[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 97 (Wednesday, July 14, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8095-S8104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECESS
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now stand in recess until 4 p.m. today.
[[Page S8096]]
There being no objection, at 3:02 p.m., the Senate recessed until
4:01 p.m., and reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer (Mr. Cornyn).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Texas, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Medicare
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I rise to discuss yet another
revision by the administration to the new Medicare law. We all know the
administration refused to give Congress an estimate on how much the
Medicare bill would cost. We later found OMB estimated that the
Medicare law would cost $534 billion over the next 10 years, $134
billion more than was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office.
We also know the CMS actuary, Richard Foster, said the high cost
projection was actually known before the final House and Senate votes
on the legislation last November. But Mr. Scully told him, ``We can't
let that get out.''
In an e-mail to colleagues at CMS, Foster indicated he believed he
might lose his job if he revealed the administration's cost estimates
for the Medicare legislation.
Now we are getting another round of revised numbers. In last year's
debate, Republicans repeatedly claimed the new drug benefits would be
completely voluntary, that seniors happy with the current Medicare
system should be able to keep their coverage the way it is. In fact, we
have heard President Bush say that over and over again. He said that in
the State of the Union Message in 2003.
But many of us warned at the time that because of the way the benefit
was structured, employees with good retiree coverage would lose it.
People who currently have coverage, currently have prescription drug
assistance, actually could lose it. At the time the Congressional
Budget Office estimated 2.7 million seniors and disabled could
potentially lose--they indicated would lose--their retiree drug
coverage because of the way this was written, in terms of the interface
with the private sector retiree coverage. But once again the numbers
are coming back even worse than was thought.
In today's New York Times, Health and Human Services now has
estimated that not 2.7 but 3.8 million retirees will lose their
prescription drug benefits when Medicare offers the coverage in 2006.
HHS admitted this represents one-third of all retirees with employer-
sponsored drug coverage.
I know CMS Administrator McClellan has released a press statement
disputing the article.
I hope we get to the bottom of what is going on with this revision.
But certainly what has happened up to date does not give us confidence
in the information they have given to us. The administration certainly
can't possibly think seniors will be happy to hear that up to one-third
of those who have current coverage will lose it when this new Medicare
law takes effect.
When you think about folks who have worked all their lives, and
probably paid attention to the fact they had health insurance and
retirement benefits, planned for that possibly over the life of their
worktime, they took pay cuts in order to guarantee they had that
retirement benefit, or wage freezes as people are being asked today,
make sure in their retirement they had that coverage, and now this law
is estimated to actually lose the private retiree coverage up to one-
third of those who have it today.
My mother is one of those folks, a retired nurse. She followed the
debate we had in great detail. One of the questions she had for me
after the passage of this law was whether she would lose her benefits.
I had to honestly say: Mom, I don't know.
One of the things we heard was those who may be in a situation most
likely to lose may, in fact, be those who are nurses or police officers
or retired firefighters or others who are in local or State government
with all of the cutbacks where State and local governments are being
forced to cut back.
It is amazing to me that in light of what we are seeing, point after
point--information that wasn't given, information that wasn't accurate,
the inability to negotiate group discounts under Medicare, the
confusion on the prescription drug card--I hate to even call them
discount cards because we know from AARP and from Families U.S.A. and
from all of the groups that watched this that, in fact, the drug
companies increased their prices very rapidly knowing they were going
to be asked to give a discount through a discount card--we have seen
prices go up 10, 20, 30 percent since we passed the law back in
November, so they could then provide a card with a 15-percent discount
or a 20-percent or a 25-percent discount. Seniors know after they
watched this happen that it was not really a discount.
We have seen the confusion about how to even wade through the 40, 50,
60, or 70 different cards you may be able to choose from as a Medicare
beneficiary to see if you can even begin to get a discount. We have
seen the confusion of low-income seniors who actually have the most to
gain because there is a $600 credit to buy prescription drugs attached
to the card, and yet there is such confusion about how to even sign up
and qualify, and that those who probably need it the most will be the
ones least likely to receive it.
We have seen confusion and misinformation and threats to people about
losing jobs if they tell us the truth and bad policies that over and
over again have been put into place to help the industry instead of
helping seniors and helping the disabled.
While all of this is going on, prices just keep going up. People need
their medicine every day. Whether it is confusing or not, whether
people are going to lose their coverage or not, today folks walk into
the pharmacy trying to get their medicine, or maybe they didn't go in
because they couldn't afford it, or maybe they went into the pharmacy
but not the grocery store because they couldn't afford to do both, or
maybe, as the couple I talked to not too long ago who were on the same
medicine, the husband takes it one day and the wife takes it another
day.
We can do better than that. This is the greatest country in the
world. Shame on us for not being able to get this right and not being
able to do it now.
The good news is we can do it now. We have a proposal in front of us
that will allow the competition necessary in the pharmaceutical
industry to bring prices down immediately. It is called reimportation
of prescription drugs. We have talked about it so many times. I have
been talking about it since being a House Member, and talking about
taking bus trips to Canada. Now in my fourth year in the Senate, we are
still talking about what ought to be done to bring down prices. But the
good news is that things are beginning to move.
I was pleased to join with the AARP and with colleagues on both sides
of the aisle, Senator Snowe, Senator McCain, Senator Dorgan, and I
today to talk about the fact that we believe we have the votes now in
the Senate to be able to pass meaningful, safe, reimportation of
prescription drugs. All we need is the opportunity to vote on it. All
we need is the opportunity to make the case to our colleagues.
There was a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today. We understand
that the HELP Committee will be meeting hopefully to report out a bill
later this week. That bill has been introduced and hearings are
scheduled, and rescheduled. Hopefully, that will happen this week.
While we are talking about it, while ineffective Medicare legislation
passed with all this confusion and information, there is a sense of
urgency on the part of every single person using medicine today because
they are paying too much. It is not just our seniors, who certainly use
the most medicine, or the disabled; it is also the family who has a
child with a chronic disease, or it is a person of any age who is using
medicine, or it is the businesses that have seen their premiums
skyrocket in large part because of the skyrocketing prices of
prescription drugs.
I come from a great State that makes automobiles. We are very proud
of that. When I sit down with the Big Three automakers which are
desperately concerned about the cost of
[[Page S8097]]
health care and what needs to be done, they show me numbers. One-half
the increase in their health care costs is because of prescription
drugs. I know this is also true with small businesses which, on
overage, have seen their premiums double at least in the last 5 years.
In fact, it is more likely to be doubling every 3 years.
The opportunity we have to create more competition and to open the
borders is something that not only would help our seniors, many of whom
are incredibly disillusioned and, frankly, angry that a Medicare bill
was passed that may not be of much help at all to them. But we can also
be helping every single American from the youngest to the oldest as
well as businesses if we do this and do this now.
We have 1 more week before we break for the summer. We know there are
precious few weeks when we come back in the fall. This needs to get
done now.
There are 31 in the Senate on both sides of the aisle from all
different political beliefs who are cosponsoring this reimportation
bill. Our bill provides substantial safeguards and assures quality and
affordability. Our bill ensures that licensed pharmacists in the United
States can do business with licensed pharmacists in Canada and in other
countries with strong safety standards.
Our bill provides for inspections for anticounterfeiting technologies
and chain of custody. Our bill is a well-thought-out, well-designed
piece of legislation that meets and addresses every legitimate concern
that has been raised.
There is no reason Americans should not have access to safe, FDA-
approved drugs that come from FDA-inspected facilities in our country
or other countries. We have been debating this issue far too long. I am
extremely hopeful we will be able to see a debate in the Senate and a
vote before we leave this summer.
Researchers at Boston University have told me that in the 1-month
delay for the markup of the HELP Committee--the bill was on the agenda
a month ago; now it will be on this next week--we could have saved over
$5 billion by simply allowing citizens to do business with Canadian
pharmacies.
