[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14405-S14417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SYRIA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate soon will be
taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been
devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass
the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support of
this bill and the process that led to it. I also would like to thank
Senators Santorum and Boxer for their commitment to this bill and their
bipartisan cooperation in reaching agreement of an important amendment.
A critical component of this amendment provides the President with the
ability to calibrate U.S. sanctions against Syria in response to
positive Syrian behavior when such adjustment is in the national
security interests of the United States.
On October 30, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an
excellent hearing on U.S. relations with Syria. Among other witnesses,
we heard from William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near
Eastern Affairs, and Ambassador Cofer Black, the Counter-Terrorism
Coordinator.
These hearings underscored the difficulties presented by recent
Syrian behavior. Hopes that reform could take root in Syria after the
fall of Saddam Hussein have dimmed considerably. Instead, tensions have
increased between the United States and Syria, and a cycle of
retaliation and revenge has derailed possible progress in the ``Road
Map'' to peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli retaliatory
attack on an Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in Syria has underscored that
the ``no war and no peace'' status quo in the region cannot be taken
for granted.
Many experts thought that when President Bashar al-Assad replaced his
father 3 years ago, he would adopt a more pragmatic approach to
negotiations with Israel and to internal political and economic
reforms. Syrian cooperation with the United States in relation to al-
Qaida terrorists held promise for cooperation in other areas. Assistant
Secretary Burns noted last June in Congressional testimony that ``the
cooperation the Syrians have provided in their own self-interest on al-
Qaida has saved American lives.''
But Syria's subsequent failure to stop terrorist groups, including
Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from using Syria as a
base for training and planning suicide bombings in Israel has
continued. Syria also has failed to withdraw its forces from Lebanon or
take concrete steps in support of the Road Map peace plan. It
reportedly has continued to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons and
to pursue development of lethal biological agents.
Moreover, Syria is working against the U.S. and Coalition forces in
Iraq by refusing to release assets in Syrian accounts that Saddam
Hussein's regime stole from the Iraqi people.
These and other Syrian transgressions have led both Houses of the
U.S. Congress to support the bill before us today, which stiffens the
economic and diplomatic sanctions already imposed on Damascus for being
a state sponsor of terrorism. I support this bill, which is based on
the presumption that modifying Syria's behavior requires a tough
response. But as we give the administration additional sticks to use
against Syria, we should be careful about restricting our government's
flexibility in responding to new diplomatic opportunities. Syria has
shown the ability to make better choices--for example, supporting U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which held Iraq in
``material breach'' of its disarmament obligations and voting for the
more recent Resolution 1511, which calls upon all nations to support
the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. I believe the amendment to this bill
provides the President with the necessary flexibility.
Even as we tighten restrictions on Syria, we should be emphasizing to
the Syrians why it is in their interest to recalculate their approach
towards the United States. Syria shares a 400-mile border with Iraq.
With more than 135,00 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Syria needs to
reconsider where its future security interests lie. This is not a
threat of U.S. military action but a statement of the new reality on
Syria's borders. Moreover, Syrian forces that continue to occupy
Lebanon are draining the Syrian economy while providing few positive
returns. Continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon invites further
possible military action from Israel.
The Syrian leadership also must adjust to the end of its ``under the
counter'' oil deals with Saddam Hussein. Syria must negotiate new and
transparent arrangements to meet its energy needs. Syria's economy will
not thrive without opening up to investment and trade, particularly
with Iraq. Significant benefits could accrue to Syria from an
economically vibrant Iraqi trading partner, increased trade with Europe
and the United States, and even possible membership in a Middle East
Free Trade Agreement down the road.
In this context, Syria may find motivation to return to the
negotiating table. An agreement on the Golan Heights that would provide
security guarantees for Israel while respecting Syria's sovereignty
could be the key to resolving a host of other problems, including
Syria's occupation of Lebanon, its support of Palestinian terror
groups, and its economic and political isolation. Although success of
such an agreement would depend ultimately on the parties themselves,
the United States must seek to leverage obvious Syrian interests in
pursuit of a viable settlement.
The Syrian regime has some difficult choices to make. It can continue
to harbor and support groups devoted to terror, or it can act in ways
that will help restore stability and peace in the region and thereby
create a better economic future for its people. It cannot do both. This
bill, as amended, adds to the tools available to the President to move
Syria toward a more responsible course. I commend the bill to the
Senate and hope that we will pass it by a strong vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to express
my strong support for the Syria Accountability Act. I commend the
distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for
his leadership and the efforts he has made on this legislation to bring
us to this point. Let me also thank my colleague from California,
Senator Boxer, for her tireless and effective advocacy of this
legislation. I am very pleased this legislation is now pending. I
congratulate my colleagues as well as others who have made the effort
to bring us to a point where I believe on a strong bipartisan basis
this legislation will pass this afternoon.
This day has been a long time coming. We have heard administration
officials argue that this straightforward response to the behavior of
the Syrian Government reduces the President's flexibility to deal with
the ``bigger picture.'' We believe that it is not only morally right,
but will actually strengthen the President's hand in explaining the
``big picture'' to the Syrians.
Had our years of entreaties to the Syrians not fallen on deaf ears,
and had promises from Syria over the last several years not turned out
to be little
[[Page S14406]]
more than empty rhetoric, this bill might not have been necessary.
However, it appears to many of us that the point where we can
continue to sit back and hope for Syria to change course has passed.
The time has come to show Syria that continued inaction will no longer
be tolerated and will come at a price.
The behavior we seek from Syria is not different than what we expect
of every other country in the world community--an end to its support
for terrorism, and enforcement of its own international agreements and
United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Syria simply has failed one too many times to live up to these
obligations, and this legislation backs up our hopes for Syrian
compliance along with the very real threat of sanctions.
The Syria Accountability Act holds Syria accountable for its behavior
by imposing sanctions unless the Syrian Government certifies that: It
is no longer providing support for terrorists and terrorism; it has
withdrawn all of its military and intelligence personnel from Lebanon;
it has ceased its attempts to produce, acquire, or transfer weapons of
mass destruction; and it has ended its support for terrorists in Iraq.
I am pleased with the bipartisan process that produced this landmark
legislation, and I especially want to commend Senator Levin for his
leadership in ensuring that the President maintains the maximum
flexibility to wisely wield the tools created by H.R. 1828. The
national security waiver, which allows the President to waive certain
sanctions if they are deemed counterproductive to U.S. security
interests, will allow our government to effectively press for reform in
Syria without endangering our efforts in the global war against
terrorism.
There are three reasons we need to pass this unambiguous statement of
U.S. intent.
First, as remarkable as it is to imagine, the Government of Syria
still provides safe haven and material support for some of the most
objectionable terrorist organizations in the world.
Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PIJ, the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine General Command, the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, the Abu Musa Organization, and the Popular Struggle Front
all maintain offices in Damascus. Members of the Syrian Government
have, on occasion, condoned suicide bombings against civilians within
Israel, calling them legitimate military operations.
Syria alternates between defending these offices in Damascus as
solely for press purposes, uninvolved in the conduct of terrorist
attacks, and promising they will shut the offices down. To date, its
promises have amounted to nothing. Meanwhile, its defense of these
offices is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. It is simply not
acceptable to provide support for an office whose sole purpose is to
call attention to, and encourage support for, attacks on innocent
civilians.
Moreover, reports indicate that planning for the recent and
horrendous attack at a restaurant frequented by Israeli Jews and
Israeli Arabs in Haifa is connected to offices in Damascus.
We are also beginning to learn from the intelligence community that
Syria may have allowed military equipment and personnel to flow into
Iraq on the eve of and during the war, both of which were used against
our troops in that country.
Although the administration reports that the situation on the Syria-
Iraq border is ``improving,'' the international community should expect
nothing but full cooperation from Syria on something so basic as
stopping the flow of terrorists through its territory.
Second, in signing the 1994 Taif Accords, Syria pledged itself to the
``security and independence of Lebanon.'' To date, it has helped with
neither. Instead, it continues to support the Lebanese Hezbollah and
undermine the democratic aspirations of the people of Lebanon by
occupying that country.
In 1999, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon after being
told by the international community that doing so would increase its
security. Cynically, Syria exploited the resulting security vacuum and
permitted attacks on Israel from that region, all in contravention of
Security Council Resolution 425. It is especially disappointing that we
have to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to call on a member of the
United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions.
Third, the Syria Accountability Act--a clear statement of America's
resolve--should help put an end to the series of mixed signals coming
from the Bush administration. Over the course of the last 3 years, we
have heard various policies from the different spokes-people for
different agencies of the U.S. Government. In fact, we have even heard
competing policies and concerns from offices within the same State
Department.
As I said at the beginning, I wish this bill were not necessary.
Unfortunately, we all recognize that it has become necessary. This bill
will make clear to Syria what we expect of it. If it is not willing to
end its support for terrorism or uphold its agreements, it should not
be accepted as a full partner in the international community.
