[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14405-S14417]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  SYRIA ACCOUNTABILITY ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate soon will be 
taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been 
devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass 
the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support of 
this bill and the process that led to it. I also would like to thank 
Senators Santorum and Boxer for their commitment to this bill and their 
bipartisan cooperation in reaching agreement of an important amendment. 
A critical component of this amendment provides the President with the 
ability to calibrate U.S. sanctions against Syria in response to 
positive Syrian behavior when such adjustment is in the national 
security interests of the United States.
  On October 30, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an 
excellent hearing on U.S. relations with Syria. Among other witnesses, 
we heard from William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near 
Eastern Affairs, and Ambassador Cofer Black, the Counter-Terrorism 
Coordinator.
  These hearings underscored the difficulties presented by recent 
Syrian behavior. Hopes that reform could take root in Syria after the 
fall of Saddam Hussein have dimmed considerably. Instead, tensions have 
increased between the United States and Syria, and a cycle of 
retaliation and revenge has derailed possible progress in the ``Road 
Map'' to peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli retaliatory 
attack on an Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in Syria has underscored that 
the ``no war and no peace'' status quo in the region cannot be taken 
for granted.
  Many experts thought that when President Bashar al-Assad replaced his 
father 3 years ago, he would adopt a more pragmatic approach to 
negotiations with Israel and to internal political and economic 
reforms. Syrian cooperation with the United States in relation to al-
Qaida terrorists held promise for cooperation in other areas. Assistant 
Secretary Burns noted last June in Congressional testimony that ``the 
cooperation the Syrians have provided in their own self-interest on al-
Qaida has saved American lives.''
  But Syria's subsequent failure to stop terrorist groups, including 
Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from using Syria as a 
base for training and planning suicide bombings in Israel has 
continued. Syria also has failed to withdraw its forces from Lebanon or 
take concrete steps in support of the Road Map peace plan. It 
reportedly has continued to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons and 
to pursue development of lethal biological agents.
  Moreover, Syria is working against the U.S. and Coalition forces in 
Iraq by refusing to release assets in Syrian accounts that Saddam 
Hussein's regime stole from the Iraqi people.
  These and other Syrian transgressions have led both Houses of the 
U.S. Congress to support the bill before us today, which stiffens the 
economic and diplomatic sanctions already imposed on Damascus for being 
a state sponsor of terrorism. I support this bill, which is based on 
the presumption that modifying Syria's behavior requires a tough 
response. But as we give the administration additional sticks to use 
against Syria, we should be careful about restricting our government's 
flexibility in responding to new diplomatic opportunities. Syria has 
shown the ability to make better choices--for example, supporting U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which held Iraq in 
``material breach'' of its disarmament obligations and voting for the 
more recent Resolution 1511, which calls upon all nations to support 
the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. I believe the amendment to this bill 
provides the President with the necessary flexibility.

  Even as we tighten restrictions on Syria, we should be emphasizing to 
the Syrians why it is in their interest to recalculate their approach 
towards the United States. Syria shares a 400-mile border with Iraq. 
With more than 135,00 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Syria needs to 
reconsider where its future security interests lie. This is not a 
threat of U.S. military action but a statement of the new reality on 
Syria's borders. Moreover, Syrian forces that continue to occupy 
Lebanon are draining the Syrian economy while providing few positive 
returns. Continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon invites further 
possible military action from Israel.
  The Syrian leadership also must adjust to the end of its ``under the 
counter'' oil deals with Saddam Hussein. Syria must negotiate new and 
transparent arrangements to meet its energy needs. Syria's economy will 
not thrive without opening up to investment and trade, particularly 
with Iraq. Significant benefits could accrue to Syria from an 
economically vibrant Iraqi trading partner, increased trade with Europe 
and the United States, and even possible membership in a Middle East 
Free Trade Agreement down the road.
  In this context, Syria may find motivation to return to the 
negotiating table. An agreement on the Golan Heights that would provide 
security guarantees for Israel while respecting Syria's sovereignty 
could be the key to resolving a host of other problems, including 
Syria's occupation of Lebanon, its support of Palestinian terror 
groups, and its economic and political isolation. Although success of 
such an agreement would depend ultimately on the parties themselves, 
the United States must seek to leverage obvious Syrian interests in 
pursuit of a viable settlement.
  The Syrian regime has some difficult choices to make. It can continue 
to harbor and support groups devoted to terror, or it can act in ways 
that will help restore stability and peace in the region and thereby 
create a better economic future for its people. It cannot do both. This 
bill, as amended, adds to the tools available to the President to move 
Syria toward a more responsible course. I commend the bill to the 
Senate and hope that we will pass it by a strong vote.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to express 
my strong support for the Syria Accountability Act. I commend the 
distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 
his leadership and the efforts he has made on this legislation to bring 
us to this point. Let me also thank my colleague from California, 
Senator Boxer, for her tireless and effective advocacy of this 
legislation. I am very pleased this legislation is now pending. I 
congratulate my colleagues as well as others who have made the effort 
to bring us to a point where I believe on a strong bipartisan basis 
this legislation will pass this afternoon.
  This day has been a long time coming. We have heard administration 
officials argue that this straightforward response to the behavior of 
the Syrian Government reduces the President's flexibility to deal with 
the ``bigger picture.'' We believe that it is not only morally right, 
but will actually strengthen the President's hand in explaining the 
``big picture'' to the Syrians.
  Had our years of entreaties to the Syrians not fallen on deaf ears, 
and had promises from Syria over the last several years not turned out 
to be little

