Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will support the Harkin amendment, No. 2719, in response to the numerous phone calls and letters I have received from my constituents in recent years regarding the increasing cost of health care. Nevertheless, I am concerned with increasing these kinds of mandatory expenditures that are able to bypass the consideration of the Appropriations Committees. While I believe that this Congress should address the rising cost of health care in the United States, we should avoid band-aid approaches and focus our efforts on more comprehensive solutions.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I object to this bill. I object to this being considered at this time.

Mr. BYRD. I could hardly hear anything, as a matter of fact.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I do not know what this bill is about.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I will take 30 seconds. I had agreed, in the interest of letting Senators catch their planes, to having the vote and then have my statement concerning the homeland defense part appear in the Record as though spoken before the vote. That unanimous consent was not agreed to and others spoke. The Senator from Arizona spoke. It was my understanding we would all give up that privilege and we would vote without speaking. Others have spoken. I am not going to stand in the way of Senators going home on this occasion, so I want to make it clear I did not object in the beginning so everybody who had speeches could make them. I am willing to give up my speech right now. It is a great speech, but I will make it after the vote. I wanted to call it to the attention of the Senate that I kind of begrudgingly agreed to that request.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator from Michigan has a very important point. I hope that the people at the Environmental Protection Agency will take note of his remarks.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, the Senators may be unaware, but under the previous order, I was to be recognized after the vote; right?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know what my rights are, and I know what the order said. I just have not pressed my rights. But I have no objection to the Senator making his request. I will not, however, stand aside for the Senator's request, but I will be here when he makes his request.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Now, Mr. President, we are just a few days from Christmas, a few days from the morning when millions of children tumble out of their warm beds, awaken their parents, rush to the family room, and look, with gleeful delight, at the bows, the boxes, and the bundles under the tree. This is one of my favorite times of the year--a time of joy, a time of love, a time of family gatherings and warm memories. I remember the Christmas presents waiting for me when I was a boy back there during the Great Depression in the hard hills of Mercer County in southern West Virginia. There was not an electric light in the house--no electricity, no running water, but there was an orange or a drawing book or a set of pencils or a set of water colors, or a geography book that I had been wanting. My family did not have great material wealth, but we always had a wealth of love. The two old people who raised me, they are in Heaven tonight. They are in Heaven. We did not have fancy toys in those days. We celebrated the season for its true meaning: the birth of the Christ Child. Now, I respect every man's or woman's religion. I respect their religion. If it is Moslem, I respect their religion. I can listen to the prayers of any churchman or any layman. I can respect them all because who am I? I am unworthy of God's blessings. I can respect them. So my wife Erma and I have passed those lessons on to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren. In recent years, however, that meaning has been drowned out by a society that is focused more on the perfect gift or the latest gadget or the hottest-selling toy. Our attention is on store sales and Santa Claus rather than on the true meaning of Christmas. Now, I am a Christian. I believe in Christ. I am not very worthy, but I believe in Him. I respect anyone who does not. I respect anyone who believes that He was, that He lived, He was a historic figure, He was a prophet. They may not believe He is the Messiah--I do--but it does not lesson my respect for others. I will listen to them at any time. But I think all of us have to agree that this was a great event that happened that split the centuries in two, and the years that were before Christ are numbered, the years that are after Christ numbered differently. This was some, some happening. No matter what we believe or do not believe, it is still recognized by all that there was a man named Jesus Christ. And so no matter what our religion, I think we ought to understand this was more than just an ordinary happening, more than just an ordinary man. At its core, the season has not changed. Christmas will always be, to me, about a family that found no shelter but a manger, and also about a newborn child who would become, in my viewpoint, the Saviour of the world. As Luke wrote in his Gospel: And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. Good tidings. Great joy. How many people think of those words standing in the long lines of their local shopping malls? I worry that too many of us, in the hectic pace of the modern world, have forgotten the true spirit of