[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23150-23154]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              WORLD PEACE

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take a few minutes to discuss 
something that has been in front of our eyes and in front of our minds 
these last couple of weeks; that is, the turmoil we are witnessing in 
the Middle East. Those horrible pictures of young people engaged in 
violence and paying a terrible price for the consequence of that 
violence. Not just the young people--women, children, young men.
  I think it is fair to say that everyone who sees what is taking place 
wishes it weren't happening. The question is raised about our 
responsibility and what do we do about it. Is there an opportunity for 
us to lend peace a hand, to see whether or not we can encourage the 
reduction of violence, the elimination of the confrontation with stones 
and tanks and guns, to see if there isn't something more that we could 
do than to simply be a witness.
  Mr. President, I commend President Clinton's efforts. He has been 
such a wonderful peacemaker in his term of office.
  I have been to the places he has exerted some effort, i.e., Ireland. 
I was there many years ago and met with people in the north and met 
people from the Republic. I talked to Catholics and Protestants and 
tried to help make adjustments in our funding support so it would be 
more balanced, balanced towards those people who needed help while 
asking those who did not to at least participate in a nonviolent manner 
to get the killing and the mayhem stopped.
  President Clinton took the initiative there. He sent Senator 
Mitchell, one of our very good friends from this place, a distinguished 
Senator; a distinguished judge before he came to the Senate. He worked 
tirelessly. He would get the two sides to at least stop shooting at one 
another and come to the negotiating table. It has had a shaky peace 
arrangement, but at least people are not dying. And if they are, it is 
an exceptional occasion and not the usual thing.
  I was in Kosovo and Bosnia with other Members of the Senate and saw 
the unacceptable behavior of the leadership there, as they committed 
the genocidal acts against innocent people. We became engaged, and it 
was a tough fight to become a part of the peacemaking structure. We 
didn't always agree with our friends in Europe about whether or not it 
was in their interests or our interests. I think we have seen that too 
many times.
  I was a veteran during the war a long time ago. I enlisted in the 
Army. Even in those early days in the last century when Hitler started 
to invade neighboring countries, killing people, separating groups from 
one another so they could be attacked in an organized fashion, there 
were people, I understand, as I read the history, who questioned 
whether it was something in which the United States should become 
involved. Before we knew it, we had no choice. When our ships were 
attacked in Pearl Harbor, we were in it 110 percent, with some 15 
million people in uniform. We fought hard. Hearts were broken. Families 
paid a price. Young people died--among others, but those who were 
involved in the military were young.
  In the last half of the 20th century, democracy flourished in some of 
those places. We still have troops in Germany, in Japan, in South 
Korea--50 years later.
  Sometimes, I must tell you, I do not understand it when questions are 
raised here about our role: Are we

[[Page 23151]]

