[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14987-14988]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise to speak about the situation in 
the Middle East. As we have seen, the missiles are continuing to fly, 
the fighting continues, the situation gets volatile. This morning, 
another Hezbollah rocket attack--this time on Nazareth--caused the 
death of two more Israelis. So it is vitally important that we 
seriously discuss this issue.
  Israel and its immediate neighbor Lebanon are in a state of peril 
that concerns the entire world. If I had one point to make this 
morning, it is this: President Bush is correct to fully support Israel 
in her effort to bring peace, to bring the soldiers home, to prevent 
missiles from flying on the northern fifth of Israel.
  Mr. President, 1.2 million people are living in shelters. That is a 
fifth of the entire population. Israel has an inherent right as a 
sovereign nation not only to secure her borders but to defend herself 
from outside attack. I am urging the President to continue to stand 
tall and give Israel the space she needs, the time she needs, to defend 
herself and make sure that these missiles cannot continue to rain down 
upon her people at Hezbollah's will.
  There is a great deal of pressure from the European community and 
from others that Israel should not be given the ability to defend 
herself. In short, if we were to prevent Israel from doing everything 
she could to stop these rockets from flying down on her people, we 
would be back where we are now 3 months, 6 months, a year from now, in 
the same situation.
  So should there be peace and negotiations? Yes. Might it be possible 
eventually to have an international force in southern Lebanon? Perhaps, 
although many of us who believe in Israel are worried about that force 
because in the past it has not stopped terrorist attacks on Israel. But 
at the moment, we cannot allow the status quo to continue, where a 
militant terrorist organization, Hezbollah, has the ability to rain 
torture down on the northern part of Israel.
  Israel must be allowed to defend herself like any nation. Can you 
imagine if some group were operating in Canada and continued to fire 
missiles at Buffalo and Detroit and Minneapolis and Seattle? Would the 
rest of the world tell the U.S. ``show restraint'' even though every 
night a hundred missiles came down on the cities, even though millions 
of people might be living in shelters? Of course not.
  Every country has the right to defend herself. Israel is no 
exception. I salute President Bush for understanding that and hope he 
continues on that course because any other course, any appeasement of 
Hezbollah, will lead to this same sorry situation repeating itself.
  Let's be clear: The state of Israel is not an aggressor here. Israel 
has stated over and over again its desire to live in peace with the 
Arab world. It is Israel's policy to allow a Palestinian state. And 
there are some in the Palestinian and Arab world who agree with it. But 
there are some who do not.
  Hezbollah believes Israel has no right to exist, not simply in the 
West Bank and Gaza but in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and Ashdod and 
Ashkelon. And Hezbollah has said they will do all they can to eradicate 
the state of Israel. Hezbollah is the aggressor.
  I feel deeply for those who are injured, both Israeli and Lebanese, 
both Jew and Arab. But the Lebanese Government also has an obligation 
here; that is, not to allow terrorists to operate on her soil. I was so 
pleased to see that Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Arab world 
understand that Hezbollah is the provocateur here. But the world must 
unite against terrorism. The sad lesson we learn is that if terrorism 
is first directed at one country, it will inevitably spread, unless we 
have a strong, united world against terrorism.
  In this case, Israel is not the aggressor. She is defending herself 
against an unlawful incursion into her borders by the terrorist 
organization Hezbollah. Hezbollah has rockets, and they shoot 
indiscriminately at civilians. Israel, on the other hand, in defending 
herself, goes out of her way and sacrifices the lives of her soldiers 
not to punish and hurt civilians. It is awfully difficult when people 
store missiles in their garages and in their homes.
  But all Israel asks for is the ability to defend herself. To create 
some moral equivalency between Israel's response to these rocket 
attacks and the terrorist attacks themselves is, in my opinion, 
immoral. What other country would allow it? Would Prime Minister Chirac 
stand for restraint if missiles rained from Switzerland to Lyon? Would 
President Putin ask for restraint? Why he asks for restraint against 
terrorists in the Middle East but asks for world support against 
terrorists in Chechnya is beyond me. He seems to have a double 
standard.
  Would any country simply watch as dozens of its own citizens were 
killed, countless more injured, the whole nation frantic with fear and 
uncertainty? No, of course not. Every nation would respond with 
strength and do everything it could to eradicate the terrorists. And 
that is just what Israel is doing now.
  Prime Minister Olmert has publicly called for peace. He is right to 
do so.

