Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

1A) Iran and the NPT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. KYL) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

   S. Con. Res. 73

   Whereas environmental sampling by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility revealed the presence of 2 types of highly enriched uranium that can be used to develop nuclear weapons;

   Whereas the traces of highly-enriched uranium detected by the IAEA at the Natanz facility and the Kalaye Electric Company could indicate that Iran has been secretly attempting to produce weapons-grade uranium at these facilities;

   Whereas, in March 2003, the Director of the IAEA announced that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium, a key component of advanced nuclear weapons;

   Whereas, on January 1, 1968, Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'');

   Whereas the June 6, 2003, report of the Director General of the IAEA expressed concern over the failure of the Government of Iran to report material, facilities, and activities at its nuclear facilities, including those that have the potential to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons, in contravention of its obligations under the safeguards agreement it signed in connection with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;

   Whereas the Board of Governors of the IAEA adopted a resolution on September 12, 2003, that calls on Iran to provide the IAEA a full declaration of all imported material and components relevant to the uranium enrichment program, to grant unrestricted access, including environmental sampling, to the IAEA, to resolve questions regarding the conclusion of the IAEA experts who tested gas centrifuges in that country, to provide complete information regarding the conduct of uranium conversion experiments, and to provide such other information and explanations and take such other steps as the IAEA determines necessary to resolve by October 31, 2003, all outstanding issues involving Iran's nuclear materials and nuclear activities;

   Whereas, in June 2003, Iran conducted a successful test of the 800-mile range Shahab-3 missile, and Iran is also seeking to produce a 1,200-mile Shahab-4 missile;

   Whereas the construction by Iran of nuclear facilities, coupled with its ties to terrorist groups, constitutes a threat to international peace and security; and

   Whereas, by signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, signatories such as Iran that are not declared nuclear powers commit themselves to abstaining from the acquisition of nuclear weapons, preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, promoting cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and achieving nuclear disarmament: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress--

    (1) deplores the development by Iran of a nuclear weapons program and the failure of the Government of Iran to report material, facilities, and activities to the International Atomic Energy Commission in contravention of its obligations under the safeguards agreement it signed in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty'');

    (2) concurs with the view of the Department of State, as delivered in testimony to the U.S.-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee on September 17, 2003, by the Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance that the explanations provided by the Government of Iran for its nuclear activities are not credible;

    (3) concurs with the conclusion reached in the Department of State's Annual Report on Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control and Nonproliferation Agreements and Commitments that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons;

    (4) calls on the President to use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, including--

    (A) urging the Government of Iran to accept in full the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on September 12, 2003 (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``IAEA resolution''), that calls on Iran to--

    (i) provide the Agency a full declaration of all imported material and components relevant to the uranium enrichment program;

    (ii) grant unrestricted access, including environmental sampling, to the Agency;

    (iii) resolve questions regarding the conclusion of the Agency experts who tested gas centrifuges in that country;

    (iv) provide complete information regarding the conduct of uranium conversion experiments; and

    (v) provide such other information and explanations and take such other steps as the Agency determines necessary to resolve by October 31, 2003, all outstanding issues involving Iran's nuclear materials and nuclear activities;

    (B) taking such diplomatic measures as are necessary to encourage other nations, especially Russia, to urge the Government of Iran to fully and immediately comply with the such resolution; and

    (C) working with the United Nations and other nations to urge the Government of Iran to sign the Model Additional Protocol to give the International Atomic Energy Agency greater access in Iran to ensure that--

    (i) no undeclared facilities exist in Iran; and

    (ii) no materials or technologies have been diverted from safeguarded facilities in Iran;

    (5) calls on Russia to--

    (A) use all appropriate means to urge Iran to accept in full the IAEA resolution; and

    (B) suspend all nuclear cooperation with Iran until Iran fully and completely complies with the IAEA resolution;

    (6) calls on member states of the United Nations to join the United States in preventing the Government of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear weapons program;

    (7) calls on the United Nations Security Council to immediately undertake consideration of--

    (A) the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program; and

    (B) the passage of a Security Council resolution or the taking of other actions that may be necessary to impose diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran if it fails to meet its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency by October 31, 2003; and

    (8) calls on the Government of Iran to cease all efforts to acquire nuclear fuel cycle capabilities until it is able to provide specific assurances that it is not engaged in a clandestine nuclear weapons program by--

    (A) coming into complete and verifiable compliance with its obligations under the IAEA resolution, including the prompt and unconditional implementation of the Model Additional Protocol; and

    (B) fully meeting its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with my good friend and colleague Senator KYL, to introduce a resolution to express deep concern about Iran's nuclear program. The time has come for the international community to speak with one voice and urge Iran to abandon its attempts to acquire nuclear weapons.

   With the fall of the Hussein regime in Iraq, attention has turned to the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the recent revelations about its nuclear program. I am increasingly concerned that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons and substantially alter the balance of power in the Middle East.

   In December 2002, Iran admitted that--in addition to the known construction of a light water reactor complex in Bushehr with Russian assistance--it is building two facilities that could be used to develop fissile material for a nuclear weapon: a uranium enrichment facility at Nantanz and a heavy water production plant at Arak.

   According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Nantanz large-scale commercial plant, scheduled for completion in 2005, ``could produce approximately 400 to 500 kilograms of weapon-grade material annually, or enough for 15 to 20 nuclear weapons a year.'' The Arak facility, scheduled to begin in 2004, ``could produce between 8 and 10 kilograms of plutonium annually, enough for one or two nuclear weapons a year.''

   The revelations are serious and deeply troubling.

   As Professor Gary Mihlhollin testified before the U.S.-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee on September 17, 2003: ``Adding an Iranian nuclear weapon capability runs the risk of joining terrorism and weapons of mass destruction--a combination that our government considers the greatest security challenge of the 21st century.''

   Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons demands the full attention of the United States and the international community, and a concerted and clear response to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

[Page: S12624]  GPO's PDF

   Iran's assertion that its nuclear program is peaceful and is aimed at producing 6,000 megawatts of electricity is highly dubious given the efforts to conceal construction of the Nantanz and Arak facilities and its plentiful supplies of oil and gas reserves. In her testimony before the U.S.-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, Paula A. DeSutter agreed and stated: ``Iran's attempts to explain why it needs an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle are simply not credible.''

   In fact, United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors have found traces of highly enriched, weapons grade uranium on Iranian nuclear equipment at two sites.

   I am pleased that the IAEA Board of Governor's passed resolution last week setting a deadline of October 31 for Iran to come clean about its nuclear program. As IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming stated:

   What the IAEA inspectors need is accelerated cooperation, full transparency on the part of Iran, so that we can clear up these questions in a matter of weeks, and not months and months.

   Talks have begun between the IAEA and Iranian authorities about Iran's nuclear program and the October 31 deadline. Our resolution supports the IAEA efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations. Among other things, it: deplores the Islamic Republic of Iran's development of a nuclear weapons program and for its failures to report material, facilities, and activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency as it is obligated to do pursuant to its safeguards agreement; concurs with the conclusion reached in the U.S. Department of State's Annual Noncompliance Report that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons; calls on the President of the United States to urge the Islamic Republic of Iran to accept in full the International Atomic Energy Agency's September 12, 2003 resolution; calls on member states of the United Nations to join the United States in preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear weapons program; and calls on the United Nations Security Council to immediately undertake consideration of the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program as well as such action as may be necessary, including a Security Council resolution, that would impose diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran should Iran fail to live up to its obligations to the International Atomic Energy Agency by October 31, 2003.

   In addition, its calls on the Government of Iran to: to come into verifiable compliance with its obligations under the September 12, 2003 resolution of the International Atomic Energy Agency; to come into verifiable compliance with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and to immediately sign the Model Additional Protocol of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would allow inspectors freer access to nuclear sites.

   The international community must stand together to put pressure on Tehran to live up to its commitments and, in particular, sign the additional protocol to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to permit snap, short-notice inspections of Iran's declared and undeclared nuclear facilities.

   I, for one, had been hopeful that Iran in recent years had begun to take the necessary steps to rejoin international community. The election of President Mohammad Katemi in May, 1997 appeared to be a vote for moderation and engagement with the outside world.

   Yet, the clandestine nuclear weapons program, the continued support for terror, the numerous human rights abuses against religious minorities including Iranian Jews, the suppression of the student lead pro-democracy movement, and the continued uncompromising influence of the unelected hardliners in the Council of Guardians and the military lead me to conclude that we still have a long ways to go before we see a peaceful, stable, democratic Iran.

   I firmly believe that the Iranian people desire to see their country break its ties with the past and commit itself to a future based on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

   If they are to realize that dream, the United States must work closely with our friend and allies in the international community to put pressure on Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program, cease its support for terror, and become a positive force for change in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

1B) Task Force on Nuclear Material Removal (S.A. 1840 to S. 1689)

SA 1840. Mrs. FEINSTEIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

   At the end of title II, add the following:

   SEC. 2313. (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.--It is the sense of Congress that removing potential nuclear weapons materials from vulnerable sites around the world would reduce the chance that such materials would all into the hands of al Qaeda or other groups and states hostile to the United States, and therefore should be a top priority for achieving the national security of the United States.

   (b) TASK FORCE ON NUCLEAR MATERIAL REMOVAL.--(1) There is established in the Department of Energy the Task Force on Nuclear Material Removal (in this section referred to as the ``Task Force'').

   (2)(A) At the head of the Task Force shall be the Director of the Task Force, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Energy for that purpose.

   (B) The Director of the Task Force shall report directly to the Administrator for Nuclear Security regarding the activities of the Task Force.

   (3) The Secretary and the Administrator shall assign to the Task Force personnel having such experience and expertise as is necessary to permit the Task Force to carry out its mission under this section.

   (4)(A) The Secretary of Energy and the Administrator shall jointly consult with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the Federal Government to establish mechanisms that ensure that the Task Force is able to draw quickly on the capabilities of other departments and agencies to fulfill its mission.

   (B) Mechanisms under subparagraph (A) may include the assignment of personnel from other departments and agencies of the Federal Government to the Task Force.

   (c) MISSION.--The mission of the Task Force shall be to take actions to ensure that potential nuclear weapons materials are entirely removed from the most vulnerable sites around the world as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act.

   (d) ASSISTANCE.--To assist the Task Force in carrying out its mission under this section, the Secretary of Energy may--

   (1) provide such funds as are needed to remove potential nuclear weapons materials from vulnerable sites, including funds to cover the costs of--

   (A) transporting such materials from such sites to secure facilities;

   (B) providing interim security upgrades for such materials pending their removal;

   (C) managing such materials after their arrival at secure facilities;

   (D) purchasing such materials;

   (E) converting such materials to use as low-enriched fuels, or to uses that no longer require nuclear materials;

   (F) assisting in the closure and decommissioning of such sites; and

   (G) providing incentives to facilitate the removal of such materials from vulnerable facilities;

   (2) arrange for the shipment of potential nuclear weapons materials to the United States, or to other countries willing to accept them and able to provide high levels of security for them, in order to ensure that United States national security objectives are accomplished as quickly and effectively as possible; and

   (3) provide funds to upgrade security and accounting at sites where, as determined by the Secretary, potential nuclear weapons materials will remain for an extended period in order to ensure that such materials are secure against plausible potential threats, and will remain so in the future.

   (e) REPORT.--(1) Not later than 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the budget of the President for fiscal year 2005 pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report that shall include--

   (A) a list of the sites determined by the Task Force to be of the highest priorities for removal of potential nuclear weapons materials, based on the quantity and attractiveness of such materials at such sites and the risks of the theft or diversion of such materials for weapons purposes;

   (B) a strategic plan, including measurable milestones and metrics, for accomplishing the mission of the Task Force under this section;

   (C) an estimate of the annual financial requirements for implementing the plan;

   (D) recommendations on whether any further legislative actions are needed to facilitate the accomplishment of the mission of the Task Force; and

   (E) such other information on the status of activities under this section as the Secretary considers appropriate.

   (2) The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified annex.

   (f) FUNDING.--There is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, for the National Nuclear Security Administration for ``Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation'', $40,000,000 to carry out this section.

   (g) POTENTIAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS MATERIAL DEFINED.--In this section, the term ``potential nuclear weapons material'' means plutonium, highly enriched uranium, or other material capable of sustaining an explosive nuclear chain reaction, including irradiated materials if the radiation field from such materials is not sufficient to prevent the theft of such materials and their use for an explosive nuclear chain reaction.

3B) Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1828) to halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil and illegal shipments of weapons and other military items to Iraq, and by so doing hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East, and for other purposes, as amended.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   H.R. 1828

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

   This Act may be cited as the ``Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003''.

   SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

   Congress makes the following findings:

   (1) On September 20, 2001, President George Bush stated at a joint session of Congress that ``[e]very nation, in every region, now has a decision to make ..... [e]ither you are with us, or you are with the terrorists ..... [f]rom this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime''.

   (2) On June 24, 2002, President Bush stated ``Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.

   (3) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001) mandates that all states ``refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts'', take ``the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts'', and ``deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts''.

   (4) The Government of Syria is currently prohibited by United States law from receiving United States assistance because it has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, as determined by the Secretary of State for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)) and other relevant provisions of law.

   (5) Although the Department of State lists Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism and reports that Syria provides ``safe haven and support to several terrorist groups'', fewer United States sanctions apply with respect to Syria than with respect to any other country that is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.

   (6) Terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command, maintains offices, training camps, and other facilities on Syrian territory, and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces and receive supplies from Iran through Syria.

   (7) United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) calls for ``strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon''.

   (8) Approximately 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel occupy much of the sovereign territory of Lebanon exerting undue influence upon its government and undermining its political independence.

   (9) Since 1990 the Senate and House of Representatives have passed seven bills and resolutions which call for the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon.

   (10) On March 3, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that it is the objective of the United States to ``let Lebanon be ruled by the Lebanese people without the presence of [the Syrian] occupation army''.

   (11) Large and increasing numbers of the Lebanese people from across the political spectrum in Lebanon have mounted peaceful and democratic calls for the withdrawal of the Syrian Army from Lebanese soil.

   (12) Israel has withdrawn all of its armed forces from Lebanon in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 (March 19, 1978), as certified by the United Nations Secretary General.

   (13) Even in the face of this United Nations certification that acknowledged Israel's full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425, Syrian- and Iranian-supported Hizballah continues to attack Israeli outposts at Shebaa Farms, under the pretense that Shebaa Farms is territory from which Israel was required to withdraw by Security Counsel Resolution 425, and Syrian- and Iranian-supported Hizballah and other militant organizations continue to attack civilian targets in Israel.

   (14) Syria will not allow Lebanon--a sovereign country--to fulfill its obligation in accordance with Security Council Resolution 425 to deploy its troops to southern Lebanon.

   (15) As a result, the Israeli-Lebanese border and much of southern Lebanon is under the control of Hizballah, which continues to attack Israeli positions, allows Iranian Revolutionary Guards and other militant groups to operate freely in the area, and maintains thousands of rockets along Israel's northern border, destabilizing the entire region.

   (16) On February 12, 2003, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet stated the following with respect to the Syrian- and Iranian-supported Hizballah: ``[A]s an organization with capability and worldwide presence [it] is [al Qaeda's] equal if not a far more capable organization ..... [T]hey're a notch above in many respects, in terms of in their relationship with the Iranians and the training they receive, [which] puts them in a state-sponsored category with a potential for lethality that's quite great.''.

   (17) In the State of the Union address on January 29, 2002, President Bush declared that the United States will ``work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction''.

[Page: H9419]

   (18) The Government of Syria continues to develop and deploy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

   (19) According to the December 2001 unclassified Central Intelligence Agency report entitled ``Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat through 2015'', ``Syria maintains a ballistic missile and rocket force of hundreds of FROG rockets, Scuds, and SS-21 SRBMs [and] Syria has developed [chemical weapons] warheads for its Scuds''.

   (20) The Government of Syria if pursuing the development and production of biological and chemical weapons and has a nuclear research and development weapons and has a nuclear research and development program that is cause for concern.

   (21) According to the Central Intelligence Agency's ``Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions'', released January 7, 2003: ``[Syria] already holds a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin but apparently is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its [chemical weapons] program, including precursor chemicals and key production equipment. It is highly probable that Syria also is developing an offensive [biological weapons] capability.''.

   (22) On May 6, 2002, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, stated: ``The United States also knows that Syria has long had a chemical warfare program. It has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin and is engaged in research and development of the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX. Syria, which has signed but not ratified the [Biological Weapons Convention], is pursuing the development of biological weapons and is able to produce at least small amounts of biological warfare agents.''.

   (23) According to the Central Intelligence Agency's ``Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions'', released January 7, 2003: ``Russia and Syria have approved a draft cooperative program on cooperation on civil nuclear power. In principal, broader access to Russian expertise provides opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons.''.

   (24) Under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (21 UST 483), which entered force on March 5, 1970, and to which Syria is a party, Syria has undertaken not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons and has accepted full scope safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency to detect diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities to the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

   (25) Syria is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Conventions or the Biological Weapons Convention, which entered into force on April 29, 1997, and on March 26, 1975, respectively.

   (26) Syrian President Bashar Assad promised Secretary of State Powell in February 2001 to end violations of Security Council Resolutions 661, which restricted the sale of oil and other commodities by Saddam Hussein's regime, except to the extent authorized by other relevant resolutions, but this pledge was never fulfilled.

   (27) Syria's illegal imports and transshipments of Iraqi oil during Saddam Hussein's regime earned Syria $50,000,000 or more per month as Syria continued to sell its own Syrian oil at market prices.

   (28) Syria's illegal imports and transshipments of Iraqi oil earned Saddam Hussein's regime $2,000,000 per day.

   (29) The Government of Syria also utilized the railway network linking Mosul, Iraq, to Aleppo, Syria, to transfer a wide range of weaponry and weapon systems to Saddam Hussein's regime.

   (30) On March 28, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned: ``[W]e have information that shipments of military supplies have been crossing the border from Syria into Iraq, including night-vision goggles ..... These deliveries pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces. We consider such trafficking as hostile acts, and will hold the Syrian government accountable for such shipments.''.

   (31) According to Article 23(1) of the United Nations Charter, members of the United Nations are elected as nonpermanent members of the United Nations Security Council with ``due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to other purposes of the Organization''.

   (32) Despite Article 23(1) of the United Nations Charter, Syria was elected on October 8, 2001, to a 2-year term as a nonpermanent member of the United Nations Security Council beginning January 1, 2002, and served as President of the Security Council during June 2002 and August 2003.

   (33) On March 31, 2003, the Syrian Foreign Minister, Farouq al-Sharra, made the Syrian regime's intentions clear when he explicitly stated that ``Syria's interest is to see the invaders defeated in Iraq''.

   (34) On April 13, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld charged that ``busloads'' of Syrian fighters entered Iraq with ``hundreds of thousands of dollars'' and leaflets offering rewards for dead American soldiers.

   (35) On September 16, 2003, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton, appeared before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives, and underscored Syria's ``hostile actions'' toward coalition forces during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Under Secretary Bolton added that: ``Syria allowed military equipment to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war. Syria permitted volunteers to pass into Iraq to attack and kill our service members during the war, and is still doing so ..... [Syria's] behavior during Operation Iraqi Freedom underscores the importance of taking seriously reports and information on Syria's WMD capabilities.''.

   (36) During his appearance before the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives on September 25, 2003, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, stated that out of the 278 third-country nationals who were captured by coalition forces in Iraq, the ``single largest group are Syrians''.

   SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

   It is the sense of Congress that--

   (1) the Government of Syria should immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and openly declare its total renunciation of all forms of terrorism, and close all terrorist offices and facilities in Syria, including the offices of Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine--General Command;

   (2) the Government of Syria should--

   (A) immediately and unconditionally stop facilitating transit from Syria to Iraq of individuals, military equipment, and all lethal items, except as authorized by the Coalition Provisional Authority or a representative, internationally recognized Iraqi government;

   (B) cease its support for ``volunteers'' and terrorists who are traveling from and through Syria into Iraq to launch attacks; and

   (C) undertake concrete, verifiable steps to deter such behavior and control the use of territory under Syrian control;

   (3) the Government of Syria should immediately declare its commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon, and set a firm timetable for such withdrawal;

   (4) the Government of Lebanon should deploy the Lebanese armed forces to all areas of Lebanon, including South Lebanon, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982), in order to assert the sovereignty of the Lebanese state over all of its territory, and should evict all terrorist and foreign forces from southern Lebanon, including Hizballah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards;

   (5) the Government of Syria should halt the development and deployment of medium- and long-range surface-to-surface missiles and cease the development and production of biological and chemical weapons;

   (6) the Governments of Lebanon and Syria should enter into serious unconditional bilateral negotiations with the Government of Israel in order to realize a full and permanent peace;

   (7) the United States should continue to provide humanitarian and educational assistance to the people of Lebanon only through appropriate private, nongovernmental organizations and appropriate international organizations, until such time as the Government of Lebanon asserts sovereignty and control over all of its territory and borders and achieves full political independence, as called for in United Nations Security Council Resolution 520; and

   (8) as a violator of several key United Nations Security Council resolutions and as a nation that pursues 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.

   SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

   It is the policy of the United States that--

   (1) Syria will be held responsible for attacks committed by Hizballah and other terrorist groups with offices, training camps, or other facilities in Syria, or bases ion areas of Lebanon occupied by Syria.