That means $5 billion has been spent, coming out of the pockets of
people choosing between food and medicine, caring for their children,
worried about being able to have medicine for their disability, or a
small business struggling to make it through insurance premium
increases, or a large business. That is $5 billion just by not acting
this last month. I assume that means $5 billion next month and $5
billion the month after.
The legislation we have put together on a bipartisan basis will make
a real difference. It is something we can do now.
I commend my House colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have not
only passed legislation similar to the legislation we now have worked
on and developed on a bipartisan basis, but they have, once again,
placed language in the Agriculture appropriations bill that would stop
any enforcement against reimportation and allow it to continue. This
passed the House of Representatives just yesterday.
It is time for the Senate to step up and to make this happen. In the
past, there has been an effort to require certification by Health and
Human Services regarding safety. That, unfortunately, has been a
barrier by those who simply do not want to do this. So we have taken a
different route this time. We have decided to sit down and go through
all the safety standards and regulations and put it in the statute.
That is what we have done.
We have also included in the bill an effort that Senator Feinstein
has worked on regarding Internet drug efforts and safety requirements.
There is no reason substantively not to pass our drug reimportation
bill if the goal is to help lower the costs of prescription drugs
through competition and to lower prices for our seniors and for our
families and for our businesses. We have the tool. Let's not wait
another month and another $5 billion, or another 2 months, $10 billion,
or $15 billion or $20 billion, when we have the ability to join with
the majority of our House colleagues and get this done now.
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. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, are we presently acting as in morning
business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the motion to proceed to S.J.
Res. 40.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent the pending business be put
aside and that I have 15 minutes to present my speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ISRAEL-BASHING AT THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a serious
problem that faces our world, one that is reflected directly in the
activities at the United Nations. It is anti-Semitism. It is what we
see at the U.N., the distinctly unjust treatment of 1 of its 192 member
countries, the State of Israel.
A historic moment occurred last month. For the first time in its six-
decade history, the U.N. actually convened a conference to discuss the
growing problem of anti-Semitism worldwide. While it is heartening to
see this development, the fact remains that since its creation in 1946,
the U.N. has never produced any resolutions specifically aimed at anti-
Semitism. Nor have any of its ancillary bodies ever issued any report
on the subject of discrimination against Jews and Israel.
At the conference I just mentioned, Columbia Law School professor
Anne Bayefsky delivered a remarkable speech. I ask unanimous consent
that her speech be printed in the Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, Professor Bayefsky highlighted the
history of the intolerance of the United Nations and outright
discrimination against Israel.
Now, what does discrimination to Israel mean? It is exemplified in
denying Israel and only Israel admission to the vital negotiating
sessions of regional groups held daily during meetings of the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights. It means devoting 6 of the 10 emergency
sessions ever held by the General Assembly to repudiating Israel.
In contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the Rwanda
genocide, estimated to have killed 1 million people, or on the so-
called ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of people in the former
Yugoslavia, or on the atrocities committed against millions of people
in Sudan in past decades.
More than one-quarter of the resolutions adopted by the Human Rights
Commission over the last 40 years condemning the human rights record of
various nations have been directed solely at Israel. There has not been
a single resolution critical of China for suppressing the civil and
political rights of its 1.3 billion people. There has not been a single
resolution condemning the deadly racism in Zimbabwe that has brought
600,000 people to the brink of starvation.
It seems that anti-Israeli sentiment pervades the top levels of the
U.N. hierarchy. The Secretary-General publicly condemns the tactics
Israelis are forced to use to defend themselves, but he never once
mentions the terrorist attacks that precipitate the response.
Because of this blatant bias, it is not surprising that last Friday
the International Court of Justice--the U.N.'s court--squarely found
that the barrier the Israelis are building to protect themselves
violates international law. The ICJ demanded it be torn down and
insisted that Palestinians be compensated for any damages.
Now, make no mistake, I believe an organization comprised of nations
around the world must exist. I believe the United Nations is that
organization. But it must operate fairly and be balanced. It is
precisely because of my idealism regarding the role of the U.N. and the
ICJ in international affairs that I am so disappointed in the court's
one-sided decision last week.
The bias emanates not so much from the decision itself but from what
the
[[Page S8098]]
judges neglected to mention. They remained absolutely silent about the
suicide bombers, the terrorist attacks that have killed over 1,000
Israelis in the past 4 years. In relative terms, it would be the
equivalent to over 46,000 Americans.
I think it is informative that 1 week earlier, Israel's own Supreme
Court also ruled on the barrier. The Israeli Supreme Court determined
that the barrier is defensible as a security measure but ordered the
Israeli Army to reroute a section of it in response to Palestinian
concerns and make it hew more closely to the pre-1967 Green Line.
The justices wrote:
We are aware that this decision does not make it easier to
deal with that reality, [but] is the destiny of a democracy.
They added that a democracy such as Israel's:
does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her
enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must
sometimes fight [back] with one arm tied behind her back.
The Israeli Supreme Court sent the strongest message, perhaps, to
Israel's enemies of its uniqueness, resilience, and fundamental
goodness.
The Israeli children are never subjected to lessons in the school
that say: ``Learn to kill your Arab neighbors,'' as contrasted to
textbook after textbook in surrounding countries that say: ``You must
learn to kill the Jews and kill the Israelis.''
As a matter of fact, this morning on television, what I saw was a
group of very young Palestinian children being taught military methods
so they can one day give their lives carrying a suicide bomb. It is
incredible, when you think about it, that the Israelis should pay
attention to the rights of the Palestinians, when you never hear in any
of the Arab countries surrounding Israel that they ought to pay
attention to the rights of the Israelis. It is very hard to even get a
condemnation from them when some mad suicide bomber comes in and takes
innocent Israeli lives without provocation.
Israel's vibrant, even if imperfect, democracy is precisely the
reason why the U.N. bias against her is so unjust. Israel is a country
in which huge crowds often gather in Tel Aviv's Rabin Square to demand
the Government quickly end its support of settlements, challenging the
views of lots of Israelis who want to use these settlements. But there
is a fairness, an equity in the views of the Israelis that prevents
them from going ahead and supporting these activities.
Israel is a country in which domestic human rights groups, in an act
of political protest, recently mounted a photo exhibit of Israeli
soldiers abusing Palestinian civilians--in the lobby of its Parliament,
the Knesset.
Could you ever imagine that taking place in Damascus? Or Iraq, as it
was? Or even a country as friendly as Egypt seems to be?
Israel is a country in which top reservists in the army and air force
have refused to serve in the West Bank because they do not support the
policies of the Sharon Government.
In an ideal world, Israel could prevent suicide bombers from
infiltrating its cafes and malls and buses. But the Israelis do not
live in an ideal world. The security fence is a measure of last resort.
Israelis felt compelled to build the security fence after Palestinian
terrorists launched 50 successful suicide bombings in 2002.
The security fence, as Israel's Supreme Court rightly concluded, is a
defensive measure. And as a defensive measure, it has been very
effective. There were 50 suicide bombings in 2002. In 2003, there were
20. So far this year, there have been eight. That is a very positive
outcome.
The most recent bombing attack in Israel occurred this past Sunday,
July 11, on a Tel Aviv bus, killing one soldier and injuring a dozen
civilians. One of the injured was a 29-year-old named Sammi Masrawa, an
Israeli Arab who leads an Arab-Jewish friendship group in the Tel Aviv
area. Mr. Masrawa told the press he had opposed the barrier. In fact,
he even took part in protests against it. But the bombing on Sunday
changed his mind. He said:
I will now be for [the fence] and form an organization in
favor of it.
I wonder: How might the 15 judges of the United Nations' highest
court justify their ruling to Sammi Masrawa, who from his hospital bed
now pledges to lobby in support of the security fence.
