January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S23 

the distinguished Senator from Colorado, now our Interior Secretary designate, was present. Senator Pell came 

to the event. He was very disabled, and 

he came in a wheelchair. I went over to 

greet him. Senator SALAZAR—I say to 

the Presiding Officer, you will remember this—also came over to greet him. 

He took his hand, and he told him: Senator, my brother and I went to college 

because of the Pell Grant Program. 

Now here I am standing in front of you 

as a Senator, thanks to the vision and 

foresight you showed years ago—your 

vision that every American should 

have the dream of higher education at 

their disposal. I say to the Presiding 

Officer, you were then in your first 

term as a newly elected Senator. 

It was an unforgettable moment, I 

say to the Presiding Officer. It happened because Senator Pell understood 

the difference that higher education 

could make in the lives of America’s 

young people—from a young KEN

SALAZAR from rural Colorado, to toddlers across this country now who will 

seize the opportunities of America in 

years to come because of this man. 

Senator Pell knew that the arts, too, 

could transform lives. He authored the 

landmark legislation that gave rise to 

the National Endowments for the Arts 

and the Humanities. These institutions 

have secured a place for the culture 

and the arts in the public life of this 

Nation. Over the years they have 

helped bring poetry, drama, dance, 

painting, sculpture, song, literature, 

and history to millions of Americans. 

Of course, we New Englanders are 

deeply indebted to Senator Pell for his 

passion for public transportation and 

in particular for his long fight to develop for the Northeast corridor a transit system to support the cities of 

today and tomorrow. As we face the 

challenges of rising energy costs, economic recession, and urban stresses on 

our congested highways, Americans 

will rely more heavily than ever on 

systems such as Amtrak. Senator 

Pell’s foresight again has served us 

well. 

Here in the Senate, Senator Pell is 

remembered for his big ideas. In Rhode 

Island, we remember him also for his 

gentle, generous spirit. He had lived all 

over the world. He had been honored 

with medals from at least 18 different 

nations. But Newport, RI, was always 

home. In both his personal and his political life, he was a consistent model 

of civility and kindness to his fellow 

Rhode Islanders—always, without 

fail—even sometimes at his peril. 

For example, in his final bid for reelection in 1990, Senator Pell reportedly insisted on warning Congresswoman Claudine Schneider, his Republican opponent, every time he was 

about to air a new television ad. He 

told his campaign staff that he would 

not permit a self-promoting press release to go out, chiding: ‘‘No, no, no, 

we never boast.’’ 

In a debate I remember watching, he 

was given two huge political softball 

opportunities. One, he was asked to 

criticize his opponent, to critique her 

capacity to defeat him and serve in the 

U.S. Senate. The only thing he had to 

say was she has been a very fine Congresswoman. Then he was asked what 

his most significant legislative 

achievements had been during the previous term that had helped Rhode Islanders. He said: 

You know, I really can’t think of one right 

now. My memory is not as good as it should 

be. 

One would think those answers would 

be lethal politically, but Rhode Islanders loved it and they loved him for it 

because he was as genuine and as authentic as a man could be. I guess one 

of the great lessons of his life is that 

voters don’t want you to be perfect; 

they want you to be you. They want 

you to be authentically who you are 

and from there to fight for them, and 

he certainly lived that. For his authenticity and gentleness of spirit, Claiborne Pell was beloved by all of us in 

the Ocean State who were privileged to 

know him or work with him or learn 

from his example. 

We all will miss him deeply. To his 

wife Nuala, to his children, Toby and 

Dallas, and their families, and to the 

families of his departed children, 

Bertie and Julie, I know I join my distinguished senior Senator and all in 

this body and indeed all of America in 

holding them in our thoughts and prayers. 

As his family reminded us last week, 

Senator Pell summarized his role as a 

Senator with seven simple words: 

Translate ideas into actions and help 

people. Would that all of us could have 

ideas as big as Claiborne Pell’s and the 

strength, grace, persistence, and courage to translate them into action. 