Christmas, have forgotten what this is really all about. They have forgotten the true meaning. The story of the birth of Christ has been overshadowed by the pressures and the strains of a commercialized holiday. Families will spend hours at shopping malls, waiting in long lines, rather than in the company of loved ones or in a church or in a place of worship celebrating in song or prayer. They will become obsessed with purchases and the gifts they may receive. Children will meticulously craft the perfect list of toys and will worry that grandma will again, this Christmas, buy them another sweater that they will never wear. Sadly, the Christmas season has become the shopping season. A time for joy and spiritual reflection has drowned in the shallow waters of greed. That does not need to be. We can return to the true meaning of Christmas. During this holiday, I urge all Americans to reflect on their families and their faith--whatever their faith--and to read the story of Jesus' birth in the Gospels. Look up into the night sky and pick the Star of Wonder that led the wise men to Bethlehem to offer gifts to the Christ Child. Join with family and friends to sing a Christmas carol, share a meal, and reflect on the blessings we have been given. Visit each other, one another's church or synagogue or whatever. Go join and visit and enjoy this season. Perhaps the materialism that has come to dominate the season will fade and we can begin to truly understand the great and glorious story of Christmas. And so, Mr. President: 'Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer Thought it scarcely worth his while To waste much time on the old violin, But held it up with a smile: ``What am I bidden, good folks,'' he cried, ``Who'll start the bidding for me?'' ``A dollar, a dollar''; then, ``Two!'' ``Only two? Two dollars, and who'll make it three? Three dollars, once; three dollars, twice; Going for three--'' But no, From the room, far back, a gray-haired man Came forward and picked up the bow; Then, wiping the dust from the old violin, And tightening the loose strings, He played a melody pure and sweet As a caroling angel sings. The music ceased, and the auctioneer, With a voice that was quiet and low, Said, ``What am I bid for the old violin?'' And he held it up with the bow. ``A thousand dollars, and who'll make it two? Two thousand! and who'll make it three? Three thousand, once, three thousand, twice, And going, and gone,'' said he. The people cheered, but some of them cried, ``We do not quite understand What changed its worth.'' Swift came the reply: ``The touch of a master's hand.'' And many a man with life out of tune, And battered and scarred with sin, Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd, Much like the old violin. A ``mess of pottage,'' a glass of wine; A game--and he travels on. He is ``going'' once, and ``going'' twice, He's ``going'' and almost ``gone.'' But the Master comes, and the foolish crowd Never can quite understand The worth of a soul and the change that's wrought By the touch of the Master's hand. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we head toward Christmas and the close of this session of Congress and this turbulent and tragic first year of the new millennium, I want to pause to remember a young woman who passed away this summer. Gloria Margaret Gillespie was a friend of mine. Many Members of the Senate and staff will remember Gloria, for she worked in the Senate hair salon for 29 years. She cut my hair. Probably for the first time that my hair was ever cut at that salon she cut--28 years or 29 years ago. She worked there for 29 years. She loved her work, and she loved her friends and she loved life. Gloria had a cheerful, loyal, uplifting spirit. And her time on this Earth was far, far too brief. She was only 54 years of age when she passed away in Berea, KY, this past July--54. Five years ago, Gloria began a battle with cancer. She had smoking- related lung cancer. But instead of withdrawing, she used her illness as a forum to warn others about the dangers of smoking. Gloria did not win her battle with cancer, but to the end, even in the face of great pain, she remained a fighter and a friend to all-- someone who loved the Senate and someone who loved life. Gloria Gillespie knew that each day is a gift. Each day is a gift. She cherished each waking moment. She found great joy in seeing people alive. From childhood, Gloria possessed a deep and abiding faith in God. That strong faith made her courageous and deeply appreciative of the sheer wonder of the world that God created. Her unfailing optimism was contagious, as was her impish laughter. She brought a special kind of joy to all of her endeavors. She made the load a little lighter for all who knew her. Gloria is survived by her parents, C.H. and Mary Frances Gillespie of Berea, KY, one niece, Lisa Gillespie, and one nephew, David Gillespie. Along with all the members of her family and her legions of friends, I shall miss Gloria. But I shall think of her during this Christmas season, and I shall never, never, never forget her.