His quest for peace underpinned by real security should be the call
to which the United Nations and the international community respond.
Instead, the ICJ has allowed an anti-Israel bias to cloud its vision
and undermine its noble purpose.
We Americans need to wake up to the fact that the U.N. and its
ancillaries are fundamentally hostile to Israel. We need to wake up to
the fact that the U.N. and its ancillaries are unwilling to stanch the
murderous flow of worldwide anti-Semitism. Why is this important?
Because what affects Israel affects the United States as well.
Israeli nuclear physicist Haim Harari recently gave a speech in which
he grimly but accurately described the virulent new strain of
terrorists who are not only threatening Jerusalem, they are threatening
Bali, Istanbul, Madrid, Riyadh, and New York. I urge my colleagues to
read his message and reflect on what we must do to protect America and
Israel, fix the U.N., and promote freedom and democracy and human
rights around the world.
I hope also to remind our Arab friends in the area--be that Egypt or
Kuwait or some of the other countries there--we care about these kinds
of poisons that pervade the atmosphere, and we cannot tolerate that
kind of an attitude, and won't, in our relationship with the U.N. or
without or within these countries.
I ask unanimous consent that Dr. Harari's speech be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 2.)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From On The Record, June 21, 2004]
One Small Step: Is the U.N. Finally Ready To Get Serious About Anti-
Semitism?
(By Anne Bayefsky)
(Editor's note: Ms. Bayefsky delivered this speech at the
U.N. at a conference on Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education
for Tolerance and Understanding, sponsored by the United
Nations Department of Information, this morning.)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you at this first
U.N. conference on anti-Semitism, which is being convened six
decades after the organization's creation. My thanks to the
U.N. organizers and in particular Shashi Tharoor [the
undersecretary-general for communications and public
information] for their initiative and to the secretary-
general for his willingness to engage.
This meeting occurs at a point when the relationship
between Jews and the United Nations is at an all-time low.
The U.N. took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and
according to its charter was to flower on the strength of a
commitment to tolerance and equality for all men and women
and of nations large and small. Today, however, the U.N.
provides a platform for those who cast the victims of the
Nazis as the Nazi counterparts of the 21st century. The U.N.
has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism--
intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and its
state.
Not only have many of the U.N. members most responsible for
this state of affairs rendered their own countries Judenrein,
they have succeeded in almost entirely expunging concern
about Jew-hatred from the U.N. docket. From 1965, when anti-
Semitism was deliberately excluded from a treaty on racial
discrimination, to last fall, when a proposal for a General
Assembly resolution on anti-Semitism was withdrawn after
Ireland capitulated to Arab and Muslim opposition, mention of
anti-Semitism has continually ground the wheels of U.N.-led
multilateralism to a halt.
There has never been a U.N. resolution specifically on
anti-Semitism or a single report to a U.N. body dedicated to
discrimination against Jews, in contrast to annual
resolutions and reports focusing on the defamation of Islam
and discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Instead there
was Durban--the 2001 U.N. World Conference ``Against
Racism,'' which was a breeding ground and global soapbox for
anti-Semites. When it was over U.N. officials and member
states turned the Durban Declaration into the centerpiece of
the U.N.'s antiracism agenda--allowing Durban follow-up
resolutions to become a continuing battlefield over U.N.
concern with anti-Semitism.
Not atypical is the public dialogue in the U.N.'s top human
rights body--the Commission on Human Rights--where this past
April the Pakistani ambassador, speaking on behalf of the 56
members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference,
unashamedly disputed that anti-Semitism was about Jews.
For Jews, however, ignorance is not an option. Anti-
Semitism is about intolerance and discrimination directed at
Jews--both individually and collectively. It concerns both
individual human rights and the group right to self-
determination--realized in the state of Israel.
What does discrimination against the Jewish state mean? It
means refusing to admit
[[Page S8099]]
only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional
groups held daily, during U.N. Commission on Human Rights
meetings. It means devoting six of the 10 emergency sessions
ever held by the General Assembly to Israel. It means
transforming the 10th emergency session into a permanent
tribunal--which has now been reconvened 12 times since 1997.
By contrast, no emergency session was ever held on the
Rwandan genocide, estimated to have killed a million people,
or the ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands in the former
Yugoslavia, or the death of millions over the past two
decades of atrocities in Sudan. That's discrimination.
The record of the Secretariat is more of the same. In
November 2003, Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a report
on Israel's security fence, detailing the purported harm to
Palestinians without describing one terrorist act against
Israelis which preceded the fence's construction. Recently,
the secretary-general strongly condemned Israel for
destroying homes in southern Gaza without mentioning the
arms-smuggling tunnels operating beneath them. When Israel
successfully targeted Hamas terrorist Abdel Aziz Rantissi
with no civilian casualties, the secretary-general
denounced Israel for an ``extrajudicial'' killing. But
when faced with the 2004 report of the U.N. special
rapporteur on extrajudicial executions detailing the
murder of more than 3,000 Brazilian civilians shot at
close range by police, Mr. Annan chose silence. That's
discrimination.
At the U.N., the language of human rights is hijacked not
only to discriminate but to demonize the Jewish target. More
than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's
human rights violations adopted by the commission over 40
years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been
a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the
civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China, or
the million female migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as
virtual slaves, or the virulent racism which has brought
600,000 people to the brink of starvation in Zimbabwe. Every
year, U.N. bodies are required to produce at least 25 reports
on alleged human rights violations by Israel, but not one on
an Iranian criminal justice system which mandates punishments
such as crucifixion, stoning and cross-amputation of the
right hand and left foot. This is not a legitimate critique
of states with equal or worse human rights records. It is
demonization of the Jewish state.
As Israelis are demonized at the U.N., so Palestinians and
their cause are deified. Every year the U.N. marks Nov. 29 as
the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian
People--the day the U.N. partitioned the British Palestine
mandate and which Arabs often style as the onset of al naba
or the ``catastrophe'' of the creation of the state of
Israel. In 2002, the anniversary of the vote that survivors
of the concentration camps celebrated, was described by
Secretary-General Annan as ``a day of mourning and a day of
grief.''
In 2003 the representatives of over 100 member states stood
along with the secretary-general, before a map predating the
state of Israel, for a moment of silence ``for all those who
had given their lives for the Palestinian people''--which
would include suicide bombers. Similarly, U.N. rapporteur
John Dugard has described Palestinian terrorists as ``tough''
and their efforts as characterized by ``determination,
daring, and success.'' A commission resolution for the past
three years has legitimized the Palestinian use of ``all
available means including armed struggle''--an absolution for
terrorist methods which would never be applied to the self-
determination claims of Chechens or Basques.
Although Palestinian self-determination is equally
justified, the connection between demonizing Israelis and
sanctifying Palestinians makes it clear that the core issue
is not the stated cause of Palestinian suffering. For there
are no U.N. resolutions deploring the practice of encouraging
Palestinian children to glorify and emulate suicide bombers,
or the use of the Palestinian population as human shields, or
the refusal by the vast majority of Arab states to integrate
Palestinian refugees into their societies and to offer them
the benefits of citizenship. Palestinians are lionized at the
U.N. because they are the perceived antidote to what U.N.
envoy Lakhdar Brahimi called the great poison of the Middle
East--the existence and resilience of the Jewish state.
