[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1194-1204]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                RECENT TRIP TO INDIA, SYRIA, AND ISRAEL

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on 
the recent trip I made from December 13 to December 30 to India, Syria, 
and Israel.
  The trip to India was a revelation to me--to see the vast economic 
progress that this gigantic nation of 1.1 billion people has made. For 
a long time, the nation of India resisted foreign investment, perhaps 
as a result of the colonialization by the British. But for most of the 
past two decades, India has been open for investment and trade. During 
the course of my travels there, which are detailed in a lengthy 
statement that I will include for the Record at the conclusion of my 
extemporaneous remarks, I have detailed the

[[Page 1195]]

many U.S. plants we visited, such as GE and IBM, all showing a 
remarkable aptitude for the technology of the 21st century.
  I recall, several years ago, being surprised when I sought a number 
from information and found out that the answering person was in India. 
I have since learned that this is a common practice because, whereas, 
it used to cost about $3.50 for a minute conversation between the 
United States and India, it now costs about 7 cents.
  The Indians are very highly educated. They are able to take on jobs, 
so-called outsourcing, at a much lower rate of compensation. They have 
physician groups who are available to read, through the miracles of 
modern technology, x rays. They have a 10\1/2\-hour time difference, so 
they are prepared to do it on pretty much on an around-the-clock basis. 
While, obviously, there is a loss of jobs with outsourcing, I think our 
long-range benefits in trade with India--a major trading partner--and 
the strengthening of this democracy in Asia will provide a tremendous 
source of strength and assistance to the goals of the United States. I 
think it is especially important to see the Nation of India develop 
with its 1.1 billion people as a counterbalance, so to speak, to China 
with 1.3 billion people. We have in India a democracy, contrasted with 
the authoritarian government which prevails in China and, in the long 
run, the incentives and the productivity of free people in a democracy 
should be quite a counterbalance, if not a nation which will exceed the 
tremendous strides which China has seen.
  A major topic of conversation on my trip to India was the recent 
agreement between the United States and India, where we will make 
nuclear technology available to the nation of India. When I first 
learned of that proposal, I had very substantial misgivings because 
India was not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But on 
examining the issues further and seeing that India had not joined that 
treaty as a matter of principle, feeling it was discriminatory, since 
the only people who were part of the so-called nuclear club, or were 
recognized to be part of the so-called nuclear club, were the five 
major powers. I think if the U.N. Charter were being written today, 
India would be included as one of the five major powers of the world. 
At any rate, that was a major topic of conversation.
  The nuclear technology that the United States will make available to 
India will strengthen India's economy and will be a good bridge in 
cementing relations between the United States and India.
  I had the privilege of meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of 
India to discuss a wide range of issues. He expressed great pleasure at 
his relations with President Bush and with the signing of the nuclear 
agreement, and he made a comment that India did not want another 
nuclear power in the region and specifically said he was opposed to 
seeing Iran gain nuclear weapons. I thanked Prime Minister Singh in 
India for the vote which they cast in support of the U.S. position in 
the United Nations on the Iranian issue, and I think the agreement will 
be very helpful in promoting good relations between the United States 
and India.
  I then traveled to Syria, which was my 16th visit to that nation, 
starting in 1984. During the course of those visits--I have had the 
opportunity to meet with former President Hafez al-Assad, on nine 
occasions, and with his successor, his son, President Bashar al-Assad, 
on four occasions. I recollect that the first meeting I had with Hafez 
al-Assad was in January of 1988, and it lasted 4 hours 38 minutes, 
discussing a wide range of issues on the Iran-Iraq war, which had just 
been concluded, and then on Syrian-Israeli relations and then on U.S.-
U.S.S.R. relations, and I found President al-Assad at that time to be a 
very engaging interlocutor. I suggested, on a number of occasions, that 
I had taken a sufficient amount of his time, and he generously extended 
the time until we had discussed a very wide range of issues. I found 
those discussions with President Hafez al-Assad to be productive.
  In 1996, when Prime Minister Netanyahu took office, he made a public 
announcement that he would hold Syria responsible for the Hezbollah 
attacks on northern Israel. Syria then realigned their troops. I was in 
Jerusalem, and Prime Minister Netanyahu asked me to carry a message to 
President Hafiz al-Assad that he wanted peace, and I did. Later, now 
Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem said that that comment helped to 
defuse the situation.
  For many years, President Hafez al-Assad refused to negotiate with 
Israel unless all five of the major superpowers sponsored the 
international conference. Israel's Prime Minister Shamir was opposed on 
the grounds that he would attend the conference sponsored by the United 
States and the U.S.S.R. but not when the odds were stacked 4 to 1 
against Israel. I discussed that matter on a number of occasions with 
President Hafez al-Assad, whether my urging him had any effect. The 
effect is that President Hafez al-Assad agreed to go to Madrid in 1981 
to a conference sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union. I 
had urged President Hafez al-Assad to allow the Syrian Jews to leave. I 
made a point to him in the early to mid-1990s that the Jewish women in 
Syria had no one of their own faith to marry. He made an interesting 
suggestion. He said that if anyone will come and claim a Syrian Jewish 
bride, she could leave the country. I translated that offer to the 
large Syrian-Jewish community in New York and, regrettably, there were 
no takers. But after a time, President Hafez al-Assad let the Jews go 
on his own, which was a constructive move.
  I first met President Bashar al-Assad at the funeral of his father. I 
was the only Member of Congress to attend the funeral. It was a 33-hour 
trip--15 hours over, 3 hours on the ground, and 15 hours back. I made 
the trip to pay my respects and to meet the new President. On this 
occasion, I met extensively for more than an hour with Foreign Minister 
Walid al-Mouallem and the next day for a little over an hour with 
President Bashar al-Assad. President Assad said that he was interested 
in undertaking peace negotiations with Israel. He said he was obviously 
looking for a return of the Golan but that he had a good measure of 
quid pro quo to offer Israel and assistance on the fragile truce which 
Israel now has with Hezbollah and also assistance with Hamas. In my 
formal statement, I go into greater detail on that subject.
  I pressed President Bashar al-Assad on the obligations Syria had to 
abide by U.N. Resolution 1701 to not to support Hezbollah, and he said 
Syria would honor that requirement, that obligation. I, also, pressed 
him on allowing the U.S. investigation into the assassination of 
Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, and again I received assurances on that 
subject. It is always difficult to know the validity of the assurances, 
but I think the dialog and the conversation and pressing the point is 
very worthwhile.
  With respect to Iraq, President Bashar al-Assad said that Syria would 
be interested in hosting an international conference attended by the 
warring factions in Iraq and that Syria had already gained the 
concurrence of Turkey to participate and Syria would invite other Arab 
countries to such a discussion. I realize that there is some 
disagreement with the issue of dialog with Syria, but it is my view, 
developed over many years of foreign travel, that dialog and talk is a 
very important and worthwhile undertaking.
  My trip there followed visits by Senators Bill Nelson, Chris Dodd, 
and John Kerry. I think all came away with the same conclusion that the 
dialog was very much worthwhile. I then traveled to Israel, where I had 
an opportunity to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert. I relayed to 
him the interest that Bashar al-Assad had in dialog. Prime Minister 
Olmert had been reportedly cool to any such discussions subsequent to 
my visit. Some more positive statements were coming from Israeli 
officials about possible negotiation also with Israel, but Prime 
Minister Olmert insisted on having some display of good faith on the 
part of Syria before even considering undertaking such discussions.
  We also met with Foreign Minister Livni and former Prime Minister

[[Page 1196]]

Netanyahu and our conversations are detailed in my written statement.
  We then traveled to Ramallah to talk to Salam Fayyad and Hannan 
Ashrawi, members of the so-called Third Way, a very small Palestinian 
party but a very able people and very stalwart advocates for peace. 
Those comments are contained in my written statement.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my prepared statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        Report on Foreign Travel

       Mr. President, I have sought recognition to report on 
     foreign travel, as is my custom, from December 13 to December 
     30, 2006.
       I traveled to India, Syria, and Israel with overnight 
     travel stops in the United Kingdom, Qatar, and Italy. I was 
     joined by my wife Joan, my aide Scott Boos, Colonel Gregg 
     Olson, United States Marine Corps, and Dr. Matthew Needleman, 
     United States Navy.


                             united kingdom

       On December 13, we departed Dulles International Airport 
     outside Washington, DC. Our first stop was in London, England 
     where we landed at Heathrow International Airport after a 
     flight of just over 7 hours. Upon arriving in London, we were 
     greeted by Mr. James Sindle of the American Embassy in 
     London. After a brief overnight stay, we headed back to the 
     airport and departed for Mumbai, India, the next morning.