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me say just a word or so before I make my final speech of this year. I thank all Senators on both sides of the aisle for the work they do on behalf of this great Nation. They work here at a sacrifice. We are paid well, but there are many here who could earn much more money in other fields. There are many who come here after earning much more money in other fields but who want to give something to the Nation, who want to serve. Here is the place--in this Chamber--where Senators, since 1859, have served the Nation. So I salute all Senators. I salute the leaders of the Senate--our Democratic and Republican leaders of the majority and the minority. I have been a majority leader. I have been a minority leader. I have been a majority whip. I know the kinds of problems with which they are confronted every day. I know the demands that are made upon them by their colleagues. I know of the expectations that surround this Chamber and the expectations of our leaders. They spend a lot of time protecting our interests and working on behalf of our interests. They spend many hours here when the rest of us are probably sleeping. They carry to their beds problems that we don't know about. Many demands are made on these leaders. I sit here and I hear criticism of our majority leader. He is the majority leader and was chosen by his colleagues for this job. He sets the schedule. He decides the program. So not only do I salute him for the great work that he does on behalf of the Nation every day, but I also have empathy with him. I know he must go home troubled at night--troubled because he could not fulfill the expectations of this Senator, or that Senator, troubled because he is sometimes unjustly criticized. I had all of these things happen to me. So I thank Tom Daschle. He can't be everything to everybody. He has to do what he has to do. He has to do what he thinks is best. He has to promote the interests of the Senate. He has to promote the interests of getting on with the work. So does our majority whip. These are two fine Senators. There isn't a Senator here who doesn't think that he could do that job right there better--that majority leader's job. Every Senator thinks he can do it better. Every Senator thinks he can do the whip's job better. But they do the best they can. I want to pray for them in this season that we are entering. I want them to know that we Senators, upon reflection, cannot help but thank them for the work they do. Somebody has to do this so we can leave the Senate when our speeches are made and go home. But they have to stay. Senator Reid, the whip, stays around here. He stays around the Chamber. He renders a tremendous service to his country. I want to take this moment to thank him, to thank Tom Daschle, to thank the Republican leader, to thank the Republican whip, to thank the Senators--the ladies and the gentlemen--who preside, all of the members of the staffs in the cloakrooms and in the hallways, in the corridors, and those who provide the security of this Chamber, and the people who work in it. I thank them all. Somebody appreciates you. You may not realize it, but somebody is watching you. Somebody appreciates what you are doing. The people at the desk up there, somebody appreciates you. So I just want to express that appreciation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise to remember a longtime Senate employee who passed away on October 15 of this year. Marian Bertram dedicated 27 years of her life to public service and to the United States Senate. She began her work at the Democratic Policy Committee in 1971, eventually serving as the chief clerk of that committee. She retired from the Senate in October of 1998. Marian Bertram served four Democratic Leaders, beginning with Mike Mansfield and continuing on through my own tenure as Democratic Leader, George Mitchell's, and Senator Daschle's leader terms. She gained a deep understanding of the Senate's intricacies during those years and researched and wrote the Democratic Policy Committee's Legislative Bulletin. She also shouldered the challenging task of producing voting records and vote analyses for Democratic Members. Marian was an able and very dedicated Senate employee and through it all she was unfailing good humored and professional. My sympathy goes out to her many friends in the Washington area who were shocked and saddened by her untimely death this fall. We shall remember her with great affection and with thanks for the many years she gave so unselfishly to this institution.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, first I thank our Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Jersey. He always has a clean desk. What does that mean? That means he is paying attention to what is going on in the Senate. He is not at the desk reading a magazine or a piece of paper, a newspaper. He is alert. I watched him. This is the way he always presides. That is the way Presiding Officers ought to conduct themselves when gracing that desk in this, the greatest legislative, parliamentary, deliberative body in the world. He does it with a great dignity and style. I thank him. He sits there many evenings at this hour when most Senators have gone on their separate ways. I thank him. I thank the other Members of the new class--I say it in that fashion--who have worked at that desk. There are some of them--I will not call their names at the moment--who make me proud of the Senate. The fact is, the way they preside is a model for legislative bodies everywhere to watch. Too often as we sit in that chair, we forget that millions of people are watching the Senate. They are watching the Chair. I have been a member of the State legislature in West Virginia and the West Virginia House of Delegates. Those people in the State legislatures watch the Presiding Officer of this body. This is the premier upper house in the world. They should see the premier act of presiding on the part of the Senator who sits at that desk. Teachers, college professors, students, political column writers, and editorialists watch. We ought to remember that when we are sitting in that chair. I congratulate the Presiding Officer. I congratulate Senator Corzine. I thank him.