I urge adoption of the legislation and again congratulate the
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader
for his speech and for his thoughtful comments.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania as much time as he should require, with the time
allotted to our side on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Indiana
for working very closely with Senator Boxer and me on this very
important piece of legislation, which is a very timely piece of
legislation.
The House passed this legislation a few months ago and sent it over
here. We have been working diligently with both Senator Lugar and
Senator Biden, and they have been most cooperative in working with the
administration to craft a bill that I think meets some of the concerns
the administration has, some of the concerns the committee has
experienced in dealing with sanctions bills, and particularly the issue
of the waiver authority of the President.
The House-passed bill did not allow the President to waive sanctions
on military or dual-use items--``dual use'' meaning they could be used
for civilian or military purposes. I think the chairman of the
committee rightly expressed concern about that, that the precedent
generally is that the President have waiver authority in the case of
vital national security interests or national security interests.
We negotiated as to what that standard should be. We obviously wanted
the highest level of scrutiny before the President could waive that
which would be vital national security interests. The lowest level
would just be sort of a national interest test. And we compromised on a
national security interest waiver. It is sort of a midlevel, if you
will, waiver authority or waiver standard. We think that is appropriate
here for all of the items, all of the potential sanctions that may be
imposed by the President under this act.
So the President, under the revised bill we have before us, does
impose sanctions, but it gives the President the flexibility to waive.
But he has a threshold he must meet and make the case that that
threshold is made in order to waive these sanctions. So we give the
President the hammer that I think is necessary and that so many have
talked about here.
Syria is a bad actor in the region. It is part of the ``axis of
evil,'' in my opinion. It is a country that sponsors terrorism, that
supports terrorism, that encourages terrorism, not only against
American interests, not only against Israel, but it is occupying,
through setting up these terrorist organizations, as well as their own
military force, what was a very moderate and progressive Arab country,
Lebanon.
That is a heinous act, and I find it somewhat remarkable that the
rest of the Arab world does not continue to condemn it and do what we
do: try to ratchet up the pressure on Syria to get
[[Page S14407]]
out of Lebanon, to allow the people in Lebanon to determine their own
government and to freely elect people who could serve the best
interests of the Lebanese people, not the dictator in Damascus.
So we have, really, a purpose beyond our national security interest,
although I would argue that a free and prosperous Lebanon--and given
the history of that country, and being a bridge between the Middle East
and West--that would be a very stabilizing presence in the Middle East,
to have a country with a democratically elected government, and not
being the threat Lebanon now poses, not because of the people
themselves but because of the terrorists who reside in southern
Lebanon, because of the other heinous acts that are conducted by the
terrorist groups based in Lebanon that they project throughout the
world.
This is a very important issue for national security. It is a very
important issue for the peace in the Middle East.
I am very gratified that the Senate could come to a conclusion on
this bill and bring it to the floor of the Senate and have it pass on a
day when we honor our veterans, as we should. We had people fight and
lose their lives in Lebanon, and they did so bravely and courageously.
But I have to say, it was not one of the proudest moments for me as an
American to see our troops withdraw from Lebanon and not stay there to
fight another day, with the oppression Syria was imposing upon that
country.
This is a chance for us to begin the process of reengaging in
Lebanon, reengaging the Syrians who have been nothing but trouble and
fomenting trouble throughout the Middle East and being disruptive of
the peace process in the Middle East.
I say to the Senator from Indiana, thank you for the time. Thank you
for your willingness to bring this bill to the floor and to move this
bill forward.
I will enter into a colloquy with Senator Boxer to discuss our desire
and our hope that the President not immediately think about waiving
these provisions; that he think carefully about any kind of waiver;
that we try to impose some sanctions and send a message. Given the
activities of the Syrians in the Middle East and the activities of
Syria in Iraq, it is such an important and relevant discussion, that
the President use these sanctions that are available to him for him to
do so.
Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with my colleague,
Senator Boxer of California, concerning the waiver authority extended
to the President for the sanctions contained in the Syria
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.
Mr. President, as the original cosponsor of the Syria Accountability
and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, I want to clarify the
bill's intent with the original sponsors, Senator Boxer. Is it the
Senator's understanding that--given the seriousness of the charges
against the Syrian regime and the fact that the highest levels of the
U.S. Government have already made it clear that there will be
consequences to the Syrians if there is no change in their behavior--
the national security waiver contained in the bill is meant to address
only those circumstances where United States national security
interests are indeed severely threatened?
Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent
of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious
threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation
is that, unless the President can make the certification described in
section 5, subsection (d) of the bill, he must impose sanctions on the
Syrian Government. The national security waiver was only included to
address currently unforeseen instances where U.S. national security
interests would truly be threatened should such sanctions go forward.
We expect the President to use the waiver only for such exceptional
circumstances, and not on a routine basis as a way to circumvent
congressional intent as so clearly expressed in the Syria
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.
Amendment No. 2148
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Indiana [Mr. Lugar], for himself, Mrs.
Boxer, and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 2148.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make technical and other corrections)
On page 2, strike lines 8 through 15.
On page 9, strike lines 21 through 24.
On page 15, line 1, strike ``will be held responsible'' and
insert ``should bear responsibility''.
On page 15, beginning on line 6, strike ``shall impede
Syria's ability'' and insert ``will work to deny Syria the
ability''.
On page 15, strike lines 18 through 20.
On page 16, line 17, insert after ``citizen in Iraq'' the
following: ``if the Government of Syria is found to be
responsible''.
On page 18, strike lines 15 through 20 and insert the
following:
(b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of
subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or both if the President
determines that it is in the national security interest of
the United States to do so and submits to the appropriate
congressional committees a report containing the reasons for
the determination.
On page 20, beginning on line 6, strike ``withdrawn all
Syrian military, intelligence, and other security personnel
from Lebanon'' and insert ``ended its occupation of Lebanon
described in section 2(7) of this Act''.
On page 21, beginning on line 15, strike ``the attacks
against the United States that occurred on September 11,
2001, and other''.
On page 21, beginning on line 20, strike ``given the
recognition that Hizbullah is equally or more capable than al
Qaeda'' and insert ``and other terrorist organizations
supported by Syria''.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2148) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I now yield time to the Senator from
Kansas, Mr. Brownback.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who does such an outstanding job on
so many issues and really is a national treasure for us on
international affairs and international issues, for allowing me
recognition to speak on this bill. I thank the cosponsors, Senators
Santorum and Boxer, for their work in bringing this issue in front of
the body. I urge its passage.
I urge usage of the Syria Accountability Act by the President.
Several of these issues have already been covered. I wish to address
them with some specificity by saying 43 and counting--43 and counting.
That is the number of dictatorships that are left in the world. There
were 45 at the start of this year. Two have changed over. Dramatic
changes are taking place in some other countries. But there are 43
dictatorships.
One of the harshest is Syria. It is a state sponsor of terrorism, one
of five countries in the world that we recognize is a state sponsor of
terrorism. We are facing terrorists coming from Syria on a daily basis
in Iraq. You can hardly visit with any of our leadership working on the
issue of Iraq and bringing democracy to that country without hearing
them talking about foreign terrorists coming into Iraq. The largest
percentage of those is coming through Syria. Another percentage is
coming from Iran, which is another country that needs to go through a
democratic metamorphosis and become a democracy. Iran is not a
democracy today. We need to confront that.
We need to confront, for the safety of our troops, these foreign
terrorists coming in from Syria who are being sponsored by the Syrian
Government.
We know for some period of time Syria has sponsored Hezbollah, one of
the leading terrorist organizations in the world, certainly very active
in the Middle East, active in Lebanon, active in Israel, active, it
appears, in support of going into Iraq. We know the historical legacy
of Syria associated with Iraq and the Baathist Party regime that
controlled both countries. It did control Iraq; it doesn't now. It is a
ruthless, dictatorial, Stalinesque type of organization. They use
political prisoners, torture, all sorts of means to
[[Page S14408]]
maintain control by the Baathist leadership. The Syria Baathist
leadership is the same sort of leadership we saw in Iraq. They are a
bad lot. It is time we put pressure on Syria to change.
President Bush last week made a beautiful speech to the National
Endowment for Democracy calling for democracy throughout the world and
saying that is the natural state of mankind, to be free and at liberty.
Yet we see a dearth of liberty and freedom throughout much of the
Middle East, particularly in countries such as Syria.
I hope the President will use the Syria Accountability Act to bring
greater pressure on the dictators in Damascus, on bringing them a clear
point that we will not tolerate this use of terrorism; we will not
tolerate their attacks on our troops; that we will not tolerate a
regime that is a dictatorship; that the people of Syria deserve better.
The people of Lebanon deserve better than to be minding the dictator
paymasters that exist in Damascus. The President really needs to use
this power that is being given by the Congress to the administration
for these sanctions in Syria.