   (2) the United States shall impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction;

   (3) the Secretary of State will continue to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism until Syria ends its support for terrorism, including its support of Hizballah and other terrorist groups in Lebanon and its hosting of terrorist groups in Damascus, and comes into full compliance with United States law relating to terrorism and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001);

   (4) efforts against Hizballah will be expanded given the recognition that Hizballah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda;

   (5) the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty, political independence, and territorial integrity is in the national security interest of the United States;

   (6) Syria is in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) through its continued occupation of Lebanese territory and its encroachment upon Lebanon's political independence;

   (7) Syria's obligation to withdraw from Lebanon is not conditioned upon progress in

[Page: H9420]

the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria's obligation under Security Council Resolution 520;

   (8) Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States;

   (9) Syria will be held accountable for any harm to Coalition armed forces or to any United States citizen in Iraq due to its facilitation of terrorist activities and its shipments of military supplies to Iraq; and

   (10) 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 its 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.

   SEC. 5. PENALTIES AND AUTHORIZATION.

   (a) PENALTIES.--Until the President makes the determination that Syria meets all the requirements described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (d) and certifies such determination to Congress in accordance with such subsection--

   (1) the President shall prohibit the export to Syria of any item, including the issuance of a license for the export of any item, on the United States Munitions List or Commerce Control List of dual-use items in the Export Administration Regulations (15 C.F.R. part 730 et seq.); and

   (2) the President shall impose two or more of the following sanctions:

   (A) Prohibit the export of products of the United States (other than food and medicine) to Syria.

   (B) Prohibit United States businesses from investing or operating in Syria.

   (C) Restrict Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C., and at the United Nations in New York City, to travel only within a 25-mile radius of Washington, D.C., or the United Nations headquarters building, respectively.

   (D) Prohibit aircraft of any air carrier owned or controlled by Syria to take off from, land in, or overfly the United States.

   (E) Reduce United States diplomatic contacts with Syria (other than those contacts required to protect United States interests or carry out the purposes of this Act).

   (F) Block transactions in any property in which the Government of Syria has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

   (b) WAIVER.--The President may waive the application of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) for one or more 6-month periods if the President determines that it is in the vital national security interest of the United States to do so and transmits to Congress a report that contains the reasons therefor.

   (c) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA.--If the President--

   (1) makes the determination that Syria meets the requirements described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of subsection (d) and certifies such determination to Congress in accordance with such subsection;

   (2) determines that substantial progress has been made both in negotiations aimed at achieving a peace agreement between Israel and Syria and in negotiations aimed at achieving a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon; and

   (3) determines that the Government of Syria is strictly respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese army throughout Lebanon, as required under paragraph (4) of United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (1982), then the President is authorized to provide assistance to Syria under chapter 1 of Part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (relating to development assistance).

   (d) CERTIFICATION.--A certification under this subsection is a certification transmitted to the appropriate congressional committees of a determination made by the President that--

   (1) the Government of Syria has ceased providing support for international terrorist groups and does not allow terrorist groups, such as Hamas, Hizballah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command to maintain facilities in territory under Syrian control;

   (2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian military, intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon;

   (3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and deployment of medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles, is not pursuing or engaged in the research development, acquisition, production, transfer, or deployment of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, has provided credible assurances that such behavior will not be undertaken in the future, and has agreed to allow United Nations and other international observers to verify such actions and assurances; and

   (4) the Government of Syria has ceased all support for, and facilitation of, all terrorist activities inside of Iraq, including preventing the use of territory under its control by any means whatsoever to support those engaged in terrorist activities inside of Iraq.

   SEC. 6. REPORT.

   (a) REPORT.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter until the conditions described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 5(d) are satisfied, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on--

   (1) Syria's progress toward meeting the conditions described in paragraphs (1) through (4) of section 5(d);

   (2) connections, if any, between individual terrorists and terrorist groups which maintain offices, training camps, or other facilities on Syrian territory, or operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces, and the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and other terrorist attacks on the United States or its citizens, installations, or allies; and

   (3) how the United States is increasing its efforts against Hizballah given the recognition that Hizballah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda.

   (b) FORM.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall be in unclassified form but may include a classified annex.

   SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.

   In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1828, as amended, be extended to 60 minutes, equally divided.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?

   There was no objection.

   GENERAL LEAVE

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1828, as amended.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?

   There was no objection.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1828, as amended, a bill I introduced with my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), to hold Syria accountable for behavior and activities which threaten U.S. national security, our interests and our allies.

   The Syrian regime has the blood of Americans on its hands, and we cannot, and we will not allow this to go unpunished. That is one of the primary reasons we are here today. And we would not have reached this point were it not for the commitment and unwavering support of a great American, our distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY), and we thank him for that support.

   Mr. Speaker, following the deplorable terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush clearly articulated what would be the guiding principles of U.S. foreign policy. He said: ``Every Nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any Nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.''

   The choice was clear, and Syria chose to be on the wrong side of history. Syria continues to harbor Hezballah, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the PFLP-GC, and Hamas, including permitting the operation of offices and terrorist camps in Syrian territory and in Syrian-occupied Lebanon.

   These and other Syrian-sponsored groups have perpetrated acts of terrorism against Americans, most notably the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Syrian-occupied Lebanon in 1983, which killed 241 American Marines, and the attack on the Khobar Towers in 1996, where, with the assistance of Syria, the terrorists killed 19 American servicemen and injured scores of others.

   The Syrian regime has continuously allowed Iranian transshipment of weapons to Hezballah and, in recent years, has also begun to supply Hezballah

[Page: H9421]

militants with mortars, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other weapons.

   The Syrians vehemently defend, as well as support, protect and harbor, the leaders of Hezballah. For example, Sheik Nasrallah, a terrorist, who proclaimed in a speech broadcast on Hezballah's TV station in late April of this year, he said, ``Death to America was, is, and will stay our slogan.''

   The actions that have earned the Syrian regime the pariah status as a state sponsor of terror have been further highlighted in Iraq, where Syria has been complicit against our forces in Iraq, as repeatedly articulated by the Syrian foreign minister, when he said, ``Syria's interest is to see the invaders defeated in Iraq.''

   Syria has encouraged thousands of so-called ``irregular forces'' and other ``volunteer'' terrorists to cross the Syrian border into Iraq to battle our coalition forces. When U.S. military forces captured a large group of Syrians, they reportedly confiscated 70 suicide jackets, each filled with 22 pounds of military grade C4 explosives and mercury detonators. U.S. soldiers also reportedly found several hundred thousand dollars on a bus that came from Syria, together with leaflets suggesting that Iraqis would be rewarded if they killed Americans.

   Ambassador Paul Bremer, the Administrator of the Coalition Provision Authority in Iraq, testified before our Committee on International Relations just a few weeks ago, and he said that the largest number of third-country detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq are from Syria.

   Ambassador Bremer underscored: ``And we believe that there are rat lines, as they call them, from Syria into Iraq, where both fighters and, in many cases, terrorists are still coming in.''

   Despite the Syrian regime's efforts at manipulation, the terrorists they support remove any question that Syria is facilitating the movement of fighters into Iraq to kill our men and women in the Armed Forces. In September 14, 2003, an interview was printed with the Sunday Times World where a member of the militant Islamic group Martyrs of Islam, identifying himself only as Jamal, revealed that he and many others had trained at a camp in Syria during the buildup to the recent war in Iraq.

   According to Jamal, while at the Syrian camp, he was trained to make bombs, set booby traps and fire various small arms, including rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Jamal said, ``Our entire group was trained in Syria. Other groups were trained there after us. We are here to kill American soldiers.'' He claimed that his 15-member cell had carried out about 60 attacks against American forces in 3 months.

   Syria also continues to occupy Lebanon, in direct contravention of the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Through its illegal occupation of Lebanon, the Syrian regime has imposed its will on the Lebanese people through electoral intimidation, through political persecution, through the stifling of free speech, assassination of opposition leaders, and, last but not least, through brute military force.

   The Syrian regime has all but eliminated Lebanon from the international political map, denying the Lebanese people their right to self-determination. It hijacked the democracy process in Lebanon, converting Lebanon into a proxy of the dictatorship in Damascus, a proxy in much the same way that the former Soviet Union used Eastern Europe to propagate its ``evil empire.''

   The Syrian regime has even tried to extend its repression of the Lebanese people to the U.S., to the hallowed halls of Congress. For example, for his testimony during a Congressional roundtable that I held on September 17 as chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, General Michel Aoun, the former Prime Minister of Lebanon and one of the leading opposition figures in Lebanon, faces prosecution on charges of tarnishing Lebanon's ties with Syria. His statements in support of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act were viewed as an ``offense and he should be tried for it,'' said the authorities.

   For all of the reasons I have articulated this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we render our overwhelming support to H.R. 1828, as amended.

   The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, as reported, establishes a clear set of policies with respect to Syria. It calls for the imposition of sanctions intended to deny Syria resources to pursue its threatening behavior and limit its diplomatic legitimacy should it persist in pursuing these activities. If the Syrian regime does not alter its behavior, it will suffer the consequences.

   The sanctions are to be imposed unless the President certifies that Syria is not providing support for terrorists; has stopped all support for terrorist activities inside of Iraq; has withdrawn all military, intelligence and other security personnel from Lebanon; is not involved in the production, development, deployment, acquisition or transfer of weapons of mass destruction and long-range ballistic missiles; has provided credible assurances that such behavior will not be undertaken in the future; and has agreed to allow United Nations and other international observers to verify such actions and assurances.

   The imposition of some, but not all, of the sanctions may be waived by the President for a 6-month period if he determines that it is in the vital national security of the United States to do so and transmits a report to Congress on the reasons substantiating such a determination.

   Mr. Speaker, diplomacy with the Syrian regime has failed miserably. It is time to reinforce our words with concrete, tangible and punitive measures. This bill provides the President with the tools and the overwhelming Congressional support he needs to hold the regime in Damascus accountable for choosing to side with the terrorists and engaging in activities threatening the American people and U.S. national security interests.

   Syria cannot be allowed to continue to act with impunity. The game is over.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1828.

   Mr. Speaker, among the Members who deserve our praise for sponsoring this bill, I would like to single out the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who first introduced this bill in the 107th Congress. I want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, for their invaluable work in bringing this legislation to the floor.

   Mr. Speaker, no one in Damascus should be surprised by our action today.

[Time: 17:00]

   One might even say that the Syrian Government is the moving spirit behind this action.

   Syria, Mr. Speaker, is the leading regional force for destabilization and against peace. Syria is a charter member of the U.S. Government's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria hosts and provides both military and economic support to a wide array of vicious terrorist groups.

   For too many years, inexplicably, our government has treated Syria better than it does other state sponsors of terrorism. We have been allowing more trade with Syria, and we have maintained normal diplomatic ties. It is time, Mr. Speaker, for this special treatment to end.

   The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 will closely align our Syria policy with our policy toward other state sponsors of terrorism.

   Twenty years ago, Mr. Speaker, Syrian-sponsored terrorism was responsible for the worst pre-September 11 terrorist incident in American history: the murder of 241 U.S. Marines by a suicide bomber in Lebanon in October of 1983. I visited with those Marines just a few weeks before the tragedy. Now, Syria's irresponsible behavior is again resulting in more murders of American soldiers, this time in Iraq.

   Six months ago, Mr. Speaker, I visited Syria and met with the president of that country. I told him that he had made a major miscalculation regarding Iraq. Completely misunderstanding media reports of Coalition difficulties

[Page: H9422]

in the first days of the war due to a sand storm, Syria promptly aligned itself with Saddam Hussein, opening its borders to jihadists and suicide bombers, and opening the floodgates for arms and military equipment to flow into Iraq. To this very day, Mr. Speaker, Syria keeps its borders open, and suicide bombers and pro-Saddam thugs are allowed to cross into Iraq and attack our American soldiers in that country.

   But it is not the only way that Syria is aiding terrorists in Iraq. This last weekend, Mr. Speaker, we learned that Syrian state-controlled banks are holding some $3 billion of Saddam Hussein's cash. Despite our diplomatic efforts, Syria is refusing to freeze those funds and to return them to pay part of the cost of rebuilding Iraq. Meanwhile, Saddam's ``bitter-enders,'' perhaps Saddam himself, are drawing on those funds to fuel their murderous attacks on American soldiers.

   When I met with President Asad 6 months ago, I warned him that the Syria Accountability Act would soon be on its way to passage in the House and in the Senate unless Syria changed its ways in Iraq and throughout the region. President Asad understood me perfectly. I was not surprised to find that he was very familiar with the Syria Accountability Act.

   Secretary of State Colin Powell visited Asad one week after my visit; and told him, as I had, what he needed to do to improve Syria's standing in the United States: he had to end support for terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. He had to stop supporting Hezbollah and other terrorist groups in Lebanon. He had to close the terrorist offices in Damascus. He had to remove the 17,000 Syrian soldiers in Lebanon. He had to remove the thousands of Syrian military intelligence officers who effectively run Lebanon. He had to stop work on weapons of mass destruction. He had to free the many political prisoners in Syrian prisons, and he had to end vicious anti-U.S. incitement in Syria's media.

   I repeated my warning in a press conference with Arab media immediately after my meeting with Asad. When I returned to Washington, I wrote the president of Syria, reviewing the contents of our meeting. I reminded him that congressional action was looming, but that he had the power to avert it.

   Mr. Speaker, at this time I will introduce into the RECORD the text of my letter of last May to President Asad.

   Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives,

   Washington, DC, May 23, 2003.
His Excellency, President Bashar al-Asad,
Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.

    Dear Mr. President: Once again I would like to thank you for receiving me in your office recently. Our discussion was valuable, and I believe it could mark the beginning of a productive dialogue that benefits both our nations.

    I have therefore been surprised and deeply dismayed by Syria's failure to take truly meaningful action on the issues we discussed in the weeks since my visit. Notwithstanding press reports that some of the offices of Palestinian terrorist organizations in Damascus may have been closed, I am deeply disappointed by your failure to confirm this definitively and to affirm that their closure is the result of a decision by the Syrian government, not by the terrorists. I was also disturbed by your failure to join the U.N. Security Council consensus in favor of UNSC Resolution 1483 ending sanctions on Iraq and by the Syrian state media's harsh and inaccurate accusations against the U.S. regarding that resolution.

    Mr. President, closing the offices of Palestinian terrorist organizations is the most basic of steps you must take if we are to make a start toward improving U.S.-Syrian relations, as you and I discussed. But it is crucial not only that you actually close the offices and prevent these groups and their partisans from carrying out activities in Syria but that you also make clear, publicly and formally, that you are doing so. Only if such actions are executed in a transparent and definitive manner can Syria demonstrate to the world that it opposes the actions of these terrorist organizations. A stealthy closing of the offices, or a sham closing in which terrorist personnel continue to carry out their activities less publicly and from different locations--or a closing which you claim is strictly the result of the terrorists' decision, as you so far have done--will only leave the world skeptical of your real intentions and will prevent you from reaping any benefits in U.S.-Syrian bilateral relations.

    I was pleased that, in our meeting, you said you oppose terrorism ``anywhere.'' Since the Palestinian groups with offices in Damascus have claimed credit for numerous terrorist attacks in Israel--and sometimes have issued these claims from Damascus itself--they surely have no business in Syria, and you should have no trouble making public declarations to that effect. As we agreed, there is no point in discussing semantics. Whether one calls them information offices or terrorist headquarters, it is imperative that they be closed and their cadre expelled--and that this decision be publicly announced and definitively implemented--if we hope to begin a new era in bilateral relations.

    You will recall that we discussed the Syria Accountability Act. I told you at that time that, depending on your decisions and actions, Congressional action on that bill will be delayed, halted, or accelerated. I also told you that I would be looking for the earliest possible positive action on your part and in particular in the immediate aftermath of the Powell visit. Based on what I have seen and read thus far, such positive action from you has not been sufficiently forthcoming. Should that continue to be so, I will have no choice but to join with like-minded colleagues in the near future to accelerate action on the Syrian Accountability Act.

    So that there be no misunderstanding, I think it is important that I review with you the content of our discussion and my reflections on it. As I indicated to you, Syria made many regrettable decisions in the months leading up to the Iraq war, during it, and in its immediate aftermath. These mistakes were reflected in both your statements and actions during this period. My impression during our meeting was that you understand this. In fact, it is crucial that your future performance fully reflect this understanding, that you expel any Iraqi officials and Saddam Hussein family members who took refuge in Syria, that you seal your border so as to prevent the smuggling of arms and other military equipment into Iraq as well as the infiltration of anti-U.S. personnel, and that you fully cooperate with the United States' Iraq policy in all other ways. Indeed, my overwhelming concern--and I believe that of all of my colleagues in the U.S. Congress--is that you cooperate to the fullest extent with ongoing United States efforts in Iraq. Based on Syria's absence from yesterday's UN Security Council vote, you clearly have not comprehended the urgency of this concern.

    Beyond cooperation regarding Iraq, several steps are necessary in order to reverse the recent erosion of bilateral ties. Let me once again enumerate these steps:

    (1) The offices of the Palestinian terrorist groups must be closed and their activities ended immediately, and this decision be publicly announced and definitively implemented, as discussed above.

   (2) All military assistance to Hizballah, both directly and as a conduit for Iran, must be terminated.

   (3) Hizballah must be removed from the Lebanese-Israeli border area as well as from the area of Shebaa Farms, and the Lebanese Armed Forces must be deployed throughout the length of the border. Hizballah also must cease its attacks on Israeli territory and personnel, including in the Shebaa Farms area.

   (4) Hizballah must be disarmed, as every other Lebanese militia has been.

   (5) Iranian Revolutionary Guard cadre must be expelled from Lebanon.

   (6) All terrorist bases in Lebanon and Syria must be closed, and all other support for terrorism must end.

   (7) Syrian military forces must be evacuated from Lebanon.

   (8) All Israeli prisoners held by Hizballah or Syria must be released.

   (9) Syria must take immediate steps to address the many serious human rights problems addressed in the U.S. State Department's recent human rights report. In particular, it must release the academicians, journalists, and members of the Syrian parliament currently in prison for crimes of speech and thought.

   (10) Hostile anti-U.S. propaganda in state media must be terminated.

   All of these steps are required urgently, but again I emphasize that an affirmative decision to close the offices of the Palestinian groups in Damascus must be announced and implemented definitively and immediately.

   During our meeting, you asked me whether I expect you to undertake these actions ``for free.'' To reiterate, I am not asking anything for free. In English, there is a saying that virtue is its own reward. Indeed, a state that supports terrorist groups and violates the sovereignty of a neighboring nation cannot be fully accepted as member in good standing of the civilized world in the twenty-first century. But of course I understand that you were asking what the political pay-off would be for Syria. The reward, Mr. President, is immeasurable and of the greatest significance. It is the goodwill of the Congress, the Administration, and the American people. This goodwill is a priceless commodity, and it has long been lacking in our bilateral relations precisely because of Syria's failure to take the necessary actions I enumerated in our talk and have underscored here. From the establishment of goodwill all other benefits flow.

   If you show clear indication that you are progressing in the direction I outlined--beginning with full cooperation regarding Iraq and the immediate and definitive closing of the offices of the Palestinian terrorist organizations and the cessation of their activities on Syrian or Lebanese soil--I will do everything I can to prevent Congressional consideration of the Syria Accountability Act. Let me add something else: Once it would be fully clear that Syria no longer belongs on the list of state-sponsors of terrorism, nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to advocate its removal from that list.

[Page: H9423]

   Absent such indication, however, I can only foresee the worst. I must again underscore the importance of your acting immediately. Time is running out.

   You asked that I sound out the Israelis about their interest in pursuing negotiations regarding the Golan Heights and Syrian-Israeli peace. I did indeed raise this matter with Prime Minister Sharon during my visit to Israel. He assured me that he is ready to engage in negotiations, on an unconditional basis, at any time. I would be delighted to be of any further assistance to you on this matter.

   Let me reiterate that I foresee the prospect of a new and positive era in U.S.-Syrian bilateral relations. The recent war in Iraq is a cataclysmic development that will usher in great changes in the region. A Middle East that is more politically liberal and increasingly friendly to the United States is on the horizon. This trend is typified by some of your bordering neighbors, such as Jordan, Israel, Turkey, and, soon no doubt, the new Iraq. It is my fervent wish that Syria be seen as fully in step with these regional trends. It is my firm conviction that Syria indeed must be fully in step with these trends if U.S.-Syrian relations are to improve and prosper rather than suffer still further damage. The path our relations follow will depend, Mr. President, on your vision, your leadership, and, most important, your willingness to take bold decisions along the lines we have discussed.

   Sincerely,

   Tom Lantos,
Ranking Democratic Member.

   Mr. Speaker, after 6 months of waiting, 6 months after Secretary Powell's visit, and 6 months after my own visit, Syria has done nothing to comply with our long-standing requirements. This conclusion is confirmed by the administration which has sensibly changed its position on the Syrian Accountability Act from one of opposition to its current stance, which I view as implicit support for our legislation. It seems, Mr. Speaker, everyone's patience has run out.

   I wish that this legislation had not been necessary, but the Syrian regime's actions, or perhaps I should say inactions, have made it imperative. Despite warning after warning, the Syrian Government has refused to heed the dictates of common sense. In fact, it has regressed with its latest outrages resulting in more terrorism in Iraq. The door to good relations with the United States has been wide open to Syria, but the Syrian regime has contemptuously slammed it shut. Now it must pay the consequences.

   Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, as our legislation makes it clear, the United States remains ready and receptive to good relations with Syria, just as soon as the Syrian regime conforms to the norms of civilized conduct.

   The whole Middle East is changing, Mr. Speaker. Syria cannot and will not be frozen in a past of supporting terrorism and suppressing its own people. I trust change in Syria will come peacefully. I know it will come soon.

   Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader who is responsible for this legislation moving quickly through the House.

   Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding me this time and for her leadership on this issue. I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for sponsoring this legislation and, as always, thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his leadership and advocacy for peace and security in the Middle East. I should also, by the way, on behalf of the House thank my predecessor, Dick Armey, for initially proposing the Syrian Accountability Act in the last Congress before his retirement. It is a good bill, one that I am proud to sponsor and support; and it is a critical addition to America's diplomatic arsenal in the war on terror.

   Mr. Speaker, Syria's hostility to the United States and our allies is no secret. Neither is its weapons of mass destruction program or its sponsorship of Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist networks. And least secret of all, Mr. Speaker, is Syria's active support of terrorists seeking safe passage into Iraq to kill Americans. According to Ambassador Bremer, of the 276 terrorists detained in Iraq since the end of major combat there, 123 are from Syria.

   The current Syrian regime is not a friend, and it is not a misunderstood bystander. It is a government at war with the values of the civilized world and a violent threat to free nations and free men everywhere. It is a textbook example of a terrorist state and poses a clear and present danger to American soldiers, diplomats, and civilians in the Middle East.

   President Bush made the terms of the war on terror very clear: ``You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.'' And since then, we have tried everything, and the President has tried everything. But despite every olive branch and carrot that we have offered, Syria has chosen to side with the terrorists. Therefore, we in the House have no choice but to begin identifying ways to change their leaders' minds, and this legislation will empower the President to pressure Syria in several ways from economic sanctions and travel restrictions to diplomatic isolation.

   But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is about more than its substantive penalties. After all, international sanctions have been levied against Syria for years, and Syria's regime has only scoffed at them. But times have changed, and the heightened sanctions in this bill are just the beginning. Congress will be watching Syria's every move and responding accordingly. And by passing this bill today, we will start that process. We will send a very clear message to President Asad and his fellow travelers along the Axis of Evil. The United States will not tolerate terrorism, its perpetrators, or its sponsors; and our warnings are not to be ignored.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill, send that message, and enlighten the Syrian regime as to America's resolve in the war on terror.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), my good friend and the original author of this legislation, who has been indefatigable in pursuing this cause; and I am delighted to see it is coming to fruition this afternoon.

   Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for yielding me this time and for his kind words.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. As the lead sponsor of the bill, I am very appreciative that this bipartisan bill, which I wrote in my office and introduced more than a year and a half ago, is today coming to the floor. I am pleased to have worked on this bill with our lead Republican sponsor, the chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and it has been a delight to work with her on this bill.

   Mr. Speaker, since the war in Iraq, it has become plain to ordinary Americans, Members of Congress across party lines, and officials in the administration what has been plain to me for many years, that Syria is among the most dangerous, destabilizing countries in the Middle East. In 1979, our U.S. State Department put forth a list of countries which support terrorism. Syria was a charter member of that list. She has been on that list unabated for 24 years; and yet she is currently the only country on this list with which we have normal diplomatic relations. I have never understood that, and it is time to tell Syria that the game is over.

   As President Bush said on June 24, 2002, ``Syria must choose the right side in the war on terror by closing terrorist camps and expelling terrorist organizations.'' In fact, terrorist groups that have thrived under Syrian protection have taken hundreds of American lives. In 1983, Hezbollah killed 241 U.S. Marines in a terrorist attack near Beirut and killed more in the bombing of the U.S. embassy annex the following year.

   Syria also plays host to a number of terrorist groups in its capital, Damascus, and terrorist camps throughout Syria and Syrian-occupied Lebanon. In fact, the leader of the Palestine Islamic Jihad, which just murdered 21 innocent people in a homicide bombing in the Israeli city of Haifa, lives in Damascus. Israel was correct and justified in its recent attack on the Palestine-Islamic Jihad training camp in Syria.

   The threat of collusion between terrorist groups and the Government of Syria must be addressed directly, especially because of Syria's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Under

[Page: H9424]

Secretary of State John Bolton testified last month before the Subcommittee on the Middle East that ``since the 1970s, Syria has pursued what is now one of the most advanced Arab state chemical weapons capabilities and is continuing to develop an offensive biological weapons capability.''

[Time: 17:15]

   For a country with Syria's history with weapons of mass destruction, this is a cause for serious concern.

   Even with all this damming evidence about the threat that Damascus poses some have suggested that we should not hold Syria accountable. The reasons they give have varied, but the most common is that Syria has somewhat helped the U.S. in our war on terror. Absolutely nonsense. Syria is both the arsonist and the fireman. She continues to help terrorism and then throws us crumbs and says look, I am putting it out. That shell game has got to stop.

   Syria is two-faced, throwing the few small bones of information to American sources while continuing to aid the most violent terrorist groups in the Middle East. This is not an acceptable deal in the post-September 11 world.

   Under this bill, unless Syria meets four key criteria, it will face several sanctions, both economic and commercial and military. First and foremost, Syria must end its support for terrorism. It must close the offices and end the operations of the Palestinian terror groups and stop the supplies to Hezbollah. And it must come into full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1373 which directs all countries to fight terror.

   Secondly, Syria must withdraw its armed forces from Lebanon. Nothing would do more for peace and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East than a free and sovereign Lebanon. The U.N. long ago certified Israel's withdrawal, but the Syrian military occupation remains. It is time to let the Lebanese run Lebanon.

   Thirdly, Syria must halt development and procurement of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The Syrian force of hundreds of Scud missiles topped with unconventional warheads poses a serious danger to the Middle East.

   Finally, Syria must take immediate steps to stop guerrillas from traveling to Syria to Iraq to attack and kill American troops.

   Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that this bipartisan legislation has gathered 297 cosponsors in the House including a majority of Democrats and Republicans, and the bill received an overwhelming 33 to 2 vote in the Committee on International Relations. The Senate version of our bill tells a similar story with 76 cosponsors led by Senators BOXER and SANTORUM.

   Finally, I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for moving the bill forward and for their support, as I mentioned before. I also thank the chair of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her hard work, and all 297 Members of the House who have cosponsored this important bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for moving the bill forward quickly on the House floor, and the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and the majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), for their cosponsorship of the bill.

   I urge the House to pass this important legislation and send a clear message to Syria to end its destabilizing policies. I am also grateful that the administration recently lifted its opposition to the bill, and President Bush has indicated that he will sign this bill. Again, in the war against terrorism this is a good place to continue. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the chief majority deputy whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

   Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 1828 and want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. ENGLE) as well as the chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee on International Relations, the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as well as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for pushing this bill forward because it comes at a very important time.

   And it is true that the time has come to hold the Syrian Government accountable for its role in sponsoring the activities of terrorist organizations. Passage of this bill will send a message that the American people are fed up with the broken promises and unmet obligations of Bashar Assad and his government. Syria has a long-standing history of providing safe haven, refuge, and logistical support to a number of terrorist groups including Hezbollah and Hamas. When innocent people are blown up and killed in Jerusalem, they issue the press releases in Damascus. This must come to an end.

   President Bush has been resolute as he leads our country and the world in the fight against the terrorists. Under the Bush doctrine, we cannot and will not allow there to be a gap between the state sponsors of terrorism and the terrorists themselves. Closing this gap in Syria is exactly what this bill does.

   Mr. Speaker, not only must we pass this bill here today, we must also work to persuade some of our European and Arab state allies to take similar action.

   Working to strengthen economic ties with a terrorist regime is unacceptable while American men and women are dying in Iraq fighting these same terrorists.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished democratic whip who has been an indefatigable fighter for freedom and against terrorism throughout the globe.

   Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

   Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. And I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his leadership and sponsorship of this legislation. This bill is part and parcel of our Nation's continuing war on terrorism. And it is a necessary reminder to states that want to belong to the family of civilized nations while simultaneously sponsoring and providing safe harbor to terrorist organizations, you cannot have it both ways.

   Syria has regularly appeared on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism. Let me recall the remarks of our President as he spoke to a joint session of Congress on September 20. He said, ``And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,'' our President said, ``either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.''

   Now, when he said ``us,'' he did not simply mean America; he meant the civilized law-abiding nations of the world and peoples of the world. ``From this day forward,'' he went on, ``any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.'' Strong words but appropriate words.

   Syria provides safe haven and support for terrorist groups operating in Israel and throughout the region, including, as has been mentioned, Hezbollah. I saw that, Mr. Speaker, with my own eyes when I led a congressional delegation to Israel just a few weeks ago. We traveled to the Israel-Syrian border in the Golan Heights where members of Hezbollah openly walk about on the Syrian side, have arms on the Syrian side, have missiles, and launch terrorist attacks from the Lebanese-Syrian side.

   As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, Syria's relationship with Hezbollah is reason enough to end economic relations with Damascus, as the President indicated we would do, but there are others as well. Damascus has failed to fulfill its agreement to withdraw its forces from the security zone in southern Lebanon. In recent years, Syria had become a major supply route for oil flowing out of Iraq and illegal arms shipments into Iraq. And Syria is believed to be pursuing both nuclear weapons and missile development. Syria, in fact, is subject to fewer sanctions, fewer sanctions than any other country designated by our government as a state sponsor of terrorism.

   This bill would require the President to impose economic and diplomatic

[Page: H9425]

penalties on Syria unless immediate and meaningful changes are made in its policies.

   Left unchecked, I strongly believe Syria poses a grave risk to Israel, to the Middle East, and to our interests. It threatens regional stability and is ultimately a major U.S. national security concern. This bill seeks to reign in one of the major impediments to peace in the Middle East. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

   The President was correct, you are either with the civilized law-abiding nations of the world or you are not. And if you are not, our relations with you should not be normal. In fact, they should impose sanctions and penalties for such conduct destabilizing and making less secure the region and the world.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a new member of our Florida delegation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

   Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this important bipartisan legislation, the Syrian Accountability Act. It will authorize new sanctions against Syria until it meets certain conditions.

   Although the Department of State lists Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, fewer sanctions apply to this country than to any other nation on this list. We know that Syria provides a safe haven and support to several terrorist groups including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, to name only a few.

   Secretary Rumsfeld has asserted that bus loads of Syrian fighters entered Iraq with thousands of dollars and leaflets offering rewards for dead American soldiers.

   Syria deserves the same sanctions and loss of diplomatic relations as any other nation that sponsors terrorism overseas or against Americans. It is absolutely critical that this renegade nation be held accountable for its actions once and for all.

   I urge my colleagues to support this bill which the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) proudly sponsors.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time she may consume to the distinguished democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my friend and colleague and neighbor, who has been a fighter against terrorism and for free societies through her entire life.

   Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for yielding and for his great leadership as the chair of the Human Rights Caucus and a fighter against terrorism and a person who understands better than any of us America's leadership role in the world.

   I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor and commend our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her usual extraordinary leadership on this issue. I also want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), working with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for what they have done to make this discussion possible today.

   I am pleased to join nearly 300 of our colleagues in cosponsoring this important measure, which is an effort to encourage Syria to cease its support for terrorism and to end its occupation of Lebanon. Syria's assistance to terrorist organizations is well known, and the State Department continues to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism in violation of resolutions on that issue by the U.N. Security Council.

   The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, which Syria controls, provides a haven and a site of training facilities for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. These activities could not occur without the assent of the Syrian government.

   The people of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle East have been the traditional targets of groups led by, and helped by, Syria. But today's attack on the U.S. convoy in Gaza is a reminder that the United States and our interests in the world are foremost on terrorist target lists. Dealing with the problem of terrorism is our top priority.

   Rhetoric has thus far not been effective in encouraging the Syrian Government to cease its assistance to terrorists and to remove its forces from Lebanon.

   This legislation provides another alternative. The imposition of sanctions that will hopefully convey a stronger message of our seriousness.

[Time: 17:30]

   As proposed in the bill, sanctions are a flexible tool that the President may weigh against other interests of the United States in fashioning a response to whatever the Syrian Government may do with respect to the presence of terrorist organizations within the territory it controls.

   The costs of terrorism are well known in our country and in the countries throughout the world. It behooves us to have a range of options to address the threat terrorism poses. H.R. 1828 adds to our options with respect to terrorism in the Middle East, and I urge its adoption and once again commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) on their leadership on this important matter.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

   Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of holding Syria accountable for aiding and abetting terrorists and for helping those who are killing Americans in Iraq, also to suggest to the Syrians that it is time for them to leave Lebanon.

   Terrorism, we hear that word a lot. What is it? A terrorist is an individual or an organization or a nation that uses violence against noncombatants in order to achieve its goals. Syria needs not face this type of punitive legislation. First of all, let me note that before the Syrian Army went into Lebanon, the Lebanese were engaged in slaughter among themselves and that the Syrian troops played a positive role at that time. That has long since passed. They should be out of there by now.

   But also the fact is that the Syrian Government fully understands that it is offering its country as a base of operations for organizations that target women and children in Israel. They are based there. They announce their attacks and the results of their attacks from there. There is no doubt that terrorists, people who are slaughtering innocent people, are there in their country; yet they refuse to change the policy that permits those terrorists to operate out of that country.

   Now, when you talk to them about it, which I have, they always use what they perceive as the evils of Israel as an excuse. Well, I will tell you this, I am opposed to anyone who targets noncombatants to achieve their military or political ends. It is sinful. And today I wholeheartedly support this because what Syria does by providing safe haven to terrorists is an affront to civilization. Also, they are now engaged in helping those who are pulling the trigger in killing Americans as we do our job in Iraq. And I do not have to condemn all evil in the world in order to wholeheartedly condemn this evil. Today it is even more incumbent upon us to take a strong stand with Syria's wrong doing because every day our soldiers are being killed by people who are sneaking through Syria to get into Iraq. I would plead with Syria, please change your ways. You need not be our enemy. You need not have the policies you do.

   Finally, let me note that while I wholeheartedly support this legislation condemning Syria's wrongdoing, I also condemn when other countries are engaged in wrongdoing in that part of the world. I would suggest that as a body we do not forcefully condemn Israel when it is apparent to us that Israel is engaged in wrongdoing. I believe that undermines our credibility with these Arab countries and these Arabs when we plead with them on issues like this. If we could be more balanced, I think we could be a greater force for the good and moral standards that we talk about today.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), who has been fighting for peace in this region for his entire congressional career.

   (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

[Page: H9426]

   Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, encourage the administration to use all of the tools at its disposal to enforce that accountability.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, today's debate over the Syria Accountability Act, is in my view, Congress's long overdue response to the Bush Administration's failure to match its tough talk with demonstrations of our resolve.

   This spring, the Administration took sudden notice of the numerous and longstanding Syrian policies that are hostile to our national interests. The President dispatched the Secretary of State to loudly threaten serious consequences; there were the predictable rounds of feckless diplomacy; and then the Administration's attention wandered off. Syria's policies, of course, didn't change one bit.

   We know that during combat operations in Iraq, there was credible evidence of arms and people moving from Syria into Iraq. And we know that Syria is directly responsible for providing safe passage and transit documentation to many of the terrorists now working to undermine our relief and reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The Bush administration's response? Zero.

   We know that Syria's highly touted cooperation in battling Al-Qaeda has dried up. According to the State Department counterterrorism coordinator, Damascus has ``allowed Al-Qaeda personnel to come in and virtually settle in Syria with their knowledge and their support.'' The Bush Administration's response? Zero.

   We have known for years that Damascus has actively opposed U.S. efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through its patronage of Hezbollah.

   Today, Hezbollah, is aggressively working to facilitate ever greater levels of Palestinian terrorism against Israel. And since Hezbollah can't get Iranian weapons through Iraqi airspace, Damascus is reported to be supplying Hezbollah with weapons from Syria's own depots. The Bush Administration's response? Zero.

   On July 22, President Bush said ``Syria ..... continue[s] to harbor and assist terrorists. This behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable.''

    It's now mid-October. Secretary Powell went to Damascus in early May. Where's the accountability?

    Moreover, when asked only weeks ago to testify about Syria's weapons of mass destruction, the Administration provided an elaborate listing of the numerous authorities they have under U.S. law, the powers provided by executive orders, and the manifold capabilities of the executive branch, all to counter Syria's proliferation efforts. But next to nothing was offered on how these tools are being used.

    By now, two things should be indisputably clear: terrorism is the Assad regime's preferred strategic option in dealing with America, and bluster is the favored method of the Bush Administration in dealing with Syria.

    Mr. Speaker, Congress can only provide the tools, and with this bill, we will be adding to the already considerable stockpile of authority the President has chosen not to use. What's lacking in our Syria policy is not legal authority. What's lacking is consistency, focus, and resolve.

    I hope passage of this bill will prompt the Bush Administration to conduct the kind of serious policy review that has been unfortunately absent so far, that has allowed our policy to drift so badly, and that has brought this legislation to the floor of the House.

    I strongly encourage Members to support the bill.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), who has been unique in his support for constructive development in the region and who has been fighting tenuously against terrorism throughout the region and the world.

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Lantos) for his kind comments. Obviously, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his sponsorship of this and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her wonderful sponsorship and lead on this in terms of the subcommittee Chair.

   This act is one that has been overdue. I am very, very pleased that the President has not opposed this and has given us the liberty now to bring this before the floor.

   This is a piece of legislation that should have been passed 25 years ago when we had the original State Department list on state-sponsored terrorism. Syria has been on this list now for 25 years. For 25 years they have been on this list as a state-sponsored terrorist country. They have had Hezbollah. They have had Hamas. They have had a number of terrorist groups that have had offices in Syria. They have had training bases in Syria, and they also have weapons of mass destruction that could get in the hands of these terrorists.

   In addition, even recently Syria has allowed visas to be given to terrorist individuals who have gone into Iraq for the sole purpose of doing damage to the infrastructure in putting the lives of American men and women in jeopardy. This act would merely give the President the authority to take two actions out of a menu of about 15. They would be simple things like preventing many of the diplomats from going 25 miles outside of the U.N.

   Let me conclude, if I may. It would perhaps impose trade sanctions on the Syrian Government. It is very, very simple kinds of sanctions for the kinds of terrorist activities the Syrian Government has been responsible for. I urge the adoption of this legislation.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

   Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1828, the Syrian Accountability Act. It is time for Syria, quite frankly, to make a choice. In Lebanon its troops have been there far too long. The sponsorship of terrorist activity against the State of Israel is no longer, and never was, acceptable. Finally, the porous borders between Iraq and Syria which terrorists move across is a constant threat to American troops.

   As our President has said, There is no middle ground in the war on terrorism. It is simply not acceptable to cooperate in some areas as Syria occasionally has, and yet to cooperate with terrorists on the other hand as it constantly has done.

   I am extraordinarily proud of the United States Congress for making this strong statement in a bipartisan fashion, and I hope the message will be understood and acted upon in Damascus.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

   Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill. We have to show Syria that there are consequences for supporting terrorism and undermining peace in the region. It is amazing to me that Syria offered support to Iraq even as U.S. and Coalition forces were engaged in combat and subsequently has turned a blind eye to militants who slip across their borders into Iraq to kill American soldiers.

   Syria has been on this terrorist list for such a long time, and yet we allow it to continue. We have imposed fewer sanctions than any other country that is a state-sponsor of terrorism. I suppose we sort of bought into this idea that somehow they were helping us over the years. But in the aftermath of the Iraq war, it has been quite clear that they have not been helping us, and whatever effort was out there supposedly to give that impression is simply not real.

   The fact that they continue to be present in Lebanon, to harbor various terrorist organizations, the time has come to pass this bill. It is certainly long overdue, as so many of my colleagues have said on a bipartisan basis. Let us get it passed today.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a member of the Committee on International Relations.

   Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I would congratulate the gentlewoman and my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), for their leadership here, and the ranking member of my committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his continued leadership on this issue.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill, the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. This legislation passed the House Committee on International Regulations by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), as well, for bringing this bill to the floor. I thank the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor and before the committee and ensuring that we have the opportunity to let Syria know that the United States will not allow a free pass any longer.

   Syria has been listed as a state-sponsor of terrorism since 1979. This is unacceptable for any country that wishes to be a responsible member of the

[Page: H9427]

international community, especially a country currently serving as a member of the United Nations Security Council. Unacceptable.

   Syria's role on the council make a mockery of the mission of the United Nations. Syria used its role recently on the Security Council to present the draft resolution condemning Israel's right to self-defense by destroying a terrorist training camp within Syria. Instead of drafting a resolution condemning Israel's justified attack, Syria should ensure that Israel will never need to attack a terrorist camp within Syria's borders again.

   Syria must cease all support for terrorist groups and close down all terrorist training camps within her borders.

   If their support for terrorism were not enough, Syria also has an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and the missile capability to deliver those weapons to her neighbors. I hope our actions here today will show President Asad that our resolve is strong.

   Mr. Speaker, President Asad must change his country's ways and begin to contribute to international peace and security rather than undermining it. It is time for Syria to take her place amongst the righteous nations of the world, as well as give Lebanon the chance to take her place as a righteous nation in the world. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

   Once again, I would like to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time; the sponsor of this legislation, my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel). I thank him for his work on this. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for all he has done on committee by seeing that this bill gets to the floor today.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

   Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the Syria Accountability Act today, but I will do so with some serious reservations. Permit me to take a moment to explain.