[[Page S14406]]

more than empty rhetoric, this bill might not have been necessary.
  However, it appears to many of us that the point where we can 
continue to sit back and hope for Syria to change course has passed. 
The time has come to show Syria that continued inaction will no longer 
be tolerated and will come at a price.
  The behavior we seek from Syria is not different than what we expect 
of every other country in the world community--an end to its support 
for terrorism, and enforcement of its own international agreements and 
United Nations Security Council resolutions.
  Syria simply has failed one too many times to live up to these 
obligations, and this legislation backs up our hopes for Syrian 
compliance along with the very real threat of sanctions.
  The Syria Accountability Act holds Syria accountable for its behavior 
by imposing sanctions unless the Syrian Government certifies that: It 
is no longer providing support for terrorists and terrorism; it has 
withdrawn all of its military and intelligence personnel from Lebanon; 
it has ceased its attempts to produce, acquire, or transfer weapons of 
mass destruction; and it has ended its support for terrorists in Iraq.
  I am pleased with the bipartisan process that produced this landmark 
legislation, and I especially want to commend Senator Levin for his 
leadership in ensuring that the President maintains the maximum 
flexibility to wisely wield the tools created by H.R. 1828. The 
national security waiver, which allows the President to waive certain 
sanctions if they are deemed counterproductive to U.S. security 
interests, will allow our government to effectively press for reform in 
Syria without endangering our efforts in the global war against 
terrorism.
  There are three reasons we need to pass this unambiguous statement of 
U.S. intent.
  First, as remarkable as it is to imagine, the Government of Syria 
still provides safe haven and material support for some of the most 
objectionable terrorist organizations in the world.
  Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PIJ, the Popular Front for the 
Liberation of Palestine General Command, the Popular Front for the 
Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine, the Abu Musa Organization, and the Popular Struggle Front 
all maintain offices in Damascus. Members of the Syrian Government 
have, on occasion, condoned suicide bombings against civilians within 
Israel, calling them legitimate military operations.
  Syria alternates between defending these offices in Damascus as 
solely for press purposes, uninvolved in the conduct of terrorist 
attacks, and promising they will shut the offices down. To date, its 
promises have amounted to nothing. Meanwhile, its defense of these 
offices is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. It is simply not 
acceptable to provide support for an office whose sole purpose is to 
call attention to, and encourage support for, attacks on innocent 
civilians.
  Moreover, reports indicate that planning for the recent and 
horrendous attack at a restaurant frequented by Israeli Jews and 
Israeli Arabs in Haifa is connected to offices in Damascus.
  We are also beginning to learn from the intelligence community that 
Syria may have allowed military equipment and personnel to flow into 
Iraq on the eve of and during the war, both of which were used against 
our troops in that country.
  Although the administration reports that the situation on the Syria-
Iraq border is ``improving,'' the international community should expect 
nothing but full cooperation from Syria on something so basic as 
stopping the flow of terrorists through its territory.
  Second, in signing the 1994 Taif Accords, Syria pledged itself to the 
``security and independence of Lebanon.'' To date, it has helped with 
neither. Instead, it continues to support the Lebanese Hezbollah and 
undermine the democratic aspirations of the people of Lebanon by 
occupying that country.
  In 1999, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon after being 
told by the international community that doing so would increase its 
security. Cynically, Syria exploited the resulting security vacuum and 
permitted attacks on Israel from that region, all in contravention of 
Security Council Resolution 425. It is especially disappointing that we 
have to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to call on a member of the 
United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions.
  Third, the Syria Accountability Act--a clear statement of America's 
resolve--should help put an end to the series of mixed signals coming 
from the Bush administration. Over the course of the last 3 years, we 
have heard various policies from the different spokes-people for 
different agencies of the U.S. Government. In fact, we have even heard 
competing policies and concerns from offices within the same State 
Department.
  As I said at the beginning, I wish this bill were not necessary. 
Unfortunately, we all recognize that it has become necessary. This bill 
will make clear to Syria what we expect of it. If it is not willing to 
end its support for terrorism or uphold its agreements, it should not 
be accepted as a full partner in the international community.
  I urge adoption of the legislation and again congratulate the 
distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his 
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor this afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader 
for his speech and for his thoughtful comments.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania as much time as he should require, with the time 
allotted to our side on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Indiana 
for working very closely with Senator Boxer and me on this very 
important piece of legislation, which is a very timely piece of 
legislation.
  The House passed this legislation a few months ago and sent it over 
here. We have been working diligently with both Senator Lugar and 
Senator Biden, and they have been most cooperative in working with the 
administration to craft a bill that I think meets some of the concerns 
the administration has, some of the concerns the committee has 
experienced in dealing with sanctions bills, and particularly the issue 
of the waiver authority of the President.
  The House-passed bill did not allow the President to waive sanctions 
on military or dual-use items--``dual use'' meaning they could be used 
for civilian or military purposes. I think the chairman of the 
committee rightly expressed concern about that, that the precedent 
generally is that the President have waiver authority in the case of 
vital national security interests or national security interests.
  We negotiated as to what that standard should be. We obviously wanted 
the highest level of scrutiny before the President could waive that 
which would be vital national security interests. The lowest level 
would just be sort of a national interest test. And we compromised on a 
national security interest waiver. It is sort of a midlevel, if you 
will, waiver authority or waiver standard. We think that is appropriate 
here for all of the items, all of the potential sanctions that may be 
imposed by the President under this act.
  So the President, under the revised bill we have before us, does 
impose sanctions, but it gives the President the flexibility to waive. 
But he has a threshold he must meet and make the case that that 
threshold is made in order to waive these sanctions. So we give the 
President the hammer that I think is necessary and that so many have 
talked about here.
  Syria is a bad actor in the region. It is part of the ``axis of 
evil,'' in my opinion. It is a country that sponsors terrorism, that 
supports terrorism, that encourages terrorism, not only against 
American interests, not only against Israel, but it is occupying, 
through setting up these terrorist organizations, as well as their own 
military force, what was a very moderate and progressive Arab country, 
Lebanon.
  That is a heinous act, and I find it somewhat remarkable that the 
rest of the Arab world does not continue to condemn it and do what we 
do: try to ratchet up the pressure on Syria to get

[[Page S14407]]

out of Lebanon, to allow the people in Lebanon to determine their own 
government and to freely elect people who could serve the best 
interests of the Lebanese people, not the dictator in Damascus.
  So we have, really, a purpose beyond our national security interest, 
although I would argue that a free and prosperous Lebanon--and given 
the history of that country, and being a bridge between the Middle East 
and West--that would be a very stabilizing presence in the Middle East, 
to have a country with a democratically elected government, and not 
being the threat Lebanon now poses, not because of the people 
themselves but because of the terrorists who reside in southern 
Lebanon, because of the other heinous acts that are conducted by the 
terrorist groups based in Lebanon that they project throughout the 
world.

  This is a very important issue for national security. It is a very 
important issue for the peace in the Middle East.
  I am very gratified that the Senate could come to a conclusion on 
this bill and bring it to the floor of the Senate and have it pass on a 
day when we honor our veterans, as we should. We had people fight and 
lose their lives in Lebanon, and they did so bravely and courageously. 
But I have to say, it was not one of the proudest moments for me as an 
American to see our troops withdraw from Lebanon and not stay there to 
fight another day, with the oppression Syria was imposing upon that 
country.
  This is a chance for us to begin the process of reengaging in 
Lebanon, reengaging the Syrians who have been nothing but trouble and 
fomenting trouble throughout the Middle East and being disruptive of 
the peace process in the Middle East.
  I say to the Senator from Indiana, thank you for the time. Thank you 
for your willingness to bring this bill to the floor and to move this 
bill forward.
  I will enter into a colloquy with Senator Boxer to discuss our desire 
and our hope that the President not immediately think about waiving 
these provisions; that he think carefully about any kind of waiver; 
that we try to impose some sanctions and send a message. Given the 
activities of the Syrians in the Middle East and the activities of 
Syria in Iraq, it is such an important and relevant discussion, that 
the President use these sanctions that are available to him for him to 
do so.
  Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, 
Senator Boxer of California, concerning the waiver authority extended 
to the President for the sanctions contained in the Syria 
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.
  Mr. President, as the original cosponsor of the Syria Accountability 
and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, I want to clarify the 
bill's intent with the original sponsors, Senator Boxer. Is it the 
Senator's understanding that--given the seriousness of the charges 
against the Syrian regime and the fact that the highest levels of the 
U.S. Government have already made it clear that there will be 
consequences to the Syrians if there is no change in their behavior--
the national security waiver contained in the bill is meant to address 
only those circumstances where United States national security 
interests are indeed severely threatened?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent 
of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious 
threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation 
is that, unless the President can make the certification described in 
section 5, subsection (d) of the bill, he must impose sanctions on the 
Syrian Government. The national security waiver was only included to 
address currently unforeseen instances where U.S. national security 
interests would truly be threatened should such sanctions go forward. 
We expect the President to use the waiver only for such exceptional 
circumstances, and not on a routine basis as a way to circumvent 
congressional intent as so clearly expressed in the Syria 
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.


                           Amendment No. 2148

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To make technical and other corrections)

       On page 2, strike lines 8 through 15.
       On page 9, strike lines 21 through 24.
       On page 15, line 1, strike ``will be held responsible'' and 
     insert ``should bear responsibility''.
       On page 15, beginning on line 6, strike ``shall impede 
     Syria's ability'' and insert ``will work to deny Syria the 
     ability''.
       On page 15, strike lines 18 through 20.
       On page 16, line 17, insert after ``citizen in Iraq'' the 
     following: ``if the Government of Syria is found to be 
     responsible''.
       On page 18, strike lines 15 through 20 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of 
     subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or both if the President 
     determines that it is in the national security interest of 
     the United States to do so and submits to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report containing the reasons for 
     the determination.
       On page 20, beginning on line 6, strike ``withdrawn all 
     Syrian military, intelligence, and other security personnel 
     from Lebanon'' and insert ``ended its occupation of Lebanon 
     described in section 2(7) of this Act''.
       On page 21, beginning on line 15, strike ``the attacks 
     against the United States that occurred on September 11, 
     2001, and other''.
       On page 21, beginning on line 20, strike ``given the 
     recognition that Hizbullah is equally or more capable than al 
     Qaeda'' and insert ``and other terrorist organizations 
     supported by Syria''.

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2148) was agreed to.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair. I now yield time to the Senator from 
Kansas, Mr. Brownback.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who does such an outstanding job on 
so many issues and really is a national treasure for us on 
international affairs and international issues, for allowing me 
recognition to speak on this bill. I thank the cosponsors, Senators 
Santorum and Boxer, for their work in bringing this issue in front of 
the body. I urge its passage.
  I urge usage of the Syria Accountability Act by the President. 
Several of these issues have already been covered. I wish to address 
them with some specificity by saying 43 and counting--43 and counting. 
That is the number of dictatorships that are left in the world. There 
were 45 at the start of this year. Two have changed over. Dramatic 
changes are taking place in some other countries. But there are 43 
dictatorships.
  One of the harshest is Syria. It is a state sponsor of terrorism, one 
of five countries in the world that we recognize is a state sponsor of 
terrorism. We are facing terrorists coming from Syria on a daily basis 
in Iraq. You can hardly visit with any of our leadership working on the 
issue of Iraq and bringing democracy to that country without hearing 
them talking about foreign terrorists coming into Iraq. The largest 
percentage of those is coming through Syria. Another percentage is 
coming from Iran, which is another country that needs to go through a 
democratic metamorphosis and become a democracy. Iran is not a 
democracy today. We need to confront that.
  We need to confront, for the safety of our troops, these foreign 
terrorists coming in from Syria who are being sponsored by the Syrian 
Government.
  We know for some period of time Syria has sponsored Hezbollah, one of 
the leading terrorist organizations in the world, certainly very active 
in the Middle East, active in Lebanon, active in Israel, active, it 
appears, in support of going into Iraq. We know the historical legacy 
of Syria associated with Iraq and the Baathist Party regime that 
controlled both countries. It did control Iraq; it doesn't now. It is a 
ruthless, dictatorial, Stalinesque type of organization. They use 
political prisoners, torture, all sorts of means to

[[Page S14408]]

maintain control by the Baathist leadership. The Syria Baathist 
leadership is the same sort of leadership we saw in Iraq. They are a 
bad lot. It is time we put pressure on Syria to change.
  President Bush last week made a beautiful speech to the National 
Endowment for Democracy calling for democracy throughout the world and 
saying that is the natural state of mankind, to be free and at liberty. 
Yet we see a dearth of liberty and freedom throughout much of the 
Middle East, particularly in countries such as Syria.
  I hope the President will use the Syria Accountability Act to bring 
greater pressure on the dictators in Damascus, on bringing them a clear 
point that we will not tolerate this use of terrorism; we will not 
tolerate their attacks on our troops; that we will not tolerate a 
regime that is a dictatorship; that the people of Syria deserve better. 
The people of Lebanon deserve better than to be minding the dictator 
paymasters that exist in Damascus. The President really needs to use 
this power that is being given by the Congress to the administration 
for these sanctions in Syria.
  I urge that we pass this act. I urge the President to use these 
sanctions. And I urge us to use all the means at our disposal to 
tighten the noose around the leadership of the dictators in Damascus. 
What they are doing in Syria, what they are allowing to flow out of 
their country, that would stop. This is one of the few countries left 
in the world that continues to be state sponsors of terrorism on a very 
aggressive basis. It must stop. We must show resolve in that.
  I state my support for the bill and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Kansas for his important argument.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eight minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be counted 
against the side of the opposition to the bill as opposed to our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, there have been consecutive Republican 
speeches on this amendment. We will be prepared to recognize the 
distinguished Senator from California. She will ask for her own 
recognition, but we hope she will have an opportunity to speak at this 
point.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, under the order, I have how much time 
remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 18 minutes 24 seconds left for 
Senator Biden's designee.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator from Illinois wish to make a few 
comments? How much time does he need?
  I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, and then I will use the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from California.
  Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor in strong support of the Syria 
Accountability Act.
  Syria plays a key role in the Mideast region and it could play a 
constructive role, but all too often, it has not.
  After September 11, Syria offered to share information that could 
help in the U.S. fight against terrorists. It joined us in the first 
Gulf War to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1991, and it joined in 
peace negotiations with Israel in the 1990s. But Syria has taken steps 
and pursued policies that have undermined regional peace and damaged 
U.S. interests.
  Syria was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq and it certainly has a 
right to that opinion but Syria has not taken robust action to keep 
foreign fighters from crossing its borders to fight Americans.
  Syria objects to the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but has itself occupied 
Lebanon since 1976. More than 20,000 Syrian troops and police occupy 
much of Lebanon, dominating its politics and government and undermining 
its independence.
  Syria harbors terrorists that promote and organize violence, 
undermining hope and progress for a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace 
settlement.
  Hizballah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 
and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command 
have offices, maintain training camps, and other facilities on Syrian 
territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian army, 
such as the Beqaa Valley. Some of these groups, Hizballah in 
particular, receive supplies from Iran through Syria.
  The people of Syria are repressed, ruled by a small ethnic minority 
in a police state. There is no freedom of speech, no political freedom, 
and no freedom to dissent. The Syrian regime is also run by the Ba'ath 
Party, but split from Saddam Hussein's branch of this party.
  The President has recently spoken about how badly the Middle East 
needs an infusion of democracy. He has argued that, despite the fact 
that the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction in 
Iraq, this country's war was justified because of the repressive nature 
of that regime.
  I agree wholeheartedly with the President that one of the most 
important things that this country can do to fight terrorism is to 
promote democracy in the Middle East.
  The lack of democracy in many Middle Eastern countries has led 
directly to Islamic extremism. There are almost no outlets for 
political expression in a region filled with kings, emirs, and 
rubberstamp parliaments--except at the mosque.
  It is no accident that most of the terrorists were originally from 
countries that do not allow dissent or meaningful political 
participation.
  I, for one, do not believe this nation can remove every dictator and 
repressive regime. We cannot impose democracy from the other end of an 
M-16.
  Mideast countries will not become models of democracy and openness 
overnight. But we must look to a longer term future where we call on 
them to embark on a ``soft-landing'' towards a more democratic future.
  The bill we consider today, the Syria Accountability Act, will send a 
strong message of disapproval to Syria regarding its actions supporting 
terrorism, undermining regional peace, repressing its people, and 
undermining the independence of Lebanon. It will send those messages 
short of going to war.
  The bill will broaden U.S. sanctions against Syria unless the 
President certifies that Syria does not support terrorism; that it has 
withdrawn its military, intelligence, and security personnel from 
Lebanon; stopped developing ballistic missiles and chemical and 
biological weapons; and that it is no longer in violation of UN 
Security Council resolutions. The bill allows the President to waive 
sanctions if he believes waiving them would be in the interests of U.S. 
national security.
  I believe that Syria could play a constructive role in bringing peace 
to the region, ending the scourge of terrorism, and take its place as a 
regional leader. Syria and the United States could enjoy strong and 
growing relations. The bill we pass today will hold Syria accountable 
for its actions and send a strong message that Syria must change.
  Syria has a great opportunity to decide whether it will be part of 
the family of civilized nations dedicated to self-government, dedicated 
to the principles of equality, and dedicated to peace in the region, or 
Syria can turn a different course. There has been ample evidence of I 
guess the experience we have had in Syria to suggest they have decided 
to chart a course that is not consistent with those values.
  After September 11, Syria was one of the first to come to our side 
and say they would help us fight terrorism in the world. I had a chance 
to visit that nation and its leader shortly thereafter. He expressed 
condolences for our losses in the United States and pledged support in 
our effort to end terrorism.
  Sadly, the accumulated evidence since that date does not suggest 
Syria has made the real commitment we

[[Page S14409]]

need, not only for the sake of ending terrorism in our country but for 
the sake of ending terrorism in the world. In fact, too many times 
Syria has been on the wrong side of history in the past and the current 
day.
  This Syria Accountability Act basically says to Syria they will be 
held accountable for their conduct. Frankly, we understand that today 
Damascus, Syria, is the international headquarters for a variety of 
terrorist groups. That is totally unacceptable.
  The President was right when he said we are opposed to not only 
terrorists, but those who harbor and support them. Syria has to take 
those words to heart, and this act is a measure that needs to be passed 
by Congress and signed into law by the President so Syria understands 
the importance of the role it plays in the Middle East and how closely 
it will be watched.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased we are going to vote on 
the Syria Accountability bill, a bill I first introduced with Senator 
Santorum in April of 2002. It has had a very bumpy ride. I am glad the 
ride will soon end smoothly; at least that is my sense.
  On April 18, 2002, with a list of 45 cosponsors, I introduced this 
bill with Senator Santorum.
  On that day, I said:

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

  With that, Senator Santorum and I introduced the Syria Accountability 
Act because we knew at that time--and we know today--that by a variety 
of means the Government of Syria is supporting terrorist groups. It 
needs to end.
  In the 108th Congress, May 1, 2003, now with a total of 81 
cosponsors, we introduced our bill again and at that time we said:

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

  The administration opposed our bill very strongly. In fact, Secretary 
Powell came before the Foreign Relations Committee and when Senator 
Lugar and Senator Biden said to him, do you support or oppose the Syria 
Accountability Act, Secretary Powell said it would not be helpful to 
pass it.
  I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now. When 
Secretary Powell went to see the head of Syria, what was one of the 
first things he said to him? He said, you ought to shape up because 
there is a bill in the Senate, the Syria Accountability Act, and those 
folks over there are serious.
  It proved my point that, in fact, for us to be tough on terrorism 
gives the State Department the backup they need. I think, frankly, it 
will be very helpful for us to pass this bill today.
  Now, the administration has moved off their opposition and they are 
neutral on this bill. They are neither for it nor against it. The good 
news is, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, finally I 
think, have decided that maybe Boxer and Santorum have been on the 
right track. So this is a very big day for us because we have gone 
through a pretty tough legislative ride. We did not get hearings in the 
committee. We could not move it.
  In addition to Senator Santorum, my original cosponsor of this, I do 
want to thank Senator Byrd, who made suggestions to perfect our bill, 
Senator Lugar who worked with Senator Byrd and others, Senator Biden, 
who agreed to let this come up in an expedited fashion, and over on the 
House side Representatives Eliot Engel and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen helped 
us quite a bit in moving this bill.
  So it is, in fact, a day that is important. What we are basically 
saying in our bill is that if Syria does not shape up they are going to 
face sanctions from this Government. If Syria does not stop supporting 
terrorism, if Syria does not stop the development of weapons of mass 
destruction, if Syria does not end its occupation of Lebanon and cease 
support for the terrorists operating in Iraq, they are going to face a 
series of escalating sanctions.
  The fact is that we have 81 cosponsors--and I see Senator Santorum on 
the floor now. He worked his side of the aisle, I have worked mine, and 
we were able to really get these cosponsorships up. On October 15, the 
House passed its version of the bill 398 to 4. So I have to say we are 
on to something.
  Let me say from the bottom of my heart what I think we are on to. We 
are on to the premise that the truth shall set you free. We cannot have 
relationships with Syria and close our eyes to the truth, and the truth 
is that Syria is, in fact, supporting terrorism in ways that are very 
clear. They are a major supporter of Hezbollah, an international 
terrorist organization that has carried out numerous attacks against 
Americans and Israeli civilian targets. They have operated freely in 
the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon over the past 20 years. 
Other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the 
Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine-General Command all maintain offices, training camps, and 
other facilities inside Syria or in areas of Lebanon under Syrian 
control.
  Anyone who has traveled to the region knows that one of the saddest 
stories in the world is the story of Lebanon and how its people have 
lost any control over their own destiny. As we fight for democracy in 
the world, we have to remember that. This was a country at one point 
that was absolutely considered the Paris in the Middle East, and it has 
really been lost because it has been taken over in a hostile takeover, 
I might say, by the power of Syria.

  So all of these issues, getting Syria to turn its back on terrorism 
and not allow these organizations to operate within their borders, 
Syria allowing the Lebanese people to have a life of freedom and 
democracy or at least self-determination, however they determine it, 
these are issues that are crucial. As long as they keep up the status 
quo, the goal of Middle East peace is quite elusive.
  Twenty thousand Syrian troops and security personnel continue to 
occupy Lebanon and again, as I said, undermine its political 
independence. It is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council 
Resolution 520. What does that say? That resolution calls for strict 
respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political 
independence of Lebanon.
  We also know that Syria is developing weapons that are very 
dangerous, and that they are not doing enough to prevent terrorists 
from entering into Iraq. In fact, the terrorist who was attempting to 
blow up an Iraqi police station was found to be carrying a Syrian 
passport.
  This has to stop. Nations must be held accountable for the 
proliferation of terrorism and they must be held accountable if they 
are not doing all they can to pursue Middle East peace or at least 
allow that peace to take place.
  So this legislation has taken a bumpy road. When Senator Santorum and 
I got together to work on it, people said that is quite a combination. 
They said if those two can get together on anything, eventually we know 
we are going to win.
  It has taken us almost 2 years but we could not be happier. We want 
to thank the 80 other Senators who are cosponsors of this bill. We, 
again, thank Senators Lugar and Biden for allowing this bill to come 
directly to the floor today. We think it is a historic day.
  Our goal is to prevent war and to lay out markers for Syria. We do 
not want to go to war with Syria. We just want to say, in a truthful 
way, these are the things that you have been doing wrong. Please meet 
these markers. Help us. Help us in the world. If you don't, we are 
going to have some sanctions and they are spelled out. I think others 
have spelled them out. The idea behind this bill is to avoid a 
confrontation and instead have a relationship that is respectful 
between our two nations. I think today we will go a long way to that 
end.
  I believe all my time is used up at this point so I will yield the 
floor and I hope we will be voting shortly on this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I will take this occasion to tell the 
Senate that today we celebrate the birthday of

[[Page S14410]]