going to be the policeman of the world? Does it have our interest in 
it?
  I remember the debate on Kosovo and Bosnia. There were many who said 
we have no business being there. I disagreed. I disagreed strongly, and 
I encouraged us to do what we did. President Clinton and Vice President 
Gore led the charge, if I may say, by making certain we protected our 
pilots and our military servicepeople wherever they were in the area as 
we took on the task of stopping a mad, genocidal attack on people in 
Kosovo and at times before that in Bosnia itself. It was a wonderful 
conclusion that we lost no one in combat, but we stopped the killing of 
innocent people. Kosovo is being rebuilt. Again, maybe it is a shaky 
peace but a peace. That is the critical issue. The question was raised, 
as I said, was that in our national interest? Are we going to be the 
policeman of the world?
  Now we are faced with another situation. When terrorism rears its 
ugly head, and when those who want to violate the safety and well-being 
of ordinary citizens and take it into their hands to determine who is 
wrong and who is right commit atrocious acts, it does almost always 
come home to roost. It is proven that at some point in time it is in 
our national interest. Our national interest is to protect our people. 
Maybe in the process we reach out to protect others so violence does 
not spread and we are not looking at wholesale attacks on innocent 
people.
  The other day when the U.S.S. Cole was struck by madmen who detonated 
bombs that tore the U.S.S. Cole apart, left a hole in the hull of the 
U.S.S. Cole, in a ship that was designed to withstand torpedoes and 
other pieces of military weaponry, and killed 17 people, if one read 
the biography of so many of them who died, they were young: 19, 20 
years old. I enlisted when I was 18. It is so very young. And 37 more, 
I think the number is, were wounded, many of them seriously wounded, 
and just brought home. Today I know there was a memorial service in 
Norfolk, VA, for those who died. The President was there. He made 
certain he got back from Egypt on time to be there.
  I wonder how many people are saying, do we have an interest, a 
national interest in what is taking place there when terrorism is 
allowed to flourish, and included in that activity are American 
citizens, those who were there to maintain the peace?
  The other day we passed a piece of legislation which I had the 
privilege of authoring that compensated victims of terrorist activity, 
families who lost people I knew, who lost a daughter in Israel in an 
attack on a bus outside the Gaza Strip. She was 20 years old, there on 
business, innocent, studying, trying to learn something about a 
heritage that she and her family were proud of --killed by a 
terrorist's bomb.
  Iran was held in our courts to be the country of responsibility. We 
took further action based on legislation that had passed through this 
House that enabled people to bring suits against those countries, to 
attach their assets that may have been in America. A resolution was 
adopted and the President is going to be signing a bill into law very 
shortly permitting the distribution of funds to those families. They 
didn't want the money but they didn't want other families to have to 
suffer the same consequences they did.
  Now we look at the President's attempt to bring peace to Israel and 
the Palestinians. We do not know whether that effort is going to work. 
But we do know that the President did the right thing to assert the 
presence of America and to say we want to see peace in this area.
  We are friendly with both sides in the dispute there, perhaps 
friendlier, as I think we should be, in many ways to the democratic 
nation of Israel because it is a democracy and people have choices 
about things. But we do not want to see Palestinians killed. It pained 
us all to see the picture of that young boy who was shot in a 
crossfire. It pained us all to see a couple of soldiers, who were doing 
no harm, taken to a jail and held there as prisoners until a mob was 
able to get their hands on them and lynch them, mutilate them--lynched 
them not with a rope but lynched them in terms of taking their lives in 
a mob attack, parading their bodies through the streets, mutilating 
them even as they lay dead.
  It is time for us to ask those who can stop this violence, who can at 
least slow it down, at least encourage peace, to step up and do so and 
not hold out a friendly American hand to those who will not.
  I welcomed Mr. Arafat here in 1993. I was amazed to see Prime 
Minister Rabin; the President of the United States; and the Chairman of 
the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat; shaking hands because I had 
only known about Yasser Arafat in an earlier time when he wore a gun on 
his hip and went to the United Nations and held the gun up as a 
manifestation of his view of how disputes are resolved.
  Now we see what is happening, even though there was a tacit agreement 
to try and stop the violence and the Israelis were cooperating. They 
permitted the reopening of the Gaza airport. I was there the week 
before that airport was opened. I was so positive about it bringing an 
opportunity to the Palestinian people in Gaza to have their economy 
lifted, to have their hopes and spirits lifted at the same time, that 
perhaps an improvement in their way of life and their economy might be 
possible because they live in desperate conditions.
  We have seen the violence, the rioting, the abuse, the stone 
throwing. Stone throwing is not an acceptable way of resolving 
disputes. It does not matter what the weapon is; it is a weapon; and it 
is designed to intimidate and punish a people with whom there is a 
disagreement. The Israelis retaliated. They have a responsibility, in 
my view, to protect their people and protect their property, protect 
their integrity as a democratic nation.
  I did not see any Israeli gloating about the fact that a Palestinian 
life was taken. We saw some action by some of the so-called settlers in 
territories in the West Bank who took action against their Palestinian 
neighbors, and the Prime Minister rebuked them and said: No Jewish 
Israelis, no Israelis should be taking mob rule into their own hands 
and harming people or killing them.
  He came out against it.
  Chairman Arafat in 1993, when he stood on the lawn at the White 
House, signed a statement that violence was no way to resolve 
differences, and he took an oath, practically speaking, that he would 
do whatever he could to abolish it.
  What we have seen in the last few days is inconsistent with that 
position, and we ought to notice it. When the U.N. took up a resolution 
that blamed Israel for all the problems, I was disappointed that the 
United States did not veto that resolution. But I know in this 
administration, this President, the Vice President, and the Secretary 
of State, all have peace in mind. I thought perhaps that was the reason 
we did not veto this resolution but, rather, abstained. Therefore, I do 
not second-guess the decision, but I hope if there are more such 
lopsided resolutions, the United States will veto it and not permit it 
to continue.
  It is fair to say the Israelis are making a genuine effort to stop 
the violence. And on the Palestinian side, they want it stopped. We 
heard Prime Minister Barak talking about it. They do not want to kill 
Palestinians. They do not want to injure people on the other side of 
the issue, but it is fair to say, Mr. Arafat, I was one in the Senate 
who supported financial assistance for the Palestinians when they 
signed the agreement to establish a peaceful relationship. I was one of 
those who encouraged it. I was one of those who said the Palestinians 
needed some hope and some expectation that their lives would improve, 
that their standard of living would be better, that their children 
could get an education, that they could have the proper health services 
they needed.
  I was filled with hope. I wanted to make certain that we showed our 
good faith by doing something positive for the Palestinians.
  I know Israel very well. I have visited there many times, and I know 
a lot of people there. Yitzhak Rabin was a personal friend of mine. 
When he was