                                 india

       Upon arriving in Mumbai in the early morning hours of 
     December 15, we were greeted by Mr. Wilson Ruark, from the 
     U.S. Consulate General in Mumbai. Mr. Ruark, a Vice Consul at 
     the Consulate, was assigned to be our Control Officer. Being 
     that it was 2 a.m. local time, we quickly headed to our hotel 
     for some much-needed rest after two full days of air travel.
       Among other issues, our meetings throughout India focused 
     on the U.S./India Nuclear Deal, business outsourcing, and 
     India's relationship with the U.S. and its neighbors, 
     including Pakistan.
       On the afternoon of December 15, we received a Country Team 
     Briefing with the Consul General, Mr. Michael S. Owen, and 
     his staff: Mr. Wilson Ruark, Vice Consul; Mr. Matthew B. 
     Sweeney, a special agent of the Diplomatic Security Service; 
     Mr. Glen C. Keiser, Consular Chief; Mr. Bill Klein, Consul; 
     and Ms. Elizabeth Kaufmann, Public Diplomacy Chief.
       I was pleased to hear that U.S. relations with India are at 
     an ``all-time high,'' much in part to the U.S./India Nuclear 
     agreement, part of a new ``global partnership'' entered into 
     on July 18, 2005, by President Bush and Indian Prime Minister 
     Manmohan Singh. Completion of the final terms of the deal 
     will allow the U.S. to engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation 
     with the world's largest democracy, one that commands respect 
     in an important part of the world. When the United Nations 
     was created in 1945, the 5 permanent members of the Security 
     Council were the United States, Britain, France, China, and 
     Russia. If that decision were made today, there is no doubt 
     in my mind that India would be among the world powers 
     considered for membership. With a population of 1.1 billion, 
     an educated young workforce, and an ever-expanding economy, 
     India provides an important counter-balance to China in its 
     region of the world.
       On the U.S./India Nuclear deal, the President characterized 
     the agreement as ``hugely important'' for our strategic 
     relationship with India, and I agree. By way of background, 
     U.S. nuclear energy cooperation with India goes back to the 
     mid-1950's when the U.S. assisted in the building of nuclear 
     reactors in Tarapur, India, and allowed Indian scientists to 
     study in the U.S. During negotiations of the 1968 Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India refused to join the NPT 
     on grounds that it was discriminatory and only recognized 5 
     nations with the right to possess nuclear weapons. All other 
     signatories are required to dismantle their nuclear weapons 
     operations. I heard this same sentiment expressed with many 
     of the people I met with in India. However, after India 
     tested a nuclear device in 1974, the U.S. and other nations 
     tightened export controls leaving India in a difficult 
     position without sufficient access to supplies for its 
     civilian nuclear program. An additional test by India in 
     1998, and a subsequent counter-test by Pakistan, certainly 
     did not advance their ability to obtain fuel and equipment 
     from world suppliers.
       On August 26, 1995, on travel with Colorado Senator Hank 
     Brown, I met with India's Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. He 
     stated his interest in negotiations which would lead to the 
     elimination of any nuclear weapons on the Indian subcontinent 
     within ten or fifteen years. Two days later, I raised the 
     issue with Pakistan's Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. She 
     expressed genuine surprise over the content of my discussion 
     with Prime Minister Rao. She stated that this was the first 
     time that she had heard any such commitment from India and 
     she asked if we had it in writing. I suggested to Prime 
     Minister Bhutto that the U.S. serve as an intermediary to 
     facilitate dialogue. I wrote a letter to President Clinton 
     summarizing the meetings and suggested that it would be very 
     productive for the U.S. to initiate and broker discussions 
     between India and Pakistan. Unfortunately, he did not share 
     my interest in the issue, perhaps because his attention was 
     focused on the election. After the election, I raised the 
     issue again with the President, but again he did not show 
     interest.
       Despite being a non-signatory to the Nuclear 
     Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), India has complied with most 
     of its main tenets. It should be noted that India, unlike its 
     neighbor Pakistan, has not shared its technology or weapons 
     with outside nations. They have been a responsible nuclear 
     weapon state, though not recognized under the NPT like the 5 
     acknowledged nuclear weapon states: U.S., Russia, France, 
     Britain, and China.
       For India, a deal with the U.S. will provide India much-
     needed credibility and the potential for energy security with 
     access to equipment, fuel, and other assistance for its civil 
     nuclear power program. The international community is likely 
     to follow the lead of the U.S. In return, India, which does 
     not currently have International Atomic Energy Agency 
     safeguards on all nuclear material in peaceful nuclear 
     activities, agrees to open its civil nuclear power reactors 
     to inspection.
       Congress recently approved authorizing legislation, with 
     some controversial modifications regarding Iran which I will 
     discuss in more detail later in this report, setting the 
     stage for a final cooperation agreement. The legislation 
     retains the prerogative of Congress to vote on the actual 
     cooperation before it takes effect.
       U.S. business ties with India are also on the rise, and 
     have been for some time. India recently hosted 240 American 
     businessmen and women, representing 190 companies--the 
     largest delegation of its kind ever. New Delhi appears to be 
     taking additional steps to embrace trade and has loosened 
     various trade restrictions in recent years.
       The Consulate explained that several societal and political 
     functions appear to be restricting the advancement of the 
     country. The risk of ``political paralysis'' has become an 
     issue among competing political factions in the 543-seat Lok 
     Sabha (People's House). No single political party has come 
     close to a parliamentary majority in recent times and 
     coalitions have become necessary to wield greater influence 
     over national affairs. Currently, the National Congress Party 
     occupies more parliamentary seats (145) than any other party, 
     and through alliances with powerful regional parties, leads 
     India's government under the United Progressive Alliance 
     coalition. Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi, the daughter-
     in-law of assassinated former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi 
     and widow of assassinated former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, 
     has considerable power over the ruling coalition's policy-
     making process. The Bharitiya Janata Party (BJP), associated 
     with Hindu nationalism, is the country's largest opposition 
     party and controls eight state governments. Meanwhile, the 
     government is led by Manmohan Singh, a Sikh and India's 
     first-ever non-Hindu prime minister.
       We discussed India's history and the arrival of the 
     British, who brought rule of law to India despite flagrant 
     disobedience which exists today. Politically controlled by 
     the British East India Company from the early 18th century 
     and directly administered by Great Britain starting the mid-
     19th century, India became a modern nation-state in 1947 
     after a struggle for independence marked by widespread use of 
     nonviolent resistance as a means of social protest.
       I was surprised to see that the Indians would have built a 
     ``Gateway of India'' monument to celebrate the arrival of 
     King George V and Queen Mary in 1911. Completed in 1924, the 
     massive structure sits atop the port of Mumbai on the Arabian 
     Sea. It did not make sense that the Indians would have built 
     such a structure to celebrate those who were there to exploit 
     their interests, and I was right. As it turns out, the 
     British built the Gateway of India.
       While Muslims represent just 15 percent of India's 
     population, the 140 million Muslims places India behind only 
     Indonesia and Pakistan among countries with large Muslim 
     populations. Eighty percent are Hindu, but they represent a 
     diverse mixture of regional characteristics with numerous 
     languages. Three percent of Indians are Sikh; around one 
     percent are Christian. The Jewish population has declined as 
     a result of emigration to Israel since 1948. Currently, 5,000 
     Jews live in Mumbai and another 4,000 live elsewhere in 
     India.
       The Consulate explained the numerous challenges to India's 
     desire to expand its economic base. India has not spent 
     enough money on roads, rail, ports, power, and water 
     infrastructure. The weight of 1.1 billion people has strained 
     India's physical infrastructure, clearly evident driving to 
     meetings throughout Mumbai and along the route to the 
     airport. While India has numerous world-class schools, the 
     Consular staff explained that access to education in rural 
     areas has been getting worse. India recently surpassed South 
     Africa as the country with the most

[[Page 1197]]

     individuals living with HIV and AIDS, registering at over 5 
     million persons.
       Immigration is a highly emotional subject, with some 
     objecting to Indians taking jobs from U.S. workers. However, 
     it is worth noting that these are very bright people and that 
     we are a nation of immigrants. There is a desire to see the 
     U.S. lift its cap on H1B visas, highly sought by Indians in 
     the Information Technology (IT) industry. The current cap is 
     at 65,000 and some are expressing a desire to see that number 
     lifted to 125,000. Overall, the Consulate in Mumbai issued 
     120,000 visas last year, 15,000 to highly skilled workers. 
     They expect steady and double-digit annual increases in 
     demand.
       Finally, we discussed India's relations with Pakistan and 
     the threat of terrorism that exists in India. Continuing 
     violence in Kashmir remains a major source of interstate 
     tension. Both India and Pakistan have built large defense 
     establishments--including nuclear weapons and ballistic 
     missile programs--at the cost of economic and social 
     development. Little substantive progress has been made toward 
     resolving the Kashmir issue, and New Delhi continues to 
     complain about what it views as insufficient Pakistani 
     efforts to end Islamic militancy that affects India.
       On July 11, 2006, a series of explosions on seven crowded 
     commuter trains in Mumbai left more than 200 dead and at 
     least 800 injured. On December 1, 2006 Indian police filed 
     formal charges against 28 suspected members of the connected 
     to the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Sunni militant 
     group fighting in Kashmir and designated as a terrorist 
     organization by the U.S. Police also have alleged that 
     Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence was 
     behind the bombings. Pakistan has denied the accusation. 
     Thirteen of the accused are in police custody, and the rest 
     are at large.
       Later in the afternoon on December 15, I met with several 
     impressive Indian business executives for a roundtable 
     discussion on outsourcing--a word which has picked up a 
     negative connotation resulting from lost jobs in the U.S. 
     which have been shipped to India. These men were very 
     knowledgeable and I was amazed at their rise to such 
     important positions at such young ages--the four men ranged 
     in age from 38 to 42. Anish Tripathi of KPMG, heads the 
     knowledge function in India and reports directly to the 
     Director and CEO. He explained his firm's role in advising 
     U.S. firms on whether, and how, to outsource their operations 
     to India and elsewhere in search of a lower-cost operations 
     base. Saurabh Sonawala, the head of business processing 
     outsourcing for HindiTron, a travel software producer and 
     outsourcing advisor to over 20 major airlines, explained, 
     ``It's not always about cost. India can do a better job.'' 
     Manish Modi, Managing Director of Datamatrix Technologies 
     Ltd., described the process of outsourcing certain accounting 
     functions for the auto industry. While the actual invoice 
     must be handled and mailed in the U.S., a scanned copy on a 
     computer screen in Mumbai allows an Indian worker to perform 
     related accounting tasks. Satish Ambe of KALE Associates also 
     was present in the meeting.
       They explained that 80 per cent of outsourcing consists of 
     so-called ``call centers,'' where English-speaking Indians 
     perform various functions from India. I asked how it would 
     make sense to pay the cost of a phone call to India and still 
     achieve cost-efficiency. They explained that 12 years ago, 
     the cost of a phone call was $3.50 per minute. Today it is 
     only 7 cents per minute. The cost of a data connection has 
     also become much cheaper. Ten years ago a 64K line would have 
     cost $10,000 per month. Today it is only $50 to $100 per 
     month.
       Other factors contribute to the desirability of using India 
     as a base for operations. The time zone difference allows 
     companies to employ low-cost labor instead of paying the 
     ``graveyard shift'' in the U.S. At a management level, labor 
     costs only 30-40 percent of that in the U.S. At an entry-
     level, labor in India costs only 10 percent of that in the 
     U.S. The gentlemen I met with claimed that India's workforce 
     is better skilled and better educated. In the U.S. it is 
     difficult to find someone with an accounting degree to man a 
     phone line. However, in India, a degree has become a 
     prerequisite due to the heavy competition for employment. In 
     addition, India has a very large labor pool of young workers. 
     The average age in India is 25, compared to an average age of 
     35 in China. Finally, workers in India speak English, a 
     characteristic not often found in low-cost labor markets.
       Our discussion extended beyond outsourcing to India's 
     economy in general. It was represented that 200 years ago, 
     India's economy accounted for 26 percent of the world's GDP. 
     Today it is only 2 percent, leaving room for expansion. I 
     question the ability to gauge such a statistic, but it still 
     shows the power of the East India Trading Company.
       We discussed the similarities and differences between India 
     and China. They explained that perhaps a totalitarian 
     government is most effective in propelling a nation of over 
     1.3 billion people. Regardless, China's economic expansion 
     began about 10 years before India's and India is likely to 
     eventually surpass China, due in large part to its large 
     population of young workers. However, they explained that the 
     ``aspiration level'' is easily understood--of workers in 
     India is relatively low. Indians who really ``aspire'' move 
     to the U.S. The men agreed that the impending U.S./India 
     Nuclear deal was an important symbolic event which will 
     solidify the relationship between our nations.
       On December 16, I met with Julio Ribeiro, Head of 
     Enforcement for the Indian Music Industry (IMI), to discuss 
     issues related to copyright infringement, copyright 
     enforcement and to discuss the IMI's experience in anti-
     piracy efforts. Mr. Ribeiro was a very impressive man with a 
     long resume of achievement. He joined the Indian Police 
     Service in 1953 and served as Mumbai's police commissioner in 
     the 1980s, commanding a force of 35,000 officers. From 1989 
     to 1992, he served as Indian Ambassador to Romania. IMI 
     members include major record companies including Saregama 
     India Ltd., Universal Music, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 
     and Virgin Records. Mr. Ribeiro explained that the copyright 
     laws in India are good, but are not well understood. 
     ``Education is key to enforcement,'' according to Mr. 
     Ribeiro. Corruption in India is a huge obstacle and without 
     proper supervision enforcement of copyright laws becomes a 
     low priority. When I asked who was being bribed, Mr. Ribeiro 
     replied, ``You tell me who is not being bribed.''
       That same afternoon, we sat down for a lengthy meeting and 
     lunch with the Director (Projects) of the state-owned Nuclear 
     Power Corporation of India (NPCIL), Mr. S.K. Agrawal to 
     discuss the nuclear power industry in India, its growth 
     prospects, its role in upholding India's non-proliferation 
     regime (outside of the NPT), and the commercial prospects for 
     U.S. companies should the U.S./India civil nuclear agreement 
     become reality. I also pressed Mr. Agrawal on some of the 
     more politically sensitive issues surrounding the agreement, 
     particularly with respect to Iran and its nuclear intentions. 
     Overall, Mr. Agrawal said that his company is ``euphoric'' 
     over the U.S./India Nuclear deal.
       The NCPIL has ambitious expansion plans, and hopes to 
     procure more technology and hardware abroad once the U.S./
     India Nuclear deal is complete. Mr. Agrawal explained that 
     with India's massive population and thirst for energy in an 
     expanding economy, it will need 700GW of electricity capacity 
     by 2032. India's 16 nuclear power reactors currently cover 
     only 2 percent of India's electricity demand, but their goal 
     is to reach 10 percent by 2031 and 30 percent by 2050. The 
     NCPIL has a capacity of about 3.9GW and, if its current 
     construction and future plans for additional reactors come to 
     fruition, it will reach 60GW by 2031. Over 20 foreign 
     reactors will be necessary to achieve this goal. Thermal 
     (coal and gas) currently provides over 80GW of electricity, 
     but India's reserves of fossil fuels are going down. Hydro-
     electricity provides another 33GW and renewables provide only 
     6GW.
       Mr. Agrawal claims that India already has sufficient know-
     how to build additional plants, but because India is not a 
     signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement (NPT), 
     foreign countries will not sell reactors. He explained that 
     the leverage of the U.S. trusting India and making a deal 
     will send a strong signal to other countries who will also be 
     interested in exporting its reactors. Mr. Agrawal explained 
     that there is enough business for everyone and that India 
     ``can accommodate France, Russia, and the U.S.'' He also 
     assured me that imported uranium would be used ``only for 
     civilian purposes and not for any para-military'' purpose and 
     that the reactors will be open for IAEA inspection.
       I raised the issue of Iran with Mr. Agrawal. The Senate 
     version of the U.S./India Nuclear deal included a requirement 
     that the President determine that India is fully and actively 
     supporting U.S. and international efforts to dissuade, 
     sanction, and contain Iran's nuclear program. Due to heavy 
     pressure from New Delhi, the Conference Report included a 
     watered-down version which only requires an annual report to 
     Congress on India's efforts in this regard. Regardless, this 
     provision has raised opposition and debate over the deal in 
     India. When I asked Mr. Agrawal for his feelings on the 
     matter, he initially claimed that it was not his place to 
     comment, that he was ``just a utility company.'' However, 
     when I pursued the issue, he said that India does not support 
     nuclear proliferation in Iran. He explained that ``India has 
     a uniform policy'' and that it doesn't ``pick and choose'' 
     when, and for whom, to oppose proliferation. I responded that 
     it's appropriate to pick and choose when a country threatens 
     to wipe another country off the face of the Earth, as Iran's 
     President has done towards Israel. During Senate 
     consideration, I supported an even more stringent amendment 
     which would have required Presidential certification that 
     India has agreed to suspend military-to-military cooperation 
     with Iran, including training exercises, until such time as 
     Iran is no longer designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. 
     Regardless, I told Mr. Agrawal that I know that India is a 
     responsible nation and that we wouldn't solve the problem 
     over lunch. I was pleased to see Mr. Agrawal be candid with 
     his views, and those of his country, on this, and a number of 
     related issues.