I urge that we pass this act. I urge the President to use these
sanctions. And I urge us to use all the means at our disposal to
tighten the noose around the leadership of the dictators in Damascus.
What they are doing in Syria, what they are allowing to flow out of
their country, that would stop. This is one of the few countries left
in the world that continues to be state sponsors of terrorism on a very
aggressive basis. It must stop. We must show resolve in that.
I state my support for the bill and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Kansas for his important argument.
How much time remains on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be counted
against the side of the opposition to the bill as opposed to our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, there have been consecutive Republican
speeches on this amendment. We will be prepared to recognize the
distinguished Senator from California. She will ask for her own
recognition, but we hope she will have an opportunity to speak at this
point.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under the order, I have how much time
remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 24 seconds left for
Senator Biden's designee.
Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator from Illinois wish to make a few
comments? How much time does he need?
I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, and then I will use the
remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.
Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor in strong support of the Syria
Accountability Act.
Syria plays a key role in the Mideast region and it could play a
constructive role, but all too often, it has not.
After September 11, Syria offered to share information that could
help in the U.S. fight against terrorists. It joined us in the first
Gulf War to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, and it joined in
peace negotiations with Israel in the 1990s. But Syria has taken steps
and pursued policies that have undermined regional peace and damaged
U.S. interests.
Syria was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq and it certainly has a
right to that opinion but Syria has not taken robust action to keep
foreign fighters from crossing its borders to fight Americans.
Syria objects to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but has itself occupied
Lebanon since 1976. More than 20,000 Syrian troops and police occupy
much of Lebanon, dominating its politics and government and undermining
its independence.
Syria harbors terrorists that promote and organize violence,
undermining hope and progress for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace
settlement.
Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine,
and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command
have offices, maintain training camps, and other facilities on Syrian
territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian army,
such as the Beqaa Valley. Some of these groups, Hizballah in
particular, receive supplies from Iran through Syria.
The people of Syria are repressed, ruled by a small ethnic minority
in a police state. There is no freedom of speech, no political freedom,
and no freedom to dissent. The Syrian regime is also run by the Ba'ath
Party, but split from Saddam Hussein's branch of this party.
The President has recently spoken about how badly the Middle East
needs an infusion of democracy. He has argued that, despite the fact
that the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, this country's war was justified because of the repressive nature
of that regime.
I agree wholeheartedly with the President that one of the most
important things that this country can do to fight terrorism is to
promote democracy in the Middle East.
The lack of democracy in many Middle Eastern countries has led
directly to Islamic extremism. There are almost no outlets for
political expression in a region filled with kings, emirs, and
rubberstamp parliaments--except at the mosque.
It is no accident that most of the terrorists were originally from
countries that do not allow dissent or meaningful political
participation.
I, for one, do not believe this nation can remove every dictator and
repressive regime. We cannot impose democracy from the other end of an
M-16.
Mideast countries will not become models of democracy and openness
overnight. But we must look to a longer term future where we call on
them to embark on a ``soft-landing'' towards a more democratic future.
The bill we consider today, the Syria Accountability Act, will send a
strong message of disapproval to Syria regarding its actions supporting
terrorism, undermining regional peace, repressing its people, and
undermining the independence of Lebanon. It will send those messages
short of going to war.
The bill will broaden U.S. sanctions against Syria unless the
President certifies that Syria does not support terrorism; that it has
withdrawn its military, intelligence, and security personnel from
Lebanon; stopped developing ballistic missiles and chemical and
biological weapons; and that it is no longer in violation of UN
Security Council resolutions. The bill allows the President to waive
sanctions if he believes waiving them would be in the interests of U.S.
national security.
I believe that Syria could play a constructive role in bringing peace
to the region, ending the scourge of terrorism, and take its place as a
regional leader. Syria and the United States could enjoy strong and
growing relations. The bill we pass today will hold Syria accountable
for its actions and send a strong message that Syria must change.
Syria has a great opportunity to decide whether it will be part of
the family of civilized nations dedicated to self-government, dedicated
to the principles of equality, and dedicated to peace in the region, or
Syria can turn a different course. There has been ample evidence of I
guess the experience we have had in Syria to suggest they have decided
to chart a course that is not consistent with those values.
After September 11, Syria was one of the first to come to our side
and say they would help us fight terrorism in the world. I had a chance
to visit that nation and its leader shortly thereafter. He expressed
condolences for our losses in the United States and pledged support in
our effort to end terrorism.
Sadly, the accumulated evidence since that date does not suggest
Syria has made the real commitment we
[[Page S14409]]
need, not only for the sake of ending terrorism in our country but for
the sake of ending terrorism in the world. In fact, too many times
Syria has been on the wrong side of history in the past and the current
day.
This Syria Accountability Act basically says to Syria they will be
held accountable for their conduct. Frankly, we understand that today
Damascus, Syria, is the international headquarters for a variety of
terrorist groups. That is totally unacceptable.
The President was right when he said we are opposed to not only
terrorists, but those who harbor and support them. Syria has to take
those words to heart, and this act is a measure that needs to be passed
by Congress and signed into law by the President so Syria understands
the importance of the role it plays in the Middle East and how closely
it will be watched.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are going to vote on
the Syria Accountability bill, a bill I first introduced with Senator
Santorum in April of 2002. It has had a very bumpy ride. I am glad the
ride will soon end smoothly; at least that is my sense.
On April 18, 2002, with a list of 45 cosponsors, I introduced this
bill with Senator Santorum.
On that day, I said:
We cannot afford to rest for one second in pursuing those
who believe that purposely killing innocent civilians is a
legitimate means to political ends. We cannot give
concessions to terrorists nor can we reward them by giving
into their demands. This will only lead to more terror.
With that, Senator Santorum and I introduced the Syria Accountability
Act because we knew at that time--and we know today--that by a variety
of means the Government of Syria is supporting terrorist groups. It
needs to end.
In the 108th Congress, May 1, 2003, now with a total of 81
cosponsors, we introduced our bill again and at that time we said:
If we are serious about peace in the Middle East and a
cessation of terrorism here at home, then we must confront
the Government of Syria in a way that will not lead to war
but to a diffusing of tensions and a more peaceful world.
The administration opposed our bill very strongly. In fact, Secretary
Powell came before the Foreign Relations Committee and when Senator
Lugar and Senator Biden said to him, do you support or oppose the Syria
Accountability Act, Secretary Powell said it would not be helpful to
pass it.
I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now. When
Secretary Powell went to see the head of Syria, what was one of the
first things he said to him? He said, you ought to shape up because
there is a bill in the Senate, the Syria Accountability Act, and those
folks over there are serious.
It proved my point that, in fact, for us to be tough on terrorism
gives the State Department the backup they need. I think, frankly, it
will be very helpful for us to pass this bill today.
Now, the administration has moved off their opposition and they are
neutral on this bill. They are neither for it nor against it. The good
news is, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, finally I
think, have decided that maybe Boxer and Santorum have been on the
right track. So this is a very big day for us because we have gone
through a pretty tough legislative ride. We did not get hearings in the
committee. We could not move it.
In addition to Senator Santorum, my original cosponsor of this, I do
want to thank Senator Byrd, who made suggestions to perfect our bill,
Senator Lugar who worked with Senator Byrd and others, Senator Biden,
who agreed to let this come up in an expedited fashion, and over on the
House side Representatives Eliot Engel and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen helped
us quite a bit in moving this bill.
So it is, in fact, a day that is important. What we are basically
saying in our bill is that if Syria does not shape up they are going to
face sanctions from this Government. If Syria does not stop supporting
terrorism, if Syria does not stop the development of weapons of mass
destruction, if Syria does not end its occupation of Lebanon and cease
support for the terrorists operating in Iraq, they are going to face a
series of escalating sanctions.
The fact is that we have 81 cosponsors--and I see Senator Santorum on
the floor now. He worked his side of the aisle, I have worked mine, and
we were able to really get these cosponsorships up. On October 15, the
House passed its version of the bill 398 to 4. So I have to say we are
on to something.
Let me say from the bottom of my heart what I think we are on to. We
are on to the premise that the truth shall set you free. We cannot have
relationships with Syria and close our eyes to the truth, and the truth
is that Syria is, in fact, supporting terrorism in ways that are very
clear. They are a major supporter of Hezbollah, an international
terrorist organization that has carried out numerous attacks against
Americans and Israeli civilian targets. They have operated freely in
the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon over the past 20 years.
Other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine-General Command all maintain offices, training camps, and
other facilities inside Syria or in areas of Lebanon under Syrian
control.
Anyone who has traveled to the region knows that one of the saddest
stories in the world is the story of Lebanon and how its people have
lost any control over their own destiny. As we fight for democracy in
the world, we have to remember that. This was a country at one point
that was absolutely considered the Paris in the Middle East, and it has
really been lost because it has been taken over in a hostile takeover,
I might say, by the power of Syria.
