Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important thing that this Congress does, and, in fact, this country does, than protect our national security. For many years, the most significant threat to us as a Nation was ballistic missiles from the former Soviet Union. That threat does not exist today; and, in fact, we are living in a new world. I think what the President has acknowledged, and is trying to lead the American people and this Congress to an understanding of, is that the greatest threat to this country today is the threat of weapons of mass destruction by both terrorist states and terrorists. That is the unthinkable, weapons of mass destruction against our homeland. What could that mean? It is the unthinkable. We do not want to think about it, but it is a potential reality. Had a nuclear weapon been on one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center, it would not have been 4,000 people who died. I think it is impossible for any of us to really feel or really understand what it means for 4,000 people to die in an instant. It literally would have meant at least 4 million people dying in an instant, and many more dying subsequent to that. This is not an unthinkable possibility. The reality is we live in a world where to build a nuclear weapon takes about 7 pounds of enriched uranium, not much larger than a softball. In fact, it can be carried without detriment to a carrier of it. The technology to build the weapon, unfortunately, is not that sophisticated today. One of the issues in terms of Iraq that is worth pointing out, in 1981, when the Israelis blew up the Iraqi military nuclear reactor, in 1981, they were 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon. That was over 20 years ago. If we think about a sense of how much the world and technology has changed in 20 years, personal computers did not exist 20 years ago when that nuclear reactor was blown up. Obviously, technology has gone a long way from that point; as well, the effort of the Iraqis to acquire those weapons since that period of time and in the approximately 4 years that there have been no weapons inspectors at all in Iraq. When the weapons inspectors left 4 years ago, about 4 years ago, 4 years and a short period of time, in the public domain we have the information that the Iraqis had smallpox and anthrax at that time, and we know they have used it against their own citizens and other countries. What does it mean? What is the issue? Iraq is not the only country in the world that has weapons of mass destruction. Why are we addressing this issue? Why am I supporting the resolution of use of force against Iraq? I think there is a policy that the President has articulated that it is just not enough that they have the weapons, but, really, the intent to use them. Clearly, Iraq does not have the ability to send ballistic missiles to the United States. We understand that. But they do have the ability today to attack us with biological and chemical weapons, today. We do not know how far off they are from nuclear weapons, but 20 years ago they were 6 months away. We know they are aggressively trying to seek those weapons today. I think we need to acknowledge this is really a change in policy, but a change in policy for this country that is needed in terms of weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century. The downside of not stopping these weapons is, in fact, the unthinkable. One of the things we do not talk about often is, once the sort of code of both equipment and delivery of these weapons is broken, why would a country, why would Iraq, have one nuclear weapon? Would they not have five, 10, or for that matter, 15, to be able to use in terrorist ways? We talk about the fact they have the ability today to build a weapon. The only restriction potentially is their lack of material, of enriched uranium, 7 pounds of enriched uranium. Effectively, we have no way of stopping that from entering the United States today. We acknowledge that, effectively, we cannot. We have thousands of pounds of cocaine, and our war on drugs, as effective as it is, it literally lets in thousands of pounds of cocaine a year into the United States. I urge my colleagues, I urge the country to support this effort. We have a country that literally wants to kill us. They do not want to kill the French. They do not want to kill the Swedish. The action is directed at us. This is an issue, as I started this evening, of national security, national defense, national survival for the United States of America. I urge the adoption of the resolution.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the chamber today during rollcall vote No. 427, No. 428, and No. 429. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 427, ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 428 and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 429.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a friend and distinguished citizen of Florida, Mr. Chesterfield Smith. Chesterfield Smith's inspiring dedication to our judicial system, social commitment to the legal profession, and remarkable personal and professional accomplishments serve as a model of American achievement. I rise today to congratulate him on his most recent accolade, the 2002 Justice Award from the Judicature Society. Founded in 1913, the American Judicature Society (AJS) is a prestigious national, non-partisan organization of judges, lawyers, and non-lawyers dedicated to promoting the effective administration of justice. This award serves as AJS's highest distinction, recognizing a lifetime of dedication to the improvement of the administration of justice at a national level. Chesterfield Smith's dedication to the legal profession embodies the underlying principles upon which this country was founded with his dedication to justice and his desire to help others, bringing us closer to the ideals outlined in the U.S. Constitution--justice, equality and true brotherhood. His distinguished career includes service as President of the American Bar Association and the Florida Bar Association. He demonstrated his faithfulness to the legal profession as a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and as a member of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers. After graduating with honors from the University of Florida College of Law, he went on to become a principal architect of Holland and Knight, LLP, one of the nation's largest and most respected law firms. As chair of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission, he accepted the challenge of revising and redrafting Florida's Constitution for the first time in fifty years. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to pay tribute to Chesterfield Smith and his many lifetime achievements. I congratulate him on receiving the distinguished 2002 Justice Award. His remarkable life's work as an accomplished public servant is deserving of such notoriety, and I consider him to be a true leader of the 21st Century.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, many of us here in this Chamber have adopted Cuban political prisoners in order to publicize their unjustified incarceration. We have done so in hopes of helping them to regain their freedom and shed light on the numerous injustices and human rights violations of the Castro regime in Cuba. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor today to discuss my adopted Cuban prisoner, Dr. Oscar Biscet. Inspired by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Biscet's nonviolent resistance to the Cuban government has received international attention. As president of the Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, Dr. Biscet was arrested 40 times in three months for his peaceful opposition and organizing activities. In 1999, he carried out a 40-day prayer fast and organized schools on nonviolent tactics. This soft-spoken physician was condemned to 3 years in prison for hanging a Cuban flag upside down at a press conference. Recognized by Amnesty International as a prisoner of conscience, Dr. Biscet has suffered through solitary confinement, torture, and an appalling lack of medical care. Still his faith in mankind endures, as he demonstrated when he told the policemen who were torturing him with lit cigarettes, God loves you. Mr. Speaker, allowing for political dissent and debate is a fundamental reason why democracy adapts to, and represents the will of the people. I urge the Cuban government to listen to the will of its people, to end its continued human rights abuses, and to release Dr. Biscet and other political prisoners like him immediately.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from New York, Rhode Island, and throughout the country in opposing this resolution because I, too, find no reason to celebrate the anniversary of the Constitution of Puerto Rico. This constitution prolonged the colonial status of Puerto Rico when approved in 1952, and the people of Puerto Rico continue to be dependent on the absolute powers of the United States Congress under the territorial clause of the United State Constitution. As a result, the citizens of Puerto Rico lack full representation in the same United States Congress that retains absolute powers over their future and their children's future. Under the commonwealth status celebrated by this resolution, Puerto Rican citizens remain disenfranchised, as they cannot vote for the President or a voting Representative to the Federal Government. I rise today to express my continued support for Puerto Rico's statehood and oppose this resolution that celebrates the status quo of the commonwealth and colonial status. I stand by my colleagues who believe that the only suitable change in the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States is an agreement that either brings Puerto Rico into statehood or independence.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. Harold Oshry, a noted humanitarian, a civic-minded businessman and an exemplary leader. Born in Chelsea, Massachusetts in 1918, Mr. Oshry graduated Magna Cum Laude from Bowdoin College in 1940. Shortly thereafter, he proudly answered the call of his nation and served as a captain in the 32nd Special Services Unit of the Eighth Army Air Force during World War II, where he was awarded six battle stars for his courage in the Normandy Invasion and other crucial European Campaigns. After his discharge, he married Claire Herman and relocated to New York City where he began a successful business career. In 1955, Mr. Oshry founded a transportation holding company, which later became known as Sandgate Corporation. This immensely successful venture afforded Mr. Oshry the opportunities and resources to make a significant impact on many people's lives. His most noted accomplishments were seen in his efforts to further cultural understanding through education. Mr. Oshry was an influential member of the New York United Jewish Associations Federation where he demonstrated his commitment to the public's understanding of Jewish culture. In 1976, he established the Harry Oshry Scholarship Fund at Bowdoin College in honor of his father. Additionally, Mr. Oshry's generous contributions allowed Ben Gurion University in Israel to endow a chair in Aquatic Microbiology Federations. As a final tribute, Mr. Oshry was honored a week before his death by the Yeshiva Shaar Ephraim, a center for Jewish Studies in Monsey, NY, for his generosity and philanthropic pursuits. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a truly special occasion for me to honor Harold Oshry, who worked to foster a better understanding among the world's citizens. His unparalleled dedication to this cause serves as an example for us all. Mr. Oshry is survived by his wife Claire Oshry of Tamarac, FL, in addition to his daughters Suzanne Oshry of Pacific Palisades, CA, Meryl Evens of Point Reyes Station, CA, and son Michael Oshry of Hewlitt Harbor, NY. Mr. Oshry also is survived by his sister Sally Adelson of Delray Beach, FL and brother George Oshry of Brookline, MA, along with seven grandchildren.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayworth-Kildee amendment. I understand the concerns people have about gambling in America. They are very real concerns, and there is much that we can do as a Congress and much we can do as a country to deal with some of the tragedy that occurs from gambling around the country. But this has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with it. This is a study on Indian gaming when studies have already occurred. It is focusing only on Indian gaming. It is a mistake. If the issue really is, and I acknowledge and I support and I have been involved in efforts to deal with some ancillary problems, and they are very real and serious problems about gaming in America, then let us address them. Let us have the Congress do oversight investigations. Let us do hearings on those issues. Really, there is much we can do. There is absolutely much we can do in terms of research in terms of addictive gambling and things like that. But through this process, this is just a mistake; and the amendment should be supported and the study not go on.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, my comments are very similar to several speakers who have risen on the rule. I am very much in support of many provisions in the bill, but the rule, unfortunately, specifically in terms of not protecting two very significant issues on Everglades restoration, I urge my colleagues to look, understand the rule, and urge defeat of the rule for those very specific and unfortunate nonprotection issues. Those are the only two issues where points of order are not waived. It was a very conscious, very specific decision that was made in the Committee on Rules. Members need to understand the specifics about what, and we are getting on some local, local issues. One of the provisions which has been mentioned deals with the Department of Interior representation in the process to determine literally how $8 billion is going to be spent. There is a real concern that that component, without the Department of Interior's involvement, is going to lead to results that this Congress does not want. If we pass the rule, that provision will be taken out. There has been incredible bipartisan support, people on both sides of the aisle have spoken against the rule for this very reason. In the State of Florida, all of the 23 Members of the House have supported Everglades restoration efforts continuously at a legislative level. When we have had Democratic governors, Republican governors, candidates for President from both sides of the aisle have vigorously supported this restoration process. But in the bowels of the legislation to take out the Department of Interior really in a sense in the dark of the night in a specific way would be very unfortunate and would have the exact results that publicly no one has the guts to stand up and articulate a reason for doing it because it is such an untenable political position. Mr. Speaker, there is a specific area called the 8\1/2\ square miles. There are 60 homes in that area right now. It is in my district. Those homes are probably going to have to be condemned. They are in the middle of a floodplain. However it happened, this provision prevents those homes from being condemned. They need to be condemned for Everglades restoration. This provision prevents it, and can actually prevent the entire project.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this is with both great pride and sadness that I rise today to join what I really think are unprecedented spontaneous words of Members to talk about our friend and our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). I joined this Chamber with her 10 years ago with several other Members from Florida, and particularly from south Florida. Three of us were elected: myself, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart). For those of us in south Florida, we literally stepped on the shoulders of giants: Claude Pepper, Dante Fascell, Bill Lehman. I think for all of us those truly were icons in American history. We felt we could fill their shoes, but we knew of their legacy. I think after 10 years it is absolutely clear that at least one of us has attained that legacy, and that is the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who really in the history of America stands out as a unique leader. Clearly not just in the history of Florida, in the history of south Florida, but truly in the history of America she is an icon, an icon in terms of integrity, accomplishment, work, and compassion. I think that is something that she will remain for the rest of her life and for all history. Her legacy is not just her good works but her family, as well, who join her in public service and will continue.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this bill and the two proposals, one is in front of us and one was not allowed to be in front of us, really are fundamental policy differences. What the American people want is to have prescription drugs as part of Medicare. When Medicare was created in 1965, there are two interesting statistics. One is that the average age of Americans was 65 in 1965. It has gone up by more than 10 years. I think we consider that a high- class problem. The second interesting statistic is that the out-of-pocket payments by seniors in America, the percentage of their income has actually gone up, even with Medicare. One of the main reasons for both of those statistics is because of prescription drugs. We cannot conceive of a Medicare program, which is an insurance program, it is a forced insurance program, and that has been Medicare's success, we cannot conceive of that being set up today without prescription drugs. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing, and I do not doubt the chairman of the full committee will cite a statistic about Florida saving Medicaid dollars after I finish speaking, but that is not Medicare, Mr. Speaker. That is not Medicare. That is not what American seniors want. It is a sham. It is misadvertising for American seniors, and they get it. They get it, and they do not want it. They do not want what Members are proposing. What they want is simple. They want an expansion of Medicare coverage for prescription drugs, because they understand on a day-to-day basis that prescription drugs are a necessary component of Medicare, and eventually the American seniors are going to get what they want, regardless of the action that we take today.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the chamber today during rollcall vote No. 226, No. 227, No. 228 and No. 229. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 226, ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 227, ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 228 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 229.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a cornerstone of the religious community in South Florida, Key West's Congregation B'nai Zion. Founded in 1887, the B'nai Zion Synagogue has remained an integral part of the Key West community for over 115 years and is the oldest Jewish congregation in Key West, as well as one of the oldest in the state of Florida. I am saddened, however, to report that a fire nearly destroyed the synagogue of Congregation B'nai Zion in the early morning hours of April 16. I come to the floor today to offer my deepest sympathies to the people of the Congregation. The synagogue, which serves as a sanctuary for 250 worshipers, also included a residence for Rabbi Joseph Hirsch. The fire destroyed the majority of its rooms, leaving Rabbi Hirsch without a home and a Congregation without a place of worship. Authorities determined that this tragedy was the work of arsonists. The fire of April 16 may have damaged Congregation B'nai Zion's building, but I am pleased to report that it did not damage their spirits. People of all faiths in the Key West community have compassionately reached out to the Congregation and supported them in their time of need. Congregation B'nai Zion continues to have weekly worship services and Rabbi Hirsch has a roof over his head. The Congregation now has renovation plans in place, and Rabbi Hirsch and Congregation President Fred Covan are working hard to ensure B'nai Zion remains a fixture in the Key West community. While the people of Key West have rallied behind their oldest synagogue, I am deeply troubled by the possibility that this incidence--which occurred on the eve of Israel's Independence Day-- reflects the trend of anti-semitism we are witnessing on a global scale. Hate and prejudice rages against the Jewish people in the Middle East and Europe, and the United States must stand before the world as a people united, regardless of faith. Mr. Speaker, Congregation B'nai Zion's synagogue has been destroyed, but the spirits of the people have endured. Today I wish to recognize the remarkable perseverance of Congregation B'nai Zion, and thank the national and local authorities and the people of Key West for their assistance in rectifying this terrible situation and ask for their continued support.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. We had scheduled it for 9:30. It is about 9:30. As you described, we made an offer and we actually had an agreement this evening to have an Oxford debate about the resolution. As many people who are watching and obviously as Members, we know that our normal debate that we have is not really debate. People almost read statements and they read them to each other and there is no discourse. I think those of us who supported the resolution, many of us sat through literally several hours of debate and at some level a great deal of frustration, because people say things that there really is no opportunity to ask them to respond to try to clarify their position or really even ask them to defend their position. So we had set up this where under the House rules there is an opportunity for an Oxford style debate to interact with Members. We offered that opportunity and again, I guess there were 21 Members that voted against the resolution and 29 that did not vote. It is less than 15 percent of the membership of the House, but a sizable number of people. We had the opportunity to cancel this evening or go forward, and what we thought we might do is in a sense maybe try to even literally re- read some of the arguments that the opponents of the resolution made and really in an attempt to maybe flesh out what their thoughts were. I think those of us who will be here this evening defending the resolution obviously find it hard to articulate their positions. Maybe they are in fact positions that cannot be articulated. I would like to start maybe this evening and read one and I have a number of quotes from opponents of the resolution and there is no point in mentioning names but you might remember this one. It was in a poem that was spoken by a good friend and a good colleague of ours whom I respect on so many issues but I was extraordinarily disappointed with his comments. By poem he stated, ``Oh, little town of Bethlehem, we witness and we cry, Israelis and Palestinians, both practice eye for eye.'' Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania would want to respond to that statement.