I thank the Chair, and I yield the 

floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, would it be 

in order for me, before I begin my remarks, to compliment the Presiding 

Officer for his nomination to be Cabinet Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, and wish him very well before 

the Senate in being confirmed and 

serving in that position? I guess that 

question doesn’t need a response. I certainly hope it is in line for me to be 

able to say that. 

f 

GAZA RESOLUTION 

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I hope—and 

I am joined here by Senator 

LIEBERMAN—that the Senate will have 

an opportunity to consider before this 

week is out a resolution we believe has 

been drafted by the majority leader 

and the minority leader that deals with 

the ongoing war in the Gaza Strip and 

that we believe needs to express the 

will of the Senate. We believe as well 

that a similar resolution would be 

voted on in the House of Representatives to express the will of the House. 

So then the whole world—and certainly 

the administration—would know of 

this body’s strong support for the State 

of Israel and our support for the actions Israel is taking right now. We 

hope that vote can occur before this 

week is out. I wish to commend Senator LIEBERMAN for his considerable 

leadership on this issue. 

We support this resolution. The first 

thing the resolution does is to remind 

people why the State of Israel had to 

act. 

Last February, on a trip to the Middle East, I visited the Israeli town of 

Sderot, which is about 3 miles from the 

border of Gaza, and I learned from the 

town’s mayor of the toll taken on the 

residents of this town and neighboring 

cities from more than 8 years of rocket 

attacks by the Hamas terrorists. At 

the police station, I saw rack after 

rack of these spent rockets, the remains of the rockets that had been 

launched by Hamas against the civilian 

population of this city. In fact, about 

15 minutes after we departed the city, 

one of these Hamas launched a Qassam 

rocket—identical to the hundreds we 

had seen at the police station—which 

fell on an Israeli home in town, destroying it. Thankfully, no one in that 

attack was harmed. 

Is there any doubt that if the United 

States were suffering an attack from 

just across the border similar to this, 

that we wouldn’t react to stop that 

from happening? I think there is no 

question that we would act to stop this 

terrorism. It is our hope that the resolution would express our acknowledgment that a nation has the right to defend itself, that Israel has had to respond to this, to more than 6,300 rocket 

and mortar attacks on its citizens 

since it fully withdrew from Gaza in 

the year 2005. In fact, this town has 

been suffering for over 8 years from 

these attacks. 

The second point the resolution 

makes is that there is no equivalency 

between the actions of Hamas and 

Israel in this case. Israel conducts its 

military operations to spare innocent 

life. They have specifically targeted 

Hamas command centers and security 

installations and rocket-launching 

sites, weapons stockpiles, and weapons 

smuggling tunnels. They have tried 

very hard to avoid civilian casualties. 

In fact, Israel has transmitted very 

specific warnings to Gazans. They have 

dropped leaflets and made phone calls 

to targeted areas to warn citizens to 

leave because an attack is imminent. 

This, of course, even means they lose 

the element of surprise and potentially 

put the lives of Israeli soldiers at risk. 

But Israel believes it is important 

where possible to avoid jeopardizing innocent life—quite the opposite from 

Hamas, which deliberately and cynically fires rockets from civilian areas 

to make it more difficult for Israel to 

target the terrorists and to increase 

the likelihood of civilian casualties 

when Israel does take action. 

Hamas has ignored a plea by U.N. 

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on 

April 28 that: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S24 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

Civilian areas in Gaza should not be used 

as a base from which to launch its actions 

against Israel. 

Dozens of mosques in Gaza have been 

turned into weapons storage facilities 

and Hamas command centers. In fact, 

an airstrike on a mosque in the Tel El 

Hawa neighborhood of Gaza City last 

Wednesday set off numerous secondary 

explosions caused by the arms that had 

been stockpiled in the mosque. 

Finally, Hamas openly admits that it 

uses women and children as human 

shields. A leading member of Hamas 

told Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 2008: 

For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry . . . This is why they have 

formed human shields of the women, the 

children, the elderly, and the mujahedeen, in 

order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. 

While targeting terrorists, Israel 

works to avoid a humanitarian crisis 

for ordinary Gazans as well. During the 

first week of Israel’s operations, it facilitated the delivery to Gaza of 400 

trucks loaded with more than 2,000 tons 

of food and medicine. This is not easy 

when you are in the middle of military 

operations. Ten ambulances and two 

thousand blood units were transferred 

to Gaza just in that week. More than 80 

Palestinians have entered Egypt for 

treatment, in addition to a dozen or 

more who have entered Israel. On January 5, more than 93,000 gallons of industrial diesel fuel and gasoline for vehicles was transferred into Gaza from a 

fuel depot in Israel. By the way, that 

fuel depot comes under constant attack 

from terrorists in Gaza, as does the 

place where the electricity is generated 

for Gaza, which, of course, makes absolutely no sense. 