[[Page 1198]]

       Mr. Agrawal explained that no final approval would be 
     necessary from the parliament in India, but that a two-day 
     debate would take place on December 18-19. He said that we 
     would see the two sides of public opinion, those who support 
     the deal, and those who question India limiting its ability 
     to freely act on its own foreign policy. Mainly, the 
     discussion will try to answer the question, ``Did the U.S 
     come through with the July agreement'' between Prime Minister 
     Singh and President Bush, or ``did Congress change it too 
     much,'' referring to the Iran report requirement. An article 
     appeared in the Times of India newspaper on the day of our 
     meeting written by ex-scientists claiming that the deal 
     denies India the opportunity for full cooperation in civil 
     nuclear energy. Unlike the U.S., India wants to reprocess its 
     spent nuclear fuel for new experimental reactors for which 
     technology will be ready for development in 15-20 years. 
     However, the Congress included language in the legislation to 
     prohibit such a practice. The legislation passed by Congress 
     also includes a termination clause should India export 
     nuclear-related mater, equipment, or technology--though a 
     Presidential waiver is available. Also, while India hasn't 
     said whether or not it will conduct a nuclear test again, the 
     deal would terminate should a test occur. Despite the 
     article, Mr. Agrawal assured us that the scientists did not 
     represent the majority opinion of Indians.
       When I asked why India won't become a signatory to the NPT, 
     he explained that it is a discriminatory arrangement whereby 
     only the 5 acknowledged nuclear weapon states are permitted 
     to possess nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, its neighbor Pakistan, 
     also not a signatory, has been an irresponsible nuclear 
     weapon state and, according to Mr. Agrawal, India is ``not 
     ready to eliminate its weapons'' because it needs them as a 
     deterrent to offset those possessed by its neighbor. In order 
     for India to join the NPT and enjoy the benefits of civil 
     nuclear cooperation, it would be required to draw down its 
     arsenal. Unlike Pakistan, India has shown its global 
     aspirations. India paid a price for supporting the U.S. 
     already when Iran was referred to the Security Council. A 
     pending deal to build a much-needed natural gas pipeline 
     through Pakistan was put on hold. The deal shows that India 
     needs to be recognized in a realistic way as a nuclear weapon 
     state, because they do in fact possess them. I said I am 
     pleased to see the U.S./India Nuclear deal moving forward. 
     Once complete, India's massive population will be able to 
     enjoy the benefits of peaceful civil nuclear cooperation.
       During lunch, Mr. Agrawal explained that the NCPIL would be 
     creating a new university for nuclear training in Mumbai. A 
     state department official who joined me in the meeting 
     expressed interest in possible cooperation with U.S. 
     universities.
       On December 17, we departed Mumbai for Cochin, located in 
     the southern state of Kerala. Upon arrival, we were greeted 
     by Mr. Fred Kaplan, Ms. Kelly Buenrostro, and Mr. Finny Jacob 
     of the U.S. Consulate General in Chennai. They provided 
     excellent support and arranged good meetings through my 
     travel in south India.
       We departed the airport and drove into Cochin for tea and a 
     tour of the Mattancherry Synagogue with Samuel Hallegua, the 
     leader of the Jewish community. Mr. Hallegua is a former 
     businessman who came from a wealthy Jewish family whose 
     ancestors had migrated to Kerala in 1692 from Spain, by way 
     of Aleppo, Iran, and held large areas of land in Cochin. He 
     explained that his ancestors in Kerala were in the rope trade 
     business and cultivated coconuts and rice on their estate 
     until land reform in 1917 when they were forced to give up 
     land. Once a vibrant community of 2,500 Jews, Cochin now has 
     only a very small Jewish population--32 individuals in the 
     city and another 20 in the suburbs. Entire families and 
     congregations departed for Israel upon its statehood in 1948. 
     I was pleased to hear Mr. Hallegua say that Jews in Cochin 
     have enjoyed ``total religious freedom.'' I asked, ``If it's 
     so good here, why did everyone leave for Israel?'' He 
     explained that they were ``observant Orthodox Jews'' and that 
     they ``felt they could be more observant'' in Israel.
       After tea in Mr. Hallegua's 200-year old ancestral home, he 
     walked us through the neighborhood to the Mattancherry 
     Synagogue. Built in 1568, it is one of the great historic 
     places of interest in Cochin. Mr. Hallegua showed us scrolls 
     of Jewish scriptures, copper plates in which the privileges 
     granted by the Cochin Maharajas to the Kerala Jewish 
     community are recorded, and the building's antique 
     chandeliers and Chinese hand painted tiles. As I signed my 
     name into the guest book, I noted that Queen Elizabeth of 
     Britain visited the synagogue in 1997 and signed the same 
     book. I was later told that Mr. Hallegua drew a curious look 
     from the Queen when he told his wife ``Queenie'' to ``hurry 
     up, Queenie.''
       That evening I attended a dinner with 12 member of the 
     Indo-American Chamber of Commerce (IACC) in Kerala, including 
     Mr. C.P. Sebastian, CEO of Excel Globe and current President 
     of the Chamber. Founded in 1968, the IACC serves as a link 
     between the businesses in India and the United States and 
     seeks to promote bilateral trade, investment and technology 
     transfer, and other joint ventures. The Kerala branch of the 
     IACC was established in 1992 and has over 60 members. We 
     discussed a number of issues related to the process of 
     outsourcing American jobs to India at a lower cost. They 
     explained that while jobs may be lost in America, India 
     provides a benefit to the American consumer with lower costs 
     for products and services. Our conversation extended into 
     other areas including the U.S./India Nuclear deal. We 
     discussed their views on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty 
     as discriminatory and how it confers second-rate status on 
     Indians, the crisis in the Middle East and the problems in 
     Iraq, relations with China, and intellectual property rights. 
     We toasted the good relations between our nations, and I 
     extended an invitation for the executives to visit the U.S.
       On the morning of December 17, we departed our hotel for a 
     boat tour of the Cochin area. Along the way, we saw Chinese 
     fishing nets. Cochin is the only place in the world outside 
     of China where these nets are in use. We also toured areas 
     affected by the tsunami. I was curious to know that the 
     tsunami hit the west coast of India. In Cochin, water was 
     sucked away from land for 45 minutes and then the water 
     rushed back to land killing 80 people and destroying many 
     houses.
       I joined 8 area business executives who are members of the 
     Cochin Chamber of Commerce for a working lunch. The Chamber 
     President Mr. Jose Dominic, Managing Director of the CGH 
     Earth Hotels, told me that the Chamber is celebrating its 
     150th anniversary. Commerce in the region began with English 
     traders in the Cochin area. Today, the region specializes in 
     shipping, agriculture, and tourism. The locals refer to the 
     area as ``God's own country.'' Kerala's economy grew by 9.2 
     percent last year, largely in part to a growth rate of 13.8 
     percent in the services sector. Due to the lack of industrial 
     investments, Kerala has a major unemployment problem with 
     over 4 million people out-of-work. Again, we discussed a 
     mixture of business related issues and other issues of 
     international importance. Almost all of the executives had 
     visited the U.S. and many had children in our universities. 
     They remarked that it is ``amazing'' that our 2 big 
     democracies haven't been closer sooner. We discussed the 
     effect of the ruling Communist government and how it 
     restricts the flow of trade. They explained that state funds 
     going into investment are not providing an adequate return. 
     However, the schools and healthcare are exceptional. ``If you 
     were a poor person, Kerala would be a good place to live,'' 
     one man said.
       Later that afternoon, I met with Chief Justice V.K. Bali 
     and 4 senior judges of the Kerala High Court in Cochin, the 
     highest court in the state. In India, one cannot be a Chief 
     Justice in their native state to avoid any allegations of 
     impartial rulings influenced by area relationships. To become 
     a judge at the High Court, lawyers who practice at the court 
     are chosen by the Chief Justice based on their daily 
     performance. The Chief Justice explained that 45 is a good 
     starting age and that judges are bound to retire at age 62-65 
     for the national Supreme Court. I told them that in the U.S., 
     Oliver Wendel Holmes served on the federal bench until he was 
     91. They explained that in India, everything is open to 
     judicial review, including actions taken by the Prime 
     Minister. In the U.S., President Bush campaigned in 2004 on 
     nominating judges that would not legislate from the bench. 
     When I asked if judges in India legislate from the bench, 
     they explained that sometimes it is necessary to ``fill in 
     the gaps,'' and they do so despite the criticism. They gave 
     me an example where a public smoking ban was put into effect 
     by the High Court based on a provision in their constitution 
     providing a ``right to life.''
       On December 19, I met with the Editorial Board of the 
     Malayala Manorama, one of the largest circulated newspapers 
     in India with 1.4 million copies sold daily. We discussed the 
     good relations between the U.S. and India bolstered recently 
     by the nuclear deal. They also asked questions about how the 
     deal relates to their relations with Pakistan, Iran, and 
     India's ability to decide foreign policy without foreign 
     influence. We also discussed the Middle East and my view that 
     we should be willing to talk to our adversaries if we intend 
     to solve the problems at hand. I was asked questions about 
     religious freedom, personal privacy in the U.S. since 9/11, 
     the 2008 Presidential election, trade policy with India, 
     relations with Pakistan, and my views on India as an 
     investment destination. I was very surprised by the 
     newspaper's account of my interview, as published on December 
     20. The board of editors grossly mischaracterized my 
     statements on the war in Iraq, the war's relationship with 
     the Muslim community, treatment of detainees at Guantanamo 
     Bay, and my view of India in the world. I would certainly 
     rethink granting another interview with the Malayala Manorama 
     newspaper on any future visit to Kerala. I wrote the Managing 
     Editor, Mr. Philip Mathew, and explained the 
     misrepresentations in their reporting. I ask consent that a 
     copy of my December 22, 2006, letter be included at the end 
     of these remarks.
       Later that day, we drove into the backwaters area of Kerala 
     for a boat tour of the region.