So all of these issues, getting Syria to turn its back on terrorism
and not allow these organizations to operate within their borders,
Syria allowing the Lebanese people to have a life of freedom and
democracy or at least self-determination, however they determine it,
these are issues that are crucial. As long as they keep up the status
quo, the goal of Middle East peace is quite elusive.
Twenty thousand Syrian troops and security personnel continue to
occupy Lebanon and again, as I said, undermine its political
independence. It is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council
Resolution 520. What does that say? That resolution calls for strict
respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political
independence of Lebanon.
We also know that Syria is developing weapons that are very
dangerous, and that they are not doing enough to prevent terrorists
from entering into Iraq. In fact, the terrorist who was attempting to
blow up an Iraqi police station was found to be carrying a Syrian
passport.
This has to stop. Nations must be held accountable for the
proliferation of terrorism and they must be held accountable if they
are not doing all they can to pursue Middle East peace or at least
allow that peace to take place.
So this legislation has taken a bumpy road. When Senator Santorum and
I got together to work on it, people said that is quite a combination.
They said if those two can get together on anything, eventually we know
we are going to win.
It has taken us almost 2 years but we could not be happier. We want
to thank the 80 other Senators who are cosponsors of this bill. We,
again, thank Senators Lugar and Biden for allowing this bill to come
directly to the floor today. We think it is a historic day.
Our goal is to prevent war and to lay out markers for Syria. We do
not want to go to war with Syria. We just want to say, in a truthful
way, these are the things that you have been doing wrong. Please meet
these markers. Help us. Help us in the world. If you don't, we are
going to have some sanctions and they are spelled out. I think others
have spelled them out. The idea behind this bill is to avoid a
confrontation and instead have a relationship that is respectful
between our two nations. I think today we will go a long way to that
end.
I believe all my time is used up at this point so I will yield the
floor and I hope we will be voting shortly on this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will take this occasion to tell the
Senate that today we celebrate the birthday of
[[Page S14410]]
the distinguished Senator from California. Senator Boxer is a year
younger. This is an excellent day for her to offer this legislation,
and we commend and thank the Senator.
I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee in wishing a happy birthday to Senator Boxer. I
also thank Senator Boxer and Senator Santorum for their tenaciousness
in advancing this bill. It is long overdue and it is to be celebrated
by all of us.
Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee
have worked this bill into a condition where we can bring it to the
floor, giving the President sufficient discretion, and make clear that
we will continue to engage in diplomacy with the Syrians but we are
going to do it on a more realistic basis, a basis that has
consequences, a basis that deals with facts, not fantasy, and truly
makes progress in the Middle East.
It is a matter of historical record that for a long time, several
decades now, the Syrians have occupied the nation of Lebanon, their
smaller neighbor to their west. In the course of that, whatever their
motives were for going in, they have stayed there for gain. They have
denied democracy to the Lebanese people, they have denied them self-
determination, and they have been responsible for keeping the breach
and the wound alive in Lebanon.
But as it relates to this bill, I also have to take note of the fact
it is Veterans Day. We thank our veterans. We celebrate our veterans.
We owe them a great debt.
As we think of yesterday's veterans, I am reminded of today's
veterans, many of whom, from the State of Oregon, are in Iraq now and
who are in harm's way for the cause of American liberty and the safety
of the American people and our allies in the ongoing war on terrorism.
The truth is, much that is aimed at them today comes from Syria. It
comes from car bombers holding Syrian passports. Indeed, just the other
day we learned the car bomb that was interdicted and the person pulled
out of the car that was filled with explosives was from Syria. Syria
maintains a porous border with Iraq that simply cannot remain as it is
because if it does, it will mean the death of more of our soldiers. We
want them home and we want them safe.
There is more than a porous border that concerns me with Syria. It is
the fact that Syria provides a safe harbor, indeed a safe haven, a
heaven, if you will, for terrorists. For those who conspire to murder
on a massive scale, Syria gives them a place to stay, gives them
protection, and a place to hide their money and their weapons before
they can bring them into conflict with American soldiers. Who knows
what also may be there from the arsenals of Saddam Hussein. Who knows
what weapons of mass destruction may even be there as well.
All of this needs to end. Our President needs to have the tools, the
diplomatic tools necessary to prosecute the case with Syria in a way
that gets us beyond the status quo because the status quo is
unacceptable and the status quo is deadly and the status quo has to be
over. I join with Republicans and Democrats alike today in urging
passage of the Syria Accountability Act, for the sake of our country,
for the sake of the Middle East, for the sake of Muslims, for the sake
of Jews, for the sake of Christians, and all who have suffered much.
The road to Damascus has brought so much murder, so much conspiracy,
so much weaponry, so much blood money that has been used against the
peace process and those who are the advocates of a peaceful resolution
in the Middle East.
It is a matter of Scriptural record that a man named Saul on the road
to Damascus once saw an awful lot of light, changed his way, and even
changed his name. We know him today as the Apostle Paul. What we need
now on the road to Damascus is a lot more light because all we have
been getting is so much darkness. We need a new beginning with Syria.
The President needs a new authority against Syria. This bill is crafted
in a way that is helpful diplomatically so we can avoid hostilities.
But let us have the courage in this war on terrorism to go where the
facts take us. Let us all pray it does not take us down the road to
Damascus, but we have to be realistic.
This bill is a very good start. I urge the Senate to adopt it today
by a very large margin.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am voting for the Syria Accountability
Act because I believe it is important to call attention to Syria's
continuing military occupation of Lebanon in violation of international
law, and its support for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah,
that are responsible for ongoing, deadly incursions into Israel.
It is well established that the Syrian Government rules through fear
and repression. Torture by Syrian security forces is routine. The
denial of basic human rights has been widely documented. We should
condemn these policies.
And there are allegations that Syria supplied Iraqi forces with
military equipment, which the Secretary of Defense has described as
hostile acts against the United States.
The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and
economic pressure on Syria in an effort to change its policies. That
said, there are some aspects of this legislation that I do not support,
and I want to take a moment to discuss them as I do not want there to
be any misunderstanding about my vote. Most importantly, I do not want
my vote for this legislation to be cited as an endorsement for military
action against Syria.
For examples, Section 4, entitled ``Statement of Policy,'' says that
it is the policy of the United State that ``the United States shall
impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism and
efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' I doubt
that anyone disagrees that we should try to do that. But by what means?
Will support for this legislation be cited at some point in the future
by the administration, or others, as a green light for launching a
unilateral, military attack to ``impede Syria's ability to support acts
of international terrorism?'' That is precisely what was done by the
White House when it cited resolutions passed a decade ago to justify a
unilateral attack against Iraq years later, even though that was not
what many, if any of us who supported those resolutions intended at the
time. Over and over again, the administration, in an effort to justify
their precipitous use of force against Iraq, cited passage of the Iraq
Liberation Act in 1998 as evidence that Congress supported the
overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. What the administration kept
omitting in numerous public statements is that one section of that act
made clear that nothing in the act was to be construed as authorizing
the use of U.S. military force against Iraq. I am concerned that the
Syria Accountability Act could be distorted in a similar way. I do not
support military action against Syria, and I am in no way endorsing
such action by voting for this legislation today.
The same can be said of the statement that it is the policy of the
United States that ``efforts against Hezbollah will be expanded given
the recognition that Hezbollah is equally or more capable than al
Qaeda.'' First, I do not know if it is true that Hezbollah is ``equally
or more capable than al Qaeda.'' Perhaps it is. I don't know, and I
doubt the authors of this legislation can be certain that it is,
especially given the difficulties we have had in obtaining
reliable information about these organizations. In any event, while I
might support expanded efforts against Hezbollah, it would depend on
what those efforts are. For example, I am not in favor of sending U.S.
troops to Lebanon to engage in combat against Hezbollah. I do not want
my vote today to be construed as supporting any expanded efforts
against Hezbollah regardless of what they might be.
Similarly, the legislation states that it is United States policy
that ``Syria will be held accountable for any harm to Coalition armed
forces or to any U.S. citizens in Iraq if the Government of Syria is
found to be responsible due to its facilitation of terrorist activities
and its shipments of military supplies to Iraq.'' Syria should be held
accountable. But in what way? The legislation, once again, is silent.
My support for efforts to hold Syria accountable, should
[[Page S14411]]
the evidence warrant it, depends on what those efforts are.
Finally, the legislation says that it is the policy of the united
States that ``the United States will not provide any assistance to
Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria
ends all support for terrorism, withdraws it armed forces from Lebanon,
and halts the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction
and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.'' We
all want Syria to do those things, and I am not in favor of providing
assistance to the Syrian Government. But this legislation goes farther.
It purports to cut off any assistance to the Syrian people, even
through private voluntary organizations. I do not believe in punishing
the citizens of a country simply because their government is corrupt or
abusive, so I have concerns about this provision.