Finally, this resolution speaks to 

calls for a cease-fire. Many voices in 

the so-called international community 

have been heard pleading for an immediate cease-fire, although I think it is 

instructive that one never hears those 

voices condemning rocket attacks by 

Hamas terrorists. 

I believe the path to a halt in the violence is clear. A cease-fire is appropriate if and when it is durable and sustainable. A cease-fire, on the other 

hand, that would allow Hamas to 

rearm and rebuild its support in Gaza 

is, of course, not acceptable. Hamas 

cannot be given a cease-fire that only 

serves to provide it breathing room to 

regroup and then a month or 2 months 

or 3 months from now start firing its 

rockets and missiles again. 

The United Nations could play a constructive role, but it must resist the 

temptation that it all too often falls 

into, and that is that of moral equivalency. I point to the press statement of 

the Security Council on December 28 

which, among other things, said the 

parties should ‘‘stop immediately all 

military activities.’’ This is dangerous 

moral equivalency. Only one party to 

the violence carries out ‘‘military activities.’’ The other party—Hamas— 

terrorizes and murders innocent people. That is why the only Security 

Council resolution that could be acceptable in this situation—and I say 

this with the understanding that the 

Security Council is meeting as we meet 

here today—is one that affirms Israel’s 

right to defend itself and calls on 

Hamas to immediately stop its terrorist activity. 

I add that a Security Council resolution should look to all of those who 

support Hamas—primarily and most 

significantly Iran. For years, Iran has 

been the source of money, training—including training at the facilities of the 

Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in 

Iran itself—and weapons to Hamas. 

Hamas’s relationship with Iran is so 

close that the Egyptian President said 

this past May that Hamas rule in Gaza 

means that Egypt has a ‘‘border with 

Iran.’’ 

Since Israel launched its military operation against Hamas, Iran has announced stepped-up arms shipments. 

Senior Iranian clerics have organized 

recruiting drives to send Iranians to 

Hamas’s aid. Just yesterday, a senior 

Iranian cleric announced that it had 

recruited 7,000 Iranians to join the 

cause of Hamas. Yet the international 

community has taken no action to 

counter Iran’s support of Hamas terrorists. 

A U.N. Security Council resolution 

sanctioning Iran for its assistance to 

Hamas would send an important message and would be a good place to 

start, as would unilateral sanctions by 

the United States. 

Let me conclude by quoting the 

Washington Post columnist Charles 

Krauthammer, who recently wrote one 

of the most precise and succinct observations on the situation in Gaza that I 

have read. He wrote: 

Some geopolitical conflicts are morally 

complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It 

possesses a moral clarity not only rare, but 

excruciating. 

The Reid-McConnell resolution we 

expect to be introduced shortly will be 

an important reaffirmation of the bond 

between Israel and the United States. 

It is one forged on the basis of common 

values and the tragically shared experience of terrorism. By passing this resolution, we are saying to the Israeli people: We stand with you, and we support 

you in defending yourselves against 

terrorist attacks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

wish first to thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator KYL, for 

the statement he has just made, which 

was characteristically straightforward, 

clear, principled, and passionate, about 

what is involved in the current crisis in 

Gaza and the opportunity this Congress 

has to not just stand with our ally, 

Israel—which is critically important at 

this moment—but to take yet another 

stand against terrorism for the rule of 

law, for democracy, and for the peaceful settlement of disputes. I could not 

agree more with everything Senator 

KYL has said. I wish to add just a few 

words in this regard. 

As Senator KYL has indicated, the 

United Nations Security Council was 

to convene shortly after 5 this afternoon, about an hour ago. I presume it 

has convened to hear speakers and consider resolutions on what is happening 

in Gaza today. Secretary of State Rice 

has gone there to speak on behalf of 

the United States, which indicates the 

importance of these deliberations. She 

will carry with her the policy of our 

Government since the outbreak of conflict in Gaza that I think has been 

strong and principled and consistent 

with the best of American values and, 

of course, consistent with our national 

security interest in the global war on 

the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 

because what is happening in Gaza is 

yet another battle front in the larger 

war against Islamist extremism and 

terrorism. It is, in another sense, also 

another battle front in the conflict 

going on within the Muslim world between the extremists and fanatics and 

terrorists and the majority of people 

who are more moderate, more lawabiding, obviously not violent and 

want to live a safe and a better life. 