the distinguished Senator from California. Senator Boxer is a year 
younger. This is an excellent day for her to offer this legislation, 
and we commend and thank the Senator.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Foreign 
Relations Committee in wishing a happy birthday to Senator Boxer. I 
also thank Senator Boxer and Senator Santorum for their tenaciousness 
in advancing this bill. It is long overdue and it is to be celebrated 
by all of us.
  Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee 
have worked this bill into a condition where we can bring it to the 
floor, giving the President sufficient discretion, and make clear that 
we will continue to engage in diplomacy with the Syrians but we are 
going to do it on a more realistic basis, a basis that has 
consequences, a basis that deals with facts, not fantasy, and truly 
makes progress in the Middle East.
  It is a matter of historical record that for a long time, several 
decades now, the Syrians have occupied the nation of Lebanon, their 
smaller neighbor to their west. In the course of that, whatever their 
motives were for going in, they have stayed there for gain. They have 
denied democracy to the Lebanese people, they have denied them self-
determination, and they have been responsible for keeping the breach 
and the wound alive in Lebanon.
  But as it relates to this bill, I also have to take note of the fact 
it is Veterans Day. We thank our veterans. We celebrate our veterans. 
We owe them a great debt.
  As we think of yesterday's veterans, I am reminded of today's 
veterans, many of whom, from the State of Oregon, are in Iraq now and 
who are in harm's way for the cause of American liberty and the safety 
of the American people and our allies in the ongoing war on terrorism. 
The truth is, much that is aimed at them today comes from Syria. It 
comes from car bombers holding Syrian passports. Indeed, just the other 
day we learned the car bomb that was interdicted and the person pulled 
out of the car that was filled with explosives was from Syria. Syria 
maintains a porous border with Iraq that simply cannot remain as it is 
because if it does, it will mean the death of more of our soldiers. We 
want them home and we want them safe.
  There is more than a porous border that concerns me with Syria. It is 
the fact that Syria provides a safe harbor, indeed a safe haven, a 
heaven, if you will, for terrorists. For those who conspire to murder 
on a massive scale, Syria gives them a place to stay, gives them 
protection, and a place to hide their money and their weapons before 
they can bring them into conflict with American soldiers. Who knows 
what also may be there from the arsenals of Saddam Hussein. Who knows 
what weapons of mass destruction may even be there as well.
  All of this needs to end. Our President needs to have the tools, the 
diplomatic tools necessary to prosecute the case with Syria in a way 
that gets us beyond the status quo because the status quo is 
unacceptable and the status quo is deadly and the status quo has to be 
over. I join with Republicans and Democrats alike today in urging 
passage of the Syria Accountability Act, for the sake of our country, 
for the sake of the Middle East, for the sake of Muslims, for the sake 
of Jews, for the sake of Christians, and all who have suffered much.
  The road to Damascus has brought so much murder, so much conspiracy, 
so much weaponry, so much blood money that has been used against the 
peace process and those who are the advocates of a peaceful resolution 
in the Middle East.
  It is a matter of Scriptural record that a man named Saul on the road 
to Damascus once saw an awful lot of light, changed his way, and even 
changed his name. We know him today as the Apostle Paul. What we need 
now on the road to Damascus is a lot more light because all we have 
been getting is so much darkness. We need a new beginning with Syria. 
The President needs a new authority against Syria. This bill is crafted 
in a way that is helpful diplomatically so we can avoid hostilities. 
But let us have the courage in this war on terrorism to go where the 
facts take us. Let us all pray it does not take us down the road to 
Damascus, but we have to be realistic.
  This bill is a very good start. I urge the Senate to adopt it today 
by a very large margin.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am voting for the Syria Accountability 
Act because I believe it is important to call attention to Syria's 
continuing military occupation of Lebanon in violation of international 
law, and its support for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, 
that are responsible for ongoing, deadly incursions into Israel.
  It is well established that the Syrian Government rules through fear 
and repression. Torture by Syrian security forces is routine. The 
denial of basic human rights has been widely documented. We should 
condemn these policies.
  And there are allegations that Syria supplied Iraqi forces with 
military equipment, which the Secretary of Defense has described as 
hostile acts against the United States.
  The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and 
economic pressure on Syria in an effort to change its policies. That 
said, there are some aspects of this legislation that I do not support, 
and I want to take a moment to discuss them as I do not want there to 
be any misunderstanding about my vote. Most importantly, I do not want 
my vote for this legislation to be cited as an endorsement for military 
action against Syria.
  For examples, Section 4, entitled ``Statement of Policy,'' says that 
it is the policy of the United State that ``the United States shall 
impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism and 
efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' I doubt 
that anyone disagrees that we should try to do that. But by what means? 
Will support for this legislation be cited at some point in the future 
by the administration, or others, as a green light for launching a 
unilateral, military attack to ``impede Syria's ability to support acts 
of international terrorism?'' That is precisely what was done by the 
White House when it cited resolutions passed a decade ago to justify a 
unilateral attack against Iraq years later, even though that was not 
what many, if any of us who supported those resolutions intended at the 
time. Over and over again, the administration, in an effort to justify 
their precipitous use of force against Iraq, cited passage of the Iraq 
Liberation Act in 1998 as evidence that Congress supported the 
overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. What the administration kept 
omitting in numerous public statements is that one section of that act 
made clear that nothing in the act was to be construed as authorizing 
the use of U.S. military force against Iraq. I am concerned that the 
Syria Accountability Act could be distorted in a similar way. I do not 
support military action against Syria, and I am in no way endorsing 
such action by voting for this legislation today.
  The same can be said of the statement that it is the policy of the 
United States that ``efforts against Hezbollah will be expanded given 
the recognition that Hezbollah is equally or more capable than al 
Qaeda.'' First, I do not know if it is true that Hezbollah is ``equally 
or more capable than al Qaeda.'' Perhaps it is. I don't know, and I 
doubt the authors of this legislation can be certain that it is, 
especially given the difficulties we have had in obtaining 
reliable information about these organizations. In any event, while I 
might support expanded efforts against Hezbollah, it would depend on 
what those efforts are. For example, I am not in favor of sending U.S. 
troops to Lebanon to engage in combat against Hezbollah. I do not want 
my vote today to be construed as supporting any expanded efforts 
against Hezbollah regardless of what they might be.

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

[[Page S14411]]