[[Page 23152]]

killed by one of his own people, it was a tragedy felt round the world.
  The nation of Israel continued to try to make peace. Prime Minister 
Barak, the most heavily decorated soldier in the Israeli military, the 
most highly decorated soldier, is a prominent peacemaker. He wants to 
establish peace. He has seen war at its worst. That is why he has the 
medals that reflect heroism, bravery, and valor, but he did not like 
the killing. He did what he had to do to protect his country, and he is 
doing the same thing now, trying to protect his country and is trying 
to do it without violence, without responding violently to the attacks 
of his country. He is pleading for there to be peace, some measure of 
tranquillity on both sides.
  So as we mourn the loss of our young people, the sailors from the 
U.S.S. Cole, we wish those who are ill, who are wounded, who are 
injured, a full and speedy recovery.
  We also wish we can be witnesses to a more peaceful discussion about 
where the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians will go. 
They can get along--they must get along--to try to resolve every 
difference. Whether it is with slingshots and stones or rifles or 
artillery pieces, it is not an appropriate way to resolve those 
problems.
  But I do respect Israel's right to defend itself, and I do respect 
the wishes of many of the people in Palestine, the Palestinian 
community, to have their freedoms enumerated very clearly--their 
capacity to raise their families, to have an opportunity for the 
appropriate education and standard of living that all people want.
  But I call on Mr. Arafat, Yasser Arafat, with whom I have shaken 
hands many times--and in the tradition of the Middle East, we kissed 
each other on the cheek in good will when I was there at Gaza at the 
opening of the airport, when I was there to see the economic 
development that was taking place; I had so much respect for the things 
he was trying to do for his people--I send out a plea to him to gather 
whatever strength he has to take the leadership of the Palestinian 
Authority and do what he is supposed to as the chairman; that is, call 
for reconciliation, call for the end of the violence. Get back to the 
negotiating table. Air your differences. Ask the United States to help. 
Do not invite imbalance in resolutions and things such as that. Do not 
search for those who have a bias in this case to present programs for 
peace. But do what you said you would do, Mr. Arafat, when you came 
here in 1993, when we sat around dinner tables together, when I visited 
you in Jericho, and we talked in such friendly fashion that I walked 
away believing we were seeing the accomplishment of miracles, small 
though they may be.
  So I wish both sides the best wish I can, and that is for peace, to 
take care of your families, save your children by not taking other 
people's children, by not taking other people's lives.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I heard my colleague from New Jersey 
making a very eloquent statement concerning the violence in the Middle 
East. I certainly share his concern and his wish that peace will be 
restored amongst the Palestinians and the Israelis.
  I also heard him compliment the President on his efforts. And I 
compliment the President on his efforts in trying to contain the 
violence. But I am critical of the administration for a couple of 
things. I am critical of the administration for not vetoing Security 
Council Resolution 1322, which passed the Security Council on October 
7. We could have vetoed this resolution. It was a biased resolution. It 
was an unbalanced resolution, a resolution that criticized Israel and 
did not criticize the Palestinians. The Palestinians have been very 
involved in creating a lot of the violence. This is a one-sided 
resolution. This administration did not veto it, for whatever reason.
  Now the United Nations is considering another resolution, from what I 
understand from press reports and so on, that very strongly condemns 
Israel and is somewhat silent on the Palestinians.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this Security Council 
resolution 1322 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Resolution 1322 (2000)