Mr. DEUTSCH. If I could interject, again I am trying to bring quotes in from the debate against the resolution and this is again from a very esteemed colleague of ours, someone whom all three of us I know respect a great deal, but his statement was, and I am quoting, ``Generations of Palestinians and Israelis have suffered in the region, but the violence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be examined or addressed in isolation of decades of occupation of millions of Palestinians.'' I think it ties directly to what you are saying, that in some way occupation justifies suicide bombings.

Mr. DEUTSCH. If the gentleman will yield, I think there are so many parallels between what the Israelis did with their incursion into the West Bank areas and what the United States did with our incursion into Afghanistan. This poem, I think, would in a sense give the same moral equivalency to the murderers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania with the United States military action in Afghanistan and really trying to set up a moral equivalency of that. There is a fundamental difference. Again, these are different Members that spoke during the debate. I am going to quote another Member: ``I thought there was one thing that might turn the tide in this struggle and it was a horrible tragedy in the end of March.'' And he showed a picture that actually was on the cover of Newsweek magazine, I believe, of two young girls. ``Look at these two young women. They look like sisters. One, Ayat al-Akhras, 18, was a suicide bomber who killed Rachel Levy at the grocery store, age 17. I thought that both sides would be so appalled by this unbelievable tragedy and see the hopelessness of this that they might turn toward peace. But, no, that has not happened there.'' If we can, maybe if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) can respond.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I think one of the interesting things, just in response to that exact point is that at the Camp David negotiations the Israelis were willing to give up and, in fact, offered 97 or 98 percent of the West Bank and Gaza and if you include some of the transfer of land in the Negev, effectively 100 percent of the land mass that is in a sense occupied. That was offered and it was rejected. So if the cause of the disturbance is occupation, the Israelis offered to end the occupation.

Mr. DEUTSCH. It is funny, not funny but tragic, that if it was a Martin Luther King instead of a Yasser Arafat or a Gandhi instead of an Arafat, I think you are absolutely correct because the majority and even with the vote by the Likud Central Committee, which I think was a political statement, I as recently as today read polls of the Israeli public. The vast majority of Israelis support a two-state solution because they understand that is a solution, that there is a puzzle fit that works. That will happen at some point in time when there is a partner to engage in that solution. The chart that I have up now, one of the things, had we been in an Oxford debate and had the other side showed up, was really the first chart that I was going to put up for today, and it is hard to read and hopefully the television camera is focusing in on it. But the Israeli incursion occurred on March 31. Prior to March 31, as many of my colleagues remember, starting literally 11 days or 12 days or 13 days before, there was a series of suicide bombings actually starting in March: March 2, March 5, March 7, March 9, March 17, March 20, March 21. March 27 was the so-called Passover bombing in Netanya where 27 Israelis were killed; and then the 29th, and then actually on the 31st was in Haifa, the restaurant that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I visited or, actually, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) and I visited. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) was actually at another place in that period when we were in Israel, but that we visited on that trip that occurred on the 31st. Then after that series of suicide bombings, killing over 100 people, I could count them up, close to 100 people, maybe 150 people during that amount of time, one of the numbers that I have talked about on several occasions, and I will put this chart up just to reiterate that, Israel in terms of population is about one-sixtieth, one-fiftieth, one-sixtieth the size of the United States of America. We are about 300 million plus people, 5 million plus, and the equivalent, just in terms of population, when 50 Israelis are killed, it is the equivalent of 9-11 to the United States of America. I am describing March. It was the equivalent of three September 11ths. Now, we know what the United States did after September 11. We went 6,000 miles to a country and appropriately, and I do not think there is a Member of this Chamber who did not support, I do not think effectively as Americans we did not support what we did. Can we expect anything less for the Israelis to do, when three September 11ths occurred in the month of March in their country. I think that is the justification. I mean if a country is not protecting its citizens from death, from terrorism; I mean that is our fundamental role as government, and that is what they did. In a sense, they did not have a choice. The Israelis do not want to be in Bethlehem or Nabulus or Jenin any more than the United States wants to be in Afghanistan. We do not want to be in Afghanistan, but we are there for the reason that we have to be there, the same way they have to be there.