The Government of the United States 

has been very clear in articulating a 

policy which I presume and have confidence will be expressed in these Security Council deliberations tonight and 

the days to follow. No one wants to see 

violence occur. Yet, as Senator KYL

has said so eloquently, when a country 

such as Israel has been attacked literally thousands of times with rockets 

fired from Gaza at innocent civilians 

over a period of years, a cease-fire is 

negotiated and it goes on for approximately 6 months—negotiated with 

great help from Egypt—and then 

Hamas breaks the cease-fire and begins 

firing rockets again, the Government 

of Israel, our democratic ally, essentially said: Enough is enough; we are 

not going to tolerate this anymore, 

coming as it is from Hamas which is an 

openly avowed terrorist group with the 

aim of destroying the State of Israel. 

In response to the violence, there is a 

natural reflex reaction heard often in 

world councils, and undoubtedly will be 

heard at the United Nations Security 

Council at this hour and the hours to 

follow, that there ought to be a ceasefire. I think we all have to ask ourselves: What is the end of a cease-fire? 

Of course, we don’t like to see violence 

occurring, but let’s remember this is 

being done by Israel in the exercise of 

the right of self-defense. 

The Government of the United 

States—being President Bush and everyone else who has spoken—has made 

very clear that, yes, the United States 

wants a cease-fire in the conflict between Israel and Hamas regarding Gaza 

but not just a cease-fire for the sake of 

a cease-fire that one side may follow 

and the other may not and that simply 

leads nowhere but back to the conflict 

that has been occurring. 

The U.S. Government has been very 

clear and principled about the fact that 

the cease-fire our Government seeks is 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S25 

one that is durable and sustainable; in 

other words, that represents a real resolution of some of the issues in conflict 

and that also deals with the smuggling 

into Gaza of additional weapons which 

are being used to attack innocent civilians in Israel. 

I know Secretary Rice will be expressing exactly this position. Yes, 

America wants a cease-fire but, no, not 

one that leads nowhere. We want a 

cease-fire that is durable and sustainable and will include a ban on smuggling, activities to carry out a ban on 

smuggling of weapons by Hamas in 

Gaza. 

I am very pleased, very encouraged 

that as the initial action of this Senate 

this year, the majority leader, Senator 

REID, and the Republican leader, Senator MCCONNELL, are working together 

in a bipartisan way—totally bipartisan 

way—to bring before this body, hopefully in the next day or two, a resolution that does exactly what Senator 

KYL has said: to express our unwavering commitment to the security, wellbeing, and survival of the State of 

Israel and recognizing its right to act 

in self-defense to protect its citizens 

against terrorism, that will reiterate 

again that Hamas must end the rocket 

and mortar attacks against Israel and 

hopefully do what the Palestinian Authority has done, which is to accept 

the right of Israel to exist and renounce terrorism and to begin to work 

toward a two-state peaceful solution. 

This resolution really will, in essence, I think, say, as Senator KYL has 

said, in this hour of crisis to the people 

of Israel, our allies, that we will stand 

with you, and also say to the peace-loving Palestinian people that we stand 

with you, too, and we continue to support a two-state solution—Israel and a 

Palestinian state—living in peace one 

against the other, but the Government 

of the United States—the Secretary of 

State, the President, but the Secretary 

of State who is at the United Nations 

is not speaking simply for the executive branch of Government but that 

the Senate, and we have reason to believe our colleagues in the other body, 

the House, will have an opportunity to 

say to not just the Israelis we stand 

with you, but to say to the world community that we as the representatives 

of the people of America, across party 

lines, stand together with Secretary 

Rice as she expresses the position of 

our Government: Yes, a cease-fire, but 

only one that is sustainable and durable and deals with the smuggling of additional weapons into Gaza. This will 

be critically important. 

I thank our leaders on both sides. I 

thank Senator KYL for the work he has 

done. Again, it has been a privilege to 

work with him. 