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I want to make my speech about Christmas in the main. We refer to this as a holiday. It is not a holiday to me. This is Christmas, which is something different. It marks the greatest event that ever occurred in the history of man. It split the centuries in two. There is B.C. and there is A.D. It was a tremendous event. I believe in Christ. I am a Christian--not a very worthy one, but a Christian. I respect those who are of a different religion. I respect those who believe that Christ was a historic figure but not the Messiah, but a prophet. That is all right. They have a right to believe that. Both would agree that it was a tremendous event. This is something beyond just being a holiday. When someone wishes me happy holidays, I say: No, Happy Christmas. I want to make a statement about Christmas, so I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Alabama proceed for 10 minutes and I follow him. I ask the question of the minority, while I am on the floor, Is there an intention on that side of the aisle to seek unanimous consent by Senator Brownback? If there is still the intention to make that request, I want to be here to object to it; if there is not, I may go on my way happy. I make that consent and I will see to it that the Chair gets relief.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent the distinguished Senator from Alabama may proceed for not to exceed 12 minutes and I will do something not often done around here; I do it quite often. I wait and wait and wait, realizing I can get recognition almost any time I want, but I am usually willing to accommodate another Senator, even if that Senator is on the Republican side. Not many will accommodate me in that fashion, but I am glad to accommodate them. I ask consent that the Senator from Alabama have not to exceed, say, 10 minutes, after which I be recognized, and that mine be the last speech of the day. I don't mind relieving the Senator in the Chair, so I will ask that the Senator from Alabama go ahead of me.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to ask the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, how long he will be speaking. The reason I ask, I know the Presiding Officer has an engagement. He has to leave within another 20 minutes, from what I understand. How much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. BYRD. Let me deliver my speech. I ask unanimous consent, am I correct that the Presiding Officer needs to leave the Presiding Chair no later than 7:45, or is it 7:50?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I remove my objection. Victims' Tax Relief

Mr. BYRD. Pat Roberts came to my office earlier this year and explained the need for this kind of program.

Mr. BYRD. At that point, I didn't know about the bill and didn't know anything about it. I objected. I thought he was going to remain around. But I want to say to the Senate Republican leader that I have no objection. I have had my staff look at it, and I am advised by the staff and on reading this measure and contemplating it and understanding it, I certainly have no objection if the leader wants to call it up. That is the bill in which Pat Roberts of Kansas is interested.

Mr. BYRD. While the Republican leader is on the floor, if I may change the subject, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas proposed to me earlier seeking unanimous consent to pass a bioterrorism bill.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the leader for his comments and his observations. I thank him for remaining on the floor, and I thank him for what I accept to be an observation that we do need to use our foreign aid dollars as a tool to help bring about peace in the Middle East. I am not attempting to take sides one way or the other. We give $3 billion to Israel every year. We give $2 billion to Egypt--$5 billion. And we seem to give this without asking the question. We ought to require both Israel and Egypt to work hard for peace and to be willing to give a little here and give a little there or else this money isn't going to be paid. Could the leader imagine with me what we could do in this country for the American people with $5 billion more every year; what that would do for homeland security, $5 billion a year; what it would do for New York City? We give these dollars practically without asking a question. I think both those countries look upon this $5 billion--$3 billion in the case of Israel, $2 billion in the case of Egypt--I think they virtually look upon these $5 billion as entitlements. They put these figures into their budgets. They apparently have no doubts that the moneys are going to come. And the way we have been operating for several years, those moneys have come. I think it is time to put some strings on those moneys: If you want this money to help, we want you to work for peace. That is what I am saying today. I am not attempting to take any sides. But we hand this taxpayers' money out to the tune of $5 billion a year. That is $5 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. We ought to make those dollars work for peace, and we can make them work for peace. That is what I am asking. I thank the distinguished Republican leader.