There are also aspects of Section 5 of the legislation, entitled
``Penalties and Authorization,'' which concern me. For example, among
the sanctions that the President could impose are a prohibition on U.S.
businesses from investing or operating in Syria. It is not obvious to
me how this will penalize the Syrian Government, but it will hurt U.S.
businesses. While the record is mixed, there are examples of U.S.
businesses contributing to social, economic and even political change
in other repressive countries.
Of more concern is that the legislation encourages the President to
reduce U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria. I am uneasy with this
approach, as I believe we should consider expanding our diplomacy and
people-to-people contacts with Syria. It is in our interest to promote
dialogue with a country with which we have such profound differences,
and which poses a military threat to Israel. Reducing those contacts
could further misunderstanding and exacerbate tensions between us. It
is also worth mentioning that after the September 11 attacks, Syria
reportedly cooperated with the United States in intelligence sharing
about al-Qaida.
I do not believe this legislation will persuade Syria to do any of
the things we want it to do. I am aware that the Administration has
opposed it in the past. This legislation seems to start us down a road
of intensifying tensions between the U.S. and Syria without a clear end
game other than invading Syria, which I do not support and I doubt many
other Senators support. However, I agree that Syria's support for
terrorism and its violations of human rights deserve condemnation, and
I will vote for this legislation with the caveats I have mentioned.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not support the passage of the
Syrian Accountability Act. The situation in the Middle East is a
delicate one. It calls for subtle, creative diplomacy as the United
States seeks to support its troops in Iraq, promote the Arab-Israeli
peace process, and combat terrorism.
While I agree with the goals of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am
concerned that this legislation will undermine our ability to achieve
those goals. In particular, I am opposed to the act's provisions that
would mandate the imposition of new sanctions against Syria. I believe
that these provisions would tie this or any future administration's
hands in a way that will make the conduct of our foreign policy more
difficult. A number of sanctions already exist against Syria by virtue
of its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the
President already has the authority to impose many of the sanctions set
forth in this act. If we are to promote peace in the region and move
Syria in a more positive direction, the United States must pursue an
approach that is more nuanced and flexible than what is called for in
this legislation.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria
Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate
companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor
of terrorism, and yet fewer U.S. sanctions apply to Syria than to any
other country on the list. This Act will authorize a range of sanctions
against Syria, prohibiting exports to Syria of dual-use items and
requiring the President to choose from a set of other sanctions,
including prohibitions on exports of most U.S. goods to Syria and on
American investment in Syria, restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the
United States and on U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, prohibitions
on Syrian aircraft in the United States, and blocking of transactions
in Syrian government property.
These sanctions are appropriate, and, in my view, long overdue.
Despite recent U.S. efforts to engage in dialogue with Syria, Damascus
has refused to renounce its support for terrorism. It provides
terrorist organizations with political and material support. It has
turned away from negotiations with Israel. And it continues to occupy
southern Lebanon, where its forces destabilize the Middle East by
supporting Hezbollah and undermining Lebanese sovereignty.
Syria acts as the safe haven for a broad array of terrorist
organizations and Palestinian groups committed to the destruction of
Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command are all active in Damascus. The
Syrian government has not only refused to sever ties with these
organizations; it has defended their use of Syrian territory to
disseminate propaganda that attacks Israel, thereby undermining efforts
to bring peace to the region. Worse, the offices maintained by these
groups provide operational support for terrorist activities,
notwithstanding the Syrian government's claims that they are engaged
only in political and informational activities. These activities
include the deadly and despicable suicide bombings, conducted by Hamas
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against civilians in Israel.
Syria is also a supporter of Hezbollah, which is responsible for the
killing of hundreds of Americans and is one of the biggest obstacles to
our efforts to combat global terrorism. Throughout much of southern
Lebanon, occupying Syrian forces support and protect Hezbollah,
allowing it to deploy thousands of rockets that threaten Israel and
destabilize the region, and to launch attacks against civilian targets
in Israel civilian areas. Syria also permits Hezbollah to receive
assistance from Iran.
The Syrian occupation of Lebanon represents a long-standing threat to
stability in the Middle East. While Syria has reduced its forces in
recent years, it still maintains as many as 20,000 troops and security
personnel in Lebanon. In addition to harboring Hezbollah, those forces
exert undue influence in Lebanon and prevent the Lebanese government
from deploying its own troops to southern Lebanon, as required by U.N.
Security Council Resolution 520. It is long past time for Syrian forces
to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to cease to be a refuge for
terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah.
Syria has not moderated its unrelenting hostility to Israel, nor has
it demonstrated a commitment to negotiations. Moreover, it has used its
position on the world stage and within the Arab world to undermine
efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. As a frequent
sponsor of U.N. resolutions related to the conflict in the Middle East,
Syria has consistently promoted a perspective that castigates Israeli
security measures without condemning the terrorist threat faced by
Israel.
While I have long supported this act and welcome its passage, I
believe that our ability to influence Syria's behavior and deter its
support for terrorism also requires a multilateral strategy. The effect
of this act will unfortunately be limited by the lack of support for
sanctions against Syria among our friends and allies. It is critical
that the administration demonstrate global leadership on this issue as
well as other aspects of the war on terrorism. By reaching out to the
international community and by appealing to our common interest in
curtailing global terrorism and achieving peace in the Middle East, we
can ensure that the sanctions we are imposing today are truly
effective.
I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Since September 11, the bar for assistance in our war
against terrorism has been raised, and the Syrian Government is no
longer entitled to a free pass. The United States must no longer allow
Syria to get away with taking with the right hand what it gives with
the left.
[[Page S14412]]
Unfortunately, the Government of Syria remains an obstacle to peace
in Iraq, settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--indeed, Syria
has rebuffed repeated Israeli offers to make peace between Israel and
Syria--democratic development and sovereignty for the Lebanese people,
regional security, and the protection of human rights of the Syrian
people themselves.
There is no doubt that Syria actively supports international
terrorism. The evidence supporting this contention is overwhelming:
The U.S. State Department has certified Syria on its list of state
sponsors of terrorism continuously since the 1970s. Syria's dubious
company on this list includes Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea,
and Communist Cuba.
Syria provides material support and safe haven to numerous
international terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad.
Syria allows terrorist groups to maintain training camps on Syrian
soil. Indeed, in October, after a terrorist bombing in Haifa, Israel
retaliated against a known Islamic Jihad terrorist training camp near
Damascus.
Syrian-controlled southern Lebanon is a haven for anti-Israel
terrorists and a staging ground for terrorist rocket attacks against
Northern Israel.
Syria has facilitated the transfer of military equipment from Iran to
terrorists operating in Syria-controlled Lebanon.
Syria maintains a robust chemical weapons program, raising the risk
that Syria could transfer such weapons to terrorists.
In addition to Syria's long-time efforts to support the deadly aims
of international terrorist groups, its government has played a
decidedly unhelpful role in regional security. Most notably, the Syrian
Government illegally collaborated with the Hussein regime to circumvent
United Nations resolutions and has worked to undermine Iraqi democracy
in the wake of the liberation of that country.
Although Syria voted for the recent U.N. resolution on Iraq,
ostensibly expressing its support for the reconstruction of a free and
democratic Iraq, Syria has used nearly every other opportunity to
undermine the American-led coalition's efforts to liberate the people
of that country from the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore,
recent media reports indicate that Syria may have accepted and hidden
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion.
In addition, there are credible reports that Syria provided material
support to Iraqi troops during the war and currently provides safe
haven to former Hussein regime officials and loyalists. U.S.
investigators have located $3 billion hidden by the Hussein regime in
Syrian banks, and Syria has refused to return this money to its
rightful owners: the people of Iraq.
During the 1990s, Syria repeatedly defied U.N. sanctions against Iraq
by participating in enormous black market purchases of oil from the
Saddam Hussein regime. The proceeds from these sales directly supported
Hussein's military regime and opulent lifestyle.
Syria has not acted sufficiently to curb cross-border movement of
foreign terrorists, including a significant number of Syrian nationals,
into Iraq. Indeed, in some circumstances, the Syrian Government appears
to have facilitated their migration to that country; Syrian passports
have been found in the possession of international terrorists arrested
by the U.S. military there. These terrorists seek to wage jihad against
American troops and undermine democracy in Iraq and throughout the
Middle East.
In addition to Syria's unhelpful polices in Iraq, it remains a
spoiler for the development of peace and democracy in Lebanon, a
country it has forcibly occupied for decades. Its military occupation
of Lebanon undermines Lebanese efforts to create a sovereign democratic
state and furthers instability in the region. Syria, a dictatorship,
wields considerable political control in Lebanon, thereby distorting
Lebanon's officially democratic process and making that country a de
facto puppet state of the Syrian Government.