Of course, anti-Semitism takes other forms at the U.N. Over
the past decade at the commission, Syria announced that
yeshivas train rabbis to instill racist hatred in their
pupils. Palestinian representatives claimed that Israelis can
happily celebrate religious holidays like Yom Kippur only by
shedding Palestinian blood, and accused Israel of injecting
300 Palestinian children with HIV-positive blood.
U.N.-led anti-Semitism moves from the demonization of Jews
to the disqualification of Jewish victimhood: refusing to
recognize Jewish suffering by virtue of their ethnic and
national identity. In 2003, a General Assembly resolution
concerned with the welfare of Israeli children failed (though
one on Palestinian children passed handily) because it proved
impossible to gain enough support for the word Israeli
appearing before the word children. The mandate of the U.N.
special rapporteur on the ``Palestinian territories,'' set
over a decade ago, is to investigate only ``Israel's
violations of . . . international law'' and not to consider
human-rights violations by Palestinians in Israel.
It follows in U.N. logic that nonvictims aren't really
supposed to fight back. One after another concrete Israeli
response to terrorism is denounced by the secretary-general
and member states as illegal. But killing members of the
command-and-control structure of a terrorist organization,
when there is no disproportionate use of force, and arrest is
impossible, is not illegal. Homes used by terrorists in the
midst of combat are legitimate military targets. A
nonviolent, temporary separation of parties to a conflict on
disputed territory by a security fence, which is sensitive to
minimizing hardships, is a legitimate response to Israel's
international legal obligations to protect its citizens
from crimes against humanity. In effect, the U.N. moves to
pin the arms of Jewish targets behind their backs while
the terrorists take aim.
The U.N.'s preferred imagery for this phenomenon is of a
cycle of violence. It is claimed that the cycle must be
broken--every time Israelis raises a hand. But just as the
symbol of the cycle is chosen because it has no beginning, it
is devastating to the cause of peace because it denies the
possibility of an end. The Nuremberg Tribunal taught us that
crimes are not committed by abstract entities.
The perpetrators of anti-Semitism today are the preachers
in mosques who exhort their followers to blow up Jews. They
are the authors of Palestinian Authority textbooks that teach
a new generation to hate Jews and admire their killers. They
are the television producers and official benefactors in
authoritarian regimes like Syria or Egypt who manufacture and
distribute programming that depicts Jews as bloodthirsty
world conspirators.
Listen, however, to the words of the secretary-general in
response to two suicide bombings which took place in
Jerusalem this year, killing 19 and wounding 110: ``Once
again, violence and terror have claimed innocent lives in the
Middle East. Once again, I condemn those who resort to such
methods.'' ``The Secretary General condemns the suicide
bombing Sunday in Jerusalem. The deliberate targeting of
civilians is a heinous crime and cannot be justified by any
cause.'' Refusing to name the perpetrators, Mr. Secretary-
General, Teflon terrorism, is a green light to strike again.
Perhaps more than any other, the big lie that fuels anti-
Semitism today is the U.N.-promoted claim that the root cause
of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestinian
land. According to U.N. revisionism, the occupation
materialized in a vacuum. In reality, Israel occupies land
taken in a war which was forced upon it by neighbors who
sought to destroy it. It is a state of occupation which
Israelis themselves have repeatedly sought to end through
negotiations over permanent borders. It is a state in which
any abuses are closely monitored by Israel's independent
judiciary. But ultimately, it is a situation which is the
responsibility of the rejectionists of Jewish self-
determination among Palestinians and their Arab and
Muslim brethren--who have rendered the Palestinian
civilian population hostage to their violent and anti-
Semitic ambitions.
There are those who would still deny the existence of anti-
Semitism at the U.N. by pointing to a range of motivations in
U.N. corridors including commercial interests, regional
politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations
closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. U.N.
actors and supporters remain almost uniformly in denial of
the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They
ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that
the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both
the good and the bad.
The relative distribution of naivete, cowardice,
opportunism, and anti-Semitism, however, matters little to
Noam and Matan Ohayon, ages 4 and 5, shot to death through
their mother's body in their home in northern Israel while
she tried to shield them from a gunman of Yasser Arafat's al-
Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The terrible consequences of these
combined motivations mobilized and empowered within U.N.
chambers are the same.
The inability of the U.N. to confront the corruption of its
agenda dooms this organization's success as an essential
agent of equality or dignity or democratization.
This conference may serve as a turning point. We will only
know if concrete changes occur hereafter: a General Assembly
resolution on anti-Semitism adopted, an annual report on
anti-Semitism forthcoming, a focal point on anti-Semitism
created, a rapporteur on anti-Semitism appointed.
But I challenge the secretary-general and his organization
to go further--if they are serious about eradicating anti-
Semitism:
a. Start putting a name to the terrorists that kill Jews
because they are Jews.
b. Start condemning human-rights violators wherever they
dwell--even if they live in Riyadh or Damascus.
c. Stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back
against their killers.
d. And the next time someone asks you or your colleagues to
stand for a moment of silence to honor those who would
destroy the state of Israel, say no. Only then will the
message be heard from these chambers that the U.N. will not
tolerate anti-Semitism or its consequences against Jews and
the Jewish people, whether its victims live in Tehran, Paris
or Jerusalem.
Ms. Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and
an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School.
[[Page S8100]]
____
Exhibit 5
A View From the Eye of the Storm
(Talk delivered by Haim Harari at a meeting of the International
Advisory Board of a large multi-national corporation, April, 2004)
As you know, I usually provide the scientific and
technological ``entertainment'' in our meetings, but, on this
occasion, our Chairman suggested that I present my own
personal view on events in the part of the world from which I
come. I have never been and I will never be a Government
official and I have no privileged information. My perspective
is entirely based on what I see, on what I read and on the
fact that my family has lived in this region for almost 200
years. You may regard my views as those of the proverbial
taxi driver, which you are supposed to question, when you
visit a country.
I could have shared with you some fascinating facts and
some personal thoughts about the Israeli-Arab conflict.
However, I will touch upon it only in passing. I prefer to
devote most of my remarks to the broader picture of the
region and its place in world events. I refer to the entire
area between Pakistan and Morocco, which is predominantly
Arab, predominantly Moslem, but includes many non-Arab and
also significant non-Moslem minorities.
Why do I put aside Israel and its own immediate
neighborhood? Because Israel and any problems related to it,
in spite of what you might read or hear in the world media,
is not the central issue, and has never been the central
issue in the upheaval in the region. Yes, there is a 100-
year-old Israeli-Arab conflict, but it is not where the main
show is. The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had
nothing to do with Israel. The mass murder happening right
now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its
black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel. The
frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds
of civilians in one village or another by other Algerians
have nothing to do with Israel. Saddam Hussein did not invade
Kuwait, endanger Saudi Arabia and butcher his own people
because of Israel. Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen
in the 60's because of Israel. Assad the Father did not kill
tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma
in Syria because of Israel. The Taliban control of
Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with
Israel. The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had
nothing to do with Israel, and I could go on and on and on.
The root of the trouble is that this entire Moslem region
is totally dysfunctional, by any standard of the word, and
would have been so even if Israel would have joined the Arab
league and an independent Palestine would have existed for
100 years. The 22 member countries of the Arab league,
from Mauritania to the Gulf States, have a total
population of 300 millions, larger than the US and almost
as large as the EU before its expansion. They have a land
area larger than either the United States or all of
Europe. These 22 countries, with all their oil and natural
resources, have a combined GDP smaller than that of
Netherlands plus Belgium and equal to half of the GDP of
California alone. Within this meager GDP, the gaps between
rich and poor are beyond belief and too many of the rich
made their money not by succeeding in business, but by
being corrupt rulers. The social status of women is far
below what it was in the Western World 150 years ago.
Human rights are below any reasonable standard, in spite
of the grotesque fact that Libya was elected Chair of the
U.N. Human Rights commission. According to a report
prepared by a committee of Arab intellectuals and
published under the auspices of the U.N., the number of
books translated by the entire Arab world is much smaller
than what little Greece alone translates. The total number
of scientific publications of 300 million Arabs is less
than that of 6 million Israelis. Birth rates in the region
are very high, increasing the poverty, the social gaps and
the cultural decline. And all of this is happening in a
region, which only 30 years ago, was believed to be the
next wealthy part of the world, and in a Moslem area,
which developed, at some point in history, one of the most
advanced cultures in the world.