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Republican leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with American troops on the ground in Afghanistan, with an uneasy coalition of nations confronting an unprecedented war on terrorism, and with the possibility of all-out war looming over the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Foreign Operations Appropriations conference report before us today comes at a pivotal moment in our nation's history. Given the volatility of the situation in the Middle East in the midst of America's war on terrorism, it is vital that Congress and the Administration present a united foreign policy front to the rest of the world. For that reason, I will vote for the FY 2002 Foreign Operations conference report, I do so reluctantly and with reservation--and I do not often vote for Foreign Operations appropriations bills. I believe it is time--I believe it is past time--to rethink our foreign aid policy and how relates to our national security priorities. September 11 was a wake up call on many fronts. As a result of the attack on America, we have made sweeping changes in our concept of national security. We have learned that national security also means homeland defense. We have learned that airplanes can be bombs and that letters in the mail can be lethal. We have learned that we must change our definition of defense to encompass defending our domestic infrastructure as well as defending against ballistic missile threats. These changes reflect the realization that the September 11 terrorist attacks on U.S. soil may not be an isolated incident. At this moment, there may be people planning other terrorist acts against our homeland. We have already experienced three terrorism alerts in the U.S. since September 11. Almost daily, we hear grim predictions of what the future may bring. We are living in an age of global instability, disenfranchised and desperate peoples, and widespread proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The volatility of the current world situation is without precedent. And yet, in many ways, the major instrument of our foreign policy-- the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act--reflects a distressing attitude of business-as-ususal. I do not fault the authors of this bill. Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell have done an excellent job in balancing the priorities of the Administration with the concerns of Congress and the needs of our allies throughout the world. They have done so with care and skill, and they are to be commended for their work. No, the fault, I believe, lies with our inability as a nation to relinquish long held conventional wisdom about foreign aid and recognize that the changing global environment requires a revamping of our foreign policy. We must move away from using dollars to symbolize the strength of our relations with other countries, and instead focus our energies--and our resources on promoting a new understanding of foreign policy that complements and enhances our global war on terrorism. Nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East, where renewed violence and antipathy have brought Israel and the Palestinian Authority to the brink of open warfare. Since September 29, 2000, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, fueled by generations of hatred, has claimed nearly 1,000 lives. For the past 15 months, the unending cycle of violence has pitted the home-made bombs and deadly suicide missions of the Palestinians against the heavy armor and missile attacks of the Israelis. Many, perhaps most, of the victims have been young people barely on the cusp of adulthood. The sad fact is that the next generation of leaders of the Israelis and the Palestinians are being sacrificed to the blood feud of their elders. The United States, like the rest of the world, has looked on this ceaseless carnage in horror. We have expressed dismay, regret, sorrow, and anger. We have wrung our hands in despair. We have condemned the violence in the strongest terms. But we have not suited our words to any meaningful action. In this bill, our foreign assistance to the Middle East virtually ignores the spiraling violence in the region. This bill provides $5.1 billion dollars in foreign assistance to the Middle East, primarily Israel and Egypt, a level almost identical to last year's funding. It is as if nothing has changed. There are no strings on the money. There is no requirement that the bloodshed abate before the funding is released. There is no motivation for Egypt to step up its effort to mediate between the sides, and there is no incentive whatsoever for Israel and the Palestinians to make meaningful progress toward a peaceful settlement of their differences. In short, we are doing little more than offering a tacit acknowledgment that the United States is powerless to stop the bloodshed. We are sending the wrong signal to the Middle East. By not using our foreign assistance dollars as an instrument to effect change in the Mideast, we are inadvertently helping to fuel the continued cycle of violence. And what has this hands-off policy produced? Empty promises, escalating violence, and the prospect of war instead of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now what? Where does the so-called peace process go from here? Can we really expect the Israelis to exercise restraint following the most recent escalation of violence against their citizens? Is there any point in urging Yassar Arafat to seize and punish the terrorists within his control when he is obviously unable to live up to his promises? Is there any hope that the Israelis and Palestinians will be able to re- engage in meaningful discussions in the foreseeable future? In the current poisonous environment, neither side has any incentive to resume peace talks. To give his expressions of dismay any credibility, Mr. Arafat