I also say in a larger context that 

there is a lot of speculation about why 

Hamas broke the cease-fire and initiated the rocket fire against Israel 

deeper into Israel than they have ever 

done before. I do think, as Senator KYL

suggested, that the answer to that 

question probably comes as much or 

more from Tehran than it does from 

Gaza City and Hamas; that Hamas has 

become an agent of the Iranian Government. It is trained and supplied by the 

Iranians and secondarily by the Syrians. Therefore, there is a larger conflict being played out. 

Iran is noted by our State Department to be the most significant state 

sponsor of terrorism. The leaders of 

Iran regularly not only call for the extermination of the State of Israel, but 

also lead tens of thousands in Tehran 

and elsewhere in Iran in chants of 

‘‘death to America, death to America.’’ 

We have long since learned from the 

lessons of history that you cannot simply ignore statements that seem so extreme and fanatical that they are unbelievable because very often the people making them do believe them, and 

given the chance, as we have seen from 

Osama bin Laden in recent times, who 

told us throughout the nineties exactly 

what he intended to do—he happened 

to have done it on 9/11, but he did it 

earlier in other places—we have to 

take these threats seriously. 

I want to say that a precipitous 

cease-fire simply for the sake of a 

cease-fire will allow Hamas to claim a 

victory. A victory for Hamas is not 

simply a victory for Hamas; it is a victory for Iran. And a defeat for Hamas, 

which is in reach if we allow the Israeli 

action to continue, is a defeat for Iran 

and a victory for the United States and 

for the forces of democracy as against 

terrorism and for the forces of moderation and the rule of law in the Islamic 

world as against fanaticism and violence. 

This is all that is being played out. 

This is why I am so encouraged this 

resolution is coming forward. It is, yes, 

a statement of support for our ally 

Israel, but it is also a statement of policy for the Members of the Senate, 

across party lines, and I hope with an 

overwhelmingly positive vote that says 

the security of the United States is on 

the line in how this conflict ends. We 

cannot let it end in a way that 

strengthens Hamas and Iran. 

I repeat, there has been a lot of speculation: Did Hamas break the ceasefire because of the end of the Bush administration? There has been some interesting speculation that has said the 

best thing that could happen for the incoming Obama administration is that 

Hamas be defeated here because then 

whatever happens between the new administration and Iran, Iran will not approach that next chapter with a sense 

of triumphant, but the country would 

have seen one of its major clients and 

agents of terrorism defeated. 

We have the opportunity to speak to 

all that on this resolution in the days 

ahead. Most immediately, I hope we 

will speak to the Members of the Security Council and in the most direct way 

say: We stand with President Bush; we 

stand with Secretary Rice. This is not 

simply the position of a few people at 

the top of the executive branch of our 

Government. This position the American Government has taken with regard to the crisis in Gaza is the position embraced by an overwhelming majority of Members of both parties of 

both Houses. 

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

PAROCHIAL SPENDING 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would 

like to be recognized for a period of 

time. The majority leader has been 

very gracious to offer me an opportunity to have some discussions about 

some amendments that he is going to 

possibly allow on a bill that he is going 

to introduce this evening. 

I wanted to take some time now 

rather than later so that we would not 

keep staff here, and that way we could 

be efficient with our time. I want to 

talk about several things. I want to 

preface it with a statement, that I have 

been very pleased to see a man I respect a great deal, even though not in 

office as of yet, but the Presidentelect, be very firm in the principles he 

outlined as he ran for President and 

now is about to be sworn into that office. 

One of the themes that has characterized his campaign and has characterized him ever since I have known 

him has been the idea of hope and 

change. So I, like many other Americans, look forward in great anticipation to the leadership that will be 

brought forth in the next few weeks 

and what that means to the millions of 

Americans who are going to look to 

Washington this month with a level of 

hope and excitement that we have not 

seen in this country in decades. 

While most of the attention is going 

to be focused on the White House, the 

institution at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this Congress, will arguable have a greater role in determining 

whether President-elect Obama’s invocation of change is remembered as an 

election slogan or a true new era in 

American politics. My hope and prayer 

is it is a new era. 

While many commentators have 

noted, with some justification, the concepts such as hope and change were 

never defined much and were not given 

a specificity during the campaign, I believe the American people have already 

defined those concepts very clearly in 

their hearts and minds. 

I believe what hope, change, and optimism represent to the average voter is 

very simple: It is a real expectation 

that Washington will be different. Voters have not undergone an ideological 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE