Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

2A) H.R. 1588 National Defense Authorization

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 1588), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, signed by a majority of conferees on the part of both Houses.

   The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.

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

Mr. ALLARD. …As chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces with oversight over national security space, strategic weapons, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons, I would like to take some time to discuss some important provisions in this conference report relating to these issues. Before I do so, though, let me first thank Senator BILL NELSON, the ranking member for the strategic forces subcommittee, for working so closely with me throughout the year. While we did not agree on every provision, his assistance and contribution helped make this a better bill.

   Let me now address several specific provisions.

   With regard to enhancing U.S. national security space capabilities, the conference report establishes a policy that states that the Nation will have an assured space launch capability, promotes the development of an effective space cadre, and authorizes additional funds for space control initiatives.

   With regard to protecting our country from a ballistic missile attack, the conference report authorizes $9.1 billion for ballistic missile defense research, development, and procurement. Specifically, the report authorized an additional $100 million for ground-based mid-course system and $90 million for the PAC-3 Patriot terminal missile defense system.

   With regard to improving the Department of Defense intelligence gathering capability, the conference report requires the Secretary of Defense to establish an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance council to develop a roadmap to fully integrate the ISR efforts of the military services. The report also prohibits the National Imagery and Mapping Agency from spending more than 10 percent of its commercial space imagery budget on other important but unrelated projects.

   Lastly, the conference report includes a number of provisions that will greatly improve our ability to deter a possible nuclear attack. One provision repeals the ban on research and development on low-yield nuclear weapons. Another requires the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain the ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within 18 months. Finally, the report authorizes $21 million for advance concept initiatives, of which $15 million is directed toward continuing a study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.

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

Mr. LEVIN. …I was also pleased the conference report includes a Senate provision authorizing the expansion of the cooperative threat reduction program of the Department of Defense and the nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy, outside of the former Soviet Union. That was the change we were able to make. This is the basically flowering of the Nunn-Lugar program. Senator Lugar, of course, who is still in this body, is the one who has promoted and prodded and pressed us to do this. He has been absolutely right on this program. They have proven to be important tools in helping to reduce the proliferation risk from nuclear, chemical, and biological materials in the former Soviet Union.

   We give the President the authority which the President requested to continue the destruction of chemical weapons in Russia. It fully funds CTR programs. But at the request of the administration, with full support of Senator Lugar, who really was a leader in this, and the full support of our chairman and our committee, we have now for the first time, using the authorities in the agreement, allowed the President to use these cooperative threat reduction funds from the Department of Energy Materials Protection and Control Program to meet emerging threats in other parts of the world. It is no longer limited now to the former Soviet Union.

   Again, Senator Warner's total support of this change was instrumental in making it happen.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it certainly was his leadership on those issues, the CTR, the expansion. Truly, I joined you, and felt strongly about them. We were steadfast when the four of us finally got into the conference and settled those points.

   Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman.

   Finally, I am pleased that the conference report includes a Senate provision authorizing the expansion of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program of the Department of Defense and the nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy outside the Former Soviet Union. These programs have proven to be important tools in helping reduce proliferation risk from nuclear, chemical and biological materials of the Former Soviet Union. This conference agreement also provides the President with the authority he requested to continue destruction of chemical weapons in Russia, and fully funds the CTR programs.

   As we have all come to appreciate, however, the risk that nuclear, chemical and biological materials and knowledge will proliferate is not limited to Russia and the other States of the former Soviet Union. For the first time, using the authorities provided in this agreement, the President will be able to use CTR funds, and funds from the Department of Energy, DOE, Materials Protection and Control program, to meet emerging threats in other areas of the world.

   I had previously expressed my gratitude to Senator COLLINS for her extraordinary leadership in this effort. Her assessment on the floor is one I join.

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

Mr. LEVIN. …Finally, I am disappointed by the outcome of the conference on nuclear weapons issues. In my view, this conference report takes the United States in a dangerous new direction that marks a major shift in American policy, is inconsistent with our longstanding commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and undermines our argument to other countries around the world that they should not develop or test nuclear weapons. With this legislation and related actions over the past 2 years, the Bush Administration appears to be moving to change the traditional thinking about nuclear weapons, to make nuclear weapons more usable, and to see them as just another capability. Or, as a recent article in the New York Times Magazine suggests, to make the unthinkable--thinkable.

   Current U.S. law bans research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so called low-yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5 kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the nuclear bomb that

   was used at Hiroshima, which immediately killed an estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The Bush administration asked that this ban be repealed. This conference agreement would do so.

   There is some satisfaction that the conference agreement includes language adopted on the Senate floor, which would require specific congressional authorization before the administration may engineer, test, produce or deploy a low-yield nuclear weapon. However, this requirement is a poor substitute for current law, which imposes a complete ban on the development of such weapons.

   This conference report would also authorize the Bush administration request to continue work on a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, RNEP. As with low-yield nuclear weapons, the Administration would be authorized to proceed with research, but would be required to obtain specific authorization to engineer, test, produce or deploy the RNEP. The RNEP program would modify one of two existing low yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification are high yield nuclear weapons with yields that are approximately 30 and 70 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.

   At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea's pulling out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and when we are spending over a billion dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology, these actions would send a terrible message. We are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons. But instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road. In short, the United States is following a policy that we do not--and should not--tolerate in others.

   This is an area where many of us have been deeply troubled by the direction of this administration because it would seem at the same time we are trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea's pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and when we are spending over $1 billion to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and technology, the actions we are taking here send the wrong message, which is continuing to go down a road of considering new and doing research on new nuclear weapons and modernization of nuclear weapons.

   We put something of a lid on it by specific language which the chairman introduced on the floor, which I very much supported and which requires that before we move to a development stage in any new weapon, that there be a specific authorization by the Congress that does give at least some protection, some certainty that we will not move to the development stage of a new modernized nuclear weapon without thorough consideration of the Congress. That, at least, is some constraint on that development.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1588, which the clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   Conference report to accompany H.R. 1588, an act to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities for the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strength for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the conference report.

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

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I apologize to our distinguished chairman for not having been down here during this discussion. As he well knows, I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am proud to say we were able to get a bill out, the reauthorization bill. I feel very good about that. It will be coming to the floor. It is a good compromise but it required my attendance.

   I want to be on record to say that our chairman and the ranking member have done a very good job. We have worked closely together during the development of the authorization bill. We are making great headway. We are turning in the right direction. I particularly applaud those who participated in the ultimate compromise that we agreed on having to do with the lease program, the 767s. We all understand we have a crisis in our tanker fleet. Our KC-135s are getting old and there is controversy over how much longer they can be used. Nonetheless, our pilots who are performing this significant mission of refueling need to have the very best. We are addressing that problem.

…I am glad we are addressing end strength--not as much as I would like to or our chairman would like to because this is a compromise situation, but we have to recognize that we allowed our end strength to deteriorate, in terms of numbers, to the point that we are OPTEMPO of our regular services, we are OPTEMPO for our Guard and the Reserves. It is at an unacceptably high rate.

   I do not think there is one Member of this Senate who does not go home and talk to his Guard and Reserve units, only to find out that critical MOS, military occupation specialties, are being lost because they are just overworked. You cannot expect someone who is in a citizens militia to have to be full time. Essentially, that is what is happening right now.

   So we are starting to address that, and I think we need to go much further in the future. When I see that we did have a problem all during the 1990s, that I articulated on this

   Senate floor,

[Page: S14482]

when we had a lowering in the amount of attention that was given to our military in terms of end strength, in terms of modernization, in terms of national missile defense, these things were very disturbing to me. I know we are now recognizing it.

   I hate to say it in this way, but I really think those who subscribe to the idea--or did subscribe to the idea prior to 9/11--that the cold war is over and we need not have the size military we once did are just dead wrong. I look wistfully back at those days when we knew what our enemies had. We had one major superforce out there, and that superforce was predictable.

   Now we have the proliferation of both weapons of mass destruction throughout the world and the delivery system. We know what countries have a delivery system that could reach us here in Washington, DC. We need to make up for what was lost during that period of time.

   Lastly, I would agree with Secretary Rumsfeld who at one of our earlier meetings suggested that throughout the entire 20th century, the percentage of our GDP that went to defense was about 5.7 percent, and that dropped down in the 1990s to about 2.7 percent. We are up to 3.4 percent approximately.

   I think we need to stop and rethink that as an overall picture of a plan for the future, perhaps it should be somewhere around 4, 4.5, or 5 percent because the nature of the threat that is out there is more expensive. I think we need to address it. So I think this bill goes a long way in that direction.

   I am very pleased with the product we have. We have a long way to go, and I hope we can join hands and do that in the future.

   Again, I applaud our chairman and the ranking member for the efforts they have put forth in making this legislation a reality.

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

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Authorization Conference Report provides important benefits as our military personnel continue to do battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, South America, and elsewhere. It is not, however, a perfect bill. I voted for it because I believe that in a time of war we need to take care of our military personnel and our veterans. But, I am concerned that this bill unnecessarily undercuts important environmental protection measures and civil service protections. I am also troubled by some of the nuclear weapons provisions of the bill.

…Finally, let me say a few words about some of the nuclear weapons provisions in this bill. This conference report does a good job, on balance, of providing for our cooperative threat reduction and non-proliferation assistance programs in the former Soviet Union. It provides roughly the funding requested by the President and, in particular, a needed Presidential waiver provision so that we can continue to help build a chemical weapons destruction facility in Shchuch'ye, Russia. It requires the Secretary of Energy to study and report on the possibility of purchasing and safeguarding excess weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from the independent states of the former Soviet Union, so as to ensure that such dangerous material cannot be diverted to rogue states or terrorists. And it allows the President to use some Nunn-Lugar and non-proliferation funds for projects outside the former Soviet Union, if he determines that this will assist in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation threat or permit the United States to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals.

   I regret that the Congress agreed to repeal the Spratt-Furse prohibition of work on low-yield nuclear weapons. I am pleased, however, that the conference report states that such work may not commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress. I am also pleased that the Secretary of Energy is barred from commencing the engineering development phase, phase 6.3, of the nuclear weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress.

   Again, I voted for this bill because it contains many important provisions, particularly in this time of war. But I am very concerned that some of the provisions agreed to by the conferees are ill-advised and premature. I hope that we will be able to reconsider them next year.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the fiscal year 204 Department of Defense authorization bill.

    With so many of our young men and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and throughout the world, it is very important that Congress support our troops and the important pay increases and personnel benefits in this bill.

    This legislation authorizes a 3.7 percent across the board pay increase for all uniformed members of the armed services and targeted pay raises of 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for mid-career servicemembers. I strongly support these provisions of the bill. These pay increases are well earned.

    I am also pleased that imminent danger pay at the level of $225 per month and family separation pay of $250 per month was extended until December 31, 2004. With United States troops bearing so much of the burden in Iraq, many military families are having a difficult time making ends meet. Extending these benefits is the least we can do.

    But let me be clear. This $401 billion Defense authorization bill contains many troubling provisions that will make us less secure and that I oppose.

    First, this legislation repeals a 1989 ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and provides funding for research into new bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Developing new and low-yield nuclear weapons will not make us safer--it will only lead to a dangerous escalation in the arms race. These provisions send the wrong message to the rest of the world and are based on a flawed strategy developed by President Bush that contemplates scenarios for the preemptive use of nuclear weapons.

    Second, this legislation significantly rolls back environmental safeguards on our military bases. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Interior from designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act on any lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense if the lands are subject to a management plan developed by the military that provides a ``benefit'' to the species. the conference report also gives the military greater leeway to conduct activities that might disturb marine mammals, such as whales.

[Page: S14491]

Under this bill, the Secretary of Defense may exempt any action or category of actions from the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, if the Secretary deems it is necessary for national defense. These environmental rollbacks are unfortunate. I urge the Department of Defense to take extra care not to abuse these new broad authorities.

    Finally, I am concerned this bill did not do more to limit sole-source contracting by the Department of Defense. During Senate consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment stating that the Department of Defense should meet its own goal of replacing Halliburton's sole-source contract to reconstruct Iraq's oil industry with a fully competitive contract by August 31, 2003.

    It is now November and Halliburton's sole source contract is still in place and a new competitive contract has not been awarded. I appreciate that the final bill contains a provision requiring a report within 30 days on why this sole-source contract has been allowed to continue. However, it is regrettable that conferees did not establish a deadline for the termination of Halliburton's sole-source contract.

    Despite these concerns, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this legislation. It is a bill that will help our military men and women who are serving to protect our Nation.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.

   Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. EDWARDS) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) are necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) would vote ``yea.''

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 447 Leg.]

YEAS--95

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Bond

   Boxer

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Chafee

[Page: S14494]

   Chambliss

   Clinton

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Conrad

   Cornyn

   Corzine

   Craig

   Crapo

   Daschle

   Dayton

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Dole

   Domenici

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (FL)

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Hollings

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Inouye

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Kyl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lieberman

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Mikulski

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Santorum

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stabenow

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Wyden

NAYS--3

   Akaka

   Byrd

   Jeffords

NOT VOTING--2

   Edwards

   Kerry

   The conference report was agreed to.

4A) S. Con. Res 81 - Iran and the NPT

SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 81--EXPRESSING THE DEEP CONCERN OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE FAILURE OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN TO ADHERE TO ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER A SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY AND THE ENGAGEMENT BY IRAN IN ACTIVITIES THAT APPEAR TO BE DESIGNED TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS -- (Senate - November 12, 2003)
 

[Page: S14818]  GPO's PDF

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. KYL, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. FITZGERALD, and Mr. COCHRAN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

   S. Con. Res. 81

   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 by becoming a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapons state, Iran has committed itself to permanently abstaining from the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons;

   Whereas, in March 2003, the Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium, a key component of nuclear weapons;

   Whereas environmental sampling by the IAEA at Iran's Natanz nuclear facility revealed the presence 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 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 called 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 on October 21, 2003, the Government of Iran reached an agreement with 3 European foreign ministers in which it promised to extend full cooperation to the IAEA, sign the IAEA Additional Protocol and commence ratification procedures, comport itself in accordance with the provisions of the Model Additional Protocol prior to ratification, and voluntarily suspend all uranium enrichment and processing activities;

   Whereas the 3 European governments promised a dialogue with Iran to ease Iran's access to a variety of modern technologies and supplies once certain international concerns regarding Iran are fully resolved;

   Whereas, even if Iran adheres to its commitment to the European foreign ministers to suspend enriching and processing uranium, Iran has explicitly indicated that it reserves the right to resume this activity at a time of its choosing;

   Whereas, although Iran has provided the IAEA with what it claims is a full statement about the nature of its nuclear activities, the IAEA has indicated it may take some months to fully evaluate the Iranian declaration, and IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei has already stated that the documents show that Iran failed to comply with some of its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;

   Whereas Iran has not yet provided the IAEA unrestricted access to conduct inspections that the IAEA believes are necessary to resolve issues concerning Iran's nuclear program;

   Whereas, on October 23, 2003, the Government of Iran provided the IAEA with a declaration that it described as a complete and accurate history of its nuclear program;

   Whereas Iran's National Security Council Chief, Hassan Rouhani, stated on October 21, 2003, that Iran was not prepared to abandon its uranium enrichment program, and the Iranian Foreign Ministry indicated on October 26, 2003, that it has not yet suspended uranium enrichment but was merely studying the issue;

   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; and

   Whereas the continuation of construction by Iran of unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, coupled with its ties to terrorist groups, will continue to constitute a severe threat to international peace and security and to vital American national interests: 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 for well over a decade to report material, facilities, and activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency 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 Non-Proliferation Agreements and Commitments that Iran is pursuing a program to develop nuclear weapons;

    (4) acknowledges the agreement reached between the Government of Iran and the foreign ministers of Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, but questions whether it signifies a sincere and lasting decision by the Government of Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program;

    (5) believes that Iran must come into full compliance with its obligations;

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

    (A) urging the Government of Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and comply fully and unconditionally with the terms of 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; and

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

    (7) calls on Russia to--

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

    (B) suspend all nuclear cooperation with Iran, particularly the completion of the Bushehr nuclear reactor and the delivery of fuel for that reactor, until Iran fully and completely complies with the IAEA resolution and fully implements the Model Additional Protocol;

    (C) insist that no fuel will be supplied to the Bushehr reactor unless Iran agrees to return all spent fuel to Russia; and

    (D) put into effect procedures to ensure that Iran cannot divert any spent fuel;

    (8) calls on member states of the United Nations to prevent the Government of Iran from continuing to pursue and develop programs or facilities that could be used in a nuclear weapons program and end all nuclear cooperation with Iran, including the provision of dual use items, until Iran complies fully with the IAEA resolution and fully implements the Model Additional Protocol;

    (9) calls on the European Union to condition economic and commercial agreements with Iran on the full compliance by Iran with its commitment not to pursue nuclear weapons and to stipulate that any rights

[Page: S14819]  GPO's PDF

that Iran obtains under such agreements will be immediately revoked if Iran interferes with the work of the IAEA or takes any other steps to acquire nuclear weapons;

    (10) calls on the IAEA, in accordance with its own regulations, to formally declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at its November 20, 2003, board meeting and refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council for further action;

    (11) calls on the United Nations Security Council, immediately upon receiving any violations report from the IAEA, to address the threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program by passing a Security Council resolution, or take such other action that may be necessary to impose stringent diplomatic and economic sanctions against Iran; and

    (12) calls on the Government of Iran to cease all efforts to acquire nuclear fuel cycle capabilities and to end the enrichment and processing of uranium until it is able to provide specific, verifiable 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.
 

4C) Intelligence Failures

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an article entitled ``The Stovepipe'' by Seymour Hersh that appeared in a recent edition of The New Yorker magazine.

   The article outlines a series of disturbing intelligence failures within the Bush administration leading up to the war in Iraq. From ignoring career intelligence analysts to relying on unreliable raw data, the article makes the case that senior members of the Bush administration often ignored information that did not fit their preconceived view of the situation in Iraq and pushed the intelligence community to come up with information that would support their position, regardless of its accuracy. In particular, the article outlines the practice of ``stovepiping'' information in which intelligence was passed up through the administration without subjecting it to a thorough review by intelligence professionals.

   The bad intelligence that resulted from this process was then used to convince our Nation of the need to engage in a near-unilateral, pre-emptive war in Iraq to protect the American people from what was described as an imminent threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

   As a result of this go it alone approach in Iraq, the Bush administration has alienated much of the world, told U.S. taxpayers that they are financially responsible for rebuilding Iraq, and ordered more than a hundred thousand U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future--yet no evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been found.

   Mr. President, there is no doubt that at one time Iraq possessed chemical weapons. We know that Saddam Hussein used these weapons during the Iran-Iraq war and on his own people. There is also no doubt that at one point Saddam Hussein pursued a nuclear weapons program. However, the Iraq Survey Group--the group charged with finding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction--has yet to turn up any proof of the huge WMD stockpiles and nuclear weapons program of which the Bush administration repeatedly told us they had evidence.

   It is clear that the world and the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam Hussein. He was a brutal dictator who terrorized his own people and destabilized the entire Middle East. I am extremely proud of the men and women of our Armed Forces for their actions during the war and the ongoing efforts to stabilize the country. Now that we are there, we cannot ``cut and run'' and we must provide our troops with the resources they need to complete their mission and to return home as soon as possible.

   However, I am deeply concerned that we sent our sons and daughters to war based largely on what turns out to be faulty intelligence. The ends of the war do not justify the means by which the Bush administration convinced the American people that this war was necessary. That is why I believe we need to have an independent investigation into the acquisition and use of intelligence leading up to the decision to go to war in Iraq, not as a political attack, but as a way to make sure that future decisions about whether or not our country goes to war based on the best possible intelligence.

   Mr. President, I encourage all of my colleagues to read this important Hersh article from The New Yorker of October 21, 2003.

4D) Syria Accountability Act

   Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I call up the Syria Accountability Act.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   A 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.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for debate is limited to 90 minutes, with 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Lugar, or his designee, 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, or his designee, and 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

   Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, there is before the Senate the so-called Syrian Accountability Act, which imposes sanctions on Syria. It recites a long list of circumstances where the Syrians have not taken sufficient action to fight terrorism , and then it calls for Syria to take corrective action, and in the absence of that corrective action, authorizes the imposition of economic sanctions, and it leaves with the President of the United States the authority to waive those sanctions if it is in the national interest.

   Sanctions are imposed by Congress with some frequency. At first blush, this appears to be a straightforward affirmative vote, but I believe the matter is more complicated than that, and I have come to that view after having traveled to Syria almost every year since 1984, and after having had considerable contact with the Syrian Government. After considering the matter at some length, I have decided that I will vote in favor of the Syrian Accountability Act because the problems of terrorism are so serious and because I believe that Syria needs to do more.

   The bill itself has a long recitation of background circumstances, but the events today in Iraq, where our fighting men and women are being subjected to terrorist attacks, casualties and fatalities, and where the people of Iraq are being subjected as victims of terrorism , I believe it is a fair demand that more be done. That would include more by Syria.

   There are, according to reliable reports, official statements of the U.S. Government that terrorists are infiltrating into Syria, coming from Syria into Iraq. More has to be done on that subject.

   It has to be noted that Syria has responded with a number of affirmative actions to be of assistance to the United States in our war on terrorists. The officials of the State Department have acknowledged that after September 11, 2001, that information was provided by Syria on al-Qaeda, which saved U.S. lives.

   It is also to be acknowledged there has been some improvement on the Syrian-Iraqi border, but clearly not enough. There were reports just this morning from the State Department about the porous Syrian border and terrorists coming into Iraq, again exposing U.S. personnel and the Iraqis themselves to terrorist attack.

   It ought to be noted that Syria did join in the unanimous resolution, U.N. Resolution 1511, and that when Secretary of State Powell traveled to Syria in April of 2002, there was some helpful action taken by the Syrian Government on the southern border of Lebanon. But when Secretary of State Powell went to Syria in May of 2003 and urged the Syrian Government to oust the terrorists from Damascus, that request was not acted upon. Recently, Israel moved against terrorist training camps within a few miles of Damascus.

   While all of these matters are subjected to controversy, and there are disputes by the Syrian Government, I believe the balance of the evidence supports the conclusion that those were training camps.

   I believe it is important that the U.S. Government continues in its efforts to negotiate with Syria to try to improve the situation, and that we ought to be mindful that there are opportunities to have frank discussions with the Syrian officials which have led to some beneficial results and which ought to be pursued.

   I urge my colleagues in the U.S. Congress, pursuant to our duties, for example, on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on which I serve, or on the Foreign Relations Committee, to travel to Syria to engage the Syrian leaders because I think it can be productive. I make reference to my own experience in that regard.

   I made my first trip to Syria in 1984. As I have said, I have been to Syria almost every year since. I first met President Bashar al-Assad in January of 1988 and found him to be willing to listen and willing to have a dialog. My conversation at that time with President Assad lasted for some 4 hours and 35 minutes, talking about a wide range of issues--the Israeli-Syrian relations, the Iran-Iraq war, which was still in progress at that time, U.S.-Syrian relations,

   the situations with the Jews in Syria. At that time, working with then Congressman Solarz, I urged President Assad to allow the Jews to have free immigration out of Syria. There were many Jewish women in Syria who could not find husbands of the Jewish faith. President Assad said to me, in one of our meetings, he would release any Jewish woman where somebody came from the United States--there were large Syrian-Jewish groupings in the United States--to come to claim a bride, and anyone who wanted to marry a woman in Syria who was Jewish, if a suitor came, the woman would be released.

   I reported back to a number of Jewish-Syrian enclaves in the United States. Nothing much happened about that. Finally, a few years later, President Assad granted free rights for the Jews to leave Syria at their choice, something he had resisted, but something which he finally was persuaded to do.

   During the course of the discussions I had with President Assad, I urged him to participate in discussions with Israel. At first, he took the position he would not be a party to any discussions which were sponsored just by the United States but only if they were sponsored by all five of the permanent members of the Security Council.

   Finally, President Assad made a change and sent representatives to Madrid in 1991 to participate in those discussions. When Prime Minister Netanyahu was elected in 1996, Prime

[Page: S14404]  GPO's PDF

Minister Netanyahu initially made some statements that he was going to hold Syria accountable for Hezbollah on the southern Lebanon border. That resulted in a very tense situation with Syria realigning their troops along the Syrian border.

   Prime Minister Netanyahu knew I was about to travel to Syria and asked me to carry a message to President Assad and Foreign Minister Shara, that Prime Minister Netanyahu wanted peace and was prepared to personally engage in discussions and would urge President Assad to engage personally, but that was not a condition.

   I relayed that message to President Assad. While he was not willing to engage in negotiations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, it was later reported there was an easing of those tensions.

   On many occasions, I would urge President Assad to have discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister. I soon developed a relationship where I was able to take it in a somewhat lighter vein and said to him when our pictures--he met with me in his office, with the large traditional chairs and a small stand in between to hold the tea or coffee--I said tomorrow there would be a picture in the Damascus newspaper of our discussion, but that if he would meet with Prime Minister Shamir, which I urged in the early 1990s, the picture would appear on the front pages of the New York Times and the London Times and across the world.

   When the Nobel Peace awards were given to Prime Minister Rabin and Foreign Minister Perez and Chairman Arafat, I urged President Assad to engage in negotiations with Prime Minister Rabin. I said he would be honored at Oslo, and he responded in a light vein that he might be honored at Oslo but he would not be allowed back in Damascus. I told him I did not think that was true, and he commented notwithstanding what some might think, the public opinion in Syria was a matter of some substantial concern to him.

   I attended the funeral of President Assad in the year 2000, accompanying Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. On that occasion, I had a chance to meet his successor, President Bashar Assad. I visited Syria on two occasions, in 2002 and last year in 2003, and have had lengthy conversations with President Bashar Assad. They are conversations which are candid and sometimes critical.

   For example, at the Arab summit, when President Bashar Assad made a comment that Zionism was the same as nazism, I said I thought there ought to be a change in his attitude on that because there was no comparison between the brutality of nazism, their destruction, their attacking neighboring countries, their Holocaust, murdering 6 million Jews, and the aspirations of the Zionists to have a homeland in Israel. He listened and talked. To what extent there is an imprint, who knows. It is better to have it said than to have him thinking

   he can simply equate nazism and Zionism without an objection.

   President Bashar Assad also made a comment at the Arab summit that it was fair to target civilians in the Golan Heights, and I disagreed with him. He said, well, the civilians are armed. I said, they have to be armed because there are attacks on the borders. I urged him that the right response was to engage in diplomatic talks with the United States.

   The essential conclusions which I have reached are there is some substantial opportunity to deal with Syria. In Bashar Assad there is a new leader, a man in his late 30s, English educated, willing to meet with the House of Representatives or the Senate, willing to listen. Notwithstanding my many exhortations of President Hafez al-Assad and President Bashar Assad, they continue to harbor terrorists in Damascus. Both the father and the son respond that the people live there have been exiled from what was formerly Palestine, they cannot be in Israel so they live in Damascus. I responded I thought that was an insufficient answer.

   Although some progress has been made, I do believe Syria needs to do much more. Syria is the de facto controller of Lebanon, and Syria needs to do more to stop Hezbollah and their rocket attacks on Israel, with the tremendous armaments which Syria has. There are reliable reports about Syria developing bacteriological warfare, a lot of chemical warfare, and extending the range of their missiles, and some incipient efforts at nuclear weapons, so they would have to submit to international arms control regimes.

   Most of all, I believe Syria has to do much more in the fight against terrorism . President Bush has said, and I think accurately, he who harbors a terrorist is a terrorist himself; he who harbors a terrorist in the eyes of the law is an accessory before the fact.

   Today, the problem of terrorism is so acute there cannot be any halfway measures. Syria needs to do a great deal more on the border to stop terrorists from coming into Iraq.

   There are reports about al-Qaida being in Iraq. I am not vouching for any of those reports. I think we have to be very careful what we say about terrorism and who the terrorists are and where they come from, but there is no doubt Iraq has been a magnet for young men and young women who do not like the United States, who do not like U.S. support of Israel, who do not like what we have done in Iraq, and they are coming into Iraq. There are daily attacks on our men and women. There are daily attacks on the Iraqis themselves.

   There is a state of tremendous violence. Every day, when we look to the news media, we wonder if there is going to be another report about a helicopter being shot down or about United States soldiers being attacked or about Iraqi civilians being attacked. That means the effort against that kind of terrorism has to be absolute. That is why I believe the Syria Accountability Act is one which ought to be passed by the Senate.

   When the Syria Accountability Act was gaining in cosponsors, I wrote to President Bashar al Assad on September 17 of this year. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my statement.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   (See exhibit 1.)

   Mr. SPECTER. President Assad then asked his representative in the United States, in Washington, his charge d'affaires--they didn't have an ambassador--to come and talk to me, and we had a discussion as to what was going on. It seems to me, after considering the matter and the gravity of the risks which our fighting men and women are undertaking in Iraq, and the risks to the Iraqi people themselves, that it is an appropriate time to make a formal demand on the Government of Syria to do more.

   If they do more and if they join in the fight against terrorism , there is ample opportunity for the President of the United States to take the appropriate action pursuant to this resolution and to lift the sanctions.

   I thank my colleague from Alabama for sitting overtime into the lunch period. I yield the floor and note we will now go into a noontime recess, to reconvene at 2:15.

   Exhibit 1

   U.S. SENATE,

   Washington, DC, September 17, 2003.
His Excellency BASHAR AL-ASSAD,
President, Syrian Arab Republic,
Damascus, Syria.

   DEAR PRESIDENT ASSAD: I write to inform you of growing concern in the United States Senate about Syria and the fact that the Syrian Accountability Act now has 76 co-sponsors. I had discussed this proposed legislation some time ago with your Ambassador to the United States. I had refrained from co-sponsoring the Syrian Accountability Act on the premise that we should try to work out the problems without resorting to legislation calling for sanctions.

   Yesterday, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton submitted testimony to the House of Representatives' International Relations Committee that Syria is permitting ``volunteers'' to pass over your border into Iraq where those so-called volunteers are intent on killing U.S. troops. This follows Administrator L. Paul Bremer's statement on August 20th that Syria is allowing ``foreign terrorists'' to cross Syria's borders into Iraq.

   When you met with Secretary of State Powell last May, there was an understanding that Syria would shut Damascus offices of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups. In June, Secretary Powell stated that Syria's efforts to shut these offices were ``totally inadequate''.

   The Bush Administration which had opposed the Syrian Accountability Act now is neutral, taking no position.

   After extensive dealings with your father, President Hafez al-Assad, since the 1980s and with you on our meetings in the past several years, I have tried to assist in finding answers to these difficult problems. With the

[Page: S14405]  GPO's PDF

Syrian Accountability Act gaining so much support, it is my hope that your Government will respond to the concerns outlined in this letter before the U.S. Government resorts to sanctions.

   I call these matters to your personal attention with the hope that prompt action can be taken by Syria to resolve these problems. The United States greatly appreciated the help that Syria provided to our intelligence services after September 11, 2001 in our flight against el-Qaeda.

   Sincerely,
ARLEN SPECTER.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate soon will be taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support of this bill and the process that led to it. I also would like to thank Senators SANTORUM and BOXER for their commitment to this bill and their bipartisan cooperation in reaching agreement of an important amendment. A critical component of this amendment provides the President with the ability to calibrate U.S. sanctions against Syria in response to positive Syrian behavior when such adjustment is in the national security interests of the United States.

   On October 30, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an excellent hearing on U.S. relations with Syria. Among other witnesses, we heard from William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Ambassador Cofer Black, the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator.

   These hearings underscored the difficulties presented by recent Syrian behavior. Hopes that reform could take root in Syria after the fall of Saddam Hussein have dimmed considerably. Instead, tensions have increased between the United States and Syria, and a cycle of retaliation and revenge has derailed possible progress in the ``Road Map'' to peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli retaliatory attack on an Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in Syria has underscored that the ``no war and no peace'' status quo in the region cannot be taken for granted.

   Many experts thought that when President Bashar al-Assad replaced his father 3 years ago, he would adopt a more pragmatic approach to negotiations with Israel and to internal political and economic reforms. Syrian cooperation with the United States in relation to al-Qaida terrorists held promise for cooperation in other areas. Assistant Secretary Burns noted last June in Congressional testimony that ``the cooperation the Syrians have provided in their own self-interest on al-Qaida has saved American lives.''

   But Syria's subsequent failure to stop terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from using Syria as a base for training and planning suicide bombings in Israel has continued. Syria also has failed to withdraw its forces from Lebanon or take concrete steps in support of the Road Map peace plan. It reportedly has continued to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons and to pursue development of lethal biological agents.

   Moreover, Syria is working against the U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq by refusing to release assets in Syrian accounts that Saddam Hussein's regime stole from the Iraqi people.

   These and other Syrian transgressions have led both Houses of the U.S. Congress to support the bill before us today, which stiffens the economic and diplomatic sanctions already imposed on Damascus for being a state sponsor of terrorism. I support this bill, which is based on the presumption

   that modifying Syria's behavior requires a tough response. But as we give the administration additional sticks to use against Syria, we should be careful about restricting our government's flexibility in responding to new diplomatic opportunities. Syria has shown the ability to make better choices--for example, supporting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which held Iraq in ``material breach'' of its disarmament obligations and voting for the more recent Resolution 1511, which calls upon all nations to support the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. I believe the amendment to this bill provides the President with the necessary flexibility.

   Even as we tighten restrictions on Syria, we should be emphasizing to the Syrians why it is in their interest to recalculate their approach towards the United States. Syria shares a 400-mile border with Iraq. With more than 135,00 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Syria needs to reconsider where its future security interests lie. This is not a threat of U.S. military action but a statement of the new reality on Syria's borders. Moreover, Syrian forces that continue to occupy Lebanon are draining the Syrian economy while providing few positive returns. Continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon invites further possible military action from Israel.

   The Syrian leadership also must adjust to the end of its ``under the counter'' oil deals with Saddam Hussein. Syria must negotiate new and transparent arrangements to meet its energy needs. Syria's economy will not thrive without opening up to investment and trade, particularly with Iraq. Significant benefits could accrue to Syria from an economically vibrant Iraqi trading partner, increased trade with Europe and the United States, and even possible membership in a Middle East Free Trade Agreement down the road.

   In this context, Syria may find motivation to return to the negotiating table. An agreement on the Golan Heights that would provide security guarantees for Israel while respecting Syria's sovereignty could be the key to resolving a host of other problems, including Syria's occupation of Lebanon, its support of Palestinian terror groups, and its economic and political isolation. Although success of such an agreement would depend ultimately on the parties themselves, the United States must seek to leverage obvious Syrian interests in pursuit of a viable settlement.

   The Syrian regime has some difficult choices to make. It can continue to harbor and support groups devoted to terror, or it can act in ways that will help restore stability and peace in the region and thereby create a better economic future for its people. It cannot do both. This bill, as amended, adds to the tools available to the President to move Syria toward a more responsible course. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that we will pass it by a strong vote.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to express my strong support for the Syria Accountability Act. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership and the efforts he has made on this legislation to bring us to this point. Let me also thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for her tireless and effective advocacy of this legislation. I am very pleased this legislation is now pending. I congratulate my colleagues as well as others who have made the effort to bring us to a point where I believe on a strong bipartisan basis this legislation will pass this afternoon.

   This day has been a long time coming. We have heard administration officials argue that this straightforward response to the behavior of the Syrian Government reduces the President's flexibility to deal with the ``bigger picture.'' We believe that it is not only morally right, but will actually strengthen the President's hand in explaining the ``big picture'' to the Syrians.

   Had our years of entreaties to the Syrians not fallen on deaf ears, and had promises from Syria over the last several years not turned out to be little

[Page: S14406]

more than empty rhetoric, this bill might not have been necessary.

   However, it appears to many of us that the point where we can continue to sit back and hope for Syria to change course has passed. The time has come to show Syria that continued inaction will no longer be tolerated and will come at a price.

   The behavior we seek from Syria is not different than what we expect of every other country in the world community--an end to its support for terrorism, and enforcement of its own international agreements and United Nations Security Council resolutions.

   Syria simply has failed one too many times to live up to these obligations, and this legislation backs up our hopes for Syrian compliance along with the very real threat of sanctions.

   The Syria Accountability Act holds Syria accountable for its behavior by imposing sanctions unless the Syrian Government certifies that: It is no longer providing support for terrorists and terrorism; it has withdrawn all of its military and intelligence personnel from Lebanon; it has ceased its attempts to produce, acquire, or transfer weapons of mass destruction; and it has ended its support for terrorists in Iraq.

   I am pleased with the bipartisan process that produced this landmark legislation, and I especially want to commend Senator LEVIN for his leadership in ensuring that the President maintains the maximum flexibility to wisely wield the tools created by H.R. 1828. The national security waiver, which allows the President to waive certain sanctions if they are deemed counterproductive to U.S. security interests, will allow our government to effectively press for reform in Syria without endangering our efforts in the global war against terrorism.

   There are three reasons we need to pass this unambiguous statement of U.S. intent.

   First, as remarkable as it is to imagine, the Government of Syria still provides safe haven and material support for some of the most objectionable terrorist organizations in the world.

   Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PIJ, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Musa Organization, and the Popular Struggle Front all maintain offices in Damascus. Members of the Syrian Government have, on occasion, condoned suicide bombings against civilians within Israel, calling them legitimate military operations.

   Syria alternates between defending these offices in Damascus as solely for press purposes, uninvolved in the conduct of terrorist attacks, and promising they will shut the offices down. To date, its promises have amounted to nothing. Meanwhile, its defense of these offices is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. It is simply not acceptable to provide support for an office whose sole purpose is to call attention to, and encourage support for, attacks on innocent civilians.

   Moreover, reports indicate that planning for the recent and horrendous attack at a restaurant frequented by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs in Haifa is connected to offices in Damascus.

   We are also beginning to learn from the intelligence community that Syria may have allowed military equipment and personnel to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war, both of which were used against our troops in that country.

   Although the administration reports that the situation on the Syria-Iraq border is ``improving,'' the international community should expect nothing but full cooperation from Syria on something so basic as stopping the flow of terrorists through its territory.

   Second, in signing the 1994 Taif Accords, Syria pledged itself to the ``security and independence of Lebanon.'' To date, it has helped with neither. Instead, it continues to support the Lebanese Hezbollah and undermine the democratic aspirations of the people of Lebanon by occupying that country.

   In 1999, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon after being told by the international community that doing so would increase its security. Cynically, Syria exploited the resulting security vacuum and permitted attacks on Israel from that region, all in contravention of Security Council Resolution 425. It is especially disappointing that we have to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to call on a member of the United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions.

   Third, the Syria Accountability Act--a clear statement of America's resolve--should help put an end to the series of mixed signals coming from the Bush administration. Over the course of the last 3 years, we have heard various policies from the different spokes-people for different agencies of the U.S. Government. In fact, we have even heard competing policies and concerns from offices within the same State Department.

   As I said at the beginning, I wish this bill were not necessary. Unfortunately, we all recognize that it has become necessary. This bill will make clear to Syria what we expect of it. If it is not willing to end its support for terrorism or uphold its agreements, it should not be accepted as a full partner in the international community.

   I urge adoption of the legislation and again congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor this afternoon.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his speech and for his thoughtful comments.

   Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania as much time as he should require, with the time allotted to our side on this amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Indiana for working very closely with Senator Boxer and me on this very important piece of legislation, which is a very timely piece of legislation.

   The House passed this legislation a few months ago and sent it over here. We have been working diligently with both Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, and they have been most cooperative in working with the administration to craft a bill that I think meets some of the concerns the administration has, some of the concerns the committee has experienced in dealing with sanctions bills, and particularly the issue of the waiver authority of the President.

   The House-passed bill did not allow the President to waive sanctions on military or dual-use items--``dual use'' meaning they could be used for civilian or military purposes. I think the chairman of the committee rightly expressed concern about that, that the precedent generally is that the President have waiver authority in the case of vital national security interests or national security interests.

   We negotiated as to what that standard should be. We obviously wanted the highest level of scrutiny before the President could waive that which would be vital national security interests. The lowest level would just be sort of a national interest test. And we compromised on a national security interest waiver. It is sort of a midlevel, if you will, waiver authority or waiver standard. We think that is appropriate here for all of the items, all of the potential sanctions that may be imposed by the President under this act.

   So the President, under the revised bill we have before us, does impose sanctions, but it gives the President the flexibility to waive. But he has a threshold he must meet and make the case that that threshold is made in order to waive these sanctions. So we give the President the hammer that I think is necessary and that so many have talked about here.

   Syria is a bad actor in the region. It is part of the ``axis of evil,'' in my opinion. It is a country that sponsors terrorism, that supports terrorism, that encourages terrorism, not only against American interests, not only against Israel, but it is occupying, through setting up these terrorist organizations, as well as their own military force, what was a very moderate and progressive Arab country, Lebanon.

   That is a heinous act, and I find it somewhat remarkable that the rest of the Arab world does not continue to condemn it and do what we do: try to ratchet up the pressure on Syria to get

[Page: S14407]

out of Lebanon, to allow the people in Lebanon to determine their own government and to freely elect people who could serve the best interests of the Lebanese people, not the dictator in Damascus.

   So we have, really, a purpose beyond our national security interest, although I would argue that a free and prosperous Lebanon--and given the history of that country, and being a bridge between the Middle East and West--that would be a very stabilizing presence in the Middle East, to have a country with a democratically elected government, and not being the threat Lebanon now poses, not because of the people themselves but because of the terrorists who reside in southern Lebanon, because of the other heinous acts that are conducted by the terrorist groups based in Lebanon that they

   project throughout the world.

   This is a very important issue for national security. It is a very important issue for the peace in the Middle East.

   I am very gratified that the Senate could come to a conclusion on this bill and bring it to the floor of the Senate and have it pass on a day when we honor our veterans, as we should. We had people fight and lose their lives in Lebanon, and they did so bravely and courageously. But I have to say, it was not one of the proudest moments for me as an American to see our troops withdraw from Lebanon and not stay there to fight another day, with the oppression Syria was imposing upon that country.

   This is a chance for us to begin the process of reengaging in Lebanon, reengaging the Syrians who have been nothing but trouble and fomenting trouble throughout the Middle East and being disruptive of the peace process in the Middle East.

   I say to the Senator from Indiana, thank you for the time. Thank you for your willingness to bring this bill to the floor and to move this bill forward.

   I will enter into a colloquy with Senator Boxer to discuss our desire and our hope that the President not immediately think about waiving these provisions; that he think carefully about any kind of waiver; that we try to impose some sanctions and send a message. Given the activities of the Syrians in the Middle East and the activities of Syria in Iraq, it is such an important and relevant discussion, that the President use these sanctions that are available to him for him to do so.

   Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, Senator BOXER of California, concerning the waiver authority extended to the President for the sanctions contained in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.

   Mr. President, as the original cosponsor of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, I want to clarify the bill's intent with the original sponsors, Senator BOXER. Is it the Senator's understanding that--given the seriousness of the charges against the Syrian regime and the fact that the highest levels of the U.S. Government have already made it clear that there will be consequences to the Syrians if there is no change in their behavior--the national security waiver contained in the bill is meant to address only those circumstances where United States national security interests are indeed severely threatened?

   Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation is that, unless the President can make the certification described in section 5, subsection (d) of the bill, he must impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The national security waiver was only included to address currently unforeseen instances where U.S. national security interests would truly be threatened should such sanctions go forward. We expect the President to use the waiver only for such exceptional circumstances, and not on a routine basis as a way to circumvent congressional intent as so clearly expressed in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.

   AMENDMENT NO. 2148

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

   The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from Indiana [Mr. LUGAR], for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Santorum, proposes an amendment numbered 2148.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The amendment is as follows:

    On page 2, strike lines 8 through 15.

    On page 9, strike lines 21 through 24.

    On page 15, line 1, strike ``will be held responsible'' and insert ``should bear responsibility''.

    On page 15, beginning on line 6, strike ``shall impede Syria's ability'' and insert ``will work to deny Syria the ability''.

    On page 15, strike lines 18 through 20.

    On page 16, line 17, insert after ``citizen in Iraq'' the following: ``if the Government of Syria is found to be responsible''.

    On page 18, strike lines 15 through 20 and insert the following:

    (b) WAIVER.--The President may waive the application of subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or both if the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so and submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report containing the reasons for the determination.

    On page 20, beginning on line 6, strike ``withdrawn all Syrian military, intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon'' and insert ``ended its occupation of Lebanon described in section 2(7) of this Act''.

    On page 21, beginning on line 15, strike ``the attacks against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001, and other''.

    On page 21, beginning on line 20, strike ``given the recognition that Hizbullah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda'' and insert ``and other terrorist organizations supported by Syria''.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

   The amendment (No. 2148) was agreed to.

   Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I now yield time to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

   Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who does such an outstanding job on so many issues and really is a national treasure for us on international affairs and international issues, for allowing me recognition to speak on this bill. I thank the cosponsors, Senators SANTORUM and BOXER, for their work in bringing this issue in front of the body. I urge its passage.

   I urge usage of the Syria Accountability Act by the President. Several of these issues have already been covered. I wish to address them with some specificity by saying 43 and counting--43 and counting. That is the number of dictatorships that are left in the world. There were 45 at the start of this year. Two have changed over. Dramatic changes are taking place in some other countries. But there are 43 dictatorships.

   One of the harshest is Syria. It is a state sponsor of terrorism, one of five countries in the world that we recognize is a state sponsor of terrorism. We are facing terrorists coming from Syria on a daily basis in Iraq. You can hardly visit with any of our leadership working on the issue of Iraq and bringing democracy to that country without hearing them talking about foreign terrorists coming into Iraq. The largest percentage of those is coming through Syria. Another percentage is coming from Iran, which is another country that needs to go through a democratic metamorphosis and become a democracy. Iran is not a democracy today. We need to confront that.

   We need to confront, for the safety of our troops, these foreign terrorists coming in from Syria who are being sponsored by the Syrian Government.

   We know for some period of time Syria has sponsored Hezbollah, one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world, certainly very active in the Middle East, active in Lebanon, active in Israel, active, it appears, in support of going into Iraq. We know the historical legacy of Syria associated with Iraq and the Baathist Party regime that controlled both countries. It did control Iraq; it doesn't now. It is a ruthless, dictatorial, Stalinesque type of organization. They use political prisoners, torture, all sorts of means to

[Page: S14408]

maintain control by the Baathist leadership. The Syria Baathist leadership is the same sort of leadership we saw in Iraq. They are a bad lot. It is time we put pressure on Syria to change.

   President Bush last week made a beautiful speech to the National Endowment for Democracy calling for democracy throughout the world and saying that is the natural state of mankind, to be free and at liberty. Yet we see a dearth of liberty and freedom throughout much of the Middle East, particularly in countries such as Syria.

   I hope the President will use the Syria Accountability Act to bring greater pressure on the dictators in Damascus, on bringing them a clear point that we will not tolerate this use of terrorism; we will not tolerate their attacks on our troops; that we will not tolerate a regime that is a dictatorship; that the people of Syria deserve better. The people of Lebanon deserve better than to be minding the dictator paymasters that exist in Damascus. The President really needs to use this power that is being given by the Congress to the administration for these sanctions in Syria.

   I urge that we pass this act. I urge the President to use these sanctions. And I urge us to use all the means at our disposal to tighten the noose around the leadership of the dictators in Damascus. What they are doing in Syria, what they are allowing to flow out of their country, that would stop. This is one of the few countries left in the world that continues to be state sponsors of terrorism on a very aggressive basis. It must stop. We must show resolve in that.

   I state my support for the bill and yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his important argument.

   How much time remains on our side?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 20 seconds.

   Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.

   I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be counted against the side of the opposition to the bill as opposed to our side.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The clerk will call the roll.

   The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, there have been consecutive Republican speeches on this amendment. We will be prepared to recognize the distinguished Senator from California. She will ask for her own recognition, but we hope she will have an opportunity to speak at this point.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under the order, I have how much time remaining on my side?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 24 seconds left for Senator Biden's designee.

   Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator from Illinois wish to make a few comments? How much time does he need?

   I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, and then I will use the remainder of my time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

   Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.

   Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act.

   Syria plays a key role in the Mideast region and it could play a constructive role, but all too often, it has not.

   After September 11, Syria offered to share information that could help in the U.S. fight against terrorists. It joined us in the first Gulf War to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, and it joined in peace negotiations with Israel in the 1990s. But Syria has taken steps and pursued policies that have undermined regional peace and damaged U.S. interests.

   Syria was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq and it certainly has a right to that opinion but Syria has not taken robust action to keep foreign fighters from crossing its borders to fight Americans.

   Syria objects to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but has itself occupied Lebanon since 1976. More than 20,000 Syrian troops and police occupy much of Lebanon, dominating its politics and government and undermining its independence.

   Syria harbors terrorists that promote and organize violence, undermining hope and progress for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement.

   Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command have offices, maintain training camps, and other facilities on Syrian territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian army, such as the Beqaa Valley. Some of these groups, Hizballah in particular, receive supplies from Iran through Syria.

   The people of Syria are repressed, ruled by a small ethnic minority in a police state. There is no freedom of speech, no political freedom, and no freedom to dissent. The Syrian regime is also run by the Ba'ath Party, but split from Saddam Hussein's branch of this party.

   The President has recently spoken about how badly the Middle East needs an infusion of democracy. He has argued that, despite the fact that the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, this country's war was justified because of the repressive nature of that regime.

   I agree wholeheartedly with the President that one of the most important things that this country can do to fight terrorism is to promote democracy in the Middle East.

   The lack of democracy in many Middle Eastern countries has led directly to Islamic extremism. There are almost no outlets for political expression in a region filled with kings, emirs, and rubberstamp parliaments--except at the mosque.

   It is no accident that most of the terrorists were originally from countries that do not allow dissent or meaningful political participation.

   I, for one, do not believe this nation can remove every dictator and repressive regime. We cannot impose democracy from the other end of an M-16.

   Mideast countries will not become models of democracy and openness overnight. But we must look to a longer term future where we call on them to embark on a ``soft-landing'' towards a more democratic future.

   The bill we consider today, the Syria Accountability Act, will send a strong message of disapproval to Syria regarding its actions supporting terrorism, undermining regional peace, repressing its people, and undermining the independence of Lebanon. It will send those messages short of going to war.

   The bill will broaden U.S. sanctions against Syria unless the President certifies that Syria does not support terrorism; that it has withdrawn its military, intelligence, and security personnel from Lebanon; stopped developing ballistic missiles and chemical and biological weapons; and that it is no longer in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. The bill allows the President to waive sanctions if he believes waiving them would be in the interests of U.S. national security.

   I believe that Syria could play a constructive role in bringing peace to the region, ending the scourge of terrorism, and take its place as a regional leader. Syria and the United States could enjoy strong and growing relations. The bill we pass today will hold Syria accountable for its actions and send a strong message that Syria must change.

   Syria has a great opportunity to decide whether it will be part of the family of civilized nations dedicated to self-government, dedicated to the principles of equality, and dedicated to peace in the region, or Syria can turn a different course. There has been ample evidence of I guess the experience we have had in Syria to suggest they have decided to chart a course that is not consistent with those values.

   After September 11, Syria was one of the first to come to our side and say they would help us fight terrorism in the world. I had a chance to visit that nation and its leader shortly thereafter. He expressed condolences for our losses in the United States and pledged support in our effort to end terrorism.

   Sadly, the accumulated evidence since that date does not suggest Syria has made the real commitment we

[Page: S14409]

need, not only for the sake of ending terrorism in our country but for the sake of ending terrorism in the world. In fact, too many times Syria has been on the wrong side of history in the past and the current day.

   This Syria Accountability Act basically says to Syria they will be held accountable for their conduct. Frankly, we understand that today Damascus, Syria, is the international headquarters for a variety of terrorist groups. That is totally unacceptable.

   The President was right when he said we are opposed to not only terrorists, but those who harbor and support them. Syria has to take those words to heart, and this act is a measure that needs to be passed by Congress and signed into law by the President so Syria understands the importance of the role it plays in the Middle East and how closely it will be watched.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are going to vote on the Syria Accountability bill, a bill I first introduced with Senator Santorum in April of 2002. It has had a very bumpy ride. I am glad the ride will soon end smoothly; at least that is my sense.

   On April 18, 2002, with a list of 45 cosponsors, I introduced this bill with Senator Santorum.

   On that day, I said:

   We cannot afford to rest for one second in pursuing those who believe that purposely killing innocent civilians is a legitimate means to political ends. We cannot give concessions to terrorists nor can we reward them by giving into their demands. This will only lead to more terror.

   With that, Senator Santorum and I introduced the Syria Accountability Act because we knew at that time--and we know today--that by a variety of means the Government of Syria is supporting terrorist groups. It needs to end.

   In the 108th Congress, May 1, 2003, now with a total of 81 cosponsors, we introduced our bill again and at that time we said:

   If we are serious about peace in the Middle East and a cessation of terrorism here at home, then we must confront the Government of Syria in a way that will not lead to war but to a diffusing of tensions and a more peaceful world.

   The administration opposed our bill very strongly. In fact, Secretary Powell came before the Foreign Relations Committee and when Senator Lugar and Senator Biden said to him, do you support or oppose the Syria Accountability Act, Secretary Powell said it would not be helpful to pass it.

   I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now. When Secretary Powell went to see the head of Syria, what was one of the first things he said to him? He said, you ought to shape up because there is a bill in the Senate, the Syria Accountability Act, and those folks over there are serious.

   It proved my point that, in fact, for us to be tough on terrorism gives the State Department the backup they need. I think, frankly, it will be very helpful for us to pass this bill today.

   Now, the administration has moved off their opposition and they are neutral on this bill. They are neither for it nor against it. The good news is, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, finally I think, have decided that maybe BOXER and SANTORUM have been on the right track. So this is a very big day for us because we have gone through a pretty tough legislative ride. We did not get hearings in the committee. We could not move it.

   In addition to Senator Santorum, my original cosponsor of this, I do want to thank Senator Byrd, who made suggestions to perfect our bill, Senator Lugar who worked with Senator Byrd and others, Senator Biden, who agreed to let this come up in an expedited fashion, and over on the House side Representatives ELIOT ENGEL and ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN helped us quite a bit in moving this bill.

   So it is, in fact, a day that is important. What we are basically saying in our bill is that if Syria does not shape up they are going to face sanctions from this Government. If Syria does not stop supporting terrorism, if Syria does not stop the development of weapons of mass destruction, if Syria does not end its occupation of Lebanon and cease support for the terrorists operating in Iraq, they are going to face a series of escalating sanctions.

   The fact is that we have 81 cosponsors--and I see Senator Santorum on the floor now. He worked his side of the aisle, I have worked mine, and we were able to really get these cosponsorships up. On October 15, the House passed its version of the bill 398 to 4. So I have to say we are on to something.

   Let me say from the bottom of my heart what I think we are on to. We are on to the premise that the truth shall set you free. We cannot have relationships with Syria and close our eyes to the truth, and the truth is that Syria is, in fact, supporting terrorism in ways that are very clear. They are a major supporter of Hezbollah, an international terrorist organization that has carried out numerous attacks against Americans and Israeli civilian targets. They have operated freely in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon over the past 20 years. Other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command all maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities inside Syria or in areas of Lebanon under Syrian control.

   Anyone who has traveled to the region knows that one of the saddest stories in the world is the story of Lebanon and

   how its people have lost any control over their own destiny. As we fight for democracy in the world, we have to remember that. This was a country at one point that was absolutely considered the Paris in the Middle East, and it has really been lost because it has been taken over in a hostile takeover, I might say, by the power of Syria.

   So all of these issues, getting Syria to turn its back on terrorism and not allow these organizations to operate within their borders, Syria allowing the Lebanese people to have a life of freedom and democracy or at least self-determination, however they determine it, these are issues that are crucial. As long as they keep up the status quo, the goal of Middle East peace is quite elusive.

   Twenty thousand Syrian troops and security personnel continue to occupy Lebanon and again, as I said, undermine its political independence. It is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. What does that say? That resolution calls for strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon.

   We also know that Syria is developing weapons that are very dangerous, and that they are not doing enough to prevent terrorists from entering into Iraq. In fact, the terrorist who was attempting to blow up an Iraqi police station was found to be carrying a Syrian passport.

   This has to stop. Nations must be held accountable for the proliferation of terrorism and they must be held accountable if they are not doing all they can to pursue Middle East peace or at least allow that peace to take place.

   So this legislation has taken a bumpy road. When Senator Santorum and I got together to work on it, people said that is quite a combination. They said if those two can get together on anything, eventually we know we are going to win.

   It has taken us almost 2 years but we could not be happier. We want to thank the 80 other Senators who are cosponsors of this bill. We, again, thank Senators LUGAR and BIDEN for allowing this bill to come directly to the floor today. We think it is a historic day.

   Our goal is to prevent war and to lay out markers for Syria. We do not want to go to war with Syria. We just want to say, in a truthful way, these are the things that you have been doing wrong. Please meet these markers. Help us. Help us in the world. If you don't, we are going to have some sanctions and they are spelled out. I think others have spelled them out. The idea behind this bill is to avoid a confrontation and instead have a relationship that is respectful between our two nations. I think today we will go a long way to that end.

   I believe all my time is used up at this point so I will yield the floor and I hope we will be voting shortly on this.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will take this occasion to tell the Senate that today we celebrate the birthday of

[Page: S14410]

the distinguished Senator from California. Senator Boxer is a year younger. This is an excellent day for her to offer this legislation, and we commend and thank the Senator.

   I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

   Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in wishing a happy birthday to Senator Boxer. I also thank Senator Boxer and Senator Santorum for their tenaciousness in advancing this bill. It is long overdue and it is to be celebrated by all of us.

   Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee have worked this bill into a condition where we can bring it to the floor, giving the President sufficient discretion, and make clear that we will continue to engage in diplomacy with the Syrians but we are going to do it on a more realistic basis, a basis that has consequences, a basis that deals with facts, not fantasy, and truly makes progress in the Middle East.

   It is a matter of historical record that for a long time, several decades now, the Syrians have occupied the nation of Lebanon, their smaller neighbor to their west. In the course of that, whatever their motives were for going in, they have stayed there for gain. They have denied democracy to the Lebanese people, they have denied them self-determination, and they have been responsible for keeping the breach and the wound alive in Lebanon.

   But as it relates to this bill, I also have to take note of the fact it is Veterans Day. We thank our veterans. We celebrate our veterans. We owe them a great debt.

   As we think of yesterday's veterans, I am reminded of today's veterans, many of whom, from the State of Oregon, are in Iraq now and who are in harm's way for the cause of American liberty and the safety of the American people and our allies in the ongoing war on terrorism. The truth is, much that is aimed at them today comes from Syria. It comes from car bombers holding Syrian passports. Indeed, just the other day we learned the car bomb that was interdicted and the person pulled out of the car that was filled with explosives was from Syria. Syria maintains a porous border with Iraq that simply cannot remain as it is because if it does, it will mean the death of more of our soldiers. We want them home and we want them safe.

   There is more than a porous border that concerns me with Syria. It is the fact that Syria provides a safe harbor, indeed a safe haven, a heaven, if you will, for terrorists. For those who conspire to murder on a massive scale, Syria gives them a place to stay, gives them protection, and a place to hide their money and their weapons before they can bring them into conflict with American soldiers. Who knows what also may be there from the arsenals of Saddam Hussein. Who knows what weapons of mass destruction may even be there as well.

   All of this needs to end. Our President needs to have the tools, the diplomatic tools necessary to prosecute the case with Syria in a way that gets us beyond the status quo because the status quo is unacceptable and the status quo is deadly and the status quo has to be over. I join with Republicans and Democrats alike today in urging passage of the Syria Accountability Act, for the sake of our country, for the sake of the Middle East, for the sake of Muslims, for the sake of Jews, for the sake of Christians, and all who have suffered much.

   The road to Damascus has brought so much murder, so much conspiracy, so much weaponry, so much blood money that has been used against the peace process and those who are the advocates of a peaceful resolution in the Middle East.

   It is a matter of Scriptural record that a man named Saul on the road to Damascus once saw an awful lot of light, changed his way, and even changed his name. We know him today as the Apostle Paul. What we need now on the road to Damascus is a lot more light because all we have been getting is so much darkness. We need a new beginning with Syria. The President needs a new authority against Syria. This bill is crafted in a way that is helpful diplomatically so we can avoid hostilities. But let us have the courage in this war on terrorism to go where the facts take us. Let us all pray it does not take us down the road to Damascus, but we have to be realistic.

   This bill is a very good start. I urge the Senate to adopt it today by a very large margin.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am voting for the Syria Accountability Act because I believe it is important to call attention to Syria's continuing military occupation of Lebanon in violation of international law, and its support for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, that are responsible for ongoing, deadly incursions into Israel.

   It is well established that the Syrian Government rules through fear and repression. Torture by Syrian security forces is routine. The denial of basic human rights has been widely documented. We should condemn these policies.

   And there are allegations that Syria supplied Iraqi forces with military equipment, which the Secretary of Defense has described as hostile acts against the United States.

   The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and economic pressure on Syria in an effort to change its policies. That said, there are some aspects of this legislation that I do not support, and I want to take a moment to discuss them as I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my vote. Most importantly, I do not want my vote for this legislation to be cited as an endorsement for military action against Syria.

   For examples, Section 4, entitled ``Statement of Policy,'' says that it is the policy of the United State that ``the United States shall impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' I doubt that anyone disagrees that we should try to do that. But by what means? Will support for this legislation be cited at some point in the future by the administration, or others, as a green light for launching a unilateral, military attack to ``impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism?'' That is precisely what was done by the White House when it cited resolutions passed a decade ago to justify a unilateral attack against Iraq years later, even though that was not what many, if any of us who supported those resolutions intended at the time. Over and over again, the administration, in an effort to justify their precipitous use of force against Iraq, cited passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 as evidence that Congress supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. What the administration kept omitting in numerous public statements is that one section of that act made clear that nothing in the act was to be construed as authorizing the use of U.S. military force against Iraq. I am concerned that the Syria Accountability Act could be distorted in a similar way. I do not support military action against Syria, and I am in no way endorsing such action by voting for this legislation today.

   The same can be said of the statement that it is the policy of the United States that ``efforts against Hezbollah will be expanded given the recognition that Hezbollah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda.'' First, I do not know if it is true that Hezbollah is ``equally or more capable than al Qaeda.'' Perhaps it is. I don't know, and I doubt the authors of this legislation can be certain that it is, especially given the difficulties we have had in obtaining reliable

   information about these organizations. In any event, while I might support expanded efforts against Hezbollah, it would depend on what those efforts are. For example, I am not in favor of sending U.S. troops to Lebanon to engage in combat against Hezbollah. I do not want my vote today to be construed as supporting any expanded efforts against Hezbollah regardless of what they might be.

   Similarly, the legislation states that it is United States policy that ``Syria will be held accountable for any harm to Coalition armed forces or to any U.S. citizens in Iraq if the Government of Syria is found to be responsible due to its facilitation of terrorist activities and its shipments of military supplies to Iraq.'' Syria should be held accountable. But in what way? The legislation, once again, is silent. My support for efforts to hold Syria accountable, should

[Page: S14411]

the evidence warrant it, depends on what those efforts are.

   Finally, the legislation says that it is the policy of the united States that ``the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria ends all support for terrorism, withdraws it armed forces from Lebanon, and halts the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.'' We all want Syria to do those things, and I am not in favor of providing assistance to the Syrian Government. But this legislation goes farther. It purports to cut off any assistance to the Syrian people, even through private voluntary organizations. I do not believe in punishing the citizens of a country simply because their government is corrupt or abusive, so I have concerns about this provision.

   There are also aspects of Section 5 of the legislation, entitled ``Penalties and Authorization,'' which concern me. For example, among the sanctions that the President could impose are a prohibition on U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria. It is not obvious to me how this will penalize the Syrian Government, but it will hurt U.S. businesses. While the record is mixed, there are examples of U.S. businesses contributing to social, economic and even political change in other repressive countries.

   Of more concern is that the legislation encourages the President to reduce U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria. I am uneasy with this approach, as I believe we should consider expanding our diplomacy and people-to-people contacts with Syria. It is in our interest to promote dialogue with a country with which we have such profound differences, and which poses a military threat to Israel. Reducing those contacts could further misunderstanding and exacerbate tensions between us. It is also worth mentioning that after the September 11 attacks, Syria reportedly cooperated with the United States in intelligence sharing about al-Qaida.

   I do not believe this legislation will persuade Syria to do any of the things we want it to do. I am aware that the Administration has opposed it in the past. This legislation seems to start us down a road of intensifying tensions between the U.S. and Syria without a clear end game other than invading Syria, which I do not support and I doubt many other Senators support. However, I agree that Syria's support for terrorism and its violations of human rights deserve condemnation, and I will vote for this legislation with the caveats I have mentioned.

   Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not support the passage of the Syrian Accountability Act. The situation in the Middle East is a delicate one. It calls for subtle, creative diplomacy as the United States seeks to support its troops in Iraq, promote the Arab-Israeli peace process, and combat terrorism.

   While I agree with the goals of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am concerned that this legislation will undermine our ability to achieve those goals. In particular, I am opposed to the act's provisions that would mandate the imposition of new sanctions against Syria. I believe that these provisions would tie this or any future administration's hands in a way that will make the conduct of our foreign policy more difficult. A number of sanctions already exist against Syria by virtue of its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the President already has the authority to impose many of the sanctions set forth in this act. If we are to promote peace in the region and move Syria in a more positive direction, the United States must pursue an approach that is more nuanced and flexible than what is called for in this legislation.

   Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and yet fewer U.S. sanctions apply to Syria than to any other country on the list. This Act will authorize a range of sanctions against Syria, prohibiting exports to Syria of dual-use items and requiring the President to choose from a set of other sanctions, including prohibitions on exports of most U.S. goods to Syria and on American investment in Syria, restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the United States and on U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, prohibitions on Syrian aircraft in the United States, and blocking of transactions in Syrian government property.

   These sanctions are appropriate, and, in my view, long overdue. Despite recent U.S. efforts to engage in dialogue with Syria, Damascus has refused to renounce its support for terrorism. It provides terrorist organizations with political and material support. It has turned away from negotiations with Israel. And it continues to occupy southern Lebanon, where its forces destabilize the Middle East by supporting Hezbollah and undermining Lebanese sovereignty.

   Syria acts as the safe haven for a broad array of terrorist organizations and Palestinian groups committed to the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command are all active in Damascus. The Syrian government has not only refused to sever ties with these organizations; it has defended their use of Syrian territory to disseminate propaganda that attacks Israel, thereby undermining efforts to bring peace to the region. Worse, the offices maintained by these groups provide operational support for terrorist activities, notwithstanding the Syrian government's claims that they are engaged only in political and informational activities. These activities include the deadly and despicable suicide bombings, conducted by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against civilians in Israel.

   Syria is also a supporter of Hezbollah, which is responsible for the killing of hundreds of Americans and is one of the biggest obstacles to our efforts to combat global terrorism. Throughout much of southern Lebanon, occupying Syrian forces support and protect Hezbollah, allowing it to deploy thousands of rockets that threaten Israel and destabilize the region, and to launch attacks against civilian targets in Israel civilian areas. Syria also permits Hezbollah to receive assistance from Iran.

   The Syrian occupation of Lebanon represents a long-standing threat to stability in the Middle East. While Syria has reduced its forces in recent years, it still maintains as many as 20,000 troops and security personnel in Lebanon. In addition to harboring Hezbollah, those forces exert undue influence in Lebanon and prevent the Lebanese government from deploying its own troops to southern Lebanon, as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. It is long past time for Syrian forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to cease to be a refuge for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah.

   Syria has not moderated its unrelenting hostility to Israel, nor has it demonstrated a commitment to negotiations. Moreover, it has used its position on the world stage and within the Arab world to undermine efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. As a frequent sponsor of U.N. resolutions related to the conflict in the Middle East, Syria has consistently promoted a perspective that castigates Israeli security measures without condemning the terrorist threat faced by Israel.

   While I have long supported this act and welcome its passage, I believe that our ability to influence Syria's behavior and deter its support for terrorism also requires a multilateral strategy. The effect of this act will unfortunately be limited by the lack of support for sanctions against Syria among our friends and allies. It is critical that the administration demonstrate global leadership on this issue as well as other aspects of the war on terrorism. By reaching out to the international community and by appealing to our common interest in curtailing global terrorism and achieving peace in the Middle East, we can ensure that the sanctions we are imposing today are truly effective.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. McCONNELL. Since September 11, the bar for assistance in our war against terrorism has been raised, and the Syrian Government is no longer entitled to a free pass. The United States must no longer allow Syria to get away with taking with the right hand what it gives with the left.

[Page: S14412]

   Unfortunately, the Government of Syria remains an obstacle to peace in Iraq, settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--indeed, Syria has rebuffed repeated Israeli offers to make peace between Israel and Syria--democratic development and sovereignty for the Lebanese people, regional security, and the protection of human rights of the Syrian people themselves.

   There is no doubt that Syria actively supports international terrorism. The evidence supporting this contention is overwhelming:

   The U.S. State Department has certified Syria on its list of state sponsors of terrorism continuously since the 1970s. Syria's dubious company on this list includes Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Communist Cuba.

   Syria provides material support and safe haven to numerous international terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad.

   Syria allows terrorist groups to maintain training camps on Syrian soil. Indeed, in October, after a terrorist bombing in Haifa, Israel retaliated against a known Islamic Jihad terrorist training camp near Damascus.

   Syrian-controlled southern Lebanon is a haven for anti-Israel terrorists and a staging ground for terrorist rocket attacks against Northern Israel.

   Syria has facilitated the transfer of military equipment from Iran to terrorists operating in Syria-controlled Lebanon.

   Syria maintains a robust chemical weapons program, raising the risk that Syria could transfer such weapons to terrorists.

   In addition to Syria's long-time efforts to support the deadly aims of international terrorist groups, its government has played a decidedly unhelpful role in regional security. Most notably, the Syrian Government illegally collaborated with the Hussein regime to circumvent United Nations resolutions and has worked to undermine Iraqi democracy in the wake of the liberation of that country.

   Although Syria voted for the recent U.N. resolution on Iraq, ostensibly expressing its support for the reconstruction of a free and democratic Iraq, Syria has used nearly every other opportunity to undermine the American-led coalition's efforts to liberate the people of that country from the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, recent media reports indicate that Syria may have accepted and hidden Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion.

   In addition, there are credible reports that Syria provided material support to Iraqi troops during the war and currently provides safe haven to former Hussein regime officials and loyalists. U.S. investigators have located $3 billion hidden by the Hussein regime in Syrian banks, and Syria has refused to return this money to its rightful owners: the people of Iraq.

   During the 1990s, Syria repeatedly defied U.N. sanctions against Iraq by participating in enormous black market purchases of oil from the Saddam Hussein regime. The proceeds from these sales directly supported Hussein's military regime and opulent lifestyle.

   Syria has not acted sufficiently to curb cross-border movement of foreign terrorists, including a significant number of Syrian nationals, into Iraq. Indeed, in some circumstances, the Syrian Government appears to have facilitated their migration to that country; Syrian passports have been found in the possession of international terrorists arrested by the U.S. military there. These terrorists seek to wage jihad against American troops and undermine democracy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

   In addition to Syria's unhelpful polices in Iraq, it remains a spoiler for the development of peace and democracy in Lebanon, a country it has forcibly occupied for decades. Its military occupation of Lebanon undermines Lebanese efforts to create a sovereign democratic state and furthers instability in the region. Syria, a dictatorship, wields considerable political control in Lebanon, thereby distorting Lebanon's officially democratic process and making that country a de facto puppet state of the Syrian Government.

   Unconditional U.S. engagement of Syria has failed to encourage true moderation in Damascus; a new approach is necessary to encourage the Syrians to cooperate or face the consequences. Other Arab governments who say one thing and do another--such as Egypt--would be wise to pay attention to the congressional debate about, and support for, the Syrian Accountability Act.

   I believe the Syrian Accountability Act will give the administration the tools it needs to highlight to the Syrian Government the risk of choosing the wrong side in the global war against terrorism. The Syrian Government has an opportunity to reform itself, to provide its people with the economic and political freedoms they seek, to end its support for murderous terrorist organizations, and to become a proponent of peace in the Middle East.

   If Syria's leaders decide to embark on a moderate and peaceful path, it will find the United States to be a benevolent and helpful ally. But if it continues to support international terrorism, Syria's leaders will find themselves international pariahs, with fewer resources or friends to help them maintain their increasingly tenuous grip on power.

   Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, a bipartisan piece of legislation of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.

   The time has come for the Senate to send a strong message to Syria that its support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its development of weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

   This legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and Senator Santorum provides the President with maximum flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria subject to a national security waiver.

   Specifically, it requires that sanctions be imposed on Syria unless the President certifies that Syria: is not providing support for international terrorists; has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon; has ceased the production, development, acquisition, or transfer of weapons of mass destruction and long range ballistic missiles, and; has ceased support for terrorist activities inside of Iraq.

   If the President does not make such a certification, the bill requires the President to prohibit the export to Syria of military items and dual use technology and impose two or more sanctions from a list of options including: prohibiting the export of products of the United States--other than food and medicine--to Syria; prohibiting United States businesses from investing or operating in Syria; restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C. and New York; and reducing diplomatic contacts with Syria.

   I, for one, believe that sanctions should be imposed only as a last resort and that all avenues should be explored to change another state's behavior before taking such action.

   With regard to Syria, Congress has passed numerous resolutions calling on Syria to change its ways and Republican and Democratic administrations alike have made it clear that Syria's actions are wholly inconsistent with a peace-loving and productive member of the international community.

   Nevertheless, words have not achieved the results we are looking for and as a result, we must take further substantive action.

   Syria's behavior and actions leave a lot to be desired and have severely hindered the Arab-Israeli peace process.

   First, it continues to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department and is reported by the Secretary of State to provide ``safe haven and support to several terrorist groups'' including Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

   Despite repeated calls by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Syria cease its support for terrorism and close the facilities and offices of these groups, it has refused to do so.

   Second, for over 20 years Syria has ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions and has failed to withdraw completely from Lebanon, maintaining 20,000 troops and security personnel in that sovereign country. The presence of those troops restricts the political independence of Lebanon and harms relations between Israel and Lebanon.

[Page: S14413]

   Finally, Syria has continued its development and deployment of short and medium range ballistic missiles and biological and chemical weapons. It has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and has one of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East. It is reported to have three production facilities for chemical weapons and has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin.

   In the post-September 11 world, we all understand the dangers posed by states who sponsor terror and seek weapons of mass destruction.

   I had hoped that Syria would realize that it is in its best interests to turn a new page in its relations with the United States and the international community and cease its support for terror, withdraw from Lebanon, and halt its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons.

   It has not done so and it is time for the United States Senate to respond. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, for decades, the United States has engaged the regime in Syria in the hope that Damascus would play a constructive role in bringing about Arab-Israeli peace. The U.S.-Syria relationship has been ongoing despite the fact that Syria has been ruled by dictatorship with an uninterrupted record of support for terrorism, specifically directed at Israel.

   The results of U.S. engagement with Syria have been anything but positive. Throughout the years, Damascus has continued to support international terrorism directed at America and Israel, occupy Lebanon, develop a weapons-of-mass-destruction program, acquire ballistic missiles, and pursue policies counter to U.S. interests.

   Since the liberation of Iraq, Syria has played a destabilizing role by allowing terrorist fugitives to enter Syria and by allowing mercenaries to cross into Iraq--or at least not stopping them--to engage U.S. troops. Syria has been able to conduct its policies--which are antithetical to U.S. interests--with near impunity. They have resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives--especially when you consider the bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983.

   Although Syria is listed--and has been since the 1970s--by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Iran, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, it has not faced the same degree of diplomatic and economic isolation that has been directed at other terrorist states. In fact, Washington maintains full diplomatic relations with Syria, making Syria the only designated state sponsor of terrorism to have such relations with the United States.

   Syria's special treatment despite its support for terrorism should be over.

   The events of September 11, 2001 have offered a window of opportunity to review many U.S. bilateral relationships and determine whether it is necessary to change the dynamic--and often the status quo--that has characterized these relations. The administration and Congress have done this most notably with Saudi Arabia in seeking greater cooperation in the elimination of terrorist activities operating from Saudi soil.

   Now is also an ideal time to reassess U.S. relations with Damascus and demand accountability in our relationship. Equally important, it is time for the Syrian leadership to make a tough choice: it is either with the United States completely in the war on terrorism, or it is not. Either way, shielding Syria from the same economic and political isolation directed at other terrorist states is unmerited and runs counter to U.S. principles in the war against terrorism.

   As Under Secretary of State John Bolton stated in testimony before the House International Relations Committee on September 16, 2003, ``Syria remains a security concern on two important counts: terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.'' Bolton added: There is no graver threat to our country today than states that both sponsor terrorism and possess or aspire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria, which offers physical sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihad, and whose terrorist operations have killed hundreds of innocent people--including Americans--falls into this category of state of potential dual threat.

   Since the 1970s, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, in its ``Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2002'' report, the State Department found that the Syrian Government ``has continued to provide political and limited material support to a number of Palestinian groups, including allowing them to maintain headquarters or offices in Damascus,'' although the Syrian Government insists that the groups' Damascus offices undertake only political and informational activities, not terrorist operations.

   Syria maintains close relations with Iran, another autocratic regime listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism and a prominent financial, political, and military backer of these Palestinian terrorist organizations.

   Moreover, Syria remains the de facto ruler of Lebanon, which it has forcibly and illegally occupied since 1990. Lebanon, the country in which more than 200 U.S. Marines died in 1983 following a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, remains a breeding ground and training center for terrorist organizations.

   Terrorism has spawned in Syria due largely to Syria's opposition to the existence of Israel and its subsequent objection to an Arab-Israeli peace process. Although the United States has engaged Syria--and given it a prominent place in discussions--during the past few decades, Damascus has long been an unwilling and uncooperative partner in bringing about Middle East peace. In fact, Syria did not endorse President Bush's Middle East ``roadmap.''

   Syria also appears to be in the terror financing business. In April 2003, an Italian government study found that Syria functioned as a hub for an al-Qaida network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group.

   And, on October 21, it was reported that U.S. Treasury Department investigators have evidence that $3 billion that belonged to Saddam Hussein's government is being held in Syria-controlled banks in Syria and Lebanon. The Syrian Government has not yet granted Treasury officials access to these accounts, nor has it been willing to share any information about the account holders.

   Let's review past U.S. policy toward Damascus. Despite all of Syria's irresponsible and threatening policies, successive U.S. administrations have been willing to engage the Syrian Government. For decades, the United States has pursued a policy of engagement with Syria, trying to win Damascus' support for Middle East peace but to no avail.

   As part of this strategy, the United States has maintained full diplomatic relations with Damascus. It also has allowed U.S. companies to invest in Syria, something that cannot be done in other terrorist-sponsor states such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Libya.

   According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1999--the last year there was reliable data available--direct investment of U.S. companies into Syria was $6 million, with 13 U.S. businesses having offices in Syria. While this may seem miniscule in terms of the dollar amount, it is notable because it is tolerated at all.

   With the death of Syrian President Hafez Assad in 2000 and the ascendancy of his son Bashar to the presidency, there were high expectations that Syria would depart from its anti-Israeli policies and pro-terrorist support of the past and enact political and economic reforms, as well as become a positive influence and player in achieving Middle East peace. Three years into Bashar's term, such developments have not materialized--and without a catalyst to encourage such reform, it appears unlikely that Bashar will proactively change Syria's course.

   We need a new approach toward Damascus. Continuation of the current U.S. policy toward Syria must end. For too long, it has been too ineffective and has allowed Syria to pursue with near impunity policies counter to U.S. interests. Moreover, it is unproductive and antithetical to the principles associated with the President's war on terrorism.

   The U.S. must pressure Syria to play by the rules. Given that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-

[Page: S14414]

Assad is relatively weak, and recognizing that Bashar deemed it necessary, or least desirable, to provide some assistance to the United States in apprehending al-Qaida, it should be possible to pressure Damascus into changing its policies. That said, Washington must demonstrate that it is serious about having Damascus drop its support of terrorism and its pursuit of policies that endanger peace and stability in the Middle East.

   Therefore, to demonstrate American commitment, the United States should adopt the following measures in pressuring Syria: Enact the Syria Accountability Act now. Among the numerous provisions contained in the bill, the most notable include the calls for Syria to immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism; withdraw from Lebanon and provide for Lebanon's full restoration of sovereignty; halt development of certain weapons; and enter into serious unconditional bilateral peace negotiations with Israel.

   This bill also states that Syria ``should bear responsibility for attacks committed by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with offices, training camps, or other facilities'' in Syria or Lebanon. Further, the bill states, that being in violation of key United Nations Security Council resolutions and pursuing policies which undermine international peace and security, ``Syria should not have been permitted to join the United Nations Security Council or serve as the Security Council's President, and should be removed from the Security Council.

   Pursuant to the legislation, the United States is empowered to ``will work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of terrorism and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, WMD.'' In addition, the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose all forms of multilateral assistance to Syria until Damascus withdraws from Lebanon and halts its pursuit of WMD and ballistic missile accumulation.

   Until Syria enacts these measures, the President is required to prohibit: the sale of defense articles to Syria that require the issuance of an export license--dual-use items; U.S. businesses from investing in Syria; and export of any goods other than food and medicine to Syria. Diplomatic relations also must be reduced but the degree of that is not defined. The President is given waiver authority for 6-month periods for all of these categories, except the export of dual-use items if it is determined that ``it is in the vital national security interest'' to do so.

   The Bush administration should apply uniformity in its policies toward terrorist-sponsoring states. Therefore, the administration should not allow U.S. companies to invest in Syria because it sends the signal that Syria is receiving special treatment from Washington. A fairly dramatic reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation would perhaps strongly suggest to Syria that it is not an American ally and will not be one until it starts acting like one.

   Sending a strong message is key.

   The United States should apply the proliferation security initiative, PSI, and sanction WMD suppliers. The administration has successfully developed and employed a plan, known as the proliferation security initiative, PSI, to interdict illicit weapons shipments and contraband. PSI was announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. It involves robust cargo inspections and possible interdiction of WMD materials and illegal arms, based on pooled intelligence among participating countries. To date, 11 nations form the core PSI group: Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, and the United States. While most of the initial PSI activities have focused on North Korea, attention should be paid to Syria--and Iran--with the goal of halting the flow of weapons technology both in and out of Syria.

   A critical complementary strategy to PSI is using sanctions on countries that supply Syria with weapons and WMD technology. The People's Republic of China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are known proliferators of these materials, with Russia and North Korea being key suppliers to Syria.

   As part of a wider U.S. policy, the administration should attempt to convince its PSI allies to also use sanctions against WMD suppliers.

   In conclusion, Syria's actions in the Middle East--and in Iraq, specifically pose a clear, near-term threat to regional stability and to the safety and security of American forces serving in the region.

   With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States has made clear that state support for terrorism will no longer be tolerated.

   It is overdue for the United States and like-minded nations to hold Syria accountable for its actions. Syria's new head of state has had ample time to make the choice whether Damascus is with the United States as a partner or not in fighting the war on terrorism.

   If Syria is not, then it should face the diplomatic and economic consequences as set out in the Syria Accountability Act. As a sponsor of the Senate version, S. 982, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this important measure in the form of H.R. 1828, as amended.

   Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate bill, S. 982, introduced by my colleagues, Senators SANTORUM and BOXER, which has over 80 cosponsors as of today. Today, I support the amendment to H.R. 1828 submitted by my able colleague and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in coordination with Senators SANTORUM and BOXER. I commend my colleagues for their good work.

   It is well within Congress's prerogative to write and implement sanctions, but the practice of doing so, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee knows so well, can raise important points about the overall constitutional prerogative of the executive in its right to conduct foreign policy. The amendment prepared by Senator Lugar, in cooperation with the original sponsors of the bill, preserves the prerogatives of both branches of government, and, at the same time, I believe, unifies and solidifies our nation's policy on the question of terrorism, and, in particular, Syria's contribution to peace, stability and progress in the Middle East.

   Quite frankly, Syria has largely failed to contribute significantly to peace and stability in the Middle East, a stability that U.S. blood and treasure is now invested to achieve. We have watched the administration give Syria ample opportunities, since September 11, 2001, to make its contribution. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the administration flattered the Damascus dictatorship by giving it this time to join with the civilized world in unequivocally renouncing terrorism completely, as well as dismantling all manifestations of material and political support for terrorist organizations.

   Some suggest that Syria has played a game of sitting on the fence, when it came to the war on terrorism. However, Mr. President, Syria was never on the fence. Syria is on the other side of the fence, with the other state sponsors of terrorism we have labeled as such since 1979. And today I will agree with what Secretary Powell told President Assad earlier this year: By refusing to cooperate, he was ``on the wrong side of history.''

   Since 1979, Syria has appeared every year on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has been so identified for its role in terrorist acts, as well as the support it gave--and continues to give, to this very day--to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that, to this very day, organize and commit acts of aggression or terrorism.

   Throughout the 1990s, Syria played coy with U.S. administrations attempting to engage it in the Middle East peace process. Who can forget the scene of the long-suffering Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, waiting hours outside of Hafez Assad's office on his umpteenth visit, at the very same time Iranian weapons were being transferred to Hezbollah at the Damascus airport? Who can forget President Clinton's futile attempt in Geneva, near the end of his term and near the end of Assad's brutal life, to re-engage the

[Page: S14415]

dictator in peace talks? On the question of peace or normal relations with Israel, in every aspect but the desire to reclaim territory for itself, Syria has most definitely been a rejectionist state.

   There are persistent reports that Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons, including sarin and possibly also VX, which it could combine with one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East. Coalition forces are not in Iraq to rid that former dictatorship of its weapons of destruction while we look the other way on similar weapons held by another Ba'athist regime. The era of that ideology of Arab oppression, along with the threat of weapons of mass destruction to maintain that oppression, is over.

   Syria has not assisted us in our historic mission in Iraq. Joining the Security Council in unanimous approval of Resolution 1441, the Syrians were quick to denounce the threat and use of force to achieve the goals of the resolution. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our officials--from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense--have publicly criticized Syria for its lack of cooperation. Syria's border has remained open to fleeing Ba'athist officials, and to international terrorists anxious to die fighting against Coalition forces. Our officials believe that Syria holds up to $3 billion of Saddam's ill-gotten loot, funds that the Governing Council could use for reconstruction, funds that would lessen the obligations we have undertaken in this body this week.

   Syria invaded Lebanon more than a quarter-century ago, and maintains approximately 15,000 troops there to this day. Throughout this period, Syria has backed the Shi'ite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, an organization that has been tied to terrorism around the world. Twenty years ago, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed almost 300 U.S. Marines as they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Hezbollah continues to attack across borders, shelling Israel as late as last week. Nothing Hezbollah does is without Syrian sanction. The Middle East will not see peace, and the United States should not consider itself secure as long as Hezbollah, with its Syrian backers, exists.

   So it is time to go to the source and sanction Syria. This bill outlines a series of goals and commensurate diplomatic and economic sanctions to apply to the Syrian regime. It maintains flexibility of policy choice for the administration, but it is clear in stating the Congress's intent, in resolve and policy, to further isolate the decrepit dictatorship in Damascus.

   I do not know if this bill will motivate Damascus to cross the fence and join the anti-terror coalition of civilized nations. I suspect that to believe so would be pollyannaish. But I do believe that the way we act today will declare to the Damascus dictatorship that there are costs to being on the wrong side of the fence in the war on terror.

   September 11, 2001 began a new era in U.S. foreign policy, and the President's policies since that watershed event have been based on clarity of vision. Against the threat of terrorism, which lurks and breeds in the shadows, we have responded with clarity of purpose. Against the traditional approaches of diplomacy, which balance nuance against process, we have demanded progress. Against previous approaches that part-time antagonism toward a mutual enemy should be rewarded with full-time tolerance of non-compliance with our stated goals, we say today: No longer.

   President Assad will receive this message clearly. Perhaps Syria will modify its behavior. If it does not, Syria can join the list of rogue states who failed because they challenged the order of the civilized world.

   The American public has read reports in the press about Syria's cooperation with us in identifying, in the months after September 11, members of Al-Qaida. I have read no where, nor have I heard any analyst argue, that such cooperation was because Syria was dedicated to our defense, or to our global war on terrorism. Since then, the American public has heard many members of the current administration express disappointment with Syria's behavior, and they have seen many reports of Syria's lack of cooperation. And one thing is clear in a democracy, Mr. President: Our foreign policy must have the support of the public.

   I will always respect the President's foreign policy prerogative, and I have defended the executive's prerogative under Republican and Democratic administrations. I have supported ``quiet diplomacy'' for small results. But a diplomacy that produces invisible results is not quiet, it is silent. Today, I believe the members of the President's administration agree with me.

   For the reasons I have stated here, this bill will pass overwhelmingly, as it did in the House of Representatives. We may consider this the Senate's contribution today to the war on global terrorism.

   Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting on H.R. 1828, the Syria Accountability Act. I would like to explain to my colleagues why I will be voting against this legislation.

   As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Near East Subcommittee, I have come to appreciate the great importance of U.S. leadership in working to restart the Middle East peace process. In recent visits to the region--the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan--I heard a uniform chorus in these Arab and Muslim nations that active United States involvement was urgently needed to halt the continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians. I regret that this administration has not actively responded to these pleas for peace.

   I have also learned that our disinterest in becoming involved in Middle East peace has contributed to the sharply declining image of the United States in the Arab/Muslim world. Indeed, according to the recently released report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for the Arab and Muslim World--``the Djerejian report''--hostility toward America has reached shocking levels, and the bottom has fallen out of Arab and Muslim support for the United States. The report also documents that ``large majorities in the Arab and Muslim world view United States policy through the prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict.''

   I am troubled by these developments and fear that the administration's emerging hard line toward Syria, in addition to passage of this bill, will only add fuel to this fire. It is true that the Syrian Government can do more to work with the United States in combating terrorism in the region, and the administration has made some very clear requests of the Syrian Government. But if Syria does not respond to our requests, most, if not all, of the sanctions contemplated by the Syrian Accountability Act can already be imposed by the administration. This means that a bill that is widely perceived as a crackdown against Syria has little substantive effect. Indeed, Patrick Clawson of CSIS testified to our committee last week, ``Some might say that the act is largely symbolic, but do not underestimate the importance of symbols.'' And that concerns me, because the symbol of the United States as cracking down on an Arab nation ultimately harms our interests in many very important parts of the world.

   So in reality I would describe this bill as a ``lose-lose'' for the United States: We're getting little additional muscles against Syria while further antagonizing the Arab world. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Syria has long been considered by the United States to be a rogue state. Syria continues to associate with terrorist groups, including those that have carried out ruthless attacks that set back the cause of peace in the Middle East, leading it to be placed on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria has occupied Lebanon continuously since 1976, in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520.

   The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and economic pressure on Syria to change its foreign policy. However, I will vote against the Syria Accountability Act.

   Of the 22 pages of this bill, only six pages relate to sanctions that the United States may apply to Syria. The other pages contain 51 clauses of findings, senses of Congress, and statements of policy. These nonbinding provisions build a case against Syria, and I fear that those provisions could later be used to build a case for a military intervention against Syria.

   In many cases, the non-binding clauses in the bill appear to gloss over the complex situation with respect to

[Page: S14416]

Syria. For example, on page 11, the bill speaks of ``hostile actions'' by Syria against U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Yet, the evidence is inconclusive as to the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks that have been carried out against our troops in Iraq. Such insinuations could be used to build the case for a preemptive military intervention against Syria, which, unfortunately, is a very real possibility because of the dangerous doctrine of preemption hatched by the administration.

   Other language in the nonbinding clauses may simply be ill-considered. For example, on page 7, the bill quotes an unclassified CIA report that says that it is ``highly probable'' that Syria is working on biological weapons. In the very next clause, however, the bill quotes an Under Secretary of State as saying that Syria ``is pursuing'' the development of biological weapons. It is exactly this kind of shading of intelligence probabilities becoming certainties for which Congress has criticized the administration and its intelligence agencies for creating the hysteria that led to war in Iraq. Could Congress be so willing to make the same mistake with respect to Syria?

   The United States should use economic and diplomatic leverage to pressure Syria to change its support for terrorism and alter its foreign policy. The sponsors of this legislation have made improvements to several nonbinding provisions in this bill, and they have worked to address some of my more serious concerns. While I appreciate their cooperation, I still cannot support this legislation. The findings, statements of policy, and sense of Congress provisions in the Syria Accountability Act could be used to build a case against Syria that could too easily be hyped to imply congressional support for preemptive military action against that rogue state. I will vote against this bill because of that dangerous course that it may portend.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 minute 54 seconds.

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I note no more Senators on our side of the aisle wish to speak. Therefore, I yield the remaining time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

   The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading of the bill.

   The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.

   The bill was read a third time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?

   Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

   There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. MCCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. HAGEL) are necessarily absent.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. GRAHAM), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. LIEBERMAN), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. NELSON) are necessarily absent.

   I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KERRY) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. NELSON) would each vote ``yea.''

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:

   Akaka

   Alexander

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Bond

   Boxer

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Cantwell

   Carper

   Chambliss

   Clinton

   Cochran

   Coleman

   Collins

   Conrad

   Cornyn

   Corzine

   Craig

   Crapo

   Daschle

   Dayton

   DeWine

   Dodd

   Dole

   Domenici

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Edwards

   Ensign

   Feingold

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham (SC)

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Hollings

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Johnson

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Kyl

   Landrieu

   Lautenberg

   Leahy

   Levin

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Mikulski

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nickles

   Pryor

   Reed

   Reid

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Santorum

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stabenow

   Stevens

   Sununu

   Talent

   Thomas

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Wyden

   Byrd

   Chafee

   Enzi

   Jeffords

   Campbell

   Graham (FL)

   Hagel

   Inouye

   Kerry

   Lieberman

   Nelson (NE)

   The bill (H.R. 1828) was passed, as follows:

   Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table.

   The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

   Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud of my colleagues throughout the Senate for the overwhelming support just given on the Syria Accountability Act. I believe this bill sends an unambiguous signal to the administration and to the Syrian regime that the Congress considers Syrian support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its pursuit of dangerous weapons all significant threats to the United States and to global security.

   I am particularly concerned that this administration has let Syria off the hook. Despite the support the Syria Accountability Act just had, there are waivers that concern me. Syria's record is not one that we can look at with any assurances that they are going to do what they have to.

   The administration claimed that al-Assad's regime's support for the global war on terrorism is so valuable that he should not be pressed on other issues, including the failure of the Syrians to secure the Iraqi border, thereby permitting the constant infiltration of foreign terrorists pouring into Iraq.

   Apparently, the Syrians must have shared intelligence about al-Qaida, and FBI and CIA officials have reportedly met in Syria with Syrian intelligence officers to discuss terrorism. The Syrians have also helped to capture a top al-Qaida figure, a Syrian-born German citizen who is part of the Hamburg cell that planned the September 11 attack.

   So while Syria might be sharing information on al-Qaida, at the same time it is deliberately thwarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

   Syria harbors leaders who order, plan, and finance terror attacks against Israeli citizens. Operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which I might add is a terrorist group affiliated with Yasser Arafat's political party FATAH, are regularly receiving training in Syrian camps.

   So what is perplexing is why this administration has refused to force the Syrians to stop training Palestinian extremists even as it promotes a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

   No Palestinian roadmap to peace, no negotiations will be successful between Palestinians and Israelis as long as Syria continues to occupy Lebanon and to train and churn out suicide bombers.

   I am worried that the administration has made a cynical tradeoff, focusing on supposed Syrian support for the hunt for al-Qaida while ignoring the Syrian's deliberate obstruction of the peace process.

   Last month, when the Islamic Jihad successfully blew up an Arab-owned seaside restaurant in Haifa, killing 19 Israelis, including 5 Palestinian Israelis, Israel responded by striking one of the Palestinian training camps, choosing a time when it was empty to avoid collateral damage. The Bush administration responded with a bland statement urging both Israel and Syria to avoid actions that heighten tensions or could lead to hostilities.

   Despite President Bush's call for Damascus to expel terrorist organizations from Syria and close down its camps, the Syrians have directly refused. They have made a mockery of President Bush's famous claim that you are ``either with us or against us in the war on terrorism.''

   We in the Senate have just passed the Syria Accountability Act, but Syria will not be held accountable until the administration decides to end its tradeoffs in the global war on terrorism,

[Page: S14417]

prioritizing the fight against some forms of terror over others.

   The message we want to send has to be clear and direct. We will not tolerate any support for terrorism, especially among those who purport to be our friends.

   Everyone has seen the Syrian action in Lebanon and we know how treacherous that is. They occupy the country and pretend they want to make peace, but they do not want to. They have not indicated by their actions that they want to.

   I yield the floor.
 

4E) National Emergency with Respect to Iran

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

   Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran

   On November 14, 1979, by Executive Order 12170, the President declared a national emergency with respect to Iran pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706) to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the situation in Iran . Because our relations with Iran have not yet returned to normal, and the process of implementing the January 19, 1981, agreements with Iran is still underway, the national emergency declared on November 14, 1979, must continue in effect beyond November 14, 2003. Therefore, consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year this national emergency with respect to Iran .

   This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

   George W. Bush.

   The White House, November 12, 2003.

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.