[[Page 14988]]

Israel did not seek out this conflict and does not seek its 
continuance. But neither will nor should Israel back down and simply 
allow Hezbollah to continue its reign of terror over Israel and its 
citizens at any time of its choosing.
  So this is a sad situation. Lebanon's entire population is paying the 
price for Hezbollah's outrageous actions. The Prime Minister, Siniora, 
said in a statement:

       Lebanon cannot grow and develop if the government is the 
     last to know and yet the first to pay the price.

  The great mistake was allowing Hezbollah into the government and then 
allowing them free reign in southern Lebanon. It should not be a 
mistake that Lebanon repeats, and it should not be a mistake to which 
the world acquiesces.
  Lebanese Prime Minister Siniora has called for his government to 
assert ``sovereignty in all Lebanese territory.'' I agree with this. 
You cannot have a terrorist separate nation living within your nation 
and then disclaim any responsibility and blame the country that is 
simply defending itself against terror.
  As I said, I welcome the stance of Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan 
and Kuwait, which characterized Hezbollah's actions as ``unexpected, 
inappropriate and irresponsible.'' This is a welcome stance, a new 
stance. But talk is cheap. We should hold the Arab League's feet to the 
fire and pressure them to take concrete steps that will force Hezbollah 
to stop its attacks and return the captured soldiers.
  In short, our President is doing the right thing. Americans of all 
political philosophies and all parties back him in doing it. Our plea, 
Mr. President: Stay the course. Continue strong. Let Israel, who does 
not ask for United States troops or United States casualties in any 
way--defend herself. All she needs is the support of the world to help 
her fight terrorism, a terrorism which could afflict any one of our 
nations.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I think this may be the first time I 
have had occasion to stand on the floor and associate myself with the 
remarks of the distinguished Senator from New York. I appreciate his 
thoughtful remarks.


                      PRESIDENT'S VETO OF H.R. 810

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I just watched the President of the United 
States veto the bill that passed here yesterday by 63 votes, the bill 
to provide that our scientists in this country, under the guidance of 
the National Institutes of Health, could conduct lifesaving research on 
embryonic stem cells, with strong ethical guidelines.
  I will mince no words about the President's action and the words he 
used. I think this veto is a shameful display of cruelty and hypocrisy 
and ignorance. It is cruel because it denies hope to millions of 
Americans who suffer from Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, ALS, juvenile 
diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.
  The best scientists in the world, overwhelmingly--including dozens of 
Nobel Prize winners, every director at the National Institutes of 
Health--say that embryonic stem cell research offers enormous potential 
to ease human suffering.
  I think this veto displays some hypocrisy. The President describes it 
as immoral, yet himself provided funding for it in 2001. How is it that 
for those stem cells derived before 9 p.m. August 9, 2001, it is moral 
to do research on them, but it is immoral to do research on any stem 
cells after that? Please, explain that, Mr. President.
  Quite frankly, I think this is a shameful display of ignorance about 
what stem cell research is. His spokesman today, Mr. Snow, said we are 
not going to kill these embryos to provide life to someone else. What a 
shameful display of ignorance. These cells are not killed. They are 
kept alive. These stem cells are kept alive to grow tissue and heart 
muscle, nerve muscle, reconnect spinal cords. If you kill them, they 
cannot do that. What sheer ignorance was on display by Mr. Snow this 
morning when he said that.
  So, Mr. President, I will have more to say about this later. I only 
have a few minutes now. But I think what the President did is to 
condemn millions of Americans to suffering--needless suffering--and to 
take away the hope so many people have that this research could ease 
their suffering. I think it was a shameful display.
  I congratulate the Senate which, in a bipartisan effort--63 votes--
passed H.R. 810 yesterday. Now the President has vetoed it. We cannot 
bring it up again this year. But I can assure you that this Senate will 
take it up next January. We will be back, Mr. President. We will be 
back, and we will have more Senators next year willing to stand up--
willing to stand up--against ignorance and hypocrisy and cruelty, more 
Senators who will stand up for embryonic stem cell research and help 
those who are suffering in our society. We will be back next January, 
and we will pass it again. And if this President vetoes it again, we 
will override it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from Iowa 
very briefly.
  I voted with the majority. I think we ought to give the President of 
the United States credit for a firmly based, knowledgeable position on 
this issue. Reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I think the 
debate generally that we had was good for America, but I respect the 
President's right to carry out his responsibilities as he sees fit. An 
exercise of a veto is within the President's authority.
  I disagree with the President on this issue, but I respect his views 
and I respect his right to act as he feels is in the Nation's interest.

                          ____________________