[[Page 1199]]

       On December 20, we departed Kerala for Bangalore, India, a 
     city of nearly 10 million people. The state of Karnakata has 
     around 60 million people and all of south India has nearly 
     250 million people. Again, we were accompanied by the very 
     able officers of the U.S. Consulate in Chennai. Also joining 
     us from the State Department on this leg of the trip was Mr. 
     George Mathew who provided helpful information on the local 
     issues.
       Upon our arrival, I hosted a lunch with former Chief 
     Justice Malimath of both the Karnakata and Kerala High 
     Courts, the Indian equivalent of a state supreme court in the 
     U.S. However, the Chief Justice earned his distinct 
     reputation for his leadership of a judicial reform committee 
     focused on criminal procedures which recently published a 
     report bearing his name. Among the recommendations to reduce 
     the backlog of criminal court cases and bring order to the 
     system was the introduction of plea bargaining, which was 
     absent in the Indian Criminal Procedure Code. That 
     recommendation has been adopted. He explained that police 
     interrogation techniques in India often involve torture 
     because police are not aware of proper methods. When a 
     detainee dies in custody, suicide is usually given as the 
     reason for death. Reforms to the system now require police to 
     report any instance of death with reasons and must perform a 
     video-recorded postmortem. Another recommendation pending 
     approval is the creation of a witness protection program. The 
     Chief Justice explained that in India only 7 percent of 
     serious offenses end up in conviction because witnesses are 
     afraid to testify. The Chief Justice also headed a 
     comprehensive study of child trafficking in India for the 
     National Human Rights Commission. Its recommendations have 
     been enacted into a government program to disrupt such 
     networks.
       We also discussed procedures for confessions, double 
     jeopardy, and the lack of a right to a trial by jury. I was 
     interested to learn that the Chief Justice has a daughter 
     living in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
       We then visited the IBM Global Operations Center in 
     Bangalore, located in a massive commercial office park with 
     many other U.S. based corporations. The operations center 
     enables IMB to use the high quality workforce at a low cost 
     of labor to remotely troubleshoot and maintain computer 
     networks for clients at locations around the world. For 
     example, during Hurricane Katrina, their monitoring system 
     identified server outages throughout the Gulf Coast. They 
     explained the challenges that come with working in India, 
     including poor infrastructure of roads, ports, and power 
     supply, exemplified by the lights going out during the 
     presentation. Delayed decision-making of coalition politics 
     and labor laws limiting work hours also are not well suited 
     to the information technology (IT) industry. Still, the 
     Chairman and CEO of IBM, Sam Palmisano, recently announced 
     that over the next 3 years, IBM will triple its investment to 
     $6 billion in India.
       Later that afternoon, we visited the General Electric (GE) 
     Jack Welch Technology Center, where over 3,000 scientists and 
     support personnel conduct various research and development 
     operations. The center holds 30 patents. One such innovation 
     breakthrough is the development of a digital railway system 
     where wireless information technology (IT) logistics can be 
     used to monitor operations. The center is also responsible 
     for the development of a diagnostic imaging device where the 
     bone can be taken away from a CT scan. I received a 
     demonstration of the machine and saw very advanced 3 
     dimensional digital scan a human brain.
       On December 21, we departed Bangalore and traveled south to 
     Thiruvananthapuram, India, better known as Trivandrum. We 
     were joined on this leg of the trip by David Hopper, the 
     Consul General of the U.S. Consulate General in Chennai.
       Our first meeting was a working lunch at U.S. Technologies, 
     a 100 percent U.S. owned, California-based information 
     technology (IT) firm, specializing in IT consulting and 
     development services for healthcare, retail, financial 
     services, manufacturing, utilities, transportation, and 
     logistics clients. We were greeted at the door by 2 elephants 
     and an indigenous music arrangement consisting of horns and 
     drums. Established in 1999, U.S. Technologies' goal is to 
     become a $1 billion company with a workforce of 30,000 
     employees by 2010. Already the largest employer in Kerala, 
     they explained that they have a 99.24 percent defect-free 
     process and strive for quality and happy employees. One of 
     their major clients is Blue Cross Blue Shield, based in 
     Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
       Later that afternoon, we met V.S. Achuthanandan, the 83-
     year old Chief Minister of Kerala, India. A Chief Minister in 
     India is equivalent to a governor in the U.S. The Chief 
     Minister assumed the position in May 2006 and is a prominent 
     leader, and true believer, of the Communist Party of India-
     Marxist (CPI-M). He had been a Communist party worker for 66 
     years and the party's politburo member for 10 years. In 
     India, the CPI-M politburo is a policy making committee which 
     advises the government on how to rule. The CPI-M has a 
     history of anti-U.S. rhetoric, especially when it is the 
     opposition party. After the death of his father, the Chief 
     Minister left school after just 7 years to assist in his 
     brother's business. Our conversation covered a number of 
     topics including Communist thought and dialect materialism, 
     the policies of President Bush, China, and Cuba.
       In between events, we stopped briefly at Trivandrum's 
     Napier Museum where we saw a vast collection of antique, 
     cultural, and artistic artifacts.
       Early that evening, I visited his Highness Marthanda Varma 
     Maharaja, the head of the Royal family of Travancore, and 
     other members of the Royal Family for high tea at the Kowdiar 
     Palace. The Royal Family used matrilineal succession. 
     Marthanda Varma's elder sister, Lakshmi Bayi, uses the palace 
     as her residence along with her two daughters Gouri Parvathi 
     Bayi and Gouri Lakshmi Bayi, and their children. Marthanda 
     Varma's brother Bala Rama Varma was the last member to hold 
     power. When Lakshmi Bayi's uncle died, he became King as a 
     small boy in 1941. After his death in 1991, his Highness 
     Marthanda Varma assumed the role as head of the family. Next 
     in line would be her son, a 50 year old doctor in Bangalore. 
     Travancore was a princely state which covered most of central 
     and southern Kerala during the British period. . After 
     independence, the Royal Family lost political power and the 
     princely state merged with other Malayalam language-speaking 
     areas in south India to form Kerala. We discussed the 
     challenges of holding power and how it is different from the 
     current democratic government structure.
       On December 22, we departed the southern areas of India for 
     the eastern city of Bhubaneswar, located in the state of 
     Orissa. I was greeted by Mr. Doug Kelly, Public Affairs 
     Officer at the U.S. Consulate General in Calcutta.
       Our first meeting was a working lunch with Mr. Vishambhar 
     Saran, Chairman of VISA Steel, and numerous Orissa government 
     officials, at the home of Mr. Saran's son, also an executive 
     at VISA Steel. The lunch provided an opportunity to interact 
     with senior businessmen and state officials and get their 
     insights on Orissa's current economic, political, and social 
     issues. Mr. Saran was a educated to be a mining engineer, 
     served as Director of Raw Materials for TATA Steel, and has 
     over 37 years experience in the mining and steel industry. He 
     explained that the demand for steel in India is growing at a 
     rate of 10 percent and India faces competition from China and 
     the Ukraine. Power is an important issue for their mining and 
     steel-making operations. He told me that India has 300-400 
     years of coal remaining, but that the quality is not as good 
     as the coal in Pennsylvania. Mr. Saran explained that India 
     is currently producing 42 million tons of steel. By 2012, it 
     will produce 80 tons and by 2020, it will reach 110 tons or 
     more. During lunch we also discussed the situation in Iraq 
     and India's relations with Iraq. Mr. Saran told me that he 
     has been to Pittsburgh several times to visit family.
       After lunch, we visited Infosys where I was briefed on 
     company operations by Mr. Ardhendu Das. He also led me on a 
     tour of the Infosys campus which includes cafeterias and 
     recreational areas for employees. Infosys provides clients 
     with business management consulting, information technology 
     (IT) consulting, reengineering and maintenance support, and 
     outsourcing and offshoring services. The company was created 
     in 1981 with 7 employees and $250. Today, it operates in 18 
     countries and 50 major cities, employing over 66,000 workers 
     with 476 clients. The Infosys CEO was recently named Forbes 
     Asia Businessman of 2006. We discussed India's well-educated 
     labor pool and business comparisons with China.
       I met with Orissa Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik to discuss 
     the state of affairs in Orissa and elsewhere in the world. 
     The Chief Minister, head of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD)-
     Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) coalition, was first sworn in on 
     March 2000 and then again in March 2004. He began his 
     political career in 1997 after the death of his father. He 
     also served in Prime Minister Vajpayee's Cabinet as Minister 
     in charge of Steel and Mines. Prior to his political career, 
     Mr. Patnaik was a writer. We discussed the U.S./India Nuclear 
     deal, the growing information technology (IT) industry, steel 
     and mining, tourism, the difference between elections in 
     India and the lengthy process in the U.S., and global issues 
     including the war in Iraq.
       Later that evening, my wife and I attended a dinner hosted 
     by Baijayant (``Jay'') Panda, a Member of Rajya Sabha, 
     India's parliament. We discussed world affairs with some 20 
     prominent citizens of Bhubaneshwar and toasted the successful 
     relationship of our two countries. Born in 1964 and educated 
     in the U.S., Mr. Panda has a very bright future ahead and is 
     one of New Delhi's prominent young parliamentarians. His wife 
     Jaggi runs a cable television network in Bhubaneshwar.
       On December 23, I departed Bhubaneshwar for the capitol 
     city of India, New Delhi, where I was greeted at the airport 
     by Mr. Geoffrey Pyatt, Deputy Chief of Mission, and Ms. Karen 
     Schinnerer, consular officer and our control officer.
       After some difficulty landing in New Delhi due to fog, I 
     immediately drove to the residence of India's Prime Minister 
     where I was

[[Page 1200]]

     joined by the U.S. Ambassador to India David C. Mulford for a 
     meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. My meeting was 
     the first U.S. visit with the Prime Minister since President 
     Bush signed legislation earlier that week allowing the U.S. 
     and India to move forward with civil nuclear cooperation. The 
     Ambassador told me that 680 million people watched the 
     ceremony on 11 stations, attesting to the interest in the 
     expanding relations between our nations. In between the 
     signing and our meeting, harsh skepticism was voiced in 
     parliament against the U.S./India Nuclear deal. I urged the 
     Prime Minister to move forward quickly with the remaining 
     technical terms of the agreement, which I am told should not 
     be too difficult. The U.S. Congress must still give final 
     approval of the technical terms of the deal. We also 
     discussed the Presidential signing statement and my belief 
     that Congress should be able to sue if the legislation is 
     changed by a statement.
       We discussed the strong relationship between India and the 
     U.S. and the good relationship with President Bush. We also 
     discussed the diversity of India, a country with the world's 
     second largest Muslim population. He spoke of his commitment 
     to the rule of law including freedom and human kindness. On 
     the issue of India's relations with Pakistan, I asked the 
     Prime Minister if U.S. involvement could be helpful in 
     mediating the differences between the countries. I explained 
     that I had tried to have President Clinton invite the heads 
     of state of India and Pakistan to the Oval Office in 1995, 
     but without success. The Prime Minister explained that he has 
     had several meetings with Pakistan's President Pervez 
     Musharraf and there has been talk of normalizing relations.
       I expressed my appreciation for India's vote on Iran in the 
     U.N. on nuclear proliferation. The Prime Minister expressed 
     that India is not in favor of another nuclear state in the 
     region and would oppose Iran having nuclear weapons. We also 
     discussed, more broadly, the difficult situation in the 
     Middle East including the war in Iraq, the struggles in 
     Israel, and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
       We also discussed relations with China, Afghanistan, and 
     Israel, the future direction of economic cooperation between 
     the U.S. and India, and Indian students in the U.S. We also 
     exchanged stories about our children and grandchildren. One 
     of the Prime Minister's daughters graduated Yale Law School 
     and now works on civil rights in New York City. I previously 
     met with the Prime Minister in 2001 when he served as the 
     opposition leader in parliament.
       Following my meeting with the Prime Minister, I joined the 
     Ambassador at his home for a country team briefing with his 
     staff. We discussed the nuclear proliferation agenda of Iran 
     and North Korea and its relation to India, which has stopped 
     a cargo ship from North Korea to Pakistan with equipment for 
     nuclear weapons.
       We discussed in more detail the U.S./India Nuclear deal and 
     the political fallout the Prime Minister is facing due to 
     language in the bill passed by Congress requiring a 
     Presidential report on India's efforts to keep Iran from 
     becoming a nuclear power. We also discussed economic ties 
     with India, outsourcing of American jobs, and China's 
     practice of currency manipulation. He explained that in the 
     coming years, the U.S., China, and India will continue to 
     emerge as the world's largest economic powers.


                                 QATAR

       On December 24, I departed India for Al Udeid Air Base near 
     Doha, Qatar, as a stopover on the way to Damascus, Syria. 
     Upon arrival I was greeted by U.S. Ambassador Chase 
     Untermeyer and Michael Ratney, Deputy Chief of Mission, who 
     briefed me on overall relations between the U.S. and Qatar 
     and the importance of our air base there. While at Al Udeid, 
     I had an opportunity to visit with Pennsylvania troops 
     stationed there. We exchanged stories, took photographs, and 
     I wished them a happy holiday.


                                 SYRIA

       On December 25, I arrived in Damascus, Syria. My 16th visit 
     included my 4th meeting with President Bashar al-Assad. I had 
     previously met his father, President Hafez al-Assad, on nine 
     occasions and attended his funeral in 2000. During the course 
     of my previous visits, I have found the dialogue with the 
     Syrian officials to be very helpful and have carried messages 
     to other foreign leaders, including Israeli prime ministers, 
     and back to the President of the United States. These visits 
     have contributed to the discussion of many issues with my 
     colleagues in the United States Congress.
       Upon arrival I was greeted by the Charge d'Affaires, Mr. 
     William Roebuck, and our State Department Control Officer, 
     Mr. Hilary Dauer. Our first meeting was a Country Team 
     Briefing at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus with Mr. Roebuck, 
     Mr. Dauer, and the rest of the State Department staff: Maria 
     Olson, Acting Political/Economics Chief; Allen Kepchar, 
     Acting Consul General; Adrienne Nutzman, Acting Public 
     Diplomacy Chief; David Hughes, Political Section; John J. 
     Finnegan, Jr., Management Counselor; Michael Mack, Regional 
     Security Officer; and Mike McCallum, Acting Defense Attache.
       We discussed the difficulties associated with controlling a 
     large border between Syria and Iraq and a recent Memorandum 
     of Understanding (MoU) between the nations to control the 
     traffic of foreign fighters from Yemen, Algeria, Kuwait, 
     Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere seeking to fight the U.S. forces 
     in Iraq. They explained that the Syrians have increased 
     troops on the border and have built new guard positions, but 
     that serious difficulties still remain.
       We discussed the public stance taken by Syria on their 
     willingness to negotiate ``without preconditions'' with 
     Israel. The State Department officials explained that in 
     reality, the Syrians are interested in starting any 
     negotiations from where they previously left off. This 
     includes a return of the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel, 
     as a ``basis'' for negotiations to resume. They explained 
     that since Prime Minister Sharon took office, negotiations 
     have been ``frozen'' with little interest on the Israeli 
     side. We discussed many issues including the Golan and Syrian 
     interests in Lebanon.
       We discussed the perceived power of Bashar al-Assad as 
     compared with the influence of his father. The State 
     Department officials feel that he is not as strong as his 
     father was and does not rule with the same ``iron fist.'' 
     However, they explained that there is not much opposition to 
     President Assad within Syria. I asked if he is, or was, 
     concerned with a U.S. attempt at regime change. They felt 
     that he is less concerned now than when U.S. troops first 
     entered Iraq. Ongoing U.S. problems in Iraq and Afghanistan 
     have eased fears that the U.S. would turn next to Syria.
       We discussed Syria's role in Lebanon, its influence over 
     Hezbollah, and its cooperation with U.N. Resolution 1701 
     regarding the flow of arms to Hezbollah in south Lebanon. 
     They explained that Syria is a ``corridor window'' for Iran 
     to Hezbollah with strong support through Damascus, and that 
     high level political contacts play a role in the tensions in 
     Lebanon through street protests and other actions. They 
     explained that President Assad has taken various positions on 
     his influence in Lebanon in his recent visits with Senator 
     Bill Nelson, and then with Senators Christopher Dodd and John 
     Kerry.
       We discussed the February 2005 assassination of former 
     Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and the ongoing U.N. 
     investigation into the matter. The State Department staff 
     described second-hand accounts of threatening conversations 
     between President Assad and Hariri. They explained that the 
     Syrians are experts at removing the command structure from 
     the evidence, making it difficult to establish facts to back 
     up allegations. The first two reports U.N. reports by Detlev 
     Mehlis described Syrian interference in the investigation. 
     However, the most recent reports by Serge Brammertz have 
     described Syrian cooperation with the investigation.
       Later that evening, I sat down with Syrian Foreign Minister 
     Walid al-Mouallem. He had not accepted my offer for a meeting 
     until I called him on the phone that afternoon. We discussed 
     a variety of issues including the U.S. presence in Iraq, 
     Syria's influence with Hezbollah, peace negotiations with 
     Israel, the Hariri assassination, Syrian relations with Iraq, 
     and Iran's influence in the region. We also discussed the 
     peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, and the 
     complications of a government led by Hamas. We recounted our 
     previous visits and agreed that only through dialogue can we 
     achieve a common ground on the difficult issues at hand.
       The Foreign Minister told me that it is time to rethink 
     U.S. policy towards Syria. He told me that isolating Syria 
     was not working and that we are isolating ourselves at the 
     same time. He blamed much of the instability in the Mideast 
     to the Bush Administration. He explained that in Syria, the 
     number one priority is peace in the region, including an end 
     to the Arab/Israeli conflict. When I asked why a peace 
     agreement has not been completed with Israel, he told me that 
     there is a ``lack of political will'' in Israel since Yitzhak 
     Rabin's assassination in 1995. He told me that Syria is 
     willing to negotiate with Israel without preconditions, but 
     not without the ``basis'' of ``land for peace.''
       I asked if the problems with Hezbollah could be solved 
     through a peace agreement between Syria and Israel. He 
     answered, ``Without a doubt,'' but then explained the need to 
     resolve the issue of the Golan Heights and, in particular, 
     Shebaa Farms, a small area of disputed ownership located at 
     the junction of Israel, Syria, and Lebanon controlled by 
     Israel since 1967. When I asked if U.N. Resolution 1701 would 
     be observed in the absence of an Israel/Syria peace 
     agreement, the Foreign Minister told me that in history, no 
     ceasefire can stand without a political solution. Thus, he 
     said, it cannot stand forever. When I explained the distrust 
     in the U.S. with Syria's position that they do not supply 
     arms to Hezbollah, Mouallem asked me to present proof to the 
     contrary. He told me that Syria would respond quickly with 
     corrective action if the allegation could be founded with 
     documentation.
       On the issue of the assassination of former Lebanese Prime 
     Minister Rafik Hariri, Mouallem explained that Hariri was a 
     friend to Syria and denied involvement in his murder. ``No 
     wise man can shoot his own finger,'' he said. He told me that 
     Syria is cooperating fully with the investigation and he 
     expressed suspicion of political motives in the initial