Unconditional U.S. engagement of Syria has failed to encourage true
moderation in Damascus; a new approach is necessary to encourage the
Syrians to cooperate or face the consequences. Other Arab governments
who say one thing and do another--such as Egypt--would be wise to pay
attention to the congressional debate about, and support for, the
Syrian Accountability Act.
I believe the Syrian Accountability Act will give the administration
the tools it needs to highlight to the Syrian Government the risk of
choosing the wrong side in the global war against terrorism. The Syrian
Government has an opportunity to reform itself, to provide its people
with the economic and political freedoms they seek, to end its support
for murderous terrorist organizations, and to become a proponent of
peace in the Middle East.
If Syria's leaders decide to embark on a moderate and peaceful path,
it will find the United States to be a benevolent and helpful ally. But
if it continues to support international terrorism, Syria's leaders
will find themselves international pariahs, with fewer resources or
friends to help them maintain their increasingly tenuous grip on power.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, a bipartisan piece of legislation
of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
The time has come for the Senate to send a strong message to Syria
that its support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its
development of weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable and will
not be tolerated.
This legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from
California, Senator Boxer, and Senator Santorum provides the President
with maximum flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria
subject to a national security waiver.
Specifically, it requires that sanctions be imposed on Syria unless
the President certifies that Syria: is not providing support for
international terrorists; has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and
other security personnel from Lebanon; has ceased the production,
development, acquisition, or transfer of weapons of mass destruction
and long range ballistic missiles, and; has ceased support for
terrorist activities inside of Iraq.
If the President does not make such a certification, the bill
requires the President to prohibit the export to Syria of military
items and dual use technology and impose two or more sanctions from a
list of options including: prohibiting the export of products of the
United States--other than food and medicine--to Syria; prohibiting
United States businesses from investing or operating in Syria;
restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C. and New
York; and reducing diplomatic contacts with Syria.
I, for one, believe that sanctions should be imposed only as a last
resort and that all avenues should be explored to change another
state's behavior before taking such action.
With regard to Syria, Congress has passed numerous resolutions
calling on Syria to change its ways and Republican and Democratic
administrations alike have made it clear that Syria's actions are
wholly inconsistent with a peace-loving and productive member of the
international community.
Nevertheless, words have not achieved the results we are looking for
and as a result, we must take further substantive action.
Syria's behavior and actions leave a lot to be desired and have
severely hindered the Arab-Israeli peace process.
First, it continues to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by
the State Department and is reported by the Secretary of State to
provide ``safe haven and support to several terrorist groups''
including Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine.
Despite repeated calls by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Syria
cease its support for terrorism and close the facilities and offices of
these groups, it has refused to do so.
Second, for over 20 years Syria has ignored United Nations Security
Council resolutions and has failed to withdraw completely from Lebanon,
maintaining 20,000 troops and security personnel in that sovereign
country. The presence of those troops restricts the political
independence of Lebanon and harms relations between Israel and Lebanon.
[[Page S14413]]
Finally, Syria has continued its development and deployment of short
and medium range ballistic missiles and biological and chemical
weapons. It has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and has one
of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East. It is reported
to have three production facilities for chemical weapons and has a
stockpile of the nerve agent sarin.
In the post-September 11 world, we all understand the dangers posed
by states who sponsor terror and seek weapons of mass destruction.
I had hoped that Syria would realize that it is in its best interests
to turn a new page in its relations with the United States and the
international community and cease its support for terror, withdraw from
Lebanon, and halt its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons.
It has not done so and it is time for the United States Senate to
respond. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, for decades, the United States has engaged
the regime in Syria in the hope that Damascus would play a constructive
role in bringing about Arab-Israeli peace. The U.S.-Syria relationship
has been ongoing despite the fact that Syria has been ruled by
dictatorship with an uninterrupted record of support for terrorism,
specifically directed at Israel.
The results of U.S. engagement with Syria have been anything but
positive. Throughout the years, Damascus has continued to support
international terrorism directed at America and Israel, occupy Lebanon,
develop a weapons-of-mass-destruction program, acquire ballistic
missiles, and pursue policies counter to U.S. interests.
Since the liberation of Iraq, Syria has played a destabilizing role
by allowing terrorist fugitives to enter Syria and by allowing
mercenaries to cross into Iraq--or at least not stopping them--to
engage U.S. troops. Syria has been able to conduct its policies--which
are antithetical to U.S. interests--with near impunity. They have
resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives--especially when you
consider the bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in
1983.
Although Syria is listed--and has been since the 1970s--by the State
Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Iran, Libya,
Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, it has not faced the same degree of
diplomatic and economic isolation that has been directed at other
terrorist states. In fact, Washington maintains full diplomatic
relations with Syria, making Syria the only designated state sponsor of
terrorism to have such relations with the United States.
Syria's special treatment despite its support for terrorism should be
over.
The events of September 11, 2001 have offered a window of opportunity
to review many U.S. bilateral relationships and determine whether it is
necessary to change the dynamic--and often the status quo--that has
characterized these relations. The administration and Congress have
done this most notably with Saudi Arabia in seeking greater cooperation
in the elimination of terrorist activities operating from Saudi soil.
Now is also an ideal time to reassess U.S. relations with Damascus
and demand accountability in our relationship. Equally important, it is
time for the Syrian leadership to make a tough choice: it is either
with the United States completely in the war on terrorism, or it is
not. Either way, shielding Syria from the same economic and political
isolation directed at other terrorist states is unmerited and runs
counter to U.S. principles in the war against terrorism.
As Under Secretary of State John Bolton stated in testimony before
the House International Relations Committee on September 16, 2003,
``Syria remains a security concern on two important counts: terrorism
and weapons of mass destruction.'' Bolton added: There is no graver
threat to our country today than states that both sponsor terrorism and
possess or aspire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria, which
offers physical sanctuary and political protection to groups such as
Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihad, and whose terrorist operations
have killed hundreds of innocent people--including Americans--falls
into this category of state of potential dual threat.
Since the 1970s, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a
state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, in its ``Patterns of Global
Terrorism, 2002'' report, the State Department found that the Syrian
Government ``has continued to provide political and limited material
support to a number of Palestinian groups, including allowing them to
maintain headquarters or offices in Damascus,'' although the Syrian
Government insists that the groups' Damascus offices undertake only
political and informational activities, not terrorist operations.
Syria maintains close relations with Iran, another autocratic regime
listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism and a
prominent financial, political, and military backer of these
Palestinian terrorist organizations.
Moreover, Syria remains the de facto ruler of Lebanon, which it has
forcibly and illegally occupied since 1990. Lebanon, the country in
which more than 200 U.S. Marines died in 1983 following a terrorist
attack on their Beirut barracks, remains a breeding ground and training
center for terrorist organizations.
Terrorism has spawned in Syria due largely to Syria's opposition to
the existence of Israel and its subsequent objection to an Arab-Israeli
peace process. Although the United States has engaged Syria--and given
it a prominent place in discussions--during the past few decades,
Damascus has long been an unwilling and uncooperative partner in
bringing about Middle East peace. In fact, Syria did not endorse
President Bush's Middle East ``roadmap.''
Syria also appears to be in the terror financing business. In April
2003, an Italian government study found that Syria functioned as a hub
for an al-Qaida network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from
Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the
recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group.
And, on October 21, it was reported that U.S. Treasury Department
investigators have evidence that $3 billion that belonged to Saddam
Hussein's government is being held in Syria-controlled banks in Syria
and Lebanon. The Syrian Government has not yet granted Treasury
officials access to these accounts, nor has it been willing to share
any information about the account holders.
Let's review past U.S. policy toward Damascus. Despite all of Syria's
irresponsible and threatening policies, successive U.S. administrations
have been willing to engage the Syrian Government. For decades, the
United States has pursued a policy of engagement with Syria, trying to
win Damascus' support for Middle East peace but to no avail.
As part of this strategy, the United States has maintained full
diplomatic relations with Damascus. It also has allowed U.S. companies
to invest in Syria, something that cannot be done in other terrorist-
sponsor states such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Libya.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1999--the last
year there was reliable data available--direct investment of U.S.
companies into Syria was $6 million, with 13 U.S. businesses having
offices in Syria. While this may seem miniscule in terms of the dollar
amount, it is notable because it is tolerated at all.
With the death of Syrian President Hafez Assad in 2000 and the
ascendancy of his son Bashar to the presidency, there were high
expectations that Syria would depart from its anti-Israeli policies and
pro-terrorist support of the past and enact political and economic
reforms, as well as become a positive influence and player in achieving
Middle East peace. Three years into Bashar's term, such developments
have not materialized--and without a catalyst to encourage such reform,
it appears unlikely that Bashar will proactively change Syria's course.
We need a new approach toward Damascus. Continuation of the current
U.S. policy toward Syria must end. For too long, it has been too
ineffective and has allowed Syria to pursue with near impunity policies
counter to U.S. interests. Moreover, it is unproductive and
antithetical to the principles associated with the President's war on
terrorism.