  (Adopted by the Security Council at its 4205th meeting on 7 October 
                                 2000)

     The Security Council,
       Recalling its resolutions 476 (1980) of 30 June 1980, 478 
     (1980) of 20 August 1980, 672 (1990) of 12 October 1990, and 
     1073 (1996) of 28 September 1996, and all its other relevant 
     resolutions,
       Deeply concerned by the tragic events that have taken place 
     since 28 September 2000, that have led to numerous deaths and 
     injuries, mostly among Palestinians,
       Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab 
     and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 
     (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, 
     through an active negotiating process,
       Expressing its support for the Middle East peace process 
     and the efforts to reach a final settlement between the 
     Israeli and Palestinian sides and urging the two sides to 
     cooperate in these efforts,
       Reaffirming the need for full respect by all of the Holy 
     Places of the City of Jerusalem, and condemning any behaviour 
     to the contrary,
       1. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-
     Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent 
     violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other 
     areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 
     1967, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other 
     casualties;
       2. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use 
     of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss 
     of human life;
       3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide 
     scrupulously by its legal obligations and its 
     responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative 
     to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 
     August 1949;
       4. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for 
     all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence 
     ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that 
     the situation returns to normality in a way which promotes 
     the prospects for the Middle East peace process;
       5. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for 
     a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the 
     last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition, 
     and welcomes any efforts in this regard;
       6. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations 
     within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis with 
     the aim of achieving an early final settlement between the 
     Israeli and Palestinian sides;
       7. Invites the Secretary-General to continue to follow the 
     situation and to keep the Council informed;
       8. Decides to follow closely the situation and to remain 
     seized of the matter.

  Mr. NICKLES. But it is interesting, the second statement says it:

       Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of 
     force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of 
     human life.

  No. 3, it:

       Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide 
     scrupulously by its legal obligations. . . .

  It does not say for the Palestinians and it does not say for Mr. 
Arafat to abide by its obligations, and it does not talk about the 
Palestinians and their use of force.
  I heard my colleague from New Jersey talk about the fact that 
Palestinians had a couple of Israelis who were murdered.
  So my point is that the President of the United States should have 
urged our representative at the United Nations to veto this, use our 
veto in the Security Council to veto this very unbalanced, very biased, 
very anti-Israel resolution. And they did not do it. I think that was a 
mistake.
  Now we see more violence. This recent attack on the U.S.S. Cole on 
October 12 killed 17 and wounded dozens. I think many of us were 
shocked by that. I heard some of the statements by the Secretary of 
State, by the Secretary of Defense, by the President: Boy, we're going 
to hold those people, those terrorists, those cowards who committed 
this cowardly deed and killed innocent U.S. soldiers, accountable.
  Well, Mr. President, I have heard those words before. In many cases 
in past history, those words have been a lot stronger than our deeds. 
That bothers this Senator. I look back at some of the terrorist 
activity that has happened in the Middle East over the last

[[Page 23153]]