the evidence warrant it, depends on what those efforts are.
  Finally, the legislation says that it is the policy of the united 
States that ``the United States will not provide any assistance to 
Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria 
ends all support for terrorism, withdraws it armed forces from Lebanon, 
and halts the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction 
and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.'' We 
all want Syria to do those things, and I am not in favor of providing 
assistance to the Syrian Government. But this legislation goes farther. 
It purports to cut off any assistance to the Syrian people, even 
through private voluntary organizations. I do not believe in punishing 
the citizens of a country simply because their government is corrupt or 
abusive, so I have concerns about this provision.
  There are also aspects of Section 5 of the legislation, entitled 
``Penalties and Authorization,'' which concern me. For example, among 
the sanctions that the President could impose are a prohibition on U.S. 
businesses from investing or operating in Syria. It is not obvious to 
me how this will penalize the Syrian Government, but it will hurt U.S. 
businesses. While the record is mixed, there are examples of U.S. 
businesses contributing to social, economic and even political change 
in other repressive countries.
  Of more concern is that the legislation encourages the President to 
reduce U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria. I am uneasy with this 
approach, as I believe we should consider expanding our diplomacy and 
people-to-people contacts with Syria. It is in our interest to promote 
dialogue with a country with which we have such profound differences, 
and which poses a military threat to Israel. Reducing those contacts 
could further misunderstanding and exacerbate tensions between us. It 
is also worth mentioning that after the September 11 attacks, Syria 
reportedly cooperated with the United States in intelligence sharing 
about al-Qaida.
  I do not believe this legislation will persuade Syria to do any of 
the things we want it to do. I am aware that the Administration has 
opposed it in the past. This legislation seems to start us down a road 
of intensifying tensions between the U.S. and Syria without a clear end 
game other than invading Syria, which I do not support and I doubt many 
other Senators support. However, I agree that Syria's support for 
terrorism and its violations of human rights deserve condemnation, and 
I will vote for this legislation with the caveats I have mentioned.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I do not support the passage of the 
Syrian Accountability Act. The situation in the Middle East is a 
delicate one. It calls for subtle, creative diplomacy as the United 
States seeks to support its troops in Iraq, promote the Arab-Israeli 
peace process, and combat terrorism.
  While I agree with the goals of the Syrian Accountability Act, I am 
concerned that this legislation will undermine our ability to achieve 
those goals. In particular, I am opposed to the act's provisions that 
would mandate the imposition of new sanctions against Syria. I believe 
that these provisions would tie this or any future administration's 
hands in a way that will make the conduct of our foreign policy more 
difficult. A number of sanctions already exist against Syria by virtue 
of its designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. In addition, the 
President already has the authority to impose many of the sanctions set 
forth in this act. If we are to promote peace in the region and move 
Syria in a more positive direction, the United States must pursue an 
approach that is more nuanced and flexible than what is called for in 
this legislation.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria 
Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate 
companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor 
of terrorism, and yet fewer U.S. sanctions apply to Syria than to any 
other country on the list. This Act will authorize a range of sanctions 
against Syria, prohibiting exports to Syria of dual-use items and 
requiring the President to choose from a set of other sanctions, 
including prohibitions on exports of most U.S. goods to Syria and on 
American investment in Syria, restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the 
United States and on U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, prohibitions 
on Syrian aircraft in the United States, and blocking of transactions 
in Syrian government property.
  These sanctions are appropriate, and, in my view, long overdue. 
Despite recent U.S. efforts to engage in dialogue with Syria, Damascus 
has refused to renounce its support for terrorism. It provides 
terrorist organizations with political and material support. It has 
turned away from negotiations with Israel. And it continues to occupy 
southern Lebanon, where its forces destabilize the Middle East by 
supporting Hezbollah and undermining Lebanese sovereignty.
  Syria acts as the safe haven for a broad array of terrorist 
organizations and Palestinian groups committed to the destruction of 
Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front 
for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the 
Liberation of Palestine-General Command are all active in Damascus. The 
Syrian government has not only refused to sever ties with these 
organizations; it has defended their use of Syrian territory to 
disseminate propaganda that attacks Israel, thereby undermining efforts 
to bring peace to the region. Worse, the offices maintained by these 
groups provide operational support for terrorist activities, 
notwithstanding the Syrian government's claims that they are engaged 
only in political and informational activities. These activities 
include the deadly and despicable suicide bombings, conducted by Hamas 
and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against civilians in Israel.
  Syria is also a supporter of Hezbollah, which is responsible for the 
killing of hundreds of Americans and is one of the biggest obstacles to 
our efforts to combat global terrorism. Throughout much of southern 
Lebanon, occupying Syrian forces support and protect Hezbollah, 
allowing it to deploy thousands of rockets that threaten Israel and 
destabilize the region, and to launch attacks against civilian targets 
in Israel civilian areas. Syria also permits Hezbollah to receive 
assistance from Iran.
  The Syrian occupation of Lebanon represents a long-standing threat to 
stability in the Middle East. While Syria has reduced its forces in 
recent years, it still maintains as many as 20,000 troops and security 
personnel in Lebanon. In addition to harboring Hezbollah, those forces 
exert undue influence in Lebanon and prevent the Lebanese government 
from deploying its own troops to southern Lebanon, as required by U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 520. It is long past time for Syrian forces 
to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to cease to be a refuge for 
terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah.
  Syria has not moderated its unrelenting hostility to Israel, nor has 
it demonstrated a commitment to negotiations. Moreover, it has used its 
position on the world stage and within the Arab world to undermine 
efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. As a frequent 
sponsor of U.N. resolutions related to the conflict in the Middle East, 
Syria has consistently promoted a perspective that castigates Israeli 
security measures without condemning the terrorist threat faced by 
Israel.
  While I have long supported this act and welcome its passage, I 
believe that our ability to influence Syria's behavior and deter its 
support for terrorism also requires a multilateral strategy. The effect 
of this act will unfortunately be limited by the lack of support for 
sanctions against Syria among our friends and allies. It is critical 
that the administration demonstrate global leadership on this issue as 
well as other aspects of the war on terrorism. By reaching out to the 
international community and by appealing to our common interest in 
curtailing global terrorism and achieving peace in the Middle East, we 
can ensure that the sanctions we are imposing today are truly 
effective.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Since September 11, the bar for assistance in our war 
against terrorism has been raised, and the Syrian Government is no 
longer entitled to a free pass. The United States must no longer allow 
Syria to get away with taking with the right hand what it gives with 
the left.

[[Page S14412]]

  Unfortunately, the Government of Syria remains an obstacle to peace 
in Iraq, settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--indeed, Syria 
has rebuffed repeated Israeli offers to make peace between Israel and 
Syria--democratic development and sovereignty for the Lebanese people, 