   I will vote for the bill because I deplore the terrorist attacks inflicted on Israel and understand that a strong signal must be sent to the Syrian Government that it must aggressively confront and fight terror and terrorist organizations. It must close terrorist offices, expel terrorist leaders, close terrorist supply lines, and get out of Lebanon.

   This resolution, however, has no monopoly on that message. I and many others who have been able to visit with President Asad in Damascus in recent years, and he has received us often, have delivered that message unequivocally but with only limited success.

   Our Secretary of State has also been unwavering on the unacceptability of Syria's sheltering of terrorists. That message, however, has not been and should not be the sum total of our diplomacy. What this bill fails to grasp is the utility of engagement and the necessity of flexibility in our foreign policy.

   Our experience suggests that Syria can sometimes be moved through engagement. In recent months, the fruits of engagement have included cooperation in the pursuit of al Qaeda, and a reduction in incidents along the northern Israeli border. Nor should we forget that at two points in the last decade, once in secret negotiations under the Netanyahu government, and then in the U.S.-Israel-Syria tripartite talks at Shepherdstown in early 2000, engagement brought an Israeli-Syrian settlement very, very close to realization.

   Events in the Middle East move quickly. Diplomacy requires flexibility, but the directives in this bill at the high waiver standard move in the opposite direction. A law is a clumsy instrument with which to engage in the art of diplomacy. This bill is overly prescriptive, and it could make the complex work of our diplomats far more difficult.

[Time: 17:45]

   A more sophisticated policy of incentives, as well as sanctions, carrots as well as sticks, is called for as our Nation attempts to engage in a worldwide war against terrorism.

   We must solidify a network of nations to confront terrorism, not stake ourselves out as an isolated combatant. That struggle could be far more successful with Syria as a full-fledged partner. But if that is to happen, our diplomacy will have to be far more skilled and flexible than the formula prescribed by the Syria Accountability Act.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs.

   (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I rise in support of this Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his long-standing leadership on this issue. He has been insisting that we hold Syria's feet to the fire for a very long time.

   I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), my good friend and colleague, for her leadership on this issue and, of course, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking member of the committee, for his leadership and strong voice.

   It is time that Congress send a strong and clear message to Syria. We will no longer tolerate their support of terrorism. We will not allow them to further destabilize the Middle East, a region so crucial to the national security of the United States, and we will not risk undermining our efforts to secure peace and stability in Iraq and the region.

   Syria had its chance and had the opportunity to reform its political environment and become a positive force in the region. Instead, it has remained as it was, a closed society and haven for terrorists. Many terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas, have offices and training camps in Syria or Syrian-occupied Lebanon. These groups remain heavily active, even after Secretary of State Powell met with President Assad earlier this year and urged him to shut them down.

   These groups thwart efforts for peace in Israel by destabilizing the Israel-Lebanese border. They are the groups that might very well be sending terrorists over the Iraqi border to commit terrorist acts against our soldiers and the Iraqis brave enough to work with us to create a stable democratic country. Indeed, at a recent hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, the State Department confirmed that Syria is allowing ``volunteers'' and others to enter Iraq to attack and kill Americans.

   Congress must send the message, it is time to end the terror, and H.R. 1828 is heavily supported on both sides of the aisle. It imposes a variety of penalties upon Syria until it ends its support of terrorism, withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, halts development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and stops facilitating terrorism in Iraq.

• [Begin Insert]

   It is necessary, appropriate, and in my judgment, long overdue.

   I strongly support H.R. 1828.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of our committee, my good friend.

   Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act because Syria is an epicenter of terror, and despite repeated warnings, Syria continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, occupy Lebanon, harbor Palestinian terrorists and support Hezbollah.

   The very notion that fewer sanctions apply to Syria than any other country on the State Department's terrorist list is unconscionable. This is why I support sending an unequivocal message to Syria that its hostile action will be met with serious consequences.

   For too long, America has kowtowed to Syria as it played a duplicitous game of providing Washington with limited intelligence while continuing to support terror. I hope that President Assad understands that no one in Washington is fooled anymore. The time for soft pedaling with Damascus has come to an end.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my distinguished colleague.

[Page: H9428]

   (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support the Syria Accountability Act. This legislation is long overdue.

   Syria has funded and encouraged organized terrorism in the Middle East and around the world. Syria controls the Lebanon-Israeli border from the Lebanese side where kytusha rocket attacks are regularly launched against innocent Israeli citizens. Syria openly houses Hamas and Hezbollah training grounds, and its government and citizens knowingly fund their criminal activity.

   Just today, terrorists operating in the West Bank murdered four U.S. citizens. Were they trained and funded by Syria? We should not have to wonder. If Syria provides aid and comfort to the terrorist enemy, it should not receive aid and comfort from the United States.

   This legislation is modest in comparison to the recent actions the United States took against Iraq, and it is clear that Syria provides a lot more aid to terrorist organizations than Iraq ever did. This bill provides for economic sanctions against Syria for restrictions on diplomatic activity in the United States and, most importantly, calls for the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

   I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) for his strong leadership in championing this legislation. I give it my full support, and I look forward to the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch), my good friend and distinguished colleague.

   Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member's time, and also I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the chairperson of the subcommittee, my friend and colleague from Florida, who really, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) as well, brought this to our attention, and, through fighting for several years, brought it to the floor of the House.

   This bill I believe will pass today, but it is somewhat melancholy because at the same time, right after this debate is over, we are going to take up the supplemental bill which includes $20 billion of direct aid to Iraq, and when we talk about terrorism, all of these issues around the world are really intertwined. We know that Iraq sent several billion dollars, Saddam Hussein sent several billion dollars to Saudi Arabia that, at this moment in time, the United States Government still does not know where that money is, and in fact, there are many indications that money is directly supporting terrorism even while we speak and even while we stand here today.

   Those issues tying into getting to the root of terrorism cannot stop anyone. They cannot stop at Syria. They cannot stop at Saudi Arabia. This legislation will go a long way in protecting the lives of Americans, but yet we need to go further.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Speaker how much time is remaining and if the gentleman from California has any other remaining speakers.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) has 4 minutes remaining.

   Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional requests for time, and we yield back the balance of our time.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   It has been a delight for me to have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the author of this legislation, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), and so many others in our Committee on International Relations, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for his strong leadership as always.

   As has been pointed out, Mr. Speaker, this bill, as reported, clearly outlines congressional views of steps that the Syrian regime must undertake: ending support for terrorism; stopping support and the facilitation of terrorist attacks on our coalition forces in Iraq; halt its weapons of mass destruction efforts; withdraw from Lebanon, all of these.

   It establishes a U.S. policy that Syria will be held accountable for these activities. It prohibits the exports of military and dual-use items, and then provides the President with a choice of six sanctions, from which the President is to impose at least two. And these sanctions, for example, are to prohibit the export of products from the United States other than food and medicine; to prohibit United States businesses from investing or operating in Syria; to restrict the travel of Syrian diplomats in Washington and in the U.N. in New York City; to prohibit aircraft of any air carrier owned or controlled by Syria to take off from, land in or overfly the United States; to reduce United States diplomatic contacts with Syria other than those required under this Act, and this could mean suspension of diplomatic relations altogether or a reduction of diplomatic representation or other actions. It also would block transaction in any property in which the government of Syria has any interest, by any person or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of here in the United States.

   As we can see, there is strong support for this bill. We have almost 300 cosponsors. One of my colleagues raised concerns about the flexibility issue, and I would like to underscore that we provide the President with ample discretion in choosing which sanctions to impose.

   Secondly, for anyone who believes that the Syrian regime has assisted the U.S. in any way to eradicate terrorism, I would like to note that the statements made on Thursday of last week by the State Department spokesman and he said, ``Frankly, the Syrians have done so little with regard to terrorism that we do not have much to work with.'' He added, ``There's not too much grounds for argument that Syria's done anything that would mean that this bill was a bad idea.'' This is coming from the ultimate diplomatic agency.

   Mr. Speaker, this is the end of the line for the Syrian regime. Enough is enough. They have made a mockery of requests by our Secretary of State and by our congressional colleagues. The blood of Americans is on their hands, and for this, they must be called to task. They must be punished, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1828.

• [Begin Insert]

    Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. I am proud to cosponsor this important legislation for the 2nd straight Congress, and I look forward to supporting it today on the floor of the House.

    I want to begin, Mr. Speaker, by noting that I do not normally support sanctions legislation. In fact, I believe that all too often, Congress and U.S. administrations place unrealistic expectations on the ability of sanctions to destabilize reckless regimes. We naively believe that placing economic sanctions on countries that, more times than not, are not dependent upon U.S. dollars and tourists, will somehow result in countries complying with our demands.

    The truth of the matter is, sanctions rarely accomplish what we intend for them to accomplish. We need not look any further than Iraq to see the effect that long-term economic sanctions have on a regime. But what they do accomplish, in this instance, is a shift in U.S. foreign policy toward Syria, a nation that has long supported the efforts of terrorist organizations to attack Israel and the Western world. It is for this reason that I come to the floor today in support of this legislation.

    I have long said that one of the true threats to peace and security in the Middle East is not Baghdad, but instead Damascus. While the Bush administration has focused its efforts on disarming Iraq, Syria has continued to fund and harbor terrorist cells living and training within its borders. Until today, the United States government has remained largely silent.

    Realize, we should not expect Syria to change its ways simply because we apply new economic sanctions. But in passing this legislation today, we are sending a clear and strong message to the Syrian government that the United States will no longer stand idly by while countries masking as our allies work against us.

    I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

   Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Syria Accountability Act. Syria has been on the State Department's list

[Page: H9429]

of countries sponsoring terrorism since the list began in 1979, and recent intelligence reports have only confirmed what we have long thought to be true--that Syria remains an incubator of terrorism and instability in the Middle East and throughout the world.

   Syria has refused to shut down the offices of the Islamic Jihad, has permitted weapons to flow freely to Hezbollah, and has allowed Hezbollah to expand terrorist training operations. These terrorists have attacked innocent men, women and children in Israel, and Syria's unwillingness to put a halt to this lawlessness threatens not only Israel but also stability and peace in the region.

   In addition to the devastating effect of the Syrian government's willingness to crack down on known terrorist groups within its borders, Syria has allowed fighters seeking to harm American troops to cross its borders. As we ask more and more American service members to put themselves in harm's way in defense of our Nation, it is critical that we also take steps to protect them from known threats.

   We must act now by sending a clear message to Syria that they must take a strong stand against terrorism, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Syria Accountability Act.

   Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the Syria Accountability Act comes to the House floor at a time when the situation in the Middle East is more volatile than ever: the United States' effort to gain control of the situation in Iraq; the breakdown of the Israeli and Palestinian peace negotiations; and the new tensions between Syria, Lebanon and Israel are all major concerns of U.S. Middle East policy.

   The proposed legislation, H.R. 1828, could harm the United States' ability to influence various actors in the region and could seriously impair U.S. diplomatic efforts at a very critical time in the Middle East.

   At this critical juncture in America's War on Terrorism we should work with Nations like Syria who are aiding our pursuit of the terrorists who attacked America on 9-11.

   Since September 11th, 2001, Syria has quietly helped the United States by detaining suspected members of Osama bin Laden's organization. Our government should continue its diplomatic relations with Syria in order to capture these terrorists.

   Syria supported the United States by voting in support of U.N. Resolution 1441 asking Iraq to comply with the United Nations and to allow inspectors back into the country.

   During America's Operation Iraqi Freedom, Syria assisted the U.S. by supplying power to northern Iraq, thus calming the population, and undoubtedly saving American troops' lives.

   In a most recent act of cooperation with the United States and at our request, Damascus has opened its financial and banking institutions allowing us to trace the accounts of the former Saddam Hussein regime.

   Syria is currently designated by the U.S. State Department as a state-sponsor of terrorism and, therefore, is already ineligible for U.S. assistance and faces numerous, strict sanctions. This legislation would further restrict the already limited leverage we have with Syria.

   Instead of singling out Syria for developing weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, Congress should instead support United Nations resolutions (687, par. 14) pursuing the goal of declaring the whole Middle East a region free from all such weapons and delivery systems. This bill lacks credibility by ignoring Israel's own advanced pursuit of such weapons including nuclear arms.

   Imposing unilateral sanctions on Syria would hurt American businesses. At a time when our country is facing increasing unemployment rates, Congress and the Administration should take action to foster economic growth and trade, including with countries in the Middle East, to foster an increase in American jobs.

   European and Russian companies have already made contact with Syrian businesses hoping to move in as American companies are forced to leave after adoption of SAA.

   This legislation attempts to adopt a simplistic approach to Lebanese-Syrian relations. Both Syria and Lebanon are sovereign countries capable of resolving their own differences without U.S. congressional meddling.

   Now is not the time to limit American options as we seek to pursue a long-term comprehensive political solution to conflict in the Middle East. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to stand in opposition to H.R. 1828 as we must remain focused on the difficult issues of the Middle East already at hand.

   Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong opposition to this ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. This bill will impose what is effectively a trade embargo against Syria and will force the severance of diplomatic and business ties between the United States and Syria. It will also significantly impede travel between the United States and Syria. Worse yet, the bill also provides essentially an open-ended authorization for the president to send U.S. taxpayer money to Syria should that country do what we are demanding in this bill.

   This bill cites Syria's alleged support for Hamas, Hizballah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups as evidence that Syria is posing a threat to the United States. But none of these organizations targets the United States. Not since the Hizballah bombing of a U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 has any of these organizations attacked the United States. After that attack on our Marines, who were sent to Beirut to intervene in a conflict that had nothing to do with the United States, President Ronald Reagan wisely ordered their withdrawal from that volatile area. Despite what the interventionists constantly warn, the world did not come to an end back in 1983 when the president decided to withdraw from Beirut and leave the problems there to be worked out by those countries most closely involved.

   What troubles me greatly about this bill is that although the named, admittedly bad, terrorist organizations do not target the United States at present, we are basically declaring our intention to pick a fight with them. We are declaring that we will take preemptive actions against organizations that apparently have no quarrel with us. Is this wise, particularly considering their capacity to carry out violent acts against those with whom they are in conflict? Is this not inviting trouble by stirring up a hornet's nest? Is there anything to be gained in this?

   This bill imposes an embargo on Syria for, among other reasons, the Syrian government's inability to halt fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq. While I agree that any foreign fighters coming into Iraq to attack American troops is totally unacceptable, I wonder just how much control Syria has over its borders--particularly over the chaotic border with Iraq. If Syria has no control over its borders, is it valid to impose sanctions on the country for its inability to halt clandestine border crossings? I find it a bit ironic to be imposing a trade embargo on Syria for failing to control its borders when we do not have control of our own borders. Scores cross illegally into the United States each year--potentially including those who cross over with the intent to do us harm--yet very little is done to secure our own borders. Perhaps this is because our resources are too engaged guarding the borders of countless countries overseas. But there is no consistency in our

   policy. Look at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan: while we continue to maintain friendly relations and deliver generous foreign aid to Pakistan, it is clear that Pakistan does not control its border with Afghanistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. No one proposes an embargo on Pakistan. In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden himself has crossed over the Afghan border into Pakistan. On the contrary: the supplemental budget request we are taking up this week includes another $200 million in loan guarantees to Pakistan.

   I am also concerned about the timing of this bill. As we continue to pursue Al-Qaeda--most of which escaped and continue to operate--it seems to me we need all the help we can get in tracking these criminals down and holding them to account for the attack on the United States. As the AP reported recently:

   So, too, are Syria's claims, supported by U.S. intelligence, that Damascus has provided the United States with valuable assistance in countering terror.

   The Syrians have in custody Mohammed Haydar Zammer, believed to have recruited some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, and several high-level Iraqis who were connected to the Saddam Hussein government have turned up in U.S. custody.

   Numerous other press reports detail important assistance Syria has given the U.S. after 9/11. If Syria is providing assistance to the U.S. in tracking these people down--any assistance--passing this bill can only be considered an extremely positive and welcome development. Does anyone here care to guess how much assistance Syria will be providing us once this bill is passed? Can we afford to turn our back on Syria's assistance, even if it is not as complete as it could be?

   That is the problem with this approach. Imposing sanctions and cutting off relations with a country is ineffective and counterproductive. It is only one-half step short of war and very often leads to war. This bill may well even completely eliminate any trade between the two countries. It will almost completely shut the door on diplomatic relations. It sends a strong message to Syria and the Syrian people: that we no longer wish to engage you. This cannot be in our best interest.

   This bill may even go further than that. In a disturbing bit of déja 2 vu, the bill makes references to ``Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)'' and threatens to ``impede'' Syrian weapons ambitions. This was the justification for our intervention in Iraq, yet after more than a thousand inspectors have spent months and some 300 million dollars none have been found. Will this bill's unproven claims that Syria has WMD be later used to demand military action against that country?

   Mr. Speaker: history is replete with examples of the futility of sanctions and embargoes

[Page: H9430]

and travel bans. More than 40 years of embargo against Cuba have not produced the desired change there. Sadly, embargoes and sanctions most often hurt those least responsible. A trade embargo against Syria will hurt American businesses and will cost American jobs. It will make life more difficult for the average Syrian--with whom we have no quarrel. Making life painful for the population is not the best way to win over hearts and minds. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this counterproductive bill.

   Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.

   Mr. Speaker, the United States and our allies around the world have stood steadfast in holding accountable terrorist states, those who harbor or otherwise provide sanctuary for terrorist, or those who threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction. That's what the legislation before us today is all about.

   The Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 does not advocate the use of force against Syria. Instead, it gives the President and the Secretary of State expanded authority to impose U.S. diplomatic and economic sanctions against Syria unless serious action is taken by Syria to rid itself of the cancer of terror and the policies by which terror manifests itself throughout the region and the world.

   It's no secret that Syria hosts terrorist organizations including Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, all of which maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities within Syrian borders and within areas of Lebanon currently occupied by Syria. This is a threat that simply cannot continue to be ignored.

   This Act holds Syria accountable for its part in facilitating terrorism and in so doing, threatening the world. It requires Syria to withdraw from the nation of Lebanon, and to finally cease Syria's ongoing pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. It calls for sanctions against Syria including a prohibition on the export of defense and dual-use items. In addition, it also requires the President to impose two or more sanctions which may be waived in the interest of national security. These are: prohibiting the export of products of the U.S. other than food and medicine to Syria; prohibiting U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria; restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats to within a 25-mile radius of Washington, DC or the United Nations; reducing levels of U.S. diplomatic contracts with Syria; and blocking transactions in any property in which the Government of Syria has any interest.

   Mr. Speaker, let us act today and hold accountable terrorist states by eliminating policies which advance terrorism. Let us pass the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.

   Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, and am even prouder still to see it on the floor of the House of Representatives today.

   This important piece of legislation gives the president the diplomatic tools necessary to hold Syria accountable for its support of terrorism, its weapons of mass destruction program and its occupation of Lebanon. Syria should not be allowed to support terrorist activity from groups, such as Hezbollah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, with continued impunity.

   Passage of this bill will require that sanctions be imposed on Syria unless the president can certify that it has taken steps to end its support of terrorism, discontinue its weapons of mass destruction program, and end its occupation of Lebanon. Sanctions could include banning most U.S. exports to, and investment in, Syria; restricting the movement of Syrian diplomats here in the United States; barring Syrian aircraft from our airspace; and freezing Syrian assets in our country.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this important legislation, which will put appropriate pressure on a regime that continues to support groups that perpetrate heinous acts of terror against the people of democratic Israel and that further destabilizes an already volatile region.

   Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1828, a resolution that calls for an end to Syria's support for terrorism and an end to its occupation of Lebanon.

   In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush stated that the gravest danger facing the United States in the war on terrorism is the acquisition by other countries of weapons of mass destruction, and that we must confront this danger. A senior Administration official recently testified before the Committee on International Relations that Syria remains a security concern as a supporter of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction proliferation.

   I commend the Administration's efforts to reach a diplomatic solution with Syria. President Bush has consistently called on Syria to close its terrorist camps and to expel terrorist organizations. Secretary Powell has worked diligently with the Syrian government towards ending its occupation of Lebanon. Since 1990, the U.S. Congress has passed seven resolutions calling on the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon. Many members of Congress--including myself--have been to Syria and urged the Syrian government to work with the United States in the war against terrorism. And despite our diplomatic efforts, Syria has not fulfilled its pledge to work with us.

   Mr. Speaker, we know that Syria continues to offer protection to terrorist groups such as Hizballah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Recently, Syria conducted efforts to acquire technology that could be applied to a nuclear weapons program. Syria has also undermined coalition efforts to bring stability to Iraq by allowing volunteers to cross the border and fight our service members. And as we all know, Syria has ignored numerous United Nations resolutions calling on Syria to end its occupation of Lebanon, a sovereign nation.

   H.R. 1828 would hold Syria accountable for the serious international security problems it has caused in the Middle East. This resolution would instruct the President to impose economic sanctions on Syria until the Department of State determines that Syria ceases to provide support to international terrorist groups, ceases the development and deployment of weapons, and withdraws all military forces from Lebanon.

   Mr. Speaker, despite our many attempts to reach a diplomatic solution, Syria continues to obstruct our efforts in the war against terrorism. I support H.R. 1828 and encourage my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of this important resolution.

   Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, Syria has been an exceedingly irresponsible partner in the troubled Middle East . By our actions over the last two years, the United States has already sent a strong message to Syria and has gotten some cooperation in anti-terrorist efforts.

   The current downward spiral of violence is not working for the Palestinians and is not making Israel more secure. We should use our resources to get the parties to resume steps to reduce pressures, tensions and bloodshed.

   Since I agree with the indictments of Syrian behavior contained in H.R. 1828 I would not be comfortable voting ``no.'' Yet, I agree with most independent commentators that passage at this time would not be helpful for our efforts to advance the peace. I choose to vote ``present.''

   Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to enter into the RECORD an opinion piece that I wrote about the future of our relationship with Syria. This piece was published in the San Francisco Chronicle on October 14, 2003.

   I also want to join my colleagues today in expressing deep concern about the choices that Syria has made over the past year. This is a sad day for American diplomacy. The passage of this bill, after more than two years of debate, marks the refusal of Syria to accept our diplomatic overtures. Syria has had numerous opportunities to demonstrate that it intends to move away from the policies that keep it on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror. It has consistently missed those opportunities, and now faces the specter of isolation.

   Syria had the chance to play a key role in securing the release of Elhanan Tenebaum, Adi Avitan, Benny Avraham, and Omar Sawayid--Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah. They refused, perpetuating a hostage situation that makes peace negotiations more difficult.

   Syria had the chance to grant the United States use of its airspace for Operation Iraqi Freedom. They refused, thereby dramatically increasing the risk of mission failure for American pilots.

   Syria had the chance to build good will toward the United States by staying out of the war in Iraq. They refused, allowing jihadis and military equipment to flow across their borders to kill American soldiers.

   Syria had the chance to demonstrate its commitment to the peace process by supporting President Bush's Roadmap to Peace initiative. Secretary Powell specifically asked Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to close offices of Palestinian terrorist groups and to expel terrorist leaders operating out of Damascus. He refused, choosing instead to continue Syrian financial and logistical support for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

   Following the war in Iraq, Syria had the chance to build good will in the United Nations. They were repeatedly asked to support a constructive UN presence in Iraq. Instead, they opted to pursue a diplomatic agenda that drove divisions between the United States and other members of the UN Security Council.

   Syria has had the chance to withdraw its troops and end its dominance of Lebanon. They refused, choosing to maintain their intimidating military and intelligence presence in Lebanon.

[Page: H9431]

   And finally, Syria has had the chance to rein in Hezbollah. I have personally asked senior Syrian government officials to disarm Hezbollah, arguing that Syria's interests are best served through peace negotiations. These requests have been consistently rejected. Syria continues to provide strategic, financial, and logistical support to Hezbollah in a misguided effort to keep the Lebanese conflict with Israel burning.

   These issues are not imagined and they are not part of some secret Israeli agenda, as the Syrians believe. They are real problems that have driven a wedge between our two nations. I don't know if this bill will succeed in changing Syria's behavior--sanctions are rarely an effective long-term solution. But we cannot ignore the fact that Syria and the United States are moving in two very different directions. Diplomacy with Syria has failed. Syria has been given a choice and it has chosen poorly.

• [End Insert]

[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 14, 2003]

   Opinion/Editorial

(By Darrell Issa)

   During a recent visit to Damascus, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told me ``we want to be part of this world--we do not want to be isolated like North Korea.'' This statement demonstrated that the young Syrian president understands that Syria is heading down a path toward complete isolation.

   Unfortunately, President Assad also appears to believe that he can postpone isolation indefinitely by straddling two very different paths. One is the path of cooperation. The Bush administration has noted that, following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Syria provided us with valuable intelligence on al Qaeda that ultimately saved American lives. President Assad opened up his office to visiting American officials--something his father, the late Hafez Assad--was reluctant to do. He has talked about Syria becoming a member of the World Trade Organization and expressed interest in visiting the United States.

   But Bashar Assad has also perpetuated Syrian policies that keep it on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. He has failed to fully shut down Palestinian terrorist offices that operate out of Damascus. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, he failed to stop the flow of jihadis and military equipment across the border that killed American soldiers.

   The most troubling concern for America, however, is Syria's intention to support Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed terrorist organization that continues to fight a proxy war with Israel and provide assistance to other terrorist groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

   Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has referred to Hezbollah as the ``A-team of terrorism.'' Hezbollah operatives are responsible for the murder of more than 250 American peacekeepers and diplomats in Beirut in the 1980s. They are suspected in carrying out two bombings in Argentina that killed over 100 civilians. Imad Mughniah, the suspected mastermind of numerous terrorist attacks against Americans, is a senior adviser in Hezbollah's organizational structure. There is evidence that Hezbollah operatives have infiltrated Iraq to join attacks against American soldiers. As senior Bush administration officials have stated repeatedly, Bashar Assad has a choice to make: Either cooperate and be rewarded or continue to support terrorism and risk total isolation.

   Assad's strategy of trying to keep one foot on each path will not work much longer. He may be faced with isolation sooner than he thinks. The Syria Accountability Act, which could mandate isolation at the levels of Libya or Iran, is now poised to move quickly through Congress. Until recently, the Bush administration opposed the act, arguing that it is the president's constitutional responsibility to determine the nature of diplomatic relations with foreign countries. But as Syria consistently showed no sign of changing its dangerous policies, the White House changed its mind and has now given the act the green light.

   The result for Syria will be devastating. Libya has learned the costs of total isolation as a result of supporting global terrorism. Only after a decade of international rejection has Libya begun to dig its way out of isolation. Bashar Assad has but a few days left to change direction: to put both feet on the path of cooperation and lead Syria into the community of nations.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1828 as a part of my hope and commitment to finding a just, permanent, democratic, prompt, non-military conclusion to our occupation of Iraq and as part of my hope and commitment to doggedly pursue a roadmap to peace, security and justice for both the people of Israel and the people of Palestine.

   There is no magic bullet, no simple solution to bringing an end to terrorism. What we do know is we cannot win alone, that we must find the means to enlist every nation as an ally. Our record, to date, in this regard can only be characterized as poor.

   The President has reported that the territory of Syria has been, and is being, used as a base by certain terrorist organizations.

   This bill gives the President additional diplomatic and economic leverage in the war on terror. Our goal is to deny sanctuary to terrorist who may be using the territory of Syria.

   Our aim is to become partners with Syria in the war on terror, not to make Syria an enemy, not to punish the Syrian people.

   We trust that these new options will offer constructive new possibilities and potential to American diplomacy and that these new powers will be used wisely and constructively.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1828, as amended.

   The question was taken.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

   The yeas and nays were ordered.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

********************

      H R 1828     2/3 YEA-AND-NAY     15-OCT-2003   7:26 PM
      QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended
      BILL TITLE:  Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003

 

3C) Compensation for Victims of Terrorist-Related Anthrax Infection

   By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. CORZINE, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. SARBANES, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. DODD):

   S. 1740. A bill to amend the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (Public Law 107-42; 49 U.S.C. 40101 note) to provide compensation for the United States Citizens who were victims of a terrorist-related laboratory-confirmed anthrax infection in the United States during the period beginning on September 13, 2001, through November 30, 2001, on the same basis as compensation is provided to victims of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes on September 11, 2001; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

   Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, the senior Senator from South Dakota and Democratic leader. I thank him for his concern and his work on this issue.

   Two years have passed since several anthrax letters were sent to a few journalists and, obviously, to public officials, killing inadvertent victims. These are victims whose only sin, apparently, was doing their jobs, and these attacks have left several other people sick and out of work.

   The Senate and all who work here--the Senate family--are still adjusting to the aftermath of these attacks 2 years later. We see it in new layers of security. We see it in new mail-handling procedures in which mail to Capitol Hill now is screened and irradiated before it is delivered.

   The U.S. Postal Service has had to develop and implement new safety measures to protect its customers and its workers. Meanwhile, nearly two dozen of our fellow Americans who merely came into contact with these anthrax-laden letters have become the forgotten victims of terror. Some have suffered poor health, and some have not been able to return to work.

   I am pleased to join with Senator Daschle and my other good friends, Senators LAUTENBERG, NELSON of Florida, FEINGOLD, CORZINE, MIKULSKI, SARBANES, and CLINTON, to introduce the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness Act of 2003. This will allow these forgotten victims of terror and their families to seek help through the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

   They need this help to pay for medical expenses and to provide for themselves and their families if they have been unable to return to work. They are our fellow citizens, and they were unwittingly on the front lines when our new, shadowy struggle against terrorism began.

   In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we learned that the United States was not impervious to acts of terrorism of the kinds that have rained death and destruction on other societies far away. The attacks shocked the world and left the American people with the terrible knowledge that we could once again become victims, targets of terrorists at any time.

   Only a few days after September 11, our worst fears were confirmed. Between September 22 and November 14, nearly two dozen Americans from five States and the District of Columbia became casualties of a sinister bioterrorism attack. Twenty-two Americans ranging in age from 7 months to 94 years were stricken in these attacks of anthrax. It is a rare disease that had only afflicted a handful of Americans in the last century. We would ultimately learn that 11 people had been infected with cutaneous or skin anthrax, and 11 contracted the more serious form of the disease called inhalation or pulmonary anthrax. Five of our fellow Americans died from these attacks.

   The victims of the anthrax attacks vary in gender, race, religion, age, economic status, and locale. But they all have one thing in common: Everyone suffered. The targets were members of the news media, and two Members of the Senate, myself and Senator Daschle, but the victims--not the targets, but the victims--who suffered the most were employees of the U.S. Postal Service, the Department of State, news organizations, the Senate, and the aides, the children, and the senior citizens whose mail came in contact with the anthrax-laden letters.

   In the fall of 2001, I worked with Speaker Hastert, Senator Daschle, Senator Lott, Congressman Gephardt, Senators HATCH, KOHL, DEWINE, SCHUMER, and CLINTON to establish the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund of 2001. This fund ensured that victims of the September 11 attacks would be eligible for compensation for the horrific losses they suffered. After extensive negotiations with the Bush administration, we established the September 11 fund to provide victims an alternative to what would have been a lengthy battle in court.

   Under the stewardship of Ken Feinberg, the Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, and with the supervision of the Department of Justice, more than 1,000 of the 3,016 families of those who died in the September 11 attacks and more than 1,000 of the unknown number who were injured have filed claims.

   The fund, which has no cap, had paid out $633 million by September 10, 2003, with an average award of about $1.6 million for death claims. It is a dignified way of doing it.

   As we reach the 2-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism

[Page: S12740]

as we did for the victims of September 11. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

   Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by a year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax tests.

   As we reach the two-year anniversary of the anthrax attacks, Congress should do the same for those whose lives were harmed by these acts of bioterrorism as it did for the victims of September 11, 2001. While we have taken significant steps to compensate the victims of the September 11 attacks and their families, no such action has been taken on behalf of the anthrax victims. Our legislation would remedy this.

   Our bill would extend the deadline for filing claims with the fund by 1-year and expand the eligibility to include laboratory-confirmed anthrax cases.

   The Centers for Disease Control, CDC, have confirmed 18 anthrax infections, and an additional four are considered to have been confirmed through other methods. Applicants would be subject to the same criteria and restrictions as were set for the September 11 victims. Eligible individuals who choose to file claims would then be considered by the Special Master who would make a final determination on level of compensation within 120 days of receiving the claim. Compensation will be targeted to help the neediest victims and their families. Any life insurance, death benefit, or other Government payment previously received by victims and their families would be taken into account, and filing a claim would preclude other civil remedies.

   Yesterday marked the 2-year anniversary of the opening of the letter that spread anthrax throughout the Hart Senate Office Building, exposing 31 Senate employees to a highly potent and aerosolized form of anthrax and shutting down the Dirksen Senate Office Building for 2 weeks, the Hart Senate Office Building for 3 months and briefly closing the United States Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Our staffs were fortunate to receive excellent care and guidance from the Sergeant at Arms, the CDC, the attending physician, his dedicated staff of men and women and the Environmental Protection Agency, and none of the employees of the Senate were ultimately infected. Those days are indelibly etched in our memories.

   To this day--and this is the first time I have ever spoken on the floor about the anthrax attack. I have to be honest, it is something that has been on my mind, on the mind of my wife, our children, our families, ever since that day.

   Senator Daschle and I do not know what motivates somebody to target us and to endanger our staffs and so many others. Senator Daschle and I were the targets of the Senate letters, but we were not stricken with anthrax, and we have made very clear that we would not be covered by the terms of this legislation.

   We will never know why we were singled out, but we do know what happened to people who were totally innocent. The letters were not addressed to them as they were to us.

   Eighteen of the victims were not as fortunate as were most of us in the Senate family. While some did recover after receiving antibiotics, others have had their lives changed forever. Some are stricken with ailments, such as post-traumatic stress, depression and fatigue. They continue to suffer from the after-effects of the disease.

   One postal worker who was infected with anthrax filed a $100 million suit against the U.S. Postal Service in January 2003. He did not want to have to take his case to court, but he says he felt he had to after repeated attempts to receive compensation and assistance in treating his illness. Last month, on September 24, the widow of the first anthrax victim in Florida filed lawsuits seeking more than $50 million and alleging that insufficient security at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, MD, and negligent actions by companies with military contracts, caused her husband's death. This bill would help these and other victims without forcing them to take their cases to the legal system.

   The perpetrator or perpetrators of these acts of terrorism remain at large. I have no idea who directed these letters to Senator Daschle and myself. The F.B.I. continues its search. These victims cannot wait until the search is over. They deserve help now and we owe it to them to provide it.

   Yesterday I joined with the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, both Senators from New York, and with others in introducing separate legislation to extend and broaden the fund's coverage to cover the victims of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks, the 1998 East African embassy attacks and the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attacks. I applaud Senator Specter for his leadership in this area. All Americans who have been victimized by acts of terrorism deserve our sympathy, our respect and our support.

   Our hearts went out to the victims of these acts of terrorism and to their loved ones. Now they also need our help, and it is my hope that we will do the right thing by these victims of terrorism.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, a letter containing about 1 gram of highly concentrated anthrax was opened in my office in the Hart Senate Office Building. Potentially deadly anthrax letters were also mailed, apparently by the same person or persons, to my dear friend and colleague, Senator PATRICK LEAHY, and to several news organizations. Two years later, all of those crimes remain unsolved.

   The anthrax attack on the Senate remains the largest bioterrorism attack ever on U.S. soil. Here in the Senate my staff and members of Senator Feingold's staff were exposed to up to 3,000 times the lethal dose of anthrax.

   The entire Hart Senate Office Building was closed for 3 months while scientists searched for a way to do something that had never been done before: To reclaim a building that had been badly contaminated by anthrax.

   We all remember those times. Coming less than 5 weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the anthrax attacks of 2001 sometimes made it seem as if none of us was safe anywhere.

   As traumatic as the anthrax attacks were for the people of Capitol Hill, we were actually the fortunate ones. Before those deadly letters arrived in the Senate, they traveled through the U.S. mail where they left a deadly trail.

   Five innocent people died and still more innocent people suffer today from serious health and debilitating problems resulting from their exposure to the anthrax letters. All too often, they are the forgotten victims of the anthrax attacks on America. They are victims of terrorism, just as surely as are all of those who were killed or injured in the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. This bill that Senator Leahy are I are introducing today acknowledges that fact by allowing the victims of the anthrax attacks to participate in the September 11 Victims Compensation Fund.

   The rules for anthrax victims would be the same as the rules for victims of the September 11 attacks: Before they can receive any compensation from the fund, anthrax victims must first waive their right to file or participate in any lawsuit in State or Federal court for damages relating to the anthrax attacks.

   The legislation that my colleague and I are introducing today, and that I am very proud to cosponsor, is narrow and specific: Only persons who were exposed to anthrax during the attacks of 2001 and who have been diagnosed with a ``laboratory-confirmed anthrax infection'' may be compensated from the fund. A ``laboratory-confirmed'' case may include one in which elevated anthrax antibody levels are present, even if the anthrax bacteria cannot be detected. In at least one case, the anthrax diagnosis was made late when, after introduction of antibiotics, the actual bacteria was no longer detectable in the bloodstream. In such cases, the highly elevated anthrax antibody levels confirm both the exposure and the diagnosis.

   Thomas Morris and Joseph Curseen worked for the U.S. Postal Service. They were decent, hard-working men who pushed themselves and continued to go to work and church even as anthrax infections were killing them. They and Robert Stevens, Kathy Nguyen, and Ottilie Lundgren all lost their lives in the anthrax attacks.

[Page: S12741]

Their families have suffered a devastating blow. This bill would allow them to receive some small compensation for their losses without having to suffer through the additional trauma and long delays associated with a lawsuit.

   Leroy Richmond, Norma Wallace, and Ernesto Blanco should be spared a long and difficult legal ordeal, too. They and others who suffered laboratory-confirmed anthrax infections as a result of the 2001 attacks deserve justice. They deserve the opportunity to participate in the same compensation fund as the victims of September 11, as long as they are willing to abide by the same rules. This bill gives them that right, that option, if they choose to exercise it.

   After that letter was opened in my office, the Senate put in place new mail-screening procedures to prevent another similar attack on the Capitol complex. Nearly 2 years later, we no longer have to worry that terrorism can slip in here through the mail. Some days we even forget about the anthrax attacks. But there are victims and victims' families who cannot forget. The anthrax attacks of 2001 still haunt them every day. This bill will not restore their strength or return their loved ones, but it will give them a small measure of compensation and perhaps a small measure of peace. It will say clearly that whether it happens in September, October, or any other month, terrorism is terrorism and here in America its victims will not have to suffer alone.

   I thank my colleague and friend, Senator Leahy, with whom I have been working on this bill now for nearly 2 years, for his remarkable commitment to this cause. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in seeking justice for these forgotten victims of terrorism.

4A) Inaccurate Statements About WMD in Iraq

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the House and I offer a resolution, which I will send to the Clerk's desk.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) should read the resolution.

   Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution correcting the RECORD of Tuesday, January 28, 2003.

   Resolved, That an asterisk be placed in the permanent RECORD of Tuesday, January 28, 2003, noting that the following statements contained in the State of the Union Address by the President of the United States are inaccurate:

   One, ``The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''

   Two, ``Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.''

   Three, ``From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspections sites, and monitoring the inspectors themselves.''

   Four, ``Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.''.

[Time: 12:30]

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within two legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.

   Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from Washington will appear in the RECORD at this point.

   The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

4B) Iraq: Less Babble, More Backbone

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I will say a few words about the supplemental appropriation which the leader just addressed a moment ago and we are addressing all week and also about the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction.

   I was in a Senate Armed Services Committee briefing when Dr. David Kay, one of the leaders of the Iraqi Survey Group, briefed me, and later briefed Congress as a whole, on the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction. In that briefing and in the published statement he made that is now on the CIA Web site, he says:

   In searching for retained stocks of chemical munitions, the ISG [Iraqi survey group] has had to contend with an almost unbelievable scale of Iraq's conventional weapons armory, which dwarfs by orders of magnitude the physical size of any conceivable stock of chemical weapons . For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points, many of which exceed 50 square miles--

   I had to doublecheck that quote to make sure it was accurate because it boggles the mind.

   Continuing--

   50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordnance. Of these 130 ASP's, approximately 120 remain unexamined. As Iraqi practice was not to mark much of their chemical ordnance and to store it the same as they would conventional weapons , the size of the required search effort is enormous.

   Dr. Kay has a gift for understatement. Having only in this time since the fall of Saddam Hussein been able to examine 10 out of a possible 130 ammunition sites gives an idea of the tremendous task ahead. Perhaps the critics should give some pause about the ongoing search for weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood--indeed, I would say the probability--that we will find those weapons of mass destruction in the end.

   The search is ongoing, but we know for certain that 17 U.N. resolutions and numerous inspection missions by the U.N. weapons inspection team from 1991 to 2003 were not sufficient to stop Saddam Hussein. Even though we have not yet found the degree of weapons we anticipated, it is clear Saddam Hussein lied to the world about his arsenal despite all the steps taken by the international community. There have also been significant finds that indicate we have only grazed the surface of Iraq's weapons capabilities.

   According to the same report I quoted a moment ago:

   The home of an Iraqi scientist brought the discovery of strains of biological organisms, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons . The team found new research on [Biological Weapons ]-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin, none of which were made known to the U.N.

   It will be many months before we will have a clear picture of the nature and extent of Saddam's weaponry, but already some things are crystal clear.

   There are some in this body who have opposed the conflict in Iraq from the beginning. I disagree with them, but they have a right to their views. I am sad to say there are also those who have come close--too close--to exploiting for political gain the hardships we have encountered following Saddam's fall, hardships experienced in serving the cause of freedom. I believe that is wrong and should be repudiated in the strongest terms.

   We all know Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the

   President to use necessary force to remove Saddam's regime in Iraq. Subsequent events, including Dr. Kay's report on behalf of the Iraqi Survey Group, have vindicated that decision. I am also glad to see that today France, Germany, and Russia are planning to support the resolution concerning our efforts in Iraq before the U.N. Security Council. I would only hope the administration's critics in this body would express such strong support as well.

   We all know that the great efforts and sacrifices made by our brave men in the coalition forces who ignored the beltway echo chamber and suggestions from the outset of quagmire, the cynical prognosticators who claim that our forces were on the brink of collapse, and the handwringing doubters who said Operation Iraqi Freedom was nothing but a pipe dream--we know these critics were wrong. The dedicated men and women of our coalition forces acted as true professionals. They were interested in actions and not words. We all know they liberated Baghdad in a mere 21 days.