few years directed at the U.S. citizens and soldiers, and I am 
thinking: Wait a minute, I have heard those exact same words: We are 
going to hold these people accountable. And I look at what has 
happened.
  In 1993, we had President Bush--at that time he was former President 
Bush. He traveled to Kuwait in April of 1993. He was there April 14 
through 16. The Kuwaiti Government captured a van loaded with 180 
pounds of explosives. This was an attempt to assassinate former 
President Bush. This administration launched 23 cruise missiles to show 
they were really upset about that, most of which hit in the sand; some 
may have hit the targets, or at least they are saying that--but a 
pretty mild response.
  Again, was it directly targeted at those people who were directly 
responsible, or was it the United States kicking up and showing, well, 
we are a little peeved about this? Did we hold those people directly 
responsible who tried to assassinate President Bush? The answer is no. 
Did we capture those people who were directly involved in that? I 
believe the answer is no.
  If the intelligence community knows more about this than I do, I 
would be happy for them to inform this Senator. But I do not believe 
the individuals who were directly involved in that terrorist activity 
were held accountable, that they were tried, that they were punished 
for that action.
  What about the bombing of Khobar Towers? This happened June 25, 1996 
as a result of a car bomb. The destruction looked very similar to the 
bombing in Oklahoma City, another car bomb that blew up the Federal 
building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people. The car bomb outside 
the Khobar Towers killed 19 Americans, and it wounded 364.
  I remember the President, I remember the Secretary of Defense, I 
remember the Secretary of State say: We will not stop until these 
cowards are brought to justice.
  How many people have been brought to justice from the Khobar Towers 
bombing of 1996? The answer is, no one. The answer is, one person has 
been arrested. He is now in a Saudi jail--one person. A lot more than 
one person was responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing, a lot more 
than one person.
  What has been the result? Have we held people accountable? No. That 
was the most massive terrorist attack against military personnel, 
certainly since the bombing in Lebanon. What did we do? Well, basically 
nothing. Basically nothing.
  What about the bombings of the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania? That 
was August 7, 1998. Bombs exploded at the U.S. Embassies in both Kenya 
and Tanzania, killed 252 people, including 12 Americans. Again, we 
heard this President, this Secretary of State, this Secretary of 
Defense say: We will hold them accountable. What did we do? Once again, 
we lobbed some cruise missiles, and we hit, I guess, a terrorist camp 
in Afghanistan. I guess the principal terrorist we were aiming at was 
not there. Maybe some people were killed. Maybe those people were 
directly involved in the bombing; maybe they weren't. That is not very 
targeted, in my opinion. We also bombed a pharmaceutical plant that we 
may be making significant payments on because people determined maybe 
it wasn't directly involved. I don't know.
  My point is, this administration has made very strong statements that 
we are going to hold people accountable for attacking U.S. facilities, 
U.S. soldiers. We did it again with the U.S.S. Cole. Frankly, we 
haven't done it. Our country hasn't done it. Maybe we lobbed some 
cruise missiles and maybe we directly or indirectly hit some people who 
might have been responsible, but it is a little questionable.
  I think it almost sends a signal of weakness, if we don't hold people 
accountable. I think the rhetoric has been good. I think the language 
has been good. I don't think the results have been good. I think if 
there is a U.N. resolution that is biased and anti-Israel, it should be 
vetoed. I certainly believe we should find out those people who are 
responsible for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole, and we should hold them 
accountable. We should find the people who are responsible for the 
bombing of the Khobar Towers, and we should hold them accountable. They 
should pay a penalty, a price, and, frankly, that has not happened.
  I see my colleague wanting to speak.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will allow me a few minutes, I 
appreciate that. It is very nice of him to do so.
  I listened carefully. I have respect for our friend from Oklahoma. He 
has been here, despite his youth, for a long time. He knows how this 
place works.
  President Bill Clinton went immediately to the scene of the violence, 
to Egypt, to the region where so much is taking place, to plead and beg 
and to force a peaceful resolution, to stop the violence. That is what 
he said: Stop the violence. He wasn't drawing the terms. It is not fair 
to say that we have done nothing.
  We went into Afghanistan with bombs. We attacked what we thought was 
the appropriate target. Yes, we missed when we went to the Sudan, but 
is that a criticism of our troops, of our pilots? Are they saying that 
mistakes don't happen in conflict or in a wartime exercise? I am not 
talking about practice. I am talking about the exercise of defense. 
Would we restrict the rights of our citizens to travel? Do we say that 
our warships can't circulate around the world? Do we say we have to 
stay home, come back here and just hide in our harbors so that we don't 
have any problems? Our people who enlist always know there is some 
risk. They have been asked to do tough duty.
  I am not sure about how the votes went when we decided to go to 
Kosovo, in deference to my colleague and friend from Oklahoma. I think 
there was a vote not to go to Kosovo by lots of people. I am not sure 
how the Senator from Oklahoma voted, but I do know there was sharp 
resistance: It was not in our national interest to stop the killing; it 
wasn't in our national interest to be on the side of antigenocide, to 
stop the mutilation of communities and families and people and the 
abuse of women, the likes of which has rarely been seen in history.
  It is not fair to say we have done nothing. We have tried. We have 
sent dozens of investigators to Yemen, and we have already made some 
progress. It is in the papers. I am not telling anything from the 
Intelligence Committee. But we have already found explosives in an 
apartment there. We are on the trail.
  When Pan Am 103 went down, brought down by terrorists, we found, from 
the tiniest fiber of thread from a jacket, people who were the likely 
perpetrators.
  This is not an idle administration. I would never say, because I am a 
Democrat and we have a Republican President, that there were times that 
I voted against going to war. There were times that I voted going for 
it. Because whenever I have a vote such as that, I look to the eyes of 
my son, when he was 22, and I say: This isn't a war I would send you to 
and, therefore, I am not sending other parents' sons. I enlisted when I 
was 18. My father was on his deathbed. My mother was 36 years old. I 
felt it was my responsibility to serve my country.
  I think one has to be careful when we start suggesting that nothing 
is happening. As to the Khobar Towers, the example the Senator cited, 
it is outrageous that we haven't found the perpetrators of those 
killings of our troops. But I want to point a finger at Saudi Arabia, 
the country that we sent our troops to protect in 1990. We sent them 
out there, 450,000 or maybe even over 500,000, to protect the Saudis, 
our good friends, who are holding us by the throat with their oil 
prices. That is where they are. What have they done to help us find the 
perpetrators of the murder of our troops? Not very much, I can tell you 
that.
  I have watched this very closely. So I will point fingers where they 
belong. Those pointed fingers didn't belong against the Bush 
administration who served until 1992 and they don't belong at the 
Clinton administration. Those examples are invalid.
  We have done what we have to do. We are fully committed, every one of 
us, to