[[Page 1201]]

     U.N. Mehlis investigative reports, which said Syria was not 
     fully cooperating.
       We discussed then-Secretary Colin Powell's 2003 visit when, 
     according to Mouallem, Powell arrived with six ``take it or 
     leave it'' demands of Syria, including closing the borders, 
     ending support for Hezbollah, ending support for Hamas in 
     Damascus, and ending its chemical program. He explained his 
     preference to seek solutions through dialogue, not through 
     demands and a threat of U.S. troops in Iraq next turning to 
     Syria. He explained that after their meeting, Powell held a 
     press conference at a nearby hotel explaining that Syria was 
     not willing to work with the U.S.
       Despite this history, Mouallem told me that he is ``ready 
     to turn this page'' and seek constructive dialogue with the 
     U.S. with the objective of peace.
       We discussed Syrian relations with Iraq and the recent 
     establishment of an embassy in Baghdad. According to 
     Mouallem, Syria has taken in one million refugees from Iraq 
     and took another 300,000 Lebanese during the conflict with 
     Israel this past summer. Regional stability is sought by the 
     Syrians, he explained. He discussed the recent Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MoU) for border and security cooperation 
     between Iraq and Syria focusing on information exchange and 
     improved presence and training on the borders. In our 
     meeting, the Foreign Minister declined my request to have a 
     copy of the MoU. He suggested I get a copy from the Iraqis.
       The Foreign Minister pointed to U.S. mistakes in Iraq 
     including our being unwilling to open dialogue with all 
     factions of Iraqis including the Saddam-loyalists. If we 
     don't attract the ex-officers, he said they will simply train 
     the resistance. ``They need to eat,'' he said. He said that 
     the Maliki Government needs to be strong and decisive in 
     dismantling militias and that constitutional modifications 
     are needed to assure unity in Iraq. On the issue of a U.S. 
     timetable for withdrawal, he said that it would be immoral 
     for the U.S. to leave now and leave Iraq in the hands of 
     terrorists. He said that Syria, too, wants real leadership in 
     Iraq. He said that a timetable would oblige them to take over 
     and not leave a vacuum.
       On the influence of Iran in the region, the Foreign 
     Minister was careful not to speak for Iran, but noted that 
     the U.S. may have missed opportunities to deal with more 
     moderate leadership in the past. We discussed Iran's efforts 
     to achieve a nuclear weapon and he said there is a double-
     standard when we allow Israel to possess a nuclear weapon. I 
     responded by telling him that unlike India which has recently 
     been recognized by the U.S., Iran is not a responsible 
     country and has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the 
     Earth.
       On the following morning, I met with Syrian President 
     Bashar al-Assad at his Presidential palace in Damascus. 
     Despite the Administration's policy of isolating Syria, I 
     believe dialogue is important. My meeting with President 
     Assad in Damascus is part of increased Congressional 
     oversight in fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities 
     in foreign affairs as a reaction to unprecedented turmoil in 
     the Mideast.
       We discussed ways that Syria could help provide stability 
     in Iraq by controlling the border and the flow of fighters 
     into, and out of, Iraq. Assad said that both sides must make 
     an effort, but Iraq is currently unable to fully enforce its 
     border. However, a recently signed Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MoU) between the two nations, which I had also 
     discussed with the Foreign Minister, might help the 
     situation. President Assad agreed to provide a copy of the 
     MoU.
       President Assad explained that Syria has an interest in a 
     stable Iraq, but that U.S. policies have created instability 
     by ignoring political issues and instead focusing on security 
     issues. He attributed much of the sectarian violence in Iraq 
     to the Iraqi Constitution, as it is currently written. He 
     discussed a national conference which could be held in 
     Damascus that would bring all relevant groups in Iraq 
     together in an attempt to stop the violence. He explained 
     that U.S. involvement would be important, but that the 
     conference could not be seen as having been organized by the 
     Americans because of our poor image with many Iraqi factions. 
     He told me that the Prime Minister of Turkey has already 
     agreed, in principle, to participate. President Assad 
     expressed the importance of Iran's participation in the 
     national conference. Iran, he said, is a nation which also 
     does not want complete chaos in Iraq.
       We discussed the possibility of resuming peace talks with 
     Israel, continuing my discussion from the night before with 
     the Foreign Minister. President Assad explained that 
     negotiations without preconditions means that any further 
     negotiations must start from the foundation of the Madrid 
     peace conference in 1991 and on where negotiations with 
     former Israeli Prime Minister Rabin left off. When I asked 
     what Israel would get in exchange for the Golan Heights, 
     President Assad said that Israel would get normal relations 
     and peace with both Syria and Lebanon, and that issues 
     related to Hezbollah would be ``solved simply.'' He 
     acknowledged the importance of the U.S. in the peace process, 
     but said that there is currently ``no vision for peace.''
       We discussed Syria's role in Lebanon and allegations that 
     it was involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime 
     Minister Rafik Hariri. President Assad told me that despite 
     the conflicting reports in the Melhis and Bremmertz 
     investigations of the Hariri assassination, Syria will 
     continue to give its full support to the U.N.'s 
     investigation. President Assad denied any threatening 
     conversation in which he threatened to break Lebanon over the 
     head of Hariri, as was recounted by various second-hand 
     witnesses in the U.N. reports. He described some concerns 
     with a U.N. tribunal on the Hariri assassination and stressed 
     that it should follow the Lebanese constitution.
       On the issue of Syria allowing arms shipments to Hezbollah, 
     President Assad said that such allegations should be backed 
     up with evidence. He said that missiles could not be smuggled 
     discretely ``like drugs on the back of a donkey,'' but could 
     only be transported by truck. On a related note, President 
     Assad warned that a decreased presence of Hezbollah in 
     Lebanon would mean an increased presence of al-Qaeda, which 
     is already active in northern Lebanon. Overall, he told me 
     that Syria still has considerable influence in Lebanon, but 
     that Syria's ``happiest day'' was when his army left Lebanon.
       We discussed issues relating to Hamas in the peace process 
     between the Palestinians and Israelis. While unity would be 
     needed among the Palestinians, he noted that Hamas is now 
     talking about the so-called ``line of 1967'' as part of 
     future negotiations, a softening of position. He said that 
     without a comprehensive peace agreement including everyone in 
     the region, we would have a ``time bomb'' waiting to happen.
       I asked President Assad about the two Israeli soldiers 
     captured at the beginning of the conflict between Israel and 
     Hezbollah on Israel's northern border this past summer. He 
     said that they are ready to negotiate a release in exchange 
     for some 20 individuals captured by Israel, but that a 
     mediator was needed. I also asked President Assad about an 
     Israeli soldier, Guy Hever, who went missing in the Golan 
     Heights in 1997 and is suspected to be in a Syrian prison. He 
     said that perhaps the soldier was lost in the high mountains 
     during the winter.
       I asked President Assad about the Iranian President Mahmoud 
     Ahmadinejad and his comments about wiping Israel off the face 
     of the earth. President Assad said that he is not as radical 
     as we think and that we should talk to him. He said that his 
     denial that the Holocaust occurred is his own opinion. 
     President Assad expressed his opposition to nuclear weapons 
     in Iran, or any other country in the region, including 
     Israel.
       I raised the issue of the security of the U.S. Embassy in 
     Damascus. He explained that his own office is very close to 
     the U.S. Embassy and that the entire area is well protected. 
     Closing the street, he said, would not improve security as it 
     would still be vulnerable to missile attack. Instead, he 
     suggested that the Embassy move to a new area outside 
     Damascus and a pledge of timely approvals and availability of 
     land was made.
       President Assad told me that he wanted to travel to the 
     U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York in 2005, but the 
     U.S. government would not issue a visa.
       Before leaving Syria on December 26, I held a press 
     conference at the airport to discuss my meetings.


                                 israel

       On December 26, we departed Damascus for Israel. Our travel 
     required a technical stop in Amman, Jordan. Upon our arrival 
     in Israel, we were met by Peter Vrooman of the U.S. Embassy 
     in Tel Aviv who briefed me on the current issues while on the 
     long car ride to Jerusalem. Along the way, we stopped at my 
     father's gravesite in Holon, Israel.
       On the morning of December 27th, I met with the U.S. 
     Ambassador to Israel, Richard H. Jones. I briefed the 
     Ambassador on my meetings with the Syrian Foreign Minister 
     and President in Damascus. We discussed the details of the 
     land issues related to the Golan Heights and Shebaa Farms, 
     the fragile ceasefire created under U.N. Resolution 1701 and 
     the need for a political solution, the perception that the 
     U.S. would seek regime change in Syria following the 2003 
     invasion of Iraq, and the U.S. policy of pressuring Syria 
     through isolation. We discussed the threat posed to Israel by 
     Iran and discussed the positive impact of Saddam Hussein's 
     removal for Israel.
       Later that morning, the Ambassador and I met with former 
     Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I told him about 
     my trip and my meetings with Syrian President Assad. We 
     discussed the Syrian President's interest in resuming peace 
     negotiations from where they last left off, with the obvious 
     inclusion of the Golan Heights in any discussion. Netanyahu 
     explained that peace is based on deterrence and that once you 
     give Syria the Golan Heights, one must ask themselves what 
     remains to keeps President Assad to his word of providing 
     normal relations and peace. He told me about his 1998 
     discussions with Hafez al-Asad which abruptly ended in 
     disagreement over the Golan Heights. The former Prime 
     Minister told me that, unlike the statements of Syria, he 
     does have preconditions to talking with Syria, namely that 
     they stop waging war against Israel. ``They are killing my 
     countrymen,'' he said.