   Even in the face of that success, there still are naysayers who refuse to acknowledge the tremendous and dramatic accomplishments we have made as well as the necessity that we finish the task ahead. They are urging in so many words that we abandon Iraq, leaving behind an unstable nation still trying desperately to crawl up from under the rubble of destruction by Saddam's ruthless regime. That is a dangerous and an unwise suggestion.

   This mission must end when we complete the task of stabilizing Iraq and we are able to hand power over to leaders who are elected by a free Iraqi people--not before. While we all want to return Iraq to the Iraqi people as soon as possible, and at the same time get our troops back home as soon as possible, these well-intentioned desires should not blind us to our duty to finish the job we started. There is no doubt that the enemies of democracy in Iraq, both inside and outside of that country, will exploit any short-lived commitment.

   Indeed, I believe the evidence is overwhelming that the events of September 11 were largely caused by the apparent lack of American resolve to defeat terrorism, and what we are doing today--maintaining our strong resolve and finishing the job that we started in the war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq--is absolutely essential to our success.

   If we leave Iraq prematurely, we will play into the hands of the terrorists and Baathist remnants. They are counting on the resolve of the coalition to falter, freeing them to seek to regain control of this fledgling nation. We must not cut and run and, in so doing, leave the Iraqi people as they are, undefended, or we risk the possibility that the sacrifices that have been made by this Nation, and particularly our military and other coalition forces, will all be for naught.

[Page: S12637]  GPO's PDF

   Today in Iraq there is religious freedom and human rights unlike anything seen during Saddam's regime. The Iraqi people now have hope where there was formerly only despair. They have hope for a future that must have seemed like only a dream a few short months ago.

   The ``blame America first'' gang is grasping for anything they can to prop up the illusion they were right all along. But the absence, so far, of weapons of mass destruction and stockpiles of biological agents does not mean Saddam's Iraq was some kind of sunny paradise or a thriving garden dictatorship, one long springtime for Saddam. Nothing--nothing--could be further from the truth.

   We have not yet found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but let me remind all of us what we have found. We have found torture chambers. We have found execution sites. We have found prisons where children were held in order to coerce their parents to bend to Saddam's will. We have found a legacy of fear and terror, the vestiges of years of tyranny and cruelty. We have found as many as 300,000 people--maybe more--buried in mass graves throughout Iraq in nearly 100 reported sites. They stretch from Basrah to Baghdad, from Najaf to Kirkuk. These stand as silent monuments of Saddam's ruthlessness left behind for all to see.

   For the Iraqi people living under Saddam, peace--if you can call it that--was far more bloody than the current war.

   To those who continue to doubt our mission in Iraq, I say this: Peace is a good thing but at what price is it purchased? By turning our backs on suffering, genocide, and evil? By tolerating those who defy the civilized world and encourage, facilitate, and promote international terrorism?

   If the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that if America is to fulfill its role as the guardian of the free world, a beacon of light shining in the darkness, we cannot allow bloodthirsty tyrants such as Saddam Hussein to act with impunity.

   Clearly, there are obstacles to overcome in Iraq, and there will be setbacks along the way. Yet we cannot allow the politics of the moment or the upcoming Presidential election to undermine the war on terror and American resolve.

   I believe the task that falls to us at this moment in history is spreading the blessings of liberty and bringing the light of freedom to a nation that has, for too long, been imprisoned by darkness.

   We must not falter in our efforts. We must not play political games while the world turns inward. We must fulfill our duty to defend America's interests abroad and ensure that the tragedies of September 11 are never repeated.

   In the end, if there is one thing certain, it is this: In Iraq the mass murder has stopped. And we stopped it. The Iraqi people and the American people and all the people of the civilized world are better off for it.

   Those who would play political games with our mission in Iraq, even while our brave men and women labor to secure and stabilize this fledging nation, risk dishonoring the memories of those who sacrificed all in opposing this bloodthirsty regime.

   No, Mr. President, we must not cut and run, leaving the Iraqi people with a promise unfulfilled. Success in Iraq depends enormously on our willingness to stay the course and finishing the job we started, and through it all, we owe our men and women in uniform our unequivocal support as they labor in a dangerous place for an honorable cause.

   In summary, America needs from this body and from its leaders less babble and more backbone.

   Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

4C) Iraq

Mr. DAYTON. A year ago this month, Congress cast a fateful vote. The majority decided to give the President blanket authority to declare war against Iraq. On several occasions during our deliberations over that resolution, I had the good fortune to be on the Senate floor when the great Senator from West Virginia, the senior Senator, spoke. Both Senators from West Virginia are truly outstanding Senators and men. One is extraordinary in his seniority in this body and also the wisdom he has acquired through his experience and service and his search for the history of this country and the history of other countries throughout the world and across the spans of time.

   It was my great opportunity, sitting in that chair where the Presiding Officer now sits, to be instructed about this country, especially the Constitution which all of us take our oath of office to uphold, that extraordinary document which has shown, over the span of more than two centuries, a foresight, a vision, an understanding of

[Page: S12856]  GPO's PDF

human nature and an appreciation for the potential we bring and the pitfalls we must avoid. It has been unprecedented in the history of the world and has produced, along with the quality of our citizenry, the most successful form of self-governance that has ever been devised or practiced on this planet.

   As a result of much of what I learned from Senator Byrd, I voted against the resolution which passed the Senate last October. I did that because those tutorials convinced me that by acting at that point, before the President himself had decided whether to recommend or undertake an invasion of Iraq, the commencing of a war against another country, for Congress then to pass not a declaration of war, which the Constitution prescribes, but rather a resolution authorizing, with its usual euphemism, something like ``whatever force necessary in order to accomplish the objectives,'' Congress was abdicating to the President that constitutional responsibility which it had no right or authority to pass on.

   The Constitution says clearly that the Congress shall declare war, that Congress and only Congress shall make that final decision whether or not to declare war and to commit this country to that course of action against another nation, at which point the President is the Commander in Chief and undertakes the prosecution of the war. It is exactly that balance of power the Constitution wanted to achieve.

   I also said last October that I was not persuaded at that time by the intelligence and other information that I received to that point that Saddam Hussein's estimated military arsenal constituted an imminent and urgent threat to the national security of the United States of America. I may not have been privy to every piece of information that a few of the more senior colleagues in this body had at the time, particularly members of the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, but as a member myself of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I did have much of the information acquired from participating in a score of briefings, many of them classified top secret.

   In my best judgment, from all the intelligence that was presented to me over a 5-year period of time, the case against Iraq was inconclusive and unconvincing. Furthermore, it was presented to us by our top intelligence officials as incomplete and inconclusive. Those officials, in my judgment and my experience, were very candid about the information

   they were providing us. They were candid about its uncertainty. They were candid about its reliability. They were candid about the difficulty to obtain reliable, accurate, and timely information in a country as closed as Iraq, where the penalty for any transgression could be torture and death.

   It was reasonable to assume back then that Saddam Hussein possessed biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, or materials with which to make them, using the supplies that presumably were not less than what were known to exist when the United Nations weapons inspectors were evicted in December of 1998. But our intelligence officials, in the meetings and briefings which I attended, never asserted more than that, nor did they assert a 100-percent certainty that those amounts of products still did remain in Iraq, nor did they ever state that Iraq was known to be close to developing nuclear weapons . They said they didn't know.

   My own experience over the last year is that the discrepancies between our intelligence information and what we now know with 20/20 hindsight are far less, than the differences which on several occasions I witnessed between what the intelligence briefers were telling us and what the high level administration officials, especially the President and the Vice President, were telling us and were telling the American people and the people of the world.

   Every time that occurred, administration officials portrayed the threat from Iraq's likely weapons of mass destruction as more certain, more urgent, and more dangerous than it turned out to be. The most glaring gaps, therefore, between fears and fiction and facts occurred when the intelligence information exaggerated the threat, and then the Bush administration exaggerated that threat.

   When 138,000 or more U.S. troops and a reported 1,400 weapons of mass destruction hunters and investigators in the course of 6 months can find nothing, virtually none of the primary reasons we went to war in that country, that is about as glaring a gap as it gets. But blaming the intelligence gatherers missed the real culprits. The information users are the ones who should be investigated, not the providers. That is the investigation which should be conducted. That is the investigation which the White House is doing everything possible to prevent.

   The investigation the administration cares about wants the answers, at least the answers that they want there to be, concerning the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. That appeared to be their No. 1 priority, their No. 2 priority, and perhaps their whole top 10. Several of my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and I traveled to Iraq in July and saw firsthand and were briefed about the priority operations beginning or underway there. The one that was far ahead of the rest in development, in deployment, and in resources committed to it was the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

   Again, it has been reported publicly that some 1,400 professional intelligence gatherers, processors, and prosecutors have been scouring that country, investigating, incarcerating, interrogating. During that time, and the time we were there, many of the other important efforts were barely underway and were badly behind already--like finding and eliminating Saddam Hussein himself; like restoring basic services, electricity and running water; like connecting, communicating, and cooperating with the Iraqi citizenry. Those delays, and the lack of tangible progress made in those areas and others, have been costly.

   The price is paid, tragically, by our own service men and women--those patriotic, courageous, and extraordinary Americans who won the military victory in Iraq just 3 weeks from the first day of the invasion to the triumphant takeover of Baghdad, the toppling of Saddam Hussein himself, and the statue coming down, symbolically, as the regime was overthrown. As other colleagues have noted here tonight, that was a great boon to the Iraqi people and to the world.

   At the same time, American forces and British forces--primarily the coalition, being essentially those two nations--took over occupancy of most of Hussein's former presidential palaces. When I was there, the estimate was there were 120 of them throughout the country--the most incredible waste of resources one could imagine contrasted to the squalor in which most Iraqis were living their lives.

   At that time also, American forces had accomplished dispersal of Saddam Hussein's army, of his political party, top government officials, and the henchmen who spread that tyranny, and even Saddam Hussein himself. American Armed Forces won. The mission was accomplished. Their objectives had been achieved. The job had been exceptionally well done. All of that training, all of that traveling and preparing, and all their upbringing, bravery, devotion to their country, their service, faith, and hard work, all came together effectively and successfully and they achieved what they needed to do, overwhelmingly.

   That should have been the end, or very close to it. Their victory was decisive, their victory was complete, and they should have been going home. Most of them should be home today. Most of them were expected to be home today. One hundred and thirty-eight thousand American troops remain in Iraq today--more duration than what was planned for at this stage in the operation. Instead, for the present time and for the foreseeable future, 138,000, or close to that number, will have to remain in Iraq. Many of them are Minnesotans. Others have had their tours of duty extended 6 months.

   Most of my colleagues and I went home to our respective States and visited with families and spouses who are getting desperate about the absence of their husbands, their wives, their sons, and their daughters with extensions of duty, not knowing when the end point will be. Many of them still do not have a definite return date.

   It is a terrible way for the military and the administration to be mistreating those who are making these

[Page: S12857]  GPO's PDF

heroic sacrifices on behalf of their country, and who are doing so at great personal risk. Often during the course of their responsibilities, they are exposed to the rest of their surroundings, standing at station, and are targets as they guard public and private property and other locations and highways throughout that country.

   Since the takeover of the country militarily by U.S. forces, they have had to become more stationary. The point which should have been the end, or close to it, but which is really barely the beginning, American soldiers every single day are being attacked, wounded, maimed, and murdered. It has occurred while they are waiting for the rest of these other operations to get started and start getting the necessary results. Every day that those other operations aren't accomplishing what they must, aren't getting the resources they need, aren't being given the priorities they should be given, for every one of those additional days American troops must remain in Iraq, American troops are likely to die in Iraq.

   It is our responsibility to get the rest of that job done--to get their government elected and in charge of the country, restore domestic law and order, train the Iraqi police force so they can maintain that, get the society functioning--once again, a lot of which has been accomplished. And much has been accomplished. It is important to acknowledge that. Hospitals have reopened. They now need to be supplied with the tools and be rehabilitated. An economy that is producing again--producing jobs, producing wealth, producing resources--can bring Iraq back into the civilized world.

   A genuine international sharing must be achieved. The ongoing costs of responsibilities and risks are still going to be required during this transition until Iraq can take care of itself.

   For those things to occur with other nations of the world, the United States must offer to provide a genuine sharing of control of postwar Iraq. It means the Bush administration doesn't make all of the decisions. It means their corporate cronies don't get all of the contracts and the profits. It means their colleagues in the majority caucus in the Senate should not get the only military transport escort to tour that country to assess the situation and to support our troops.

   In fact, I would respectfully urge the President and the Vice President especially to use the passage of this important supplemental today by both the House and the Senate to mark the beginning of a new chapter in undertaking to restore our conduct before the world, the dignity, the civility, and integrity which our great Nation deserves and upon which it has built its reputation and its leadership position in the world.

   I urge especially the Vice President to stop attacking the United Nations which was founded over half a century ago by American leaders of both political parties. It has been nurtured, guided, supported, and strengthened during that time as the best hope of the human race, to keep all nations of the world striving together for the peaceful resolution of our differences and the prevention of the next world war, which most believe will be the last world war. Through that diplomatic effort, working through the differences and the difficulties and all the barriers and obstacles that remain among the human race, it has succeeded in preventing that kind of holocaust for the last half century. It has prevented the scourge. It has been successful in discouraging other nations from launching preemptive military strikes against other countries and provoking additional conflict and conflagration that always threaten and risk escalation and annihilation.

   Other nations of the world have been harangued and denounced for not agreeing with the decisions that were made by this Nation's Government.

   I urge a new spirit of genuine cooperation, partnership, recognition of their legal and moral autonomy as they also decide whether to commit their own resources, their own citizens, the lives of their young men and women to the undertakings which we believe are important but we have no right to compel other nations to adopt.

   Whether we felt one way or the other, viewed the situation one way or the other a year ago, the facts are, clearly, today we are committed to a country with 138,000 of our men and women who are risking their lives and demonstrating courage and patriotism to sustain that operation. We owe it to them. We owe it to the world and to ourselves and to future generations to now complete this undertaking in the ways that bring out the best of America, that showcase the best of America for the world. That is where our ultimate national security is going to derive, from continued military preeminence, absolutely. That in and of itself is not enough, as we learned on September 11. We need allies, friends, eyes, ears, intelligence all over the world. We need to establish in the eyes of nations that now misunderstand us and our way of life; we need to showcase as we have been doing the last 2 years in Afghanistan and as we must do now over the next 2 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, what it is about our way of life, our economy, our technological know-how, our compassion, our generosity, what it is about all Americans that makes us a people who have so much to offer the rest of our fellow citizens throughout this planet.

   I urge the President and the Vice President and the administration to demonstrate the best qualities of America. If they do so, I believe what comes out of this undertaking will be one that we will all be able to live with, better off than we were for many decades to come. Conversely, a failure to do so will have catastrophic consequences for decades to come.

4D) Transfer of $300m from WMD Search to Nat’l Guard and Reserves

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. TAUSCHER

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Amendment offered by Mrs. Tauscher:

    Page 3, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by $300,000,000)''.

    Page 19, after line 20, insert the following new section:

    SEC. . __. The total amount appropriated by this chapter is hereby reduced by $300,000,000.

   Mrs. TAUSCHER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD.

   The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?

   There was no objection.

   The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, October 16, 2003, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I am offering an amendment with my friend and colleague from California (Mr. George Miller) to transfer $300 million from the weapons inspectors in Iraq to pay for lifesaving equipment for the Army National Guard and Reserve troops currently serving there. Our amendment would leave the remaining $300 million to focus on finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, if there are any. Some 300,000 of our Guard and Reserve personnel have been called to active duty to fight terrorists in Africa and Asia and secure the peace in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Iraq. They are being called on to serve multiple tours and will continue to serve until we either stabilize Iraq or get international troops in there to share the burden. Yet our Guard and Reserve forces are working in Iraq without bulletproof jackets, armored vehicles and other basic lifesaving equipment. I am deeply concerned that if the demands of the Guard and Reserve do not ease up in the coming months, we will severely undermine our ability to attract new Reservists and keep ones that we have, which will prevent those who are currently serving in Iraq from returning to civilian life. If we are to depend on our brave citizen-soldiers to secure the peace in Iraq and prosecute the war on terrorism elsewhere, it is critical that they have the same equipment as everyone else.

   I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to increase funds to protect the lives of our troops currently serving in Iraq.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

   Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for introducing this amendment and making sure that it was in order. It raises a very important question. It is a matter of life and death for the members of our National Guard.

   Currently we have a policy in place which makes a lot of sense in ordinary circumstances for the taxpayer and for the use of our equipment and, that is, that the Guard gets essentially hand-me-down equipment as we buy new equipment for the active forces to engage in combat. But now what we find out is because of our manpower problems and the longer deployments of the Guard and a deeper reaching into the Guard structure in this country to deploy people in Iraq, in Afghanistan, we are in the situation where we now have the Guard entering the field of combat with old and, in some cases, obsolete equipment, equipment that is not compatible, communications equipment that is not compatible, Humvees that are from the first generation that do not provide the kind of protection to the occupants of that vehicle that the newer Humvees do. Yet, now we find, as I have been told by Guard members on the phone from Baghdad, in letters from Baghdad, they are seeing modern equipment being rotated back to the United States as those units are rotated out and the Guard is still left with old, obsolete, unsafe equipment.

   The National Guard must not be put into the theater of combat with less than the same equipment that the active Army is put into the field of combat with. We cannot treat them as second-class citizens. This is a policy that

[Page: H9632]

makes sense in peacetime, but this is a policy that is now lethal to our Guard members. I would hope that the committee, in its deliberations, would be able to address this problem.

   I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

   Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California and the gentleman from California for this amendment which would provide additional equipment to our troops and still leave our U.S. inspections team with adequate resources for the search. But there is a simple way for the United States to supplement our search efforts by bringing back the highly trained U.N. troops to help in the effort. We have all said the international community should share in the burden and share in the cost. We have an opportunity right now. The U.N. has a team of over 354 inspectors on the ground, trained, ready to go on short notice. What would it cost the United States? Nothing. They are paid for through the U.N. dues. They can also supplement our effort in another way. They can bring us something that money cannot buy, which is credibility. The fact of the matter is that this administration has lost much of its credibility with respect to claims it made of weapons of mass destruction.

[Time: 10:30]

   If we want the international community and the American people to have faith in the findings, it is important that we bring in an independent inspection team to join our efforts. Only then can we convince the international community that any findings they make are legitimate and unbiased.

   So I thank the gentlewoman for offering this important amendment. It is a win-win.

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

   The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I do not intend at this moment to use the 5 minutes, but I must say I absolutely understand the gentlewoman's presenting this amendment for, indeed, we spent time together in Iraq, I have been saying a whole month in one weekend in Iraq together. That is not because of our wonderful charm, but because of what we experienced there together, the reality that Saddam Hussein is the worst tyrant, clearly competing with Hitler and Stalin. We learned that he was capable of almost anything. I will never forget the gentlewoman, as we were together at the killing fields, urging me and others to join together in a moment of silence, thinking about the potential of mass destruction as a part of this guy's everyday existence as long as he was ruling that country.

   Indeed, I do not know exactly what we might find. I am hesitant about reducing this amount of money. I am going to be willing to talk about it as we go forward, but, indeed, the things that David Kay is about in his work are very important for us as we look at the challenges of dealing with people like this. So it is with great reluctance that I resist and ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentlewoman's amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

   Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I want to thank the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations for not only including me on the trip but for his eloquence and his leadership. I appreciate the fact that he recognizes the urgent needs of our Guard and Reserve. I know that he intends to work diligently to provide them with the money to get this new equipment. I do think that it would be wiser for us to have U.N. inspectors in there not only to have more credibility but also to share the burden. And I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on this amendment.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I just might mention that the gentlewoman's expression of international involvement is a very appropriate one, and I would highlight her remarks by mentioning that the U.N. voted unanimously yesterday, getting the U.N. really on board for the first time in helping us with this effort. In the meantime, moving this money around in this fashion when we have done so much as we have in O & M and the bill in general, I hesitate about it, and therefore I ask for a ``no'' vote. And I want to tell the gentlewoman I very much appreciate the work she has done with me.

   I might mention, just to take the time, when we were together following our weekend, we actually sat down together for hours, our team of 17, and in the midst of it, one of our colleagues said, I am one, a liberal Democrat, who voted ``no'' to going to war, but after seeing what I see here about Saddam Hussein, I must say I have got to be ahead of my people. It is going to be unpopular at home.

   It is time for us to lead, and therefore I am going to support this request of the President to carry forward this war on terrorism.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to immediately obtain the help of the international community in sharing the burden and cost of some of our efforts in Iraq.

   As part of his $87 billion request, President Bush has asked for an additional $600 million to pay for our team of weapons inspectors in Iraq--known as the Iraq Survey Group--so that they may continue their search for weapons of mass destruction. This team of 1,200 inspectors, led by David Kay, has searched for WMD in Iraq for many months now. The President's request would increase that team to 1,400 inspectors.