[[Page 23154]]

finding those who did that dastardly bombing against the U.S.S. Cole. I 
predict we will find them, and we are going to get help from people we 
never expected. When the trade towers went down in New York City, I was 
commissioner of the port authority. We had offices, before I came to 
the Senate, in that building. Unfortunately, a couple of the 
perpetrators came from my side of the Hudson River. But we searched 
until we found the people, just as we did in Oklahoma. We searched 
until we found the people. We can't push buttons and instantly solve 
these crimes that are planned by crazies, masterminded by people who 
have lots of skills in the wrong areas.
  We do our share; we really do. I think it is unfair to cast a net. 
Yes, I disagree with the decision on the vote of the U.N., but I 
trusted this administration, I trusted our Government to say, OK, the 
reason we don't want to do it is to create a further imbalance, to 
further enrage the Palestinian young people, to further the violence 
that is going on there. We have hopes for peace. Our mission is peace, 
not to make more war.
  So while we disagree--in hindsight it is always easy to disagree--the 
fact is, President Clinton picked up bag and baggage, went there 
overnight to try to bring the parties together. He is not disengaged by 
a longshot. We are not taking the Palestinian side in any issue. We are 
friends of Israel, but we are also cognizant that the Palestinians are 
humans. We don't want harm brought to them, either.
  I am sorry to get so passionate about this, but I have strong views 
and I just disagree with our colleague from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I didn't hear total disagreement. I think 
I heard my colleague say he agreed with me that the administration 
should have vetoed the U.N. resolution that strongly condemned Israel 
and was silent about Palestinian violence. We agree.
  I think he also said he agreed with me that we should be very 
assertive in trying to find those people responsible for the Khobar 
Towers, for that bombing that was so damaging, that killed 19 
Americans, wounded a couple hundred others. We haven't had success. He 
is critical of the Saudi Government. So am I.
  The point being, our language and our rhetoric in some cases has 
exceeded our results. When we had two American embassies that were 
bombed, what did we do? We lobbed a few cruise missiles. We don't know 
if those hit the people who were directly responsible or not.
  The point is, if you are going to hold people accountable, you want 
to hold the people who are directly accountable for committing the 
crime against American citizens who killed American citizens, and we 
haven't done that in the two latest cases of terrorism. Frankly, if you 
don't hold them accountable, I think that sends a bad signal.
  I would agree with my colleague from New Jersey, we should certainly 
hold people accountable for the U.S.S. Cole. Likewise we should hold 
people accountable on Khobar Towers and on American embassies, and that 
hasn't happened yet. That was my point.

                          ____________________