It is fair to say that this creates an unprecedented
breeding ground for cruel dictators, terror networks,
fanaticism, incitement, suicide murders and general decline.
It is also a fact that almost everybody in the region blames
this situation on the United States, on Israel, on Western
Civilization, on Judaism and Christianity, on anyone and
anything, except themselves.
Do I say all of this with the satisfaction of someone
discussing the failings of his enemies? On the contrary, I
firmly believe that the world would have been a much better
place and my own neighborhood would have been much more
pleasant and peaceful, if things were different.
I should also say a word about the millions of decent,
honest, good people who are either devout Moslems or are not
very religious but grew up in Moslem families. They are
double victims of an outside world, which now develops
Islamophobia and of their own environment, which breaks their
heart by being totally dysfunctional. The problem is that the
vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the
terror and of the incitement but they also do not stand up
against it. They become accomplices, by omission, and this
applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people
and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from
wrong, but are afraid to express their views.
The events of the last few years have amplified four
issues, which have always existed, but have never been as
rampant as in the present upheaval in the region. These are
the four main pillars of the current World Conflict, or
perhaps we should already refer to it as ``the undeclared
World War III''. I have no better name for the present
situation. A few more years may pass before everybody
acknowledges that it is a World War, but we are already
well into it.
The first element is the suicide murder. Suicide murders
are not a new invention but they have been made popular, if I
may use this expression, only lately. Even after September
11, it seems that most of the Western World does not yet
understand this weapon. It is a very potent psychological
weapon. Its real direct impact is relatively minor. The total
number of casualties from hundreds of suicide murders within
Israel in the last three years is much smaller than those due
to car accidents. September 11 was quantitatively much less
lethal than many earthquakes. More people die from AIDS in
one day in Africa than all the Russians who died in the hands
of Chechnya-based Moslem suicide murderers since that
conflict started. Saddam killed every month more people than
all those who died from suicide murders since the Coalition
occupation of Iraq.
So what is all the fuss about suicide killings? It creates
headlines. It is spectacular. It is frightening. It is a very
cruel death with bodies dismembered and horrible severe
lifelong injuries to many of the wounded. It is always shown
on television in great detail. One such murder, with the help
of hysterical media coverage, can destroy the tourism
industry of a country for quite a while, as it did in Bali
and in Turkey.
But the real fear comes from the undisputed fact that no
defense and no preventive measures can succeed against a
determined suicide murderer. This has not yet penetrated the
thinking of the Western World. The U.S. and Europe are
constantly improving their defense against the last murder,
not the next one. We may arrange for the best airport
security in the world. But if you want to murder by suicide,
you do not have to board a plane in order to explode yourself
and kill many people. Who could stop a suicide murder in the
midst of the crowded line waiting to be checked by the
airport metal detector? How about the lines to the check-in
counters in a busy travel period? Put a metal detector in
front of every train station in Spain and the terrorists will
get the buses. Protect the buses and they will explode in
movie theaters, concert halls, supermarkets, shopping malls,
schools and hospitals. Put guards in front of every concert
hall and there will always be a line of people to be checked
by the guards and this line will be the target, not to speak
of killing the guards themselves. You can somewhat reduce
your vulnerability by preventive and defensive measures and
by strict border controls but not eliminate it and definitely
not win the war in a defensive way. And it is a war!
What is behind the suicide murders? Money, power and cold-
blooded murderous incitement, nothing else. It has nothing to
do with true fanatic religious beliefs. No Moslem preacher
has ever blown himself up. No son of an Arab politician or
religious leader has ever blown himself. No relative of
anyone influential has done it. Wouldn't you expect some of
the religious leaders to do it themselves, or to talk their
sons into doing it, if this is truly a supreme act of
religious fervor? Aren't they interested in the benefits
of going to Heaven? Instead, they send outcast women,
naive children, retarded people and young incited
hotheads. They promise them the delights, mostly sexual,
of the next world, and pay their families handsomely after
the supreme act is performed and enough innocent people
are dead.
Suicide murders also have nothing to do with poverty and
despair. The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa.
It never happens there. There are numerous desperate people
in the world, in different cultures, countries and
continents. Desperation does not provide anyone with
explosives, reconnaissance and transportation. There was
certainly more despair in Saddam's Iraq then in Paul
Bremmer's Iraq, and no one exploded himself. A suicide murder
is simply a horrible, vicious weapon of cruel, inhuman,
cynical, well-funded terrorists, with no regard to human
life, including the fife of their fellow countrymen, but with
very high regard to their own affluent well-being and their
hunger for power.
The only way to fight this new ``popular'' weapon is
identical to the only way in which you fight organized crime
or pirates on the high seas: the offensive way. Like in the
case of organized crime, it is crucial that the forces on the
offensive be united and it is crucial to reach the top of the
crime pyramid. You cannot eliminate organized crime by
arresting the little drug dealer in the street corner. You
must go after the head of the ``Family''.
If part of the public supports it, others tolerate it, many
are afraid of it and some try to explain it away by poverty
or by a miserable childhood, organized crime will thrive and
so will terrorism. The United States understands this now,
after September 11. Russia is beginning to understand it.
Turkey understands it well. I am very much afraid that most
of Europe still does not understand it. Unfortunately, it
seems that Europe will understand it only after suicide
murders will arrive in Europe in a big way. In my humble
[[Page S8101]]
opinion, this will definitely happen. The Spanish trains and
the Istanbul bombings are only the beginning. The unity of
the Civilized World in fighting this horror is absolutely
indispensable. Until Europe wakes up, this unity will not be
achieved.
The second ingredient is words, more precisely lies. Words
can be lethal. They kill people. It is often said that
politicians, diplomats and perhaps also lawyers and business
people must sometimes lie, as part of their professional
life. But the norms of politics and diplomacy are childish,
in comparison with the level of incitement and total absolute
deliberate fabrications, which have reached new heights in
the region we are talking about. An incredible number of
people in the Arab world believe that September 11 never
happened, or was an American provocation or, even better, a
Jewish plot.
You all remember the Iraqi Minister of Information, Mr.
Mouhamad Said al-Sahaf and his press conferences when the US
forces were already inside Baghdad. Disinformation at time of
war is an accepted tactic. But to stand, day after day,
and to make such preposterous statements, known to
everybody to be lies, without even being ridiculed in your
own milieu, can only happen in this region. Mr. Sahaf
eventually became a popular icon as a court jester, but
this did not stop some allegedly respectable newspapers
from giving him equal time. It also does not prevent the
Western press from giving credence, every day, even now,
to similar liars. After all, if you want to be an anti-
Semite, there are subtle ways of doing it. You do not have
to claim that the holocaust never happened and that the
Jewish temple in Jerusalem never existed. But millions of
Moslems are told by their leaders that this is the case.
When these same leaders make other statements, the Western
media report them as if they could be true.
It is a daily occurrence that the same people, who finance,
arm and dispatch suicide murderers, condemn the act in
English in front of western TV cameras, talking to a world
audience, which even partly believes them. It is a daily
routine to hear the same leader making opposite statements in
Arabic to his people and in English to the rest of the world.
Incitement by Arab TV, accompanied by horror pictures of
mutilated bodies, has become a powerful weapon of those who
lie, distort and want to destroy everything. Little children
are raised on deep hatred and on admiration of so-called
martyrs, and the Western World does not notice it because its
own TV sets are mostly tuned to soap operas and game shows. I
recommend to you, even though most of you do not understand
Arabic, to watch Al Jazeera, from time to time. You will not
believe your own eyes.