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman can yield for a second, trying to keep this in somewhat of a debate without another side being here, which I almost feel we should have an empty chair like they sometimes do in political debates when the other side does not show up. But it is interesting, much has been made in terms of who voted against it, why they voted against it, but there were Democrats and Republicans. Again, less than 15 percent of the Congress, but I am going to quote from one of our Republican colleagues and the quote is, ``If we are going to bring peace to that troubled region, we must be scrupulously honest. There are piles of bodies in the Middle East, many of the victims of noncombatants, and both sides of the conflict have engaged in the slaughter of innocents.'' Someone said that from the floor of this Chamber not that long ago, a week and a half ago. I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) shaking his head no. Now he has an opportunity to respond.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, one of the things that I guess is frustrating, having sat on this floor and listened to the debate is the simple distinction that the gentleman is making. It is so frustrating that these are well educated, well thought of, thoughtful colleagues who have made these statements that I am reading word for word out of the Congressional Record on the debate. When the Israelis went into Jenin or for that matter Ramallah or for that matter other locations, because I talked a couple of minutes ago about the reason for the incursion, that there was this horrific activity occurring at monumental levels in their society. One of the things that we witnessed in our visit to Israel was in a sense the proof on the other side, and this is one of many pictures that we have. One of the opportunities we had was to view just a fraction of the weapons that were seized during the incursion, about 10 percent of the weapons. In this Chamber, if we added all the weapons that we saw, it would probably fill this entire Chamber. Weapons of mortars, and I will show some additional pictures of machine guns and sniper rifles. But I think the most evil was literally witnessing suicide vests, and they are not kids creating suicide vests. I mean as we saw them, and my colleagues can see in the picture, they are commercially made. We actually saw different versions, summer versions, winter versions, autumn versions so that they would not be seen. But, in a sense, that is the proof of why. I guess the frustration that an intelligent person could make a statement like that or make some of the other statements that I have read, not to distinguish; in the United States, we call it collateral damage. In our military action, in fact our ongoing military action in Afghanistan, there have been innocents who have died. We did not go house to house in Tora Bora. We bombed, as we should, absolutely as we should, as was appropriate and with the knowledge that there would be some collateral damage because of the risks involved and the morality involved in terms of doing it, it was absolutely appropriate. The Israelis could have attacked Jenin the way we attacked Tora Bora. They could have bombed from the air without risking lives. There is no question that a number of Israelis, a significant number of Israeli soldiers died because of the effort that they made. I do not doubt, and in fact I am sure, there were innocents who were killed in the action in Jenin. But I think not to understand there is a fundamental difference between someone being killed in that action where, by all accounts, the Israeli defense forces' efforts to make sure that civilians were not killed are minimized. I mean there are just so many specific accounts. In fact, before the soldiers went into the battle, their orders were to do everything possible, put their own lives at risk in terms of avoiding collateral damage. One thing also, I mean there is a whole different viewpoint when it does occur. The attitude of the Israeli defense force is not just remorse, but it is a horrific situation. It is tragic. There is no words that can possibly compensate. But the entire attitude is a totally different attitude. The efforts of a megaphone to tell people to get out. Give them another chance to get out. Give them a third chance to get out. Tell them what is going to happen if they do not get out and give them every opportunity to get out. And yet we are hearing colleagues say that is the same as a murder bomber.