The U.S. must pressure Syria to play by the rules. Given that the
government of Syrian President Bashar al-
[[Page S14414]]
Assad is relatively weak, and recognizing that Bashar deemed it
necessary, or least desirable, to provide some assistance to the United
States in apprehending al-Qaida, it should be possible to pressure
Damascus into changing its policies. That said, Washington must
demonstrate that it is serious about having Damascus drop its support
of terrorism and its pursuit of policies that endanger peace and
stability in the Middle East.
Therefore, to demonstrate American commitment, the United States
should adopt the following measures in pressuring Syria: Enact the
Syria Accountability Act now. Among the numerous provisions contained
in the bill, the most notable include the calls for Syria to
immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism; withdraw
from Lebanon and provide for Lebanon's full restoration of sovereignty;
halt development of certain weapons; and enter into serious
unconditional bilateral peace negotiations with Israel.
This bill also states that Syria ``should bear responsibility for
attacks committed by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with offices,
training camps, or other facilities'' in Syria or Lebanon. Further, the
bill states, that being in violation of key United Nations Security
Council resolutions and pursuing policies which undermine international
peace and security, ``Syria should not have been permitted to join the
United Nations Security Council or serve as the Security Council's
President, and should be removed from the Security Council.
Pursuant to the legislation, the United States is empowered to ``will
work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of terrorism and efforts
to acquire weapons of mass destruction, WMD.'' In addition, the United
States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose all
forms of multilateral assistance to Syria until Damascus withdraws from
Lebanon and halts its pursuit of WMD and ballistic missile
accumulation.
Until Syria enacts these measures, the President is required to
prohibit: the sale of defense articles to Syria that require the
issuance of an export license--dual-use items; U.S. businesses from
investing in Syria; and export of any goods other than food and
medicine to Syria. Diplomatic relations also must be reduced but the
degree of that is not defined. The President is given waiver authority
for 6-month periods for all of these categories, except the export of
dual-use items if it is determined that ``it is in the vital national
security interest'' to do so.
The Bush administration should apply uniformity in its policies
toward terrorist-sponsoring states. Therefore, the administration
should not allow U.S. companies to invest in Syria because it sends the
signal that Syria is receiving special treatment from Washington. A
fairly dramatic reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation would
perhaps strongly suggest to Syria that it is not an American ally and
will not be one until it starts acting like one.
Sending a strong message is key.
The United States should apply the proliferation security initiative,
PSI, and sanction WMD suppliers. The administration has successfully
developed and employed a plan, known as the proliferation security
initiative, PSI, to interdict illicit weapons shipments and contraband.
PSI was announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. It involves robust
cargo inspections and possible interdiction of WMD materials and
illegal arms, based on pooled intelligence among participating
countries. To date, 11 nations form the core PSI group: Britain,
France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the
Netherlands, and the United States. While most of the initial PSI
activities have focused on North Korea, attention should be paid to
Syria--and Iran--with the goal of halting the flow of weapons
technology both in and out of Syria.
A critical complementary strategy to PSI is using sanctions on
countries that supply Syria with weapons and WMD technology. The
People's Republic of China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are
known proliferators of these materials, with Russia and North Korea
being key suppliers to Syria.
As part of a wider U.S. policy, the administration should attempt to
convince its PSI allies to also use sanctions against WMD suppliers.
In conclusion, Syria's actions in the Middle East--and in Iraq,
specifically pose a clear, near-term threat to regional stability and
to the safety and security of American forces serving in the region.
With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the defeat of
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States has made clear
that state support for terrorism will no longer be tolerated.
It is overdue for the United States and like-minded nations to hold
Syria accountable for its actions. Syria's new head of state has had
ample time to make the choice whether Damascus is with the United
States as a partner or not in fighting the war on terrorism.
If Syria is not, then it should face the diplomatic and economic
consequences as set out in the Syria Accountability Act. As a sponsor
of the Senate version, S. 982, I respectfully urge my colleagues to
vote for this important measure in the form of H.R. 1828, as amended.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria
Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives
passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate
bill, S. 982, introduced by my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Boxer,
which has over 80 cosponsors as of today. Today, I support the
amendment to H.R. 1828 submitted by my able colleague and chairman of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in coordination
with Senators Santorum and Boxer. I commend my colleagues for their
good work.
It is well within Congress's prerogative to write and implement
sanctions, but the practice of doing so, as the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee knows so well, can raise important points
about the overall constitutional prerogative of the executive in its
right to conduct foreign policy. The amendment prepared by Senator
Lugar, in cooperation with the original sponsors of the bill, preserves
the prerogatives of both branches of government, and, at the same time,
I believe, unifies and solidifies our nation's policy on the question
of terrorism, and, in particular, Syria's contribution to peace,
stability and progress in the Middle East.
Quite frankly, Syria has largely failed to contribute significantly
to peace and stability in the Middle East, a stability that U.S. blood
and treasure is now invested to achieve. We have watched the
administration give Syria ample opportunities, since September 11,
2001, to make its contribution. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the
administration flattered the Damascus dictatorship by giving it this
time to join with the civilized world in unequivocally renouncing
terrorism completely, as well as dismantling all manifestations of
material and political support for terrorist organizations.
Some suggest that Syria has played a game of sitting on the fence,
when it came to the war on terrorism. However, Mr. President, Syria was
never on the fence. Syria is on the other side of the fence, with the
other state sponsors of terrorism we have labeled as such since 1979.
And today I will agree with what Secretary Powell told President Assad
earlier this year: By refusing to cooperate, he was ``on the wrong side
of history.''
Since 1979, Syria has appeared every year on the State Department's
list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has been so identified for its
role in terrorist acts, as well as the support it gave--and continues
to give, to this very day--to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and
Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that, to this very day, organize and
commit acts of aggression or terrorism.
Throughout the 1990s, Syria played coy with U.S. administrations
attempting to engage it in the Middle East peace process. Who can
forget the scene of the long-suffering Secretary of State, Warren
Christopher, waiting hours outside of Hafez Assad's office on his
umpteenth visit, at the very same time Iranian weapons were being
transferred to Hezbollah at the Damascus airport? Who can forget
President Clinton's futile attempt in Geneva, near the end of his term
and near the end of Assad's brutal life, to re-engage the
[[Page S14415]]
dictator in peace talks? On the question of peace or normal relations
with Israel, in every aspect but the desire to reclaim territory for
itself, Syria has most definitely been a rejectionist state.
There are persistent reports that Syria has a stockpile of chemical
weapons, including sarin and possibly also VX, which it could combine
with one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East.
Coalition forces are not in Iraq to rid that former dictatorship of its
weapons of destruction while we look the other way on similar weapons
held by another Ba'athist regime. The era of that ideology of Arab
oppression, along with the threat of weapons of mass destruction to
maintain that oppression, is over.
Syria has not assisted us in our historic mission in Iraq. Joining
the Security Council in unanimous approval of Resolution 1441, the
Syrians were quick to denounce the threat and use of force to achieve
the goals of the resolution. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi
Freedom, our officials--from the President, to the Secretary of State,
to the Secretary of Defense--have publicly criticized Syria for its
lack of cooperation. Syria's border has remained open to fleeing
Ba'athist officials, and to international terrorists anxious to die
fighting against Coalition forces. Our officials believe that Syria
holds up to $3 billion of Saddam's ill-gotten loot, funds that the
Governing Council could use for reconstruction, funds that would lessen
the obligations we have undertaken in this body this week.
Syria invaded Lebanon more than a quarter-century ago, and maintains
approximately 15,000 troops there to this day. Throughout this period,
Syria has backed the Shi'ite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, an
organization that has been tied to terrorism around the world. Twenty
years ago, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed almost 300 U.S. Marines as
they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Hezbollah continues to attack
across borders, shelling Israel as late as last week. Nothing Hezbollah
does is without Syrian sanction. The Middle East will not see peace,
and the United States should not consider itself secure as long as
Hezbollah, with its Syrian backers, exists.
So it is time to go to the source and sanction Syria. This bill
outlines a series of goals and commensurate diplomatic and economic
sanctions to apply to the Syrian regime. It maintains flexibility of
policy choice for the administration, but it is clear in stating the
Congress's intent, in resolve and policy, to further isolate the
decrepit dictatorship in Damascus.
I do not know if this bill will motivate Damascus to cross the fence
and join the anti-terror coalition of civilized nations. I suspect that
to believe so would be pollyannaish. But I do believe that the way we
act today will declare to the Damascus dictatorship that there are
costs to being on the wrong side of the fence in the war on terror.
September 11, 2001 began a new era in U.S. foreign policy, and the
President's policies since that watershed event have been based on
clarity of vision. Against the threat of terrorism, which lurks and
breeds in the shadows, we have responded with clarity of purpose.