But words also work in other ways, more subtle. A
demonstration in Berlin, carrying banners supporting Saddam's
regime and featuring three-year old babies dressed as suicide
murderers, is defined by the press and by political leaders
as a ``peace demonstration''. You may support or oppose the
Iraq war, but to refer to fans of Saddam, Arafat or Bin Laden
as peace activists is a bit too much. A woman walks into an
Israeli restaurant in mid-day, eats, observes families with
old people and children eating their lunch in the adjacent
tables and pays the bill. She then blows herself up, killing
20 people, including many children, with heads and arms
rolling around in the restaurant. She is called ``martyr'' by
several Arab leaders and ``activist'' by the European press.
Dignitaries condemn the act but visit her bereaved family and
the money flows.
There is a new game in town: The actual murderer is called
``the military wing'', the one who pays him, equips him and
sends him is now called ``the political wing'' and the head
of the operation is called the ``spiritual leader''. There
are numerous other examples of such Orwellian nomenclature,
used every day not only by terror chiefs but also by Western
media. These words are much more dangerous than many people
realize. They provide an emotional infrastructure for
atrocities. It was Joseph Goebels who said that if you repeat
a lie often enough, people will believe it. He is now being
outperformed by his successors.
The third aspect is money. Huge amounts of money, which
could have solved many social problems in this dysfunctional
part of the world, are channeled into three concentric
spheres supporting death and murder. In the inner circle are
the terrorists themselves. The money funds their travel,
explosives, hideouts and permanent search for soft vulnerable
targets. They are surrounded by a second wider circle of
direct supporters, planners, commanders, preachers, all of
whom make a living, usually a very comfortable living, by
serving as terror infrastructure. Finally, we find the third
circle of so-called religious, educational and welfare
organizations, which actually do some good, feed the hungry
and provide some schooling, but brainwash a new generation
with hatred, lies and ignorance. This circle operates mostly
through mosques, madrasas and other religious establishments
but also through inciting electronic and printed media. It is
this circle that makes sure that women remain inferior, that
democracy is unthinkable and that exposure to the outside
world is minimal. It is also that circle that leads the way
in blaming everybody outside the Moslem world, for the
miseries of the region.
Figuratively speaking, this outer circle is the guardian,
which makes sure that the people look and listen inwards to
the inner circle of terror and incitement, rather than to the
world outside. Some parts of this same outer circle actually
operate as a result of fear from, or blackmail by, the inner
circles. The horrifying added factor is the high birth rate.
Half of the population of the Arab world is under the age of
20, the most receptive age to incitement, guaranteeing two
more generations of blind hatred.
Of the three circles described above, the inner circles are
primarily financed by terrorist states like Iran and Syria,
until recently also by Iraq and Libya and earlier also by
some of the Communist regimes. These states, as well as the
Palestinian Authority, are the safe havens of the wholesale
murder vendors. The outer circle is largely financed by Saudi
Arabia, but also by donations from certain Moslem communities
in the United States and Europe and, to a smaller extent, by
donations of European Governments to various NGO's and by
certain United Nations organizations, whose goals may be
noble, but they are infested and exploited by agents of the
outer circle. The Saudi regime, of course, will be the next
victim of major terror, when the inner circle will explode
into the outer circle. The Saudis are beginning to understand
it, but they fight the inner circles, while still financing
the infrastructure at the outer circle.
Some of the leaders of these various circles live very
comfortably on their loot. You meet their children in the
best private schools in Europe, not in the training camps of
suicide murderers. The Jihad ``soldiers'' join packaged death
tours to Iraq and other hotspots, while some of their leaders
ski in Switzerland. Mrs. Arafat, who lives in Paris with her
daughter, receives tens of thousands dollars per month from
the allegedly bankrupt Palestinian Authority while a typical
local ringleader of the Al-Aksa brigade, reporting to Arafat,
receives only a cash payment of a couple of hundred dollars,
for performing murders at the retail level.
The fourth element of the current world conflict is the
total breaking of all laws. The civilized world believes in
democracy, the rule of law, including international law,
human rights, free speech and free press, among other
liberties. There are naive old-fashioned habits such as
respecting religious sites and symbols, not using ambulances
and hospitals for acts of war, avoiding the mutilation of
dead bodies and not using children as human shields or human
bombs. Never in history, not even in the Nazi period, was
there such total disregard of all of the above as we observe
now. Every student of political science debates how you
prevent an anti-democratic force from winning a democratic
election and abolishing democracy. Other aspects of a
civilized society must also have limitations. Can a policeman
open fire on someone trying to kill him? Can a government
listen to phone conversations of terrorists and drug dealers?
Does free speech protects you when you shout ``fire'' in a
crowded theater? Should there be death penalty, for
deliberate multiple murders? These are the oldfashioned
dilemmas. But now we have an entire new set.
Do you raid a mosque, which serves as a terrorist
ammunition storage? Do you return fire, if you are attacked
from a hospital? Do you storm a church taken over by
terrorists who took the priests hostages? Do you search every
ambulance after a few suicide murderers use ambulances to
reach their targets? Do you strip every woman because one
pretended to be pregnant and carried a suicide bomb on her
belly? Do you shoot back at someone trying to kill you,
standing deliberately behind a group of children? Do you raid
terrorist headquarters, hidden in a mental hospital? Do you
shoot an arch-murderer who deliberately moves from one
location to another, always surrounded by children? All of
these happen daily in Iraq and in the Palestinian areas. What
do you do? Well, you do not want to face the dilemma. But it
cannot be avoided.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that someone would
openly stay in a wellknown address in Teheran, hosted by the
Iranian Government and financed by it, executing one atrocity
after another in Spain or in France, killing hundreds of
innocent people, accepting responsibility for the crimes,
promising in public TV interviews to do more of the same,
while the Government of Iran issues public condemnations of
his acts but continues to host him, invite him to official
functions and treat him as a great dignitary. I leave it to
you as homework to figure out what Spain or France would have
done, in such a situation.
The problem is that the civilized world is still having
illusions about the rule of law in a totally lawless
environment. It is trying to play ice hockey by sending a
ballerina ice-skater into the rink or to knock out a
heavyweight boxer by a chess player. In the same way that no
country has a law against cannibals eating its prime
minister, because such an act is unthinkable, international
law does not address killers shooting from hospitals, mosques
and ambulances, while being protected by their Government or
society. International law does not know how to handle
someone who sends children to throw stones, stands behind
them and shoots with immunity and cannot be arrested because
he is sheltered by a Government. International law does
not know how to deal with a leader of murderers who is
royally and comfortably hosted by a country, which
pretends to condemn his acts or just claims to be too weak
to arrest him. The amazing thing is that all of these
crooks demand protection under international law and
define all those who attack them as war criminals, with
some Western media repeating the allegations.
[[Page S8102]]
The good news is that all of this is temporary, because
the evolution of international law has always adapted
itself to reality. The punishment for suicide murder
should be death or arrest before the murder, not during
and not after. After every world war, the rules of
international law have changed and the same will happen
after the present one. But during the twilight zone, a lot
of harm can be done.
The picture I described here is not pretty. What can we do
about it? In the short run, only fight and win. In the long
run--only educate the next generation and open it to the
world. The inner circles can and must be destroyed by force.
The outer circle cannot be eliminated by force. Here we need
financial starvation of the organizing elite, more power to
women, more education, counter propaganda, boycott whenever
feasible and access to Western media, internet and the
international scene. Above all, we need a total absolute
unity and determination of the civilized world against all
three circles of evil.
Allow me, for a moment, to depart from my alleged role as a
taxi driver and return to science. When you have a malignant
tumor, you may remove the tumor itself surgically. You may
also starve it by preventing new blood from reaching it from
other parts of the body, thereby preventing new ``supplies''
from expanding the tumor. If you want to be sure, it is best
to do both.