will have to conduct a swift and sweeping crackdown on the leaders of the Palestinian terrorist cells--something he has never been able to accomplish in the past. And even if Mr. Arafat could deliver on his promises, it will take masterful leadership on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to restrain his military options and to place Israel's settlements in disputed areas on the negotiating table--two difficult but necessary prerequisites for peace. The Israelis and the Palestinians, riven by generations of hatred, cannot hope to accomplish these goals on their own. It is time for Egypt--with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and Jordan--to exercise its considerable influence in the region and place long term security interests over short term internal political costs. Such leadership will not be easy. President Mubarak will have to make hard choices and steel himself and his government against the predictable political backlash from the more radical elements of his own country. But President Mubarak's leadership is necessary to temper the emotions of his fellow members of the Arab League. The United States has a similarly difficult task before it. Despite our clear alliance with Israel, the U.S. must regain the role of honest broker. We must stop rewarding the status quo with an uninterrupted flow of foreign aid dollars and instead use foreign assistance as a tool to leverage peace. We are certainly not doing so now. Just a few weeks ago, the State Department confirmed the intended sale of 53 advanced anti-ship missiles to Egypt. Egypt contends that these missiles are needed to protect its borders, but the fact is, these deadly accurate missiles have the range to threaten Israel's ports and shipping. Given the tinderbox that is the Middle East today, why is the United States contemplating sending these weapons into the region at this time? Meanwhile, we routinely sell advanced aircraft and missiles to Israel as part of our foreign assistance package. Some of these U.S.-made high-tech weapons have been used to target and assassinate Palestinian terrorists. Just days ago, we again saw television images of Israeli- operated, American-made jets and helicopters launching missiles at buildings used by the Palestinian Authority. You can be sure those images were seen throughout the Arab world. How can we demand peace on one hand when we are providing instruments of destruction with the other? Israel and the United States are the staunchest of allies. No one should question our support of Israel's right to exist. But support need not translate into enabling. The United States, the Middle East, and the world would be better served if we changed our policy in the Middle East to reflect reality, not rhetoric. The Palestinians must stop the cycle of violence. The Israelis must practice restraint. The United States must back up its words with action. We have a road map to restart the Middle East peace process, the Mitchell Report. This blueprint, drawn up by former Senator George Mitchell and issued last April, is a step-by-step plan to end the violence and resume negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Mitchell Report is often cited as a practical and workable solution. It has strong support in both the Administration and the Congress. But to date, it is doing little more in real terms than gathering dust on a shelf. To date, there has been no incentive on either side to make the hard decisions that are required to actually implement the steps of the Mitchell Report. It is time for the United States to provide some incentive. It is time to try to implement the Mitchell Report. Just as we must hold the Palestinians responsible for increasing the violence, so must we hold the Israelis responsible for the inflammatory expansion of settlements in disputed areas. The Mitchell Report provides a clear and unbiased insight into the realities of the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians. It is remarkable in its fairness and even-handedness in holding both sides accountable for their transgressions. Our foreign assistance policy should do no less. I call on the Administration and this body to take a fresh look at how we apply our foreign assistance to the Middle East before we take up another foreign policy measure in the Senate. And when we take that fresh look at our Middle East policy, we should look at all facets--all facets--of our relationship both with Israel and its Arab neighbors. For example, if we are quick to condemn Iran for the transfer of missile technology to North Korea, how can we stand silent in the face of Israel's sale of advanced weapons and components to China--weapons that are based on U.S. technology or developed in Israel with U.S. tax dollars? China may not be in the same category as North Korea, but it defies logic to think that the sale of advanced American weapons technology to China is in the security interests of the United States. Foreign policy decisions do not exist in a vacuum. Our support for Israel affects the Arab world's policies toward the U.S. The weapons systems that Israel sells to China could effect China's capability to inflict harm on the United States. With the new urgency to protect our homeland, these are significant issues that should be dealt with honestly and openly in future foreign assistance programs. In light of September 11, the P-3 incident of April 1 has almost faded from many memories. That was 5 months before 9-11, and our service men and women were put in harm's way by a brutal regime, which summarily executes dissidents and independence-seeking nationalists in Tibet and other occupied lands. Have the recipients of our fungible foreign aid dollars and other friends and allies been arming this potential adversary of ours, which in turn provides chemical and biological weapon delivery systems to terrorist-sponsoring states? The answer