Against the traditional approaches of diplomacy, which balance nuance
against process, we have demanded progress. Against previous approaches
that part-time antagonism toward a mutual enemy should be rewarded with
full-time tolerance of non-compliance with our stated goals, we say
today: No longer.
President Assad will receive this message clearly. Perhaps Syria will
modify its behavior. If it does not, Syria can join the list of rogue
states who failed because they challenged the order of the civilized
world.
The American public has read reports in the press about Syria's
cooperation with us in identifying, in the months after September 11,
members of Al-Qaida. I have read no where, nor have I heard any analyst
argue, that such cooperation was because Syria was dedicated to our
defense, or to our global war on terrorism. Since then, the American
public has heard many members of the current administration express
disappointment with Syria's behavior, and they have seen many reports
of Syria's lack of cooperation. And one thing is clear in a democracy,
Mr. President: Our foreign policy must have the support of the public.
I will always respect the President's foreign policy prerogative, and
I have defended the executive's prerogative under Republican and
Democratic administrations. I have supported ``quiet diplomacy'' for
small results. But a diplomacy that produces invisible results is not
quiet, it is silent. Today, I believe the members of the President's
administration agree with me.
For the reasons I have stated here, this bill will pass
overwhelmingly, as it did in the House of Representatives. We may
consider this the Senate's contribution today to the war on global
terrorism.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting on H.R. 1828,
the Syria Accountability Act. I would like to explain to my colleagues
why I will be voting against this legislation.
As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Near East
Subcommittee, I have come to appreciate the great importance of U.S.
leadership in working to restart the Middle East peace process. In
recent visits to the region--the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and
Afghanistan--I heard a uniform chorus in these Arab and Muslim nations
that active United States involvement was urgently needed to halt the
continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians. I regret that
this administration has not actively responded to these pleas for
peace.
I have also learned that our disinterest in becoming involved in
Middle East peace has contributed to the sharply declining image of the
United States in the Arab/Muslim world. Indeed, according to the
recently released report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for
the Arab and Muslim World--``the Djerejian report''--hostility toward
America has reached shocking levels, and the bottom has fallen out of
Arab and Muslim support for the United States. The report also
documents that ``large majorities in the Arab and Muslim world view
United States policy through the prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict.''
I am troubled by these developments and fear that the
administration's emerging hard line toward Syria, in addition to
passage of this bill, will only add fuel to this fire. It is true that
the Syrian Government can do more to work with the United States in
combating terrorism in the region, and the administration has made some
very clear requests of the Syrian Government. But if Syria does not
respond to our requests, most, if not all, of the sanctions
contemplated by the Syrian Accountability Act can already be imposed by
the administration. This means that a bill that is widely perceived as
a crackdown against Syria has little substantive effect. Indeed,
Patrick Clawson of CSIS testified to our committee last week, ``Some
might say that the act is largely symbolic, but do not underestimate
the importance of symbols.'' And that concerns me, because the symbol
of the United States as cracking down on an Arab nation ultimately
harms our interests in many very important parts of the world.
So in reality I would describe this bill as a ``lose-lose'' for the
United States: We're getting little additional muscles against Syria
while further antagonizing the Arab world. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on this bill.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Syria has long been considered by the United
States to be a rogue state. Syria continues to associate with terrorist
groups, including those that have carried out ruthless attacks that set
back the cause of peace in the Middle East, leading it to be placed on
the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria has
occupied Lebanon continuously since 1976, in violation of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 520.
The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and
economic pressure on Syria to change its foreign policy. However, I
will vote against the Syria Accountability Act.
Of the 22 pages of this bill, only six pages relate to sanctions that
the United States may apply to Syria. The other pages contain 51
clauses of findings, senses of Congress, and statements of policy.
These nonbinding provisions build a case against Syria, and I fear that
those provisions could later be used to build a case for a military
intervention against Syria.
In many cases, the non-binding clauses in the bill appear to gloss
over the complex situation with respect to
[[Page S14416]]
Syria. For example, on page 11, the bill speaks of ``hostile actions''
by Syria against U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Yet, the evidence is
inconclusive as to the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks
that have been carried out against our troops in Iraq. Such
insinuations could be used to build the case for a preemptive military
intervention against Syria, which, unfortunately, is a very real
possibility because of the dangerous doctrine of preemption hatched by
the administration.
Other language in the nonbinding clauses may simply be ill-
considered. For example, on page 7, the bill quotes an unclassified CIA
report that says that it is ``highly probable'' that Syria is working
on biological weapons. In the very next clause, however, the bill
quotes an Under Secretary of State as saying that Syria ``is pursuing''
the development of biological weapons. It is exactly this kind of
shading of intelligence probabilities becoming certainties for which
Congress has criticized the administration and its intelligence
agencies for creating the hysteria that led to war in Iraq. Could
Congress be so willing to make the same mistake with respect to Syria?
The United States should use economic and diplomatic leverage to
pressure Syria to change its support for terrorism and alter its
foreign policy. The sponsors of this legislation have made improvements
to several nonbinding provisions in this bill, and they have worked to
address some of my more serious concerns. While I appreciate their
cooperation, I still cannot support this legislation. The findings,
statements of policy, and sense of Congress provisions in the Syria
Accountability Act could be used to build a case against Syria that
could too easily be hyped to imply congressional support for preemptive
military action against that rogue state. I will vote against this bill
because of that dangerous course that it may portend.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 minute 54 seconds.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I note no more Senators on our side of the
aisle wish to speak. Therefore, I yield the remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading
of the bill.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
Campbell) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator
from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson)
would each vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 445 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham (SC)
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nickles
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--4
Byrd
Chafee
Enzi
Jeffords
NOT VOTING--7
Campbell
Graham (FL)
Hagel
Inouye
Kerry
Lieberman
Nelson (NE)
The bill (H.R. 1828) was passed, as follows:
Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud of my colleagues throughout
the Senate for the overwhelming support just given on the Syria
Accountability Act. I believe this bill sends an unambiguous signal to
the administration and to the Syrian regime that the Congress considers
Syrian support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its
pursuit of dangerous weapons all significant threats to the United
States and to global security.
I am particularly concerned that this administration has let Syria
off the hook. Despite the support the Syria Accountability Act just
had, there are waivers that concern me. Syria's record is not one that
we can look at with any assurances that they are going to do what they
have to.
The administration claimed that al-Assad's regime's support for the
global war on terrorism is so valuable that he should not be pressed on
other issues, including the failure of the Syrians to secure the Iraqi
border, thereby permitting the constant infiltration of foreign
terrorists pouring into Iraq.
Apparently, the Syrians must have shared intelligence about al-Qaida,
and FBI and CIA officials have reportedly met in Syria with Syrian
intelligence officers to discuss terrorism. The Syrians have also
helped to capture a top al-Qaida figure, a Syrian-born German citizen
who is part of the Hamburg cell that planned the September 11 attack.
So while Syria might be sharing information on al-Qaida, at the same
time it is deliberately thwarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace
process.
Syria harbors leaders who order, plan, and finance terror attacks
against Israeli citizens. Operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades, which I might add is a terrorist group affiliated with Yasser
Arafat's political party FATAH, are regularly receiving training in
Syrian camps.
So what is perplexing is why this administration has refused to force
the Syrians to stop training Palestinian extremists even as it promotes
a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
No Palestinian roadmap to peace, no negotiations will be successful
between Palestinians and Israelis as long as Syria continues to occupy
Lebanon and to train and churn out suicide bombers.
I am worried that the administration has made a cynical tradeoff,
focusing on supposed Syrian support for the hunt for al-Qaida while
ignoring the Syrian's deliberate obstruction of the peace process.
Last month, when the Islamic Jihad successfully blew up an Arab-owned
seaside restaurant in Haifa, killing 19 Israelis, including 5
Palestinian Israelis, Israel responded by striking one of the
Palestinian training camps, choosing a time when it was empty to avoid
collateral damage. The Bush administration responded with a bland
statement urging both Israel and Syria to avoid actions that heighten
tensions or could lead to hostilities.
Despite President Bush's call for Damascus to expel terrorist
organizations from Syria and close down its camps, the Syrians have
directly refused. They have made a mockery of President Bush's famous
claim that you are ``either with us or against us in the war on
terrorism.''
We in the Senate have just passed the Syria Accountability Act, but
Syria will not be held accountable until the administration decides to
end its tradeoffs in the global war on terrorism,
[[Page S14417]]
prioritizing the fight against some forms of terror over others.
The message we want to send has to be clear and direct. We will not
tolerate any support for terrorism, especially among those who purport
to be our friends.
Everyone has seen the Syrian action in Lebanon and we know how
treacherous that is. They occupy the country and pretend they want to
make peace, but they do not want to. They have not indicated by their
actions that they want to.
I yield the floor.
____________________