But before you fight and win, by force or otherwise, you
have to realize that you are in a war, and this may take
Europe a few more years. In order to win, it is necessary to
first eliminate the terrorist regimes, so that no Government
in the world will serve as a safe haven for these people. I
do not want to comment here on whether the American-led
attack on Iraq was justified from the point of view of
weapons of mass destruction or any other pre-war argument,
but I can look at the post-war map of Western Asia. Now that
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are out, two and a half terrorist
states remain: Iran, Syria and Lebanon, the latter being a
Syrian colony. Perhaps Sudan should be added to the list. As
a result of the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq, both Iran
and Syria are now totally surrounded by territories
unfriendly to them. Iran is encircled by Afghanistan, by the
Gulf States, Iraq and the Moslem republics of the former
Soviet Union. Syria is surrounded by Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and
Israel. This is a significant strategic change and it applies
strong pressure on the terrorist countries. It is not
surprising that Iran is so active in trying to incite a
Shiite uprising in Iraq. I do not know if the American plan
was actually to encircle both Iran and Syria, but that is the
resulting situation.
In my humble opinion, the number one danger to the world
today is Iran and its regime. It definitely has ambitions to
rule vast areas and to expand in all directions. It has an
ideology, which claims supremacy over Western culture. It is
ruthless. It has proven that it can execute elaborate
terrorist acts without leaving too many traces, using Iranian
Embassies. It is clearly trying to develop Nuclear Weapons.
Its so-called moderates and conservatives play their own
virtuoso version of the ``good-cop versus bad-cop'' game.
Iran sponsors Syrian terrorism, it is certainly behind much
of the action in Iraq, it is fully funding the Hizbulla and,
through it, the Palestinian Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it
performed acts of terror at least in Europe and in South
America and probably also in Uzbekhistan and Saudi Arabia and
it truly leads a multi-national terror consortium, which
includes, as minor players, Syria, Lebanon and certain Shiite
elements in Iraq. Nevertheless, most European countries still
trade with Iran, try to appease it and refuse to read the
clear signals.
In order to win the war it is also necessary to dry the
financial resources of the terror conglomerate. It is
pointless to try to understand the subtle differences between
the Sunni terror of Al Qaida and Hamas and the Shiite terror
of Hizbulla, Sadr and other Iranian inspired enterprises.
When it serves their business needs, all of them collaborate
beautifully.
It is crucial to stop Saudi and other financial support of
the outer circle, which is the fertile breeding ground of
terror. It is important to monitor all donations from the
Western World to Islamic organizations, to monitor the
finances of international relief organizations and to react
with forceful economic measures to any small sign of
financial aid to any of the three circles of terrorism. It is
also important to act decisively against the campaign of lies
and fabrications and to monitor those Western media who
collaborate with it out of naivety, financial interests or
ignorance.
Above all, never surrender to terror. No one will ever know
whether the recent elections in Spain would have yielded a
different result, if not for the train bombings a few days
earlier. But it really does not matter. What matters is that
the terrorists believe that they caused the result and that
they won by driving Spain out of Iraq. The Spanish story will
surely end up being extremely costly to other European
countries, including France, who is now expelling inciting
preachers and forbidding veils and including others who sent
troops to Iraq. In the long run, Spain itself will pay even
more.
Is the solution a democratic Arab world? If by democracy we
mean free elections but also free press, free speech, a
functioning judicial system, civil liberties, equality to
women, free international travel, exposure to international
media and ideas, laws against racial incitement and against
defamation, and avoidance of lawless behavior regarding
hospitals, places of worship and children, then yes,
democracy is the solution. If democracy is just free
elections, it is likely that the most fanatic regime will be
elected, the one whose incitement and fabrications are the
most inflammatory. We have seen it already in Algeria and, to
a certain extent, in Turkey. It will happen again, if the
ground is not prepared very carefully. On the other hand, a
certain transition democracy, as in Jordan, may be a better
temporary solution, paving the way for the real thing,
perhaps in the same way that an immediate sudden democracy
did not work in Russia and would not have worked in China.
I have no doubt that the civilized world will prevail. But
the longer it takes us to understand the new landscape of
this war, the more costly and painful the victory will be.
Europe, more than any other region, is the key. Its
understandable recoil from wars, following the horrors of
World War II, may cost thousands of additional innocent
lives, before the tide will turn.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Message to the American People
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I, like millions of Americans, see
what is happening on television, listen to what is happening on radio,
and hear campaign commercials that are being submitted on a fairly
regular basis. I listen to them and wonder, what is the message to our
country? What is being said? What is the message we want to give to the
American people? What do we want to tell them about our concern for
their needs? Do we want to talk about lower prices for prescription
drugs? Do we want to talk about educating our children? Do we want to
talk about health care generally? Do we want to talk about bringing the
troops home? Do we say enough is enough?
When we look at the record and see what is happening, the killing
continues in Iraq. Since we have gone over to an Iraqi interim
government, the rate of death has not diminished from the time before
we turned this government over to the Iraqi interim government.
Today, we heard news of a terrible explosion that killed a bunch of
Iraqis and injured American soldiers. The toll continues to mount. I
believe the American people are concerned about that. I hear it from
parents who say: My son's term has been extended. He thought he would
be home by now. Now he has to serve 3 more months. Or, my daughter has
to stay there far longer than she expected. Not only are they
emotionally torn apart, not only are there family problems from the
absence of dad or the absence of mom from the household, but
financially it is a disaster.
I have tried to get an amendment. I tried to put it on the Defense
appropriations bill, but I couldn't get the amendment attached. They
said no, we don't want to give $2,000 a month more for these people for
the 3 months more they have to serve; $6,000 total cost; maybe $150
million out of a budget of $400 billion, and we couldn't get an ear to
listen to it here. We couldn't get the majority to pay attention.
The job market is not robust. We are still at a loss for the number
of jobs we have available since this administration took over. When do
we put these people to work? When do we stop shipping jobs abroad? When
do we deal with the problems that concern everyday citizens? When do we
deal with the cost of gasoline, which is up 50 percent almost in the
last year?
What we hear in response to those problems are campaign commercials--
$8 million of them in recent weeks. We hear that John Kerry has missed
two-thirds of the votes that have been taken here in the U.S. Senate.
We do not hear anybody saying John Kerry served bravely in Vietnam when
he disagreed with the policy of his country, but he felt loyal enough
and obliged enough and went ahead and got wounded three times. He got
three Purple Hearts. I served in the Army 3 years. I didn't earn one,
but I know what a Purple Heart means in recognition of bravery; a
Silver Star, very high-ranking
[[Page S8103]]
medal; a Bronze Star, an important recognition of bravery on the
battlefield. And we want to hear talk about how he has missed these
votes.
Yes, I am a Member of the Senate and am proud of it. I am proud of my
voting record. But I am also proud of the contribution John Kerry is
trying to make to this country.
We ought to talk about comparing service to country, President Bush's
service and Senator John Kerry's service. Compare the two. Start with
Vietnam. See what happened there, when President Bush had an
opportunity to avoid regular service by going to the Air Guard, which
he didn't really do anything with. But to criticize Senator John Kerry
for his contribution to our country by pointing out the fact that he
has missed a bunch of votes, that he found time to vote against the
Laci Peterson amendment which was offered here, and that he missed
other votes--talk about the platforms of these two, talk about what
John Kerry is saying we have to do about jobs, about getting a
coalition to help us deal with Iraq to try to strengthen our resources
there.
President Bush's decision, along with his Cabinet, the Secretary of
Defense, and the Vice President, was that General Shinseki was all
wrong when he said we have to have 300,000 people in Iraq. They fired
him. They got rid of him. They don't want to hear dissent and
difference. They don't want to hear it. They don't want the public to
hear what John Kerry has done for his country. No. They want to hear
that he missed votes. It is too bad that he missed votes, but he is on
a larger mission. He wants a change in the direction of this country.
He is not here at times when he is out there delivering messages to
which people respond.
Just look at the gatherings. We see people for Senator Kerry and
Senator Edwards. They are thirsty for information that affects their
everyday lives. They do not sit around the dinner table talking about
how much time we are spending--not enough time, they might say--on gay
marriage and a constitutional amendment. I don't think Mr. and Mrs.
Working American are sitting around their table praying for the moment
that an amendment to the Constitution will be put in place where we can
challenge the rights of a particular group of people when we haven't
gotten our appropriations bills in place; we haven't voted on moving
homeland security resources along not funding these things. No, but we
can spend days here.
By the way, we may have set a record for quorum calls. We have spent
a lot of time with two lights on. That should tell the American people
that there is nothing going on in here. We have had one vote this week,
and the prospects for another vote are not very bright. What an
exhausting schedule, two, three votes, possibly five votes in a week.
Come on.
Please, Mr. President, clear your message, talk about the things the
American people are concerned about. Talk about how we get our kids
home from Iraq, talk about how we get our former allies into the mix so
they can help share the burden. That is what we want to hear.
We do not want to hear only critical comments about John Kerry
because then you force us to compare the two records. If I were
President Bush, I would hide from the record. If they want to compare
President Bush's record to Senator John Kerry's record of service to
country, we would have quite a revelation for the people in this
country.
Spending millions on commercials to denigrate Senator John Kerry, a
war hero, a volunteer, who went to Vietnam--go there, do your duty,
pull a guy out of the water whose life may be hanging in the balance,
under gunfire. Pull this man out of the water.
I have campaigned with one of his former swift boat colleagues. If
you heard the praise that he gave to LTG John Kerry for his leadership.
But we do not want to talk about that. We want to try to subdue it with
sneering commentaries about how he missed a vote and flip-flopped.
I wish President Bush would look at some of the decisions he made and
flip them. One of them I tried to pass was to have flag-draped coffins,
the respect that they earn. People who gave their lives on behalf of
the country's mission, when they come back to Dover, DE, where the
coffins are deposited, and we say no, the media cannot show those
coffins because that would alert people to the penalties of war, to the
punishment that families endure. We do not want that. Hide it from the
public. Don't let them understand what the cost of war is.
They criticize Senator John Kerry, loyal American, who served his
duty, served it well, served it here. Look at his voting record before
he ran for President of the United States. Look at the President's
tours for fundraising and political gatherings. He goes on Air Force
One and the only cost--and this 747 is a beautiful airplane; most of
America has seen it--all that has to be paid is the cost of the first-
class transportation on a commercial airliner. Take this huge airplane,
lift it into the sky and say: Well, we will reimburse it because we
used it for fundraising or for political campaigns.
Mr. President, change your tune. Let's hear your view on what America
has to have to satisfy the needs of our constituents. Please, you have
gone too far with this character abuse, with this character
assassination. You have gone too far.
Look at the American people. Look them in the eye and say, yes, I,
President George Bush, approve of this message, and give a positive
message about when drug prices are coming down, about how we will fund
Head Start for 300,000 children who will now be dropped, or other
programs that are talked about but not funded. Please, Mr. President,
speak up on behalf of the people in America so we can build strength,
so we can have some harmony and not the divisive attitude we find
prevailing.
It is not fair to the American people. When we deny a hero's
recognition, we do something far worse. It was done in the State of
Georgia in a senatorial election recently. A fellow named Max Cleland,
with whom we served, and whom we all felt very close to, lost three
limbs in Vietnam. They managed to paint him in a somewhat cowardly
fashion, that he was soft on defense. One arm missing, half of one arm
missing, two legs missing. It takes him 2 hours to get out of bed in
the morning, and they made him look like he was soft on defense. What a
disgrace. The American people have to look at that.
And now the game is to denigrate John Kerry's record to make him look
as if he is just absent and not doing anything worthwhile. He and
Senator Edwards are trying to put this country on the right path. The
voters will decide, by the way. But we ought to let the record be out
there so that everybody knows what each of the parties is doing.
Enough, Mr. President. Please change the tone of your commercials. It
is not fair to have an airplane in the sky saying: Senator John Kerry,
if he had his choice, would have voted against the interests of the
troops. It is a foul lie, that is what it is, not true at all. If a
vote was made, it was made in the context of an entire amendment. It
was not made simply to take money away from our serving troops.
President Bush knows that.
I wish he would change his tone. It does not ring properly for the
President. It does not become the President of the United States to be
looking at Senator John Kerry's record and make jokes about his
attendance, about his flip-flop. No, no, no, look at the things he has
done. We can all pick out the blemishes of the other, but that is no
way to run a country. That is the way to run a schoolyard fight. It
does not become the President of the United States.
I yield the floor, but I hope President Bush will change his tone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
In Memory of Carey Lackman Slease
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to inform the
Senate family of the passing of Carey Anne Lackman Slease, my chief of
staff, who passed this morning at 5:30 a.m.
During the course of the day, my office staff and I have been deluged
with expressions of sympathy showing the very high regard and high
esteem that she was held in by our Senate family.
She was afflicted with the terrible problem of breast cancer. She had
a long, lingering illness. She received the very best of modern day
medicine with the assistance of the National Institutes of Health. My
deputy, Bettilou
[[Page S8104]]
Taylor, who handles the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services
and Education, has had extensive contact with the National Institutes
of Health. When I saw Carey last night, less than 24 hours ago, she had
expressed her gratitude for the kind of care which she had received.
She said, in her own words, she had a good run and she was
understanding and at peace with herself as she knew her imminent fate.
She had left the hospital shortly after being married to her
sweetheart, Clyde Slease, III, on Saturday. We have a beautiful set of
wedding photographs, a clear remembrance of her from just a few days
ago. And she came home, setting up a hospice, in effect, in her home.
As I say, when I saw her yesterday, she was reconciled and at peace
with herself, and considering the circumstances, as composed and as
brave and as resolute as any human being could be. She said she was
advised that it was a matter of a few days or a week or two. She was
taken this morning, as I say, at 5:30.
Her life was really the U.S. Senate. She graduated from Radford
University. She was the oldest daughter of a retired colonel, William
F. Lackman. She is survived by three sisters and three brothers--a
large family of seven children--and her mother.
She came to the Senate family at the age of 24, and she spent most of
the remaining half of her life in the Senate, dying at the age of 48.
She was a legislative assistant to Senator John Heinz from 1979 to
1985. She then founded her own firm in Los Angeles for a period of 6
years. She then came back to work for me in the early 1990s. Except for
a very short stint, again, with her own firm in biotech in the public
sector, she was on my staff, coming back to work for me some 2\1/2\
years ago in December 2001, when called to active duty.
She did an extraordinary job for me. She was beautiful in many ways:
a statuesque blonde, an amiable personality. She worked well with her
colleagues. She worked well with the young staff. She was a mentor. She
was very accomplished, brilliant, studious, analytical, and handled the
substantive problems of the office with aplomb, dignity, and
efficiency.
She was one of the first women to be chief of staff in the U.S.
Senate. She was acclaimed by PoliticsPA as one of Pennsylvania's most
politically powerful women.
She had an extraordinary career, regrettably cut short by her
untimely passing at the age of 48.
Funeral services will be held in Middleburg, VA, on Friday at 10
a.m., with a viewing tomorrow evening.
She has made quite an impact in many realms of her professional
pursuits, but really most of all in the U.S. Senate, where she had made
so many friends and was held in such very high regard, really beloved
by the Senate family.
So it is a sad occasion for the entire Senate family, but most of all
for her colleagues in my office and for me to note her passing at the
very tender age of 48.
Senator Santorum was in the chamber and wanted to speak but could not
wait until the other speakers had concluded.
I thank the Chair and, in the absence of any Senator seeking
recognition, 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________