives. In what has become a grim standard operating procedure 
     in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Israel could be counted 
     on to retaliate.
       But retaliate against what? Israel first said it had gone 
     after a terrorist training camp. Soon, though, credible 
     reports began to come in that if the locale had ever been a 
     terrorist camp, that was years in the past. Then Israeli 
     officials confirmed that the raid's actual goal had been to 
     ``send a message'' to Syria:
       Wrong message.
       Yes, Syria harbors terrorists Yes. Islamic Jihad had 
     claimed responsibility for the deadly restaurant bombing. But 
     there is scant evidence that Islamic Jihad ever had any 
     connection to the site that Israel attacked.
       For three decades, Israel and Syria have had the mutual 
     good sense to keep their border peaceful, even while each had 
     plenty of reason to mistrust the other. Now Israel has 
     breached that uneasy calm. If sustained fighting were to 
     erupt between the two nations, Lebanon and even Iran could be 
     drawn in.
       That would be an unwelcome eventuality in the calmest of 
     times. But incurring such risks while the United States and 
     its handful of allies are struggling to stabilize Iraq raises 
     the ante in ways that cannot benefit anyone. Moreover, Syria, 
     while too militarily frail to respond directly in a 
     meaningful way, probably has some ability to nudge Iran into 
     exporting yet more terrorists into Iraq--where, of course, 
     they would target U.S. and allied military personnel.
       Israel and America both have ample reason to be upset over 
     Syria's continued harboring of terrorist groups, and Israel 
     in particular has a right to be outraged over the Haifa 
     explosion. Both nations should press Syria in every possible 
     way diplomatically to end its role as a safe haven for evil. 
     But Israel's precipitous attack--Jerusalem didn't even notify 
     Washington in advance--boosts collective tension levels at a 
     terrible time.
       Just as Israel, and the Palestinians as well, need 
     America's help in the elusive quest for lasting peace, 
     Washington needs Israel's assistance in keeping the region 
     stable while Iraq is being pieced back together.
       Sharon should be taking a wider and longer view. By all 
     available evidence, this past weekend he was doing anything 
     but.

                          ____________________