   I had an amendment prepared would allow us to greatly reduce the costs to the American taxpayer of conducting that search and dramatically increase the credibility of any findings made by the inspectors. The Republican majority refused to allow that amendment to come to a vote. I am pleased that Rep. Tauscher has offered this amendment. It provides for better equipment for our troops and leaves $300 million for our inspection team. We can supplement our team by bring back the U.N. inspectors. The President should immediately invite the existing team of United Nations' inspectors--known as UNMOVIC--to participate in the search for WMD in Iraq. The U.N. has a pool of inspectors who have 12 years of experience investigating Iraq's programs and many of whom speak Arabic. According to its most recent report, UNMOVIC has a roster of 354 trained experts available to serve in Iraq at short notice. This important resource should be put to use, allowing us to reduce the size and costs of our team of inspectors.

   What would it cost us to engage these trained experts? Nothing. The costs of UNMOVIC are borne by the United Nations and paid for through the dues of the member nations.

   Engaging the U.N. weapons inspectors in the search for WMD would also get us something that money can't buy--credibility. With respect to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Bush Administration has lost its credibility with the American people and has undermined American credibility in the international community. Before the war, our Secretary of State told the United Nations that the Iraqis were attempting to import nuclear weapons material from Africa. The U.N. inspectors reviewed the evidence and determined the claims were based on forged documents. The U.S. conceded the point and, worse, it turns out that agencies within the U.S. government had already questioned the veracity of the documents. Our Secretary of Defense told the world that we knew the location of the weapons of mass destruction. We now know that was untrue. In the aftermath of the war, the President claimed that two mobile trailers found in Iraq were evidence of a biological weapons program. Our inspection team has recently had to retreat from that claim. Again and again, Administration officials from the President on down have made false claims about Iraqi WMD. Even the Economist magazine, which had been a booster of the war, has stated that the Bush Administration is seen around the world as having its own arsenal of WMD--Wielders of Mass Deception.

   The only way to restore confidence in the search for WMD is to bring in an impartial team of international inspectors. David Kay, the leader of our team, is stuck in a fundamental contradiction. He wears two hats, serving as both fact finder and salesman for the Administration. No matter how high his personal integrity, this dual role undermines the credibility of any findings his team may make.

   It is critical to the integrity of the process that independent U.N. weapons inspectors be invited to participate in the search and given

[Page: H9633]

the opportunity to independently evaluate any claims made by David Kay and the Iraq Survey Group. The American people should not be asked to spend an additional $600 million to fund a search that is widely perceived to be an effort to provide cover for an Administration that has lost its credibility on this issue at home and abroad.

• [End Insert]

   Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

   The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.

   The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

   The amendment was rejected.

4E) National Commission on Iraq WMD Intelligence (S.A. 1882 to S. 1689)

SA 1882. Mr. CORZINE proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1689, making emergency supplemental appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan security and reconstruction for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes; as follows:

    On page 38, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following new title:

   TITLE III--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF INTELLIGENCE RELATED TO IRAQ

   SEC. 3001. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

    There is established the National Commission on the Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq.

   SEC. 3002. FINDINGS.

    The Congress underscores its commitment to and support for ongoing congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq.

   SEC. 3003. PURPOSES.

    The purposes of the Commission are as follows:

    (1) To examine and report upon the role of policymakers in the development of intelligence related to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    (2) To examine and report upon the use of intelligence related to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    (3) To build upon the reviews of intelligence related to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom, including those being conducted by the Executive Branch, Congress, and other entities.

    (4) To investigate and publicly report to the President and Congress on its findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

   SEC. 3004. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION.

    (a) MEMBERS.--The Commission shall be composed of 12 members, of whom--

    (1) 3 members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;

    (2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

    (3) 3 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate; and

    (4) 3 members shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives.

    (b) CHAIRPERSON; VICE CHAIRPERSON.

    (1) IN GENERAL.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Commission shall be elected by the members.

    (2) POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION.--The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall not be from the same political party.

    (c) QUALIFICATIONS; INITIAL MEETING.--

    (1) QUALIFICATIONS.--It is the sense of Congress that individuals appointed to the Commission should be prominent United States citizens, with national recognition and significant depth of experience in such professions as intelligence, governmental service, the armed services, law enforcement, and foreign affairs.

    (2) INITIAL MEETING.--Once 6 or more members of the Commission have been appointed, those members who have been appointed may meet and, if necessary, select a temporary chairperson, who may begin the operations of the Commission, including the hiring of staff.

    (d) QUORUM; VACANCIES.--After its initial meeting, the Commission shall meet upon the call of the Chairperson or a majority of its members. Six members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Any vacancy in the Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled in the same manner in which the original appointment was made.

   SEC. 3005. FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

    The functions of the Commission are to--

    (1) conduct an investigation that--

    (A) investigates the development and use of intelligence related to Iraq and Operation Iraqi Freedom; and

    (B) shall include an investigation of intelligence related to whether Iraq--

    (i) possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and the locations of those weapons;

    (ii) had links to Al Qaeda;

    (iii) attempted to acquire uranium in Africa, and if so, when;

    (iv) attempted to procure aluminum tubes for the development of nuclear weapons;

    (v) possessed mobile laboratories for the production of weapons of mass destruction;

    (vi) possessed delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction; and

    (vii) any other matters that bear upon the imminence of the threat to the national security of the United States and its allies; and

    (2) submit to the President and Congress such report as is required by this title containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations as the Commission shall determine, including proposing organization, coordination, planning, management arrangements, procedures, rules, and regulations.

    (A) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report prepared under this section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

   SEC. 3006. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--

    (1) HEARINGS AND EVIDENCE.--The Commission or, on the authority of the Commission, any subcommittee or member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying out this title--

    (A) hold such hearings and sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, administer such oaths; and

    (B) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, cables, E-mails, papers, and documents, as the Commission or such designated subcommittee or designated member may determine advisable.

    (2) SUBPOENAS.--

    (A) ISSUANCE.--Subpoenas issued under paragraph (1)(B) may be issued under the signature of the chairperson of the Commission, the Vice Chairperson of the Commission, the chairperson of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any member designated by a majority of the Commission, and may be served by any person designated by the chairperson, subcommittee chairperson, or member.

    (B) ENFORCEMENT.--

    (i) IN GENERAL.--In the case of contumacy or failure to obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1)(B), the United States district court for the judicial district in which the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, or where the subpoena is returnable, may issue an order requiring such person to appear at any designated place to testify or to produce documentary or other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.

    (ii) ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT.--In the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpoena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section, the Commission may, by majority vote, certify a statement of fact constituting such failure to the appropriate United States attorney, who may bring the matter before the grand jury for its action, under the same statutory authority and procedures as if the United States attorney had received a certification under sections 102 through 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192 through 194).

    (b) CLOSED MEETINGS.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--Meetings of the Commission may be closed to the public under section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) or other applicable law.

    (2) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.--In addition to the authority under paragraph (1), section

[Page: S12754]

10(a)(1) and (3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to any portion of a Commission meeting if the President determines that such portion or portions of that meeting is likely to disclose matters that could endanger national security. If the President makes such determination, the requirements relating to a determination under section 10(d) of that Act shall apply.

    (c) CONTRACTING.--The Commission may, to such extent and in such amounts as are provided in appropriation Acts, enter into contracts to enable the Commission to discharge its duties under this title.

    (d) INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.--The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality of the Government information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purposes of this title. Each department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality shall, to the extent authorized by law, furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chairperson, the chairperson of any subcommittee created by a majority of the Commission, or any member designated by a majority of the Commission.

    (e) ASSISTANCE FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES.--

    (1) GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.--The Administrator of General Services shall provide to the Commission on a reimbursable basis administrative support and other services for the performance of the Commission's functions.

    (2) OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES.--In addition to the assistance prescribed in paragraph (1), departments and agencies of the United States are authorized to provide to the Commission such services, funds, facilities, staff, and other support services as they may determine advisable and as may be authorized by law.

    (f) GIFTS.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of gifts or donations of services or property.

    (g) POSTAL SERVICES.--The Commission may use the United States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as departments and agencies of the United States.

   SEC. 3007. STAFF OF THE COMMISSION.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--

    (1) APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION.--The chairperson and vice chairperson, in accordance with rules agreed upon by the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of a staff director and such other personnel as may be necessary to enable the Commission to carry out its functions, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates, except that no rate of pay fixed under this subsection may exceed the equivalent of that payable for a position at level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.

    (2) PERSONNEL AS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.--

    (A) IN GENERAL.--The executive director and any personnel of the Commission who are employees shall be employees under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.

    (B) MEMBERS OF COMMISSION.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to apply to members of the Commission.

    (b) DETAILEES.--Any Federal Government employee may be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement from the Commission, and such detailee shall retain the rights, status, and privileges of his or her regular employment without interruption.

    (c) CONSULTANT SERVICES.--The Commission is authorized to procure the services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, but at rates not to exceed the daily rate paid a person occupying a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.

   SEC. 3008. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES.

    (a) COMPENSATION.--Each member of the Commission may be compensated at not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Commission.

    (b) TRAVEL EXPENSES.--While away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services for the Commission, members of the Commission shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) of title 5, United States Code.

   SEC. 3009. SECURITY CLEARANCES FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS AND STAFF.

    The appropriate executive departments and agencies shall cooperate with the Commission in expeditiously providing to the Commission members and staff appropriate security clearances in a manner consistent with existing procedures and requirements, except that no person shall be provided with access to classified information under this section who would not otherwise qualify for such security clearance.

   SEC. 3010. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION; TERMINATION.

    (a) REPORT.--Not later than 9 months after the date of the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall submit to the President and Congress a report containing such findings, conclusions, and recommendations for corrective measures as have been agreed to by a majority of Commission members.

    (b) TERMINATION.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--The Commission, and all the authorities of this title, shall terminate 60 days after the date on which the report is submitted under subsection (a).

    (2) ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES BEFORE TERMINATION.--The Commission may use the 60-day period referred to in paragraph (1) for the purpose of concluding its activities, including providing testimony to committees of Congress concerning its reports and disseminating the second report.

   SEC. 3011. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission to carry out this title $5,000,000, to remain available until expended.

********************

   AMENDMENT NO. 1882

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the Senate the Corzine amendment No. 1882.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I could not hear.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on this matter there be 20 minutes under the control of Senator Roberts, 5 minutes under the control of Senator Rockefeller, and 5--whatever time Senator Corzine requests.

   Mr. REID. I ask Senator Corzine, how much time do you desire on your amendment? You spoke last night.

   Mr. CORZINE. I would presume 10 minutes.

   Mr. REID. Ten minutes.

   Mr. STEVENS. And 10 minutes for Senator Corzine, and there be a vote in relation to that amendment upon the expiration of that time, with no amendments in order to this amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. REID. No objection.

   Mr. STEVENS. Let's have the Chair state the understanding of the time limitation. Can the Chair state the time limitation?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes for the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts--

   Mr. STEVENS. No. That is 20 minutes, Mr. President.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty minutes for the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts; 5 minutes for the Senator from West

   Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller; and 10 minutes for the Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. STEVENS. With no amendments in order. That is my unanimous consent request.

   Mr. CORZINE. Reserving the right to object, I could not hear.

   Mr. REID. You have your 10 minutes.

   Mr. STEVENS. It is 20 minutes for Senator Roberts, 5 minutes for Senator Rockefeller--

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. And 10 minutes for the Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. STEVENS. Senator Rockefeller, 5 minutes. Twenty minutes for the Senator from Kansas. Ten minutes for the Senator from New Jersey. There are five Members sharing the 20 minutes.

   Mr. CORZINE. I know we will have some Members who want to speak. I wonder, could we increase the 10-minute agreement to 15 on my side?

   Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection. We can change the Corzine limitation to 15 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that following the disposal of that, by vote, we would move to the Byrd-Durbin amendment No. 1819. It is my understanding that Senator Byrd would speak no longer than 20 minutes on that amendment. There would be no other limitation of time. I ask my friend from Alaska if he would approve that.

   Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, did you say the Byrd amendment?

   Mr. REID. Byrd-Durbin amendment.

   Mr. BIDEN. Byrd-Durbin, I am sorry. I would like some time on that amendment.

   Mr. REID. The only limitation, Mr. President, on my unanimous consent request would be Senator Byrd speaking no longer than 20 minutes. Of course, there would be no amendments in order, and there would be a vote on or in relation to the amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. STEVENS. The limitation applies only to Senator Byrd; is that correct?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   AMENDMENT NO. 1882

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   The Senator from Kansas.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to express my very strong opposition to the Corzine amendment, not in terms of intent but in terms of substance.

   Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a new Member of the Senate who has had a great deal of experience serving as a valued member of the House Intelligence Committee, Senator Chambliss.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

   Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment establishes bad policy. Let me tell you why.

   I had the privilege of serving on the House Intelligence Committee for 2 years. I had the privilege of serving under Chairman PORTER GOSS in the House. I served side by side with now ranking member JANE HARMAN. We did an outstanding job in the House Intelligence Committee of conducting oversight work of the intelligence community worldwide.

   I have had the privilege of serving under the strong leadership of Chairman Roberts and Vice Chairman ROCKEFELLER in the Senate Intelligence Committee, and, once again, they have led a terrific effort from an oversight perspective of the intelligence community, whether it is Iraq, whether it is

   North Korea, whether it is any other issue. They have done a great job in a bipartisan way.

   I have to commend all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We have asked the tough questions time and time again because that is our job. We are charged with the responsibility of conducting this oversight.

   Now to send this outside the Intelligence Committees establishes simply bad policy and moves the intelligence community in the wrong direction.

   I was a member of the Joint Inquiry Committee that was established last year between the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to look at 9/11. That Joint Inquiry Committee was unable to function properly because most of the real hard substantive issues are classified issues. No joint committee can really do their work without having the availability of classified information.

   The Senate Intelligence Committee and the House Intelligence Committee have the availability of that classified information at their fingertips. That is the way the system is designed to work. That is the way it should work. That is the way it is working. It is working properly, and it is working in a very bipartisan way.

   Whatever the intelligence failures were involved in Iraq will be disclosed. Whatever the wrong things that were done will ultimately be disclosed. But it has to be done within the right framework. And that right framework is within the Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate.

   Again, I commend the strong, bipartisan leadership of Vice Chairman ROCKEFELLER and Chairman Roberts.

[Page: S12774]

They are leading us in the right way on this issue, and that is the way it needs to continue.

   So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, another valued member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Lott.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, for yielding me this time.

   Mr. President, should we just go ahead and eliminate committees in Congress? Should we just go ahead and limit the House and the Senate? We have a job to do. Are we going to turn everything over to so-called independent commissions that drag their feet. It takes months to get people appointed. They hire staff. What are we here for? Another ``independent'' commission?

   We have one underway right now, headed by former Governor Kean. It is a very good, bipartisan group of capable men and women looking at the events prior to 9/11 but also looking at the intelligence component of what happened there. So there is already one independent commission.

   But I have never liked these commissions. I have been involved in creating some of them. They are always an excuse to shove it off on somebody else. It is as if we are trying to put hands over our eyes and say, ``Oh, no, we can't do it'' or, ``Don't show me. Let's let somebody else do the job.''

   What do we have the Intelligence Committee for? Formerly I would get briefings related to intelligence information, but I am a new member, actively sitting on the Intelligence Committee. I have faith in this bipartisan committee. It should be, and for the most part it is, a nonpartisan committee.

   I have faith in PAT ROBERTS. He is not exactly a pushover on any issue, whether it is agriculture, defense, or intelligence. JAY ROCKEFELLER, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, is very aggressive on this issue. We are doing our job. We are having hearings, lots of hearings. And we are going to get at the truth of the intelligence.

   Do they have what they need? Were they giving us some bad analysis of the intelligence?

   We are in that process. We are doing our job. Let's let the Intelligence Committee do its job. We don't need another independent commission. I trust this committee. The Senate should give us the chance to do the job. We should not have another commission out there spending money, hovering around and accomplishing very little.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he would like to respond on his time or what his plans are? I have several speakers. I did not want to dominate the discussion.

   Mr. CORZINE. If the distinguished Senator from Kansas will recall, I gave a presentation last night of about 30 minutes on this subject. I will be happy to respond to different elements. I thought I would hear what the arguments were and then make a response. If you would like to see it all now, I would be more than happy to do some responding, but I would like to hear the overall argument.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I understand. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a valued member of the Intelligence Committee, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman. I say with all due deference to our distinguished colleague from New Jersey that on its face there is a very serious flaw. I am opposed to the principle of having a commission at this time examine the subject, but on its face it reads:

   There is established a National Commission on Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq.

   Iraq is but one piece of a matrix of nations in that region of the world. You cannot focus on just the narrow Iraq situation without Iran, without looking at the other areas of the world which are being affected by this spread of terrorism. I say to my good friend, his intentions may well have been the best, but personally I think it is inappropriate and ill-advised at this time to usurp in many respects the responsibility of the Congress, certainly not in a way in which you just look at one small area of intelligence unrelated to the broad picture throughout that region.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, Senator Rockefeller, our distinguished vice chairman, has been granted 5 minutes. I think from a parliamentary standpoint, however, it is my responsibility to yield to him at this particular time. If that is not correct, I stand to be corrected by the Presiding Officer.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia controls 5 minutes.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I ask the Senator from West Virginia if he may want to make his remarks at this time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas.

   I oppose this amendment. I oppose this amendment for a variety of reasons. I do not oppose this amendment because of the intent of trying to get to the bottom of all of the problems we face in the work we are doing in the Intelligence Committee, on which I serve as vice chair. But I oppose it because it would have the effect of undermining what we are doing, further diluting the focus on the issue of WMD prewar intelligence, all the rest of it.

   I do not mean to imply by that that the investigation is moving at the speed with which I would like to see it in the committee. Those issues are being addressed between the chairman and myself and members on each side of the aisle trying to work in a bipartisan fashion. This is an investigation which not only has the comparison of prewar intelligence to what we more recently discovered or may be discovering, but it also has the whole question of wherever the trail leads, which is a phrase the chairman of the committee has used.

   There are other aspects of this, whether you use the word dissemination of intelligence; you collect it; you analyze it, and then it gets put over to the policy people. Then they use it in one way or another. The use of that, whether there was any pressure brought to bear, all of those things are areas that we are in the process of examining right now. It is a difficult subject.

   There is already another commission on this subject, the Kean-Hamilton Commission, but that is covering something of a different area. If another commission is set up, another group is set up to look at prewar WMD, postwar WMD, intelligence on all of that, it just simply duplicates what we are or will shortly be doing.

   As the chairman knows and as my members know, if we do not reach the depth and breadth of satisfaction of investigation on this, then we will have to come back and reconsider all of this at another time. It is my judgment that because of talks and things going on now, dynamics which are internal and intense, we are making that kind of progress, and the threshold of making the kind of progress we have to make to reach a final conclusion and do a report is on the move.

   This would be damaging to us. I don't say that as turf because one is on this committee for 8 years and then one is off this committee. That is a whole other subject for another day. But we need to focus this. We do not need to dilute it. I understand the purpose of the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. I do not happen to support it.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   The Senator from Kansas.

   Mr. ROBERTS. May I ask how much time I have remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 12 minutes remaining. The Senator from West Virginia has 1 1/2 minutes remaining, and the Senator from New Jersey has 15 minutes remaining.

   Mr. ROBERTS. If I might inquire of the Senator from New Jersey if he is ready to make a comment now or would he prefer to wait?

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I would still like to hear the full development

[Page: S12775]

of the argument. I understand very clearly the comment that the committee is in the midst of its work. I appreciate and believe very strongly in the distinguished Senators from Kansas and West Virginia about this process. But to my knowledge, there have not been public hearings even on things that can be talked about in public. I am very clear in my amendment that the Congress underscores its commitment to and support for ongoing congressional views regarding the collection and analysis of intelligence related to Iraq.

   This is not an attempt to usurp. It is trying to bring additional attention to a very difficult issue. As I said last night, there has been since the last time we debated this on the floor a long litany of weaknesses, questions about the development and use of intelligence.

   It is in that vein that I will be speaking, as I did last night. I would like to hear why it is so important only to do it in one vein when we certainly thought it was important to look at the intelligence operations failures.

   Mr. ROBERTS. If the Senator will yield, I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is controlling the floor right now.

   Mr. ROBERTS. So the Senator is making a speech on my time?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

   Mr. CORZINE. If the Senator from Kansas will yield a couple of minutes to my side back.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to reclaim my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

   Mr. ROBERTS. How much time do I have?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 10 minutes remaining.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I have two other requests for time: Senator Bond and Senator Stevens.

   Let me simply say, when we first considered the Iraq commission proposal during debate on the Defense appropriations bill, the Senate voted it down. I urge my colleagues to oppose it again today.

   My opposition to this amendment is simple. I disagree with its underlying principle that Congress somehow is incapable of thorough, independent, and nonpartisan analysis of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. As I address you today, the professional staff, 10 of them, of the Senate Intelligence Committee are diligently conducting the very review this amendment now seeks. Working together, as has been indicated by the distinguished vice chairman, Senator Rockefeller and I have broadly framed the mandate for the committee's review. Our efforts have focused on the following:

   The quantity and quality of U.S. intelligence concerning Iraqi WMD programs; Iraq's ties to terrorist groups; the regime's human rights violations; and the effect of Saddam Hussein on regional stability. Secondly, the objectivity, the reasonableness, the independence, and accuracy of the judgments of the intelligence community--whether those judgments were properly disseminated to policymakers; and finally, whether inappropriate pressure regarding politics was brought to bear on intelligence analysts.

   I can report to you that after interviewing many analysts--and I will not get into specifics here--there has been no evidence of that as of today.