[[Page 1202]]

       We also discussed the Iranian President's comments 
     regarding the Holocaust never happening and his desire to see 
     Israel wiped off the earth. I related Iran's nuclear 
     ambitions to those of India, a country which can be trusted. 
     He told me that President Bush is doing a good job of 
     pressuring Iran, but said that the ``noose must remain 
     tight.''
       On the afternoon of December 27th, we met with Israel's 
     Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. We discussed President Assad's 
     interest in negotiating a peace agreement with Israel. She 
     suggested that while President Assad may be sending signals 
     for negotiations, in reality he may just want to ease the 
     international pressure that currently exists on Syria due to 
     the Hariri investigation and allegations of arms transfers to 
     Hezbollah. She said that Syria's intentions must be clearly 
     understood before engaging in talks. I told her that 
     President Assad said a mediator was needed to allow for the 
     release of the two captured Israeli soldiers. She said that 
     Kofi Annan had already tried, but little progress is actually 
     being made.
       Overall, she said little progress is being made right now 
     on either the Israel/Syria front or between Israel and the 
     Palestinians. ``Only headlines,'' she said. She said there is 
     a desire to negotiate with Palestinian moderates towards a 
     two-state solution and said she ``smelled signs'' of 
     progress, as evidenced by a recent December 23rd meeting 
     between Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President 
     Mahmoud Abbas. When I noted that we live in a changing world 
     where terrorist groups want to participate in politics, she 
     suggested that rules should be established to prevent such 
     practices.
       We discussed Israel's decision-making process and its 
     practice of consultation with the U.S. before taking action. 
     Foreign Minister Livni explained that the U.S. and Israel 
     share many of the same values and interests in the region and 
     it does not benefit either country to surprise the other 
     without first consulting on an issue. I agreed. I urged 
     Israel to be independent and to follow its own interests.
       On the issue of Iran, Foreign Minister Livni said that the 
     world cannot afford to allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. 
     She expressed her fear that a ``domino effect'' could occur 
     where others in the Mideast will either appease Iran in the 
     interest of safety, or they will seek nuclear weapons of 
     their own for deterrence. She cited the need for stronger, 
     ``real'' sanctions against Iran.
       That evening the Ambassador and I met with Israeli Prime 
     Minister Ehud Olmert at his offices in Jerusalem. I briefed 
     the Prime Minister on my meeting with Syrian President Bashar 
     al-Assad. I told him that President Assad says he wants to 
     negotiate with Israel and that he says he can be helpful in 
     dealing with Hamas and Helzbollah. The Prime Minister said he 
     was ``more than interested'' to hear this message, but also 
     said, ``I don't want to fool myself and my friends.'' He 
     cited Syrian support for terrorist groups including Hamas, a 
     group whose leader Khaled Mashal ``sits in Damascus.'' He 
     said Israel would need a ``credible sign'' that Assad is 
     sincere before giving him legitimacy that he currently 
     doesn't deserve.
       The Prime Minister described resolving the conflict with 
     the Palestinians as his top priority. The Prime Minister told 
     me about his meeting on December 23rd with President Mahmoud 
     Abbas. He described it as an important bilateral step without 
     the assistance of the U.S., or anyone else. He characterized 
     the meeting as ``very difficult, but very significant.'' As a 
     result of that meeting, he said $100 million would be 
     unfrozen for humanitarian and security purposes.
       On the issue of U.S. involvement in Iraq, he said he was 
     glad that Saddam Hussein is gone. He would not give his 
     opinion on whether the U.S. should draw back its forces. He 
     did note that pulling out prematurely ``would encourage 
     radical countries.''
       On the issue of Iran, the Prime Minister described 
     Ahmadinejad as a ``madman'' in control of a nation of over 70 
     million people. He suggested that economic measures should 
     also be taken outside of the U.N. Security Council to 
     pressure Iran, particularly from European Union member 
     countries.
       Despite the regional difficulties, the Prime Minister told 
     me that the economic situation in Israel is better than ever. 
     Over the last year, Israel has seen a positive balance of 
     trade with overall growth of 4.8 percent and low inflation. 
     Before the conflict in south Lebanon, growth was projected at 
     only one percent.
       On the morning of December 28th, I held a press conference 
     at the David Citadel Hotel in Jerusalem to discuss my foreign 
     travel, particularly my meetings in Syria and in Israel.
       Following my press conference, I was joined by Michael 
     Schreuder of the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem, and by Jake 
     Walles, Consul General and Chief of Mission in Jerusalem. We 
     traveled into the West Bank for several meetings in Ramallah.
       Our first meeting in Ramallah was with Salam Fayyad, a 
     Palestinian in the Third Way party who was the Finance 
     Minister of the Palestinian National Authority in the Fatah 
     government in 2002. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the 
     University of Texas at Austin and has lived in the U.S. for 
     over 10 years. He explained his interests in decency and 
     fundamental human values, qualities which will help the 
     Palestinian people be better neighbors to Israel.
       We discussed his successful reforms in his three and a half 
     years as Finance Minister. He explained that many of those 
     reforms are not being carried out by the current government.
       He explained that despite the undesirable outcome of the 
     January 2006 elections, he and other like-minded people are 
     still trying to make progress with Israel and are focusing on 
     providing security. He noted that Hamas is having many 
     problems because of their lack of governmental experience, 
     but still found it difficult to see how elections could be 
     held in the near future. Hamas, he said, is a real problem, 
     because they do not recognize Israel and they judge right and 
     wrong based on ideology and fixed notions of the world. He 
     acknowledged that Hamas will always be part of the system, 
     but he hoped it would not continue to be a majority.
       We discussed the recent meeting between President Abbas and 
     Prime Minister Olmert. We also discussed the threat posed to 
     Israel by Iran and Syria's behavior in Lebanon, which he 
     characterized as ``disgusting.'' Fayyad said he has a harder 
     time believing President Bashar al-Assad than he did his 
     father.
       We then joined Hannan Ashrawi, also a member of the Third 
     Way party, for lunch in Ramallah. She explained that under 
     the Hamas government, the ``republic has become polarized,'' 
     alternatives have not been permitted to rise, and people have 
     lost their sense of volunteerism. According to Ashrawi, there 
     is currently no process for peace and there hasn't been since 
     2000. However, she explained that some options exist for 
     President Abbas to negotiate, even though the powers of the 
     President were reduced in 2002 when the position of Prime 
     Minister was created.
       We discussed the Palestinian distaste for Israeli 
     occupation within the West Bank. She said that Israeli 
     occupation includes control over the airspace, borders, and 
     checkpoints. She described the difficulties of carrying out 
     even the most mundane tasks as a Palestinian, such as going 
     to the airport. She described the checkpoints as being there 
     ``to humiliate.'' We discussed the technicalities of what 
     appears to be a new settlement in the West Bank, which Israel 
     claims is only an expansion inside an existing area and not 
     in violation of its commitment to the U.S. of no new 
     settlements.
       We discussed my meeting with Syrian President Assad, the 
     potential for future talks with Israel, the difficult 
     situation of a Hamas majority in government, the 
     possibilities for new elections, and the need to engage in 
     dialogue with Iran.
       Early that evening back in Jerusalem, I met with the mother 
     of an Israeli soldier, Guy Hever, who is believed to be a 
     prisoner in a Syrian jail. Mr. Hever disappeared on the Golan 
     Heights near the Syrian border on August 17, 1997. I 
     previously met his mother on November 6, 2002, and wrote 
     President Assad asking for an inquiry into Mr. Hever's 
     whereabouts. I raised the issue in person with the Syrian 
     President on January 3, 2003, and again in my most recent 
     meeting on December 26, 2006.
       That evening in Jerusalem, I met with Saeb Erakat, Head of 
     the Negotiations Affairs Department for the Palestine 
     Liberation Organization. We discussed my visit to Syria and 
     its stability under the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. He 
     told me that Hafez al-Assad used to ``play Iran as a card, 
     but now Ahmadinejad plays Assad as a card.''
       On the situation with Hamas, he said there is no 
     alternative but to seek elections. However, he said that 
     Fatah needs to change in a short period of time. It was 
     beaten by a ``party without a program.'' If Hamas sees that 
     Fatah remains weak and does not come up with a plan, it may 
     call for elections again and take more power in government.
       We discussed the December 23rd meeting between President 
     Abbas and Prime Minister Olmert, a meeting Mr. Erakat 
     attended. He explained that many Palestinians did not want to 
     see the meeting occur and it fell into place at the very last 
     minute. He praised the courage and leadership of President 
     Abbas for ``sticking his neck out'' to start something. 
     Permanent solutions were not on the table. Rather, four 
     committees focusing on security, economy, prisoners, and 
     sustaining the ceasefire were created to attempt to answer 
     the question of ``where do we go from here.'' He explained 
     that a third party in negotiations is helpful, but that the 
     ``real work'' must be done on a bilateral basis. He expressed 
     his optimism that future negotiations can succeed despite 
     interference and violence spurred by Hamas.
       Mr. Erakat requested that the U.S. Congress ease 
     limitations on aid to Palestinians, citing the need to show 
     that President Abbas can deliver for his people.
       We also discussed Iran's emerging influence in the region 
     and its impact on the Palestinian people. Mr. Erakat 
     suggested adding another nation to the maps instead of 
     Ahmadinejad's suggestion that Israel be wiped off the map.


                                 ITALY

       On the morning of December 29th, we departed Israel for a 
     stopover in Rome, Italy, on the way back to the U.S. Upon our 
     arrival, we were greeted by our State Department Control 
     Officer Mikael McCowan. We

[[Page 1203]]

     drove to the U.S. Embassy and discussed a variety of issues 
     during a Country Team Briefing with the embassy staff headed 
     by Ms. Anna M. Borg, Deputy Chief of Mission. Ambassador 
     Ronald P. Spogli was not in Italy during my visit.
       We discussed U.S. relations with the new ``left of center'' 
     government which has withdrawn Italy's 3,000 troops from 
     Iraq. We discussed other forms of military cooperation 
     between the U.S. and Italy, including ties with American 
     businesses selling arms to Italy. Elsewhere, Italy has some 
     8,400 troops stationed around the world. Following on the 
     summer conflict in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel, 
     Italy has played a major role in the peacekeeping operation 
     by providing 2,400 troops, the largest contingent of any 
     country. They are also playing an important role in 
     Afghanistan with some 2,000 troops. Italy also has some 3,500 
     troops stationed in the Balkans.
       We also discussed the judicial structure in Italy where 
     there are three independent levels of jurisdiction, the 
     latest developments on the reported Italian cooperation with 
     CIA renditions, Italy's economy, and its relations with Iran. 
     They explained that Italy, which has a sizeable amount of 
     trade with Iran, has been put in a difficult situation by 
     having to support sanctions against Iran for its nuclear 
     proliferation efforts.
       On December 30, 2006, we departed Rome, Italy, and returned 
     to the United States.
       I ask unanimous consent that the following be included in 
     the Congressional Record as if read on the Senate floor:
       1. My letter to Philip Mathew, Managing Editor of the 
     Malayala Manorama in Kerala, India, dated December 22, 2006
       2. An article from the Jerusalem Post headlined ``Arlen 
     Specter `would meet' Ahmadinejad'' dated December 28, 2006
       3. An article I wrote for the Philadelphia Inquirer for 
     January 5, 2007 publication
       4. My letter to President Bashar al-Assad dated January 5, 
     2007