is yes. China is a known proliferator of chemical weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering chemical and biological warheads, and Britain, France, Russia, and Israel have been selling weapons and transferring advanced military and dual-use technologies to China. Regrettably, our record is not clean either. Our excessively profit-motivated corporations have also transferred technologies to the PRC, sometimes as the price of doing business there and sometimes even voluntarily. China is known to have provided missiles capable of being equipped with chemical and biological warheads to Iraq. Iraq is a terrorist state, a manufacturer and user of chemical and biological weapons, and a sponsor of terrorist groups. China has provided ballistic missiles to Saudi Arabia, to Syria, to Iran, and to Libya. It has provided nuclear weapons to Syria, to Japan, and to Iraq. It provided chemical weapons to Syria. It provided them to Iran. Could these weapons be used against our personnel and our allies in the event of a future confrontation? The answer is yes. Are these weapons sales to China in the interests of American national security? Of course not. I was one of the initiators of the enabling legislation of the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, a bipartisan Congressional commission. One of its specific mandates is to analyze the transfer of our advanced military and dual-use technology by trade, procurement, or other means to China. The Commission is looking into technology transfers to the PRC through third parties. Another specific mandate to The Commission is to look at the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The basic purpose of the Commission is to assess the impact of these and other acts on the national security interests of the United States. The Commission is to report its findings and recommendations to Congress and the President in May. I look forward to the report today, the United States is embroiled in a war of its own in the Middle East. Until recently, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had largely vanished from the headlines, displaced by the specter of hand- to-hand combat between American troops and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. But the importance of seeking a peaceful solution to the violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis is no less urgent than it has always been. The recent terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli citizens and the possibility that Israel will launch its own war against Palestinian terrorists is all the proof--all the proof-- that we need. If this cycle of violence continues unabated, if the Israelis and the Palestinians are unable to come to terms themselves, then the United States should intervene by conditioning future foreign assistance to the Middle East--to all the major players, including Egypt, including Israel, including Jordan and including the Palestinians--on implementation of the Mitchell Report or something very like it. U.S. interests are not served by the perpetuation of violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians. No one should be more cognizant of this fact than the citizens of Israel, where precious lives have once again fallen victim to Arab extremists bent on wreaking havoc. No one should be more cognizant of this fact than Yassar Arafat, who time and again has failed to moderate the extremist Palestinians who are determined to sabotage any movement toward peace. No one should be more cognizant of this fact than the United States, which has spent billions upon billions of tax dollars and sponsored countless rounds of peace talks, to no apparent avail. The path to peace in the Middle East is a two-way street, and like most roads in that ancient part of the world, the path is steep and the path is rocky and the path is difficult to traverse. But, with faith and perseverance, it need not be a dead end street. There is no ideal solution to the travail in the Middle East. There is no right answer, there is no fair solution, there is no justice for all those who have suffered. There is only accommodation and acceptance, giving ground and restraining hatred. But there is no other solution. If the Palestinians and the Israelis continue to pursue hatred and revenge, the future of Israel will be written in blood, as the past pages are written in blood, and the dreams of a new Palestinian state will lie shattered in the dust. If the players in this tragedy cannot bring themselves to accept that fact, the United States should use its every tool--every tool--and I am including dollars, I am including the instrument of foreign assistance--to pressure the sides to negotiate a peace. To do otherwise makes us little more than an accessory to the violence. Mr. President, these are strong words. They are intended to be. These are perilous times. This is not the time to mince words. As we saw on September 11, and as we all fear we may see again, allowing hatred to rage unfettered in the Middle East places our very homeland in jeopardy. The war that we are waging against terrorism is the first and most urgent step in protecting our homeland. But defeating the terrorists is only the first step. We must also work to eradicate terrorism, eradicate the causes, if we can. Abandoning conventional wisdom in these unconventional times and using our foreign assistance dollars to effect change instead of making a pro forma allotment of funds is the best, and perhaps the only, means that we have at hand to help shape a peaceful future for the Middle East. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I want to say this: If I were out in the streets of a big city and, for some reason, got into a street brawl, I would want Senator Hollings with me. If that ever happened to me, I would say: Senator Hollings, where is he? He is the man I want with me in a tough situation.