   Those are the goals of the mission of the current inquiry of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they mirror exactly the nine functions called for in the independent commission as proposed by the Senator from New Jersey. This review is well underway; in my opinion, it is probably 85 to 90 percent done. It is being conducted in the unique nonpartisan atmosphere of the select committee. The work our staff has done is worthy of the Senate's praise. Over 19 volumes of prewar intelligence, thousands of pages of text have been carefully reviewed.

   As a matter of fact, I offer an opportunity to the distinguished Senator. I will play Bob Barker and say, come on down, come to room 219, and I will be happy to show you the national intelligence estimate, our committee work, and the staff work. I think the Senator would be very impressed with the work of our staff. Additional information has been sought and provided in a manner of cooperation by the executive branch. Numerous interviews of the intelligence community and officials from the administration have also been conducted. Status reports have been provided on several occasions to committee members.

   In addition to these efforts, committee members have been able to question several in the intelligence community and officials from the administration at a series of closed hearings. The reason it is not public is simple. At the top of every document, and regarding every subject, it says ``top secret code word.'' That doesn't mean we will not have public hearings or a public report. I have promised that and so has the vice chairman.

   I have also invited all Members of this body who are interested in prewar Iraq intelligence to seek answers to their questions from the committee. I renew that invitation to Senator Corzine. Come on down; take a look at our committee's work. Our staff can direct you to the information that will answer every question set forth in your amendment. I remind the Senator that ours is not the only review of the intelligence community's performance. The able members of the House Intelligence Committee have conducted their review. The President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board is examining the topic. The State Department and the CIA have carefully examined the Niger uranium issue. This list doesn't include the efforts of the 9/11 Commission, the joint inquiry of the congressional intelligence committees, and the efforts of the other congressional committees. All told, over 40 Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career and nonpolitical employees of the executive branch will have looked into this topic. We don't need another 12 members to duplicate that effort.

   When we set out on this review, I promised to follow the facts wherever they might lead. I will do so. I remain

   committed to that promise. We will report our findings and, as necessary, we will recommend any needed improvements. Most important, we will continue our efforts to ensure the intelligence community does provide the policymakers with unbiased and actionable intelligence. As we approach completion of the committee's review, I ask Members not to prejudge our thorough, nonpartisan efforts.

   At this time, would the Senator like to take his time?

   How much time do I have?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 1/2 minutes remaining.

   The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I made a few opening remarks last night. I want to start by saying we are all looking for the same objective; that is, to get to the bottom of understanding the development and the use of intelligence that was the basis on which we entered into a conflict during which we have now lost 335 men, and literally thousands have been injured. There is a reason to understand whether the development and use of that intelligence was appropriately handled.

   The commission I am suggesting, as I read before, underscores its commitment to the process the distinguished Senator from Kansas outlined. It is not to usurp; it is to make sure everyone will have the view that it is bipartisan, that it is independent of any kind of political process. It is to build upon what is going on in the intelligence committees, not to usurp it.

   There is no intention to undermine the credibility of the individuals who are involved in it. I will say that 10 people, as staff, working on and reviewing the intelligence that involves 250,000 troops, where there has been untold loss of life, and the arguments that were made preceding, do not match the reality of what we are finding afterwards--whether it is in regard to aluminum tubes and centrifuges, yellow cake from Niger, connections of al-Qaida and Iraq, claims about mobile laboratories, missile technology, and now the Kay report which, at least at this stage--and it is an interim report--has disputes about almost all elements that were used as the basic topic. I think the public has a reason to be concerned.

   I have other issues when I look at how the 9/11 Commission has actually

[Page: S12776]

been able to operate. I don't know whether the same kind of concerns are operating with regard to the Intelligence Committee. I know the 9/11 Commission chairman, who is a respected New Jersey former Governor, a person of great esteem, a Republican, is saying there is difficulty in getting the information to be able to look at the events that led up to 9/11. As a matter of fact, subpoenas have had to be issued to get the records of the FAA. It strikes me when you add the difficulty the 9/11 Commission has had in getting the information--and we don't know what has gone on in the Intelligence Committee. You look at the fact that senior administration officials have been willing to out a CIA agent, to discredit somebody who actually comes into the public to talk about it. I think the public has a reason to want to have independence in making an assessment of whether the intelligence has been used properly and the development and the use of it have been done properly. That is where my interest is.

   I know the distinguished Senator from Kansas and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia want to get to the

   bottom of this just as much as this Senator does, as much as this body ought to want to; and the people of America ought to have an understanding that we are not developing intelligence for purposes of winning political arguments or winning arguments on the floor of the Senate but to form what is the proper policy. To me, I think we ought to do everything possible to make sure intelligence is properly developed. That is what I have been trying to suggest. I did it earlier in July and I am doing it again.

   I believe very strongly that this is an important issue. There are a whole series of issues about which there are questions. There are very visible examples of challenges to the facts by people who were either close or near to the effort. I will go ahead and say it. On Wednesday night, there was a follow-through by an individual who was in a senior position in the State Department, and I will quote how he felt the intelligence was framed. ``Plenty of blame to go around,'' according to Mr. Thielmann, who, by the way, was a senior officer in the State Department, a 25-year veteran in the Office of Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs.

   He said:

   The main problem is senior administration officials have what I call a ``faith-based approach to intelligence.'' They knew what they wanted the intelligence to show. They were really blind and deaf to any kind of countervailing information the intelligence community would produce. I would assign some blame to the intelligence community and most of the blame to senior administration officials.

   I just believe there are enough questions in the public's mind, and they grow incrementally all the time, that it is time for us to have an independent view of this matter. That in no way is undermining what is going on in the Intelligence Committee. It builds on it. That is the purpose. That is certainly where I come from. That is the argument I have tried to make and I will continue to make.

   Again, I have great respect for the leadership on the Intelligence Committee. I am sure there is a good-faith willingness to try to get to the bottom of this situation. I think this is very important.

   We have other questions: North Korea, Iran, and the terrorist networks that exist across this globe. If we cannot trust our intelligence, then we are going to have a hard time making fundamental decisions in this Chamber, and the American people are going to have a hard time judging whether we made the right decisions and whether we are working in their best interests.

   I yield to my distinguished colleague from New York.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will be brief. I rise in support of the amendment. The bottom line is, in our post-9/11 world, we have learned that intelligence is more important than ever. To prevent terrorism, in essence, small groups of people who can do real damage to us, depends on intelligence.

   Maybe things are working fine, but maybe they are not. The amendment of my colleague from New Jersey casts no aspersion on the job the Intelligence Committee is doing. But it seems to me perfectly logical, in our post-9/11 world, to get as many voices with different perspectives as possible, especially early on because this war on terrorism is going to be with us for decades. It makes eminent sense.

   I have never served on the Intelligence Committee, and I have no doubt that the 10 staffers on that committee who were mentioned by my friend from Kansas and praised by my friend from West Virginia are excellent, but they have one perspective. They have been involved day to day in dealing with intelligence matters, and to have a new outside commission take a look at these specific instances can only benefit the American people.

   Having some experience with this leak of the name of the CIA agent, I am utterly amazed at what is going on here and among some--not all, not a majority but some--in the administration, there is an idea that we should not get at the full truth; an idea that if someone tells you something you don't like, they are to be disparaged and, in the case of Ms. Plame, hurt much worse than that.

   The bottom line is very simple: If we are going to stay a great power--and I hope and pray we will--we need the

   truth. We need to know what is going right and we need to know what is going wrong. There is no greater time than now.

   To say that a 10-staff-member group that has been thoroughly involved in intelligence matters cannot add much perspective is totally wrong, but just as much, to say that a new commission of fresh blood with a new look at the matter might come to some different conclusions than that 10-member staff is equally totally wrong and hurts America.

   This amendment of my colleague from New Jersey is not aimed to be nasty; it is not aimed to be political; it is not aimed to be partisan. It is aimed to find different ways to get to the truth because we all know in the wake of 9/11 that our intelligence was not what it should be. It probably was good enough for a preterrorism world, but it is not good enough for a terrorism world.

   I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It is not, again, to disparage what the committee is doing, but to say we should only have one voice at a time when intelligence is so important, to me at least makes no sense, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this very much needed amendment.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey controls 4 1/2 minutes.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the time used by the Senator from New Jersey in answering the question of the Senator from Kansas was taken out of the time of the Senator from Kansas?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas yielded to the Senator from New Jersey for the purpose of a question.

   Mr. STEVENS. I want some time. I ask unanimous consent that 4 minutes be added to this time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   The assistant minority leader.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have no problem whatsoever if the majority gets 4 minutes, but why not add 4 minutes to this side also?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the unanimous consent request?

   Mr. STEVENS. I withdraw the request.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is withdrawn. Who yields time?

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alaska.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am appalled by the statement of the Senator from New York. There is no distress in this country of the intelligence system. The distress is all political. We have had a problem. There has been a leak. There have been leaks before. This President relied on the same intelligence that President Clinton did when he made the speech in 1998 saying: We are going to invade Iraq.

   I don't know what is going on here that suddenly this becomes another subject to send more people into harm's way

   to find out what went on in Iraq.

   Under amendments already adopted, we have two different inspectors general, and we have the GAO going in on

[Page: S12777]

two different amendments, and now we want to send another independent commission into Iraq. What is going to happen when they get there? They are going to use all the people in uniform to protect them. Last night, four more people were killed in Iraq.

   What is going on here? I don't see any reason to bring the campaign of 2004 to this Chamber on this bill, but that is what is going on with what has just been said by the Senator from New York. I take great offense at that. We are investigating this matter. There is no question we are investigating it. It is being investigated by the commission, it is being investigated by the Department of Justice, and it is being investigated by the CIA. To get into the political harangue I just heard is just absolutely nonsense.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to my friend.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

   Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, as aggravated as my colleague from Alaska is with me, I am with him. This is not intended to be political. I believe that our intelligence needs improvement. I think most Americans--Democrat and Republican--believe that. And if every time we say improve intelligence, look for different ways, people get accused of being political, that is the very point I am making.

   Let's debate this on the merits. Let's not call people names because they happen to disagree that our intelligence is doing a fine job. I don't. It may have been doing a fine job in the cold war for a cold-war era, but the whole tectonic plates of foreign policy have changed. Maybe it works and maybe it doesn't.

   I ask my colleague to go on the streets of any city in New York or any city in America, mine or his--in New York or Alaska--and ask the average citizen do they think the intelligence is working fine. My guess is they will say it needs tuning up. That is all this Senator is trying to do, without being political.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields time?

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side has approximately 3 minutes remaining.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I thought there was granted--

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no unanimous consent request for additional time. That request was withdrawn.

   Mr. CORZINE. The unanimous consent request was withdrawn, if I am not mistaken, Mr. President.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2 minutes so I may conclude my remarks and also yield to the distinguished Senator from Missouri for 2 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. REID. I ask that be modified to allow 2 additional minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification? Without objection, 2 additional minutes will be added to each side. The Senator from Kansas.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask for an additional 1 minute for the distinguished vice chairman of the committee.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection for an additional minute to be added to the time controlled by the Senator from West Virginia?

   Mr. CORZINE. I have no objection.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The Senator from West Virginia now controls 2 1/2 minutes.

   Who yields time?

   Mr. ROBERTS. I would like to recognize the distinguished vice chairman, the Senator from West Virginia.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I tremendously regret the argument that took place between the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from New York, because that is exactly what we do not need around here. I thought the Senator from Alaska, as much as I respect him, should not be trying to cast political aspersions, and then I thought the Senator from New York should not be saying we are not in any sense being political, we only want the truth, and talking about weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence, because we all agree that the intelligence was wanting.

   We all agree that it is very different from the cold war, but what is really important that has to happen and something which only the Intelligence Committee can do, and which has to be in continuity with the work we are doing now, is after we finish investigating what went wrong is to figure out what we are going to do to make it go right. That is a whole other chapter. That is getting rid of the stovepipes and determining whether we want a director of national intelligence.

   It is an entirely different relationship now between intelligence and warfighting. Intelligence and warfighting used to be separate. They are now integrated. Intelligence and policy used to be separate. They are now integrated. That is what our committee is doing, but first we need to finish the investigation and then we get to that.

   Our problem is we are doing so much investigating we cannot get to that. It is very frustrating to me. We have not finished doing a lot of the investigating that we need to do.

   As the chairman has said, we will follow all trails to where they lead. There is a lot of work and it is very sensitive. It is not just a matter of creating another commission to start all over again and to do what will probably be virtually the same work with something called a fresh idea. The people on the Intelligence Committee, on both sides, are smart. They are invigorated. They are determined. There is controversy in the committee, which is good. There is no single approach to it. There is a lot of discussion going on. That process must continue and that is what the Intelligence Committee was created for. We are becoming a new Intelligence Committee because we are in an entirely different world.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Who yields time?

   Mr. CORZINE. How much time remains?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has 5 minutes remaining.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Illinois and a member of the Intelligence Committee.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I salute the chairman and the ranking member for the fine work they do and for the fine staff we have. As the Senator from Kansas has said, we have 10 people who are working hard in this committee. Put it in perspective: 10 excellent staffers, responsible for overseeing the intelligence agencies of the Federal Government; 10 excellent staffers who in addition to that are initiating an investigation of the intelligence that led up to Iraq. It is totally inadequate. We are totally understaffed. That is why Senator Corzine's amendment is so important.

   We have lost 335 American lives. Thousands have been wounded. We have put ourselves in a position in Iraq where we will be vulnerable for years to come, and we want to ask the hard questions with the Corzine commission. Was our intelligence right in leading us into this war? It is a difficult question and a painful question but it must be asked.

   When Dr. Kay comes back emptyhanded, after more than 5 months of inspections, with hundreds of inspectors, with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, it is a condemnation of one of two things: either our intelligence gathering or the use of that intelligence leading to the war. As painful as it is, we have to face that reality.

   The reality is this: Next to the failure of the United States to recognize the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the cold war, this could be the most colossal intelligence failure in our history. Can we face that reality? I think we can and we should, because intelligence is key to America's security. Intelligence is key to winning the war on terrorism.

   What Senator Corzine has said is turn this over to an independent, nonpartisan group to get the job done. I do

[Page: S12778]

not think that is a reflection on the Senate Intelligence Committee. They are doing a fine job, and I am glad to be a part of it, but for goodness' sake, do not be afraid to get to the truth. That is what the Corzine commission amendment is all about.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Who yields time?

   The Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. CORZINE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

   Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I echo the words of my colleagues who support this amendment. I really do see it as a way of getting it out of politics, of taking it away from partisanship.

   I could not agree more with the argument that something went wrong. We can pretend it did not or we can face up to the fact that it did.

   This is not just about the past. It is also about the present and the future. We face continuing threats. Those of us in this Chamber who have that intelligence information given to us know that, and we have to be as vigilant and well prepared as we possibly can.

   I do not ever want to have to face another constituent of mine and say, well, we missed it, we did not get it right.

   Yes, we do have to go forward with new plans. But how can we build a new intelligence system, with all due respect to the chairman and the ranking member, both of whom I hold in the highest regard, without having an honest and independent appraisal of what went wrong?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Who yields time?

   The Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, the goal of this commission is not about blame. This is about trying to find out what went wrong and why we had the kind of development and use of intelligence that is so patently inconsistent with the facts that seem to be coming out.

   Most of us do not sit inside those quiet halls of the Intelligence Committee. The public does not, but they are seeing fact after fact refuted. They see CIA agents outed. They see people who were a part of the intelligence community complaining. One of the ways to restore the confidence in something that is absolutely necessary to be able to carry out the war on terrorism, which we all believe in and want to support, is to have confidence in our intelligence community. It is not to undermine the Intelligence Committee.

   This amendment underscores a commitment to support the ongoing congressional reviews regarding the collection and analysis of data. It is not to undermine it. We all have tremendous faith in the chairman and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, but this is to restore the confidence of the American people, to restore the confidence of all of us who have to use the information to draw the conclusions that are necessary as to whether we are going to put men and women in harm's way.

   I could not agree more with the Senator from West Virginia. Intelligence and military operations now are absolutely intimately linked. They are one in the same. If it is faith based, then we will reach the wrong conclusions. I hope the Senate will support my amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, how much time remains?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 5 minutes remaining. All other time has expired.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Missouri, a valued member of the intelligence community.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

   Mr. BOND. Mr. President, comments were made by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey saying that the intelligence was faith based. He insinuated that intelligence had been changed somehow perhaps by the administration.

   Let me first point out that this intelligence has been acted upon by previous administrations. I quote from President Clinton, 1998:

   If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

   Madeline Albright, Secretary of State, February 18, 1998:

   Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.

   Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser, same day:

   He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983.

   Having said that, I think we all agree we need better intelligence. That is why I made the same commitment that my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, have made to serve on the Intelligence Committee and spend the time, without our personal staff but in intelligence hearings, going through the testimony and looking at the documents, as is required of the Intelligence Committee.

   It is frustrating for some of us on the Intelligence Committee to listen to speeches by people who have not taken the time to read the classified information, and be briefed, as all Senators are entitled to, after we have done the work. We listened to speeches that, unfortunately, reflected a lack of information about what is going on in Intelligence that is available. The insinuation has been made of improper influence. The Intelligence Committee will and has examined that.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

   Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I renew the invitation to my friend from New Jersey to take a look at our committee's work. Our staff is not understaffed. I know some people like to have more staff. They have been working very hard. I can direct you to the information that will answer every single one of the questions set forth in your amendment which reflects exactly the mission of our inquiry. All told, over 40 Members of Congress, numerous professional staff, and countless career nonpolitical employees in the executive branch have looked into this topic which you are suggesting we have another 12 Members do the same thing.

   Washington has been overrun with independent blue ribbon commissions. The intelligence community has been a frequent target of these activities--Aspin, Brown, Hart, Rudman, and the Bremer Commission, the 9/11 Commission, and the list goes on and on.

   We have to consider the unseen effects caused by the constant, unrelenting reviews of the intelligence community. I do not discount the importance of reexaminations of our past actions. We have had oversight responsibility. If we don't know the mistakes of the past, we are bound to repeat them.

   But following September 11, we asked intelligence analysts to aggressively pursue all available leads: Please connect every possible dot, even when the connections may seem weak. We cannot continue to castigate these analysts when they make reasoned judgments based on the available information. This second-guessing erodes morale and it discourages the thoughtful analysis we need. These people have their lives on the line.

   I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

   How much time do I have?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.

   Mr. ROBERTS. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Regretfully, I must oppose this amendment. As a member of the committee, I believe we have set upon a course which is the soundest course in terms of getting at any flaws that may exist among the variety of intelligence agencies.

   I think to establish another commission at this time is to very much undercut the oversight commitment and mandate of the Intelligence Committee. I believe it would be a mistake to do so at this time. There may be a time that would come where that might be the case, but I do not believe now is the time. We have set upon a course. The chairman is committed to public hearings. We will be having those hearings. The investigations are taking place.

   Regretfully, I must oppose this amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous order,

[Page: S12779]

the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska moves to table the amendment.

   Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There appears to be a sufficient second.

   The question is on agreeing to the motion to table amendment No. 1882. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN) is necessarily absent.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 395 Leg.]

YEAS--67

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bond

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Byrd

   Campbell

   Chafee

   Chambliss

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Cornyn

   Craig

   Crapo

   DeWine

   Dole

   Domenici

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (FL)

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   Kohl

   Kyl

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Mikulski

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Pryor

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Wyden

NAYS--32

   Akaka

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Clinton

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Daschle

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Feingold

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Jeffords

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kerry

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Reed

   Reid

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Stabenow

NOT VOTING--1

   Lieberman

   The motion was agreed to.

   Mr. STEVENS. 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.

4F) Iraq Survey Group (S.A. 1866 to S. 1689)

AMENDMENTS NOS. 1832, 1853, 1865, AND 1866

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, both sides have cleared for approval four amendments that I ask be considered en bloc. The first is amendment No. 1832 by Senator Feingold. The second is amendment No. 1853. The other two have not been filed. I send the amendments to the desk on behalf of Senator Hollings and Senator Durbin, and I ask unanimous consent that these four amendments be considered en bloc. They are primarily technical in nature.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS], for Mr. Hollings, proposes an amendment numbered 1865.

   The Senator from Alaska [Mr. STEVENS], for Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 1866.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendments were agreed to en bloc, as follows:  

   AMENDMENT NO. 1866

(Purpose: To require quarterly reports on the status of the efforts of the Iraq Survey Group to account for the Iraq weapons of mass destruction programs)

   At the end of title I, insert the following:

   SEC. 316. (a) FINDINGS.--Congress makes the following findings:

   (1) The Iraq Survey Group is charged with investigating the weapons of mass destruction programs of Iraq.

   (2) The Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence for Strategy and Iraq heads the efforts of the Iraq Survey Group.

   (b) QUARTERLY REPORTS ON STATUS OF EFFORTS OF IRAQ SURVEY GROUP.--Not later than January 1, 2004, and every three months thereafter through September 30, 2004, the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence for Strategy and Iraq shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a comprehensive written report on the status of the efforts of the Iraq Survey Group to account for the programs of Iraq on weapons of mass destruction and related delivery systems.

   (c) FORM OF REPORT.--Each report required by subsection (b) shall be submitted in both classified and unclassified form.

   (d) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED.--In this section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--

   (1) the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

   (2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Subcommittee on defense of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

   Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, 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. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.