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, December 22, 2006.
     Philip Mathew,
     Managing Editor, Malayala Manorama,
     Kerala, India
       Dear Mr. Mathew: I was very surprised by your newspaper's 
     account of my interview with your board of editors on 
     December 19, 2006 in Kerala, India.
       Contrary to your report, as to the war in Iraq, I said only 
     that had the U.S. known Saddam didn't have weapons of mass 
     destruction we would not have gone to war. Once there, we 
     could not precipitously withdraw and leave the country 
     destabilized.
       I did not say that the U.S. war was widely characterized as 
     being against the Muslim community.
       The U.S. has already explained that faulty intelligence led 
     to the conclusion that Saddam had weapons of mass 
     destruction. Beyond faulty intelligence, I did not say that 
     U.S. policy required more thoughtful consideration.
       As to Guantanamo Bay, I said that the U.S. should allow 
     habeas Corpus to determine if detainees are properly treated.
       As to a permanent seat for India on the U.N. Security 
     Counsel, I said that if the U.N. was being organized today 
     India would be considered as one of the World's five greatest 
     Powers.
       Your reporting would certainly make me rethink granting 
     another interview to your editorial board on any future trip 
     to Kerala, India.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____


                [From the Jerusalem Post, Dec. 28, 2006]

                Arlen Specter ``Would Meet'' Ahmadinejad

                            (By Herb Keinon)

       Senator Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania who 
     broke ranks with the Bush Administration and met Syrian 
     President Bashar Assad earlier this week, said Thursday in 
     Jerusalem that he would now like to sit down and talk with 
     Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
       Asked by The Jerusalem Post if he would like to meet the 
     Iranian President, Specter--in Jerusalem for a series of 
     meetings as part of a regional tour--replied, ``You bet I 
     would like to, and give him a piece of my mind.''
       The present US policy is not to engage in high-level 
     dialogue with either Syria or Iran, even though the recently 
     published Baker-Hamilton report advocated actively engaging 
     those two countries. Bush has said he would not change his 
     policy regarding those two countries; Specter thinks he 
     should.
       ``I disagree with the policy of not dealing with Iran,'' he 
     said.
       ``When he [Ahmadinejad] says he wants to wipe Israel off 
     the face of the earth, I'd like to tell him how unacceptable 
     that is,'' Specter said, explaining what he would tell 
     Ahmadinejad.
       ``When he says there was no Holocaust, I'd like to tell him 
     about the Holocaust survivors I've talked to, and about how 
     much evidence there is about the Holocaust. Yes I'd like to 
     see the president of Iran, he could use some information,'' 
     he said.
       Specter brushed aside the criticism of his trip to Damascus 
     that was voiced by some in the Bush Administration who argued 
     that his visit, as well as recent visits by three democratic 
     senators, granted legitimacy to the Syrian government. 
     Specter said that as a member of the powerful Senate 
     appropriations committee that sends billions of dollars each 
     year to the Middle East, he was dutybound to see first hand 
     what was happening in the region.
       Specter said that while he acquiesced to the Bush 
     Administration's request not to visit Damascus on previous 
     tours to the region last December and August, ``this year in 
     coming it seemed to me that the Administration's program is 
     not working.''
       Regarding what he hoped to achieve by going to Damascus, 
     Specter said, ``I believe that all the wisdom doesn't lie 
     with the Administration, there are others of us who have 
     studied the matters in detail, have made contributions in the 
     past, and have something to add here.''
       The senior Pennsylvania senator said that while he had a 
     great deal of respect and admiration for US President George 
     W. Bush, there were issues with which he did not agree with 
     the president, and that it was his responsibility ``to speak 
     up, and do so in an independent way.''
       Specter said he did not believe that his visit ``alters the 
     issue of legitimacy'' regarding Syria, and pointed out that 
     the US talked to the leaders of the Soviet Union even though 
     there was a Cold War for decades, and that the US talked with 
     the Chinese despite disagreements over slave labor.
       Specter reiterated what he said in Damascus earlier this 
     week, that the Syrians were interested in entering into 
     negotiations with Israel without preconditions, and that 
     Syrian President Bashar Assad had told him that in return 
     Syria could be helpful in dealing both with Hamas and 
     Hizbullah.
       Specter said that Assad denied that arms were being 
     smuggled into Lebanon through Syria.
       Asked whether he believed Assad, Specter, who has met with 
     him five times and with his father Hafez Assad nine times, 
     said, ``I don't know, I can not make the judgment on that, 
     the Israelis will have to do that.''
       Specter, who has served in the senate for 26 years, said 
     that the situation in the Middle East is more problematic now 
     than at any time since he was first elected.
       ``I do not see anyway out except through dialogue,'' he 
     said. ``I do not think there are any assurances that dialogue 
     will succeed, but I think there are assurances that without 
     dialogue there will be failure.''
                                  ____


             [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 5, 2007]

       Why Congress Can and Must Assert Itself in Foreign Policy

                        (By Sen. Arlen Specter)

       My recent meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 
     Damascus is part of increased congressional oversight in 
     fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities in foreign 
     affairs as a reaction to unprecedented turmoil in the Middle 
     East. As I mentioned in an extensive Senate speech in the 
     July 16, 2006, Congressional Record, and also in an article 
     in the current issue of the Washington Quarterly, significant 
     results have flowed from my meetings with foreign leaders 
     (some of whom have been unsavory), over the last two decades.
       The starting point is a senator's constitutional duty to 
     participate, make judgments, and vote on foreign affairs. In 
     26 years in the Senate, I chaired the Intelligence Committee 
     in the 104th Congress and have served on the appropriations 
     subcommittees on defense and foreign operations. Senators 
     vote on ratification of treaties, on the confirmation of 
     cabinet offices including the Departments of State and 
     Defense, and on appropriations of $8 billion a month for Iraq 
     and Afghanistan and more than $500 billion annually for 
     military and homeland defense. Under the constitutional 
     doctrine of separation of powers, senators are purposefully 
     independent of the executive branch to provide checks and 
     balances. Accordingly, Congress has a vital role in the 
     formation and execution of foreign policy.
       My foreign travels have included 16 visits to Damascus 
     since 1984 involving nine meetings with President Hafiz al-
     Assad and four with his son, President Bashar al-Assad. When 
     the administration asked me not to go to Syria when I was in 
     the region in December 2005 and August 2006, I deferred to 
     that judgment. But now--with the Middle East embroiled in a 
     civil war in Iraq, a fragile cease-fire between Hezbollah and 
     Israel, and warfare between Fattah and Hamas undercutting any 
     potential peace process between Israel and the Palestinians--
     I decided it was time for Congress to assert its role in 
     foreign policy. My decision was influenced by the 2006 
     election, which rejected U.S. policies in Iraq, and by the 
     Baker-Hamilton Group report on Iraq, urging direct dialogue 
     with foreign adversaries including Syria.
       My talks with Assad, following his meetings with Sens. Bill 
     Nelson (D., Fla.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.), and John Kerry 
     (D., Mass.), produced his commitment to tighten the Iraqi-
     Syrian border to impede terrorists and insurgents from 
     infiltrating Iraq. In my meeting, Assad made a new offer for 
     Syria to host an international conference with all factions 
     in the Iraqi conflict and other regional powers to try to 
     find a formula for peace. I carried a strong State Department 
     message to Assad concerning Syria's obligations under U.N. 
     Resolution 1701 not to arm

[[Page 1204]]

     Hezbollah, and Syria's obligations to cooperate with the U.N. 
     investigation into the assassination of Lebanese Prime 
     Minister Hariri.
       Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was interested in the 
     nuances of my conversation with Assad on Syria's potential 
     assistance with Hezbollah and Hamas as part of an Israeli-
     Syrian peace treaty involving the Golan Heights. When I met 
     with Olmert, he appeared to be moderating his prior 
     opposition to Israeli-Syrian peace talks, perhaps as a result 
     of many voices, including mine, urging him to do so.
       In previous trips to Damascus, especially in the 1990s, I 
     relayed messages between then-President Hafiz al-Assad of 
     Syria--who initially refused to participate in an 
     International Conference with Israel unless sponsored by all 
     five permanent members of the Security Council--and then-
     Prime Minister Itzhak Shamir of Israel. Shamir would attend 
     such a conference only if it were organized by the United 
     States and the Soviet Union. Shamir did not want to deal with 
     four adversaries and only one friend. Whether my efforts to 
     persuade Assad to accede to Shamir's terms had any effect is 
     speculative, but it is a fact that Syria went to the Madrid 
     Conference in 1991 sponsored by the United States and the 
     Soviet Union.
       Shortly after becoming Israeli prime minister in 1996, 
     Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel would hold Syria 
     responsible for Hezbollah's attacks on Israel. Syria then 
     realigned its troops near the border with Israel, creating 
     considerable tension in the region. Netanyahu asked me to 
     carry a message to Assad that Israel wanted peace, which I 
     did. I was later credited by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid 
     al-Moualem with aiding in relieving the tension.
       In many visits to Damascus, I urged Assad to let Syrian 
     Jews emigrate. Assad at first refused, saying it would be a 
     brain drain. It is hard to say whether my appeals influenced 
     Assad's later decision to let the Syrian Jews go. These and 
     other results from my many trips to Damascus are cited in 
     contemporaneous Senate floor statements reporting on those 
     visits.
       More, rather than less, congressional attention is needed 
     on U.S. foreign policy generally and on the Middle East in 
     particular. While we can't be sure that dialogue will 
     succeed, we can be sure that without dialogue there will be 
     failure.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, January 5, 2007.
     His Excellency Bashar al-Assad,
     President, Syrian Arab Republic,
     Damascus, Syria.
       Dear President Assad: I am writing to thank you for your 
     hospitality during my recent visit to your country. I found 
     our discussion to be very insightful and believe it will 
     prove useful as I continue to advocate for a renewed dialogue 
     between our governments. I would also like to renew a request 
     for your assistance in determining the fate of Mr. Guy Hever, 
     an Israeli soldier who disappeared from the Golan Heights on 
     August 17, 2006. I have raised this matter with you on 
     several occasions, most recently during our meeting on 
     December 26, 2006.
       According to information provided to my office, at the time 
     of Mr. Hever's disappearance, he was dressed in army 
     fatigues, wore a military disk numbered 5210447, and carried 
     a key chain and identification papers (Geneva Convention 
     Card). Despite a thorough search, no trace of the missing 
     soldier has ever been found. Some have suggested that Mr. 
     Hever may have illegally crossed the Israeli-Syrian border, 
     leading to his detention in a Syrian jail.
       I have twice met with Mr. Hever's mother, most recently on 
     December 28, 2006. The long interval of time which has passed 
     since Mr. Hever's disappearance has caused his family great 
     pain. Given that your personal intervention could potentially 
     end the Hever's family's search for answers, I respectfully 
     request that you order an inquiry to determine if any Syrian 
     authority could assist in resolving Mr. Hever's whereabouts 
     and well being.
       Thank you once again for your hospitality and your 
     consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.

                          ____________________