Mr. DEUTSCH. If the gentleman would yield, this is as he witnessed himself, and this is just a very small cache of mortars which obviously are illegal under the Oslo Accord.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Again, I will try to use some of these posters today, but this again is a sample of literally weapons, just a fraction of the weapons collected that could fill this Chamber, machine guns, sniper rifles, mortar guns, anti-tank weapons, none of which were allowed under the Oslo agreement.

Mr. DEUTSCH. As we reviewed them, we asked exactly those questions. Some of them were stolen Israeli weapons. Some of them were American weapons stolen or gotten through a third party. A lot of them were smuggled either through the tunnels from the Sinai into Gaza. Some of them, Israelis have very good information to believe that they were actually smuggled in Yassar Arafat's helicopter. So the weapons came from a variety of different sources.

Mr. DEUTSCH. The Karin-A is a totally different issue which we can talk about. I think it is a significant issue as well. As the gentleman is well aware, the Karin-A was a ship that Israeli commandos captured that had $20 million of weapons in it and had some very sophisticated weapons right off the shelf from Iran, including rocket launchers, rockets, not just mortars but rockets. The equivalents of our TOW missiles. I actually have some pictures because we reviewed not just the weapons, these were weapons that were seized in the West Bank up to this point; they were weapons that were literally seized during the military incursion. And that in a sense, just these weapons are success or proof of the right and the necessity of the incursion because the suicide belt we saw in the previous picture, that suicide belt was not made to be put in a museum. It literally was made to be used. And the capture of that one belt prevented that one belt from being used, and we do not know how many lives and how many tragedies, and literally the tragedies are each one is as painful as we can possibly imagine in terms of human condition. Did the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) want to add something to that?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Let me read, these are different Members, every quote so far this evening has been from a different Member. I will read from another Member: ``We in this body have a constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.'' I think that is exactly the point that the gentleman is making. That if someone is saying that, what is the implication, that there really is a duality, that there is both sides? And I think what was said is that for an act of terror, an act of killing innocents there are no two sides. This is just a follow-up. Literally just another pick of weapons seized and there are more and there are more and there are more. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) asked just a comment on the Karin- A issue, and I thought since it is a relevant event, in a sense it was not directly tied to the incursion, but it gives a sense of the context to the Palestinian Authority and Yassar Arafat personally. The weapons on the Karin-A were $20 million of weapons but literally weapons off the shelf of munitions factories in Iran. Mortars, as we see, large mortars of different dimensions for different distances, rockets, the equivalent of the United States TOW missiles, which are missiles that can be shot and steered after they are shot, anti-tank weapons that were made out of plastic so they cannot be detected, a very sophisticated operation that the United States and the Israelis and the world has not denied that Yassar Arafat's direct involvement in the purchase and the logistics of these weapons. The sophistication of the weapons in a sense is highlighted by this container. All of the weapons that were seized on the Karin-A were actually in containers like this, which are water-tight containers. In fact, some of the weapons were actually modified so that they could fit inside these containers. And the containers themselves were very sophisticated in that they had a specially built compressed-air-water compartment that would actually be able to have the containers set at a certain depth in the Mediterranean Sea so they could then be picked up later on with this buoy attachment. And that in fact could have escalated the conflict dramatically. Every weapon there was in violation of Oslo. Every weapon that was there was in violation of Oslo.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I think the issue of the day and I think in a sense maybe if we move beyond the resolution and I think in a sense we have debated against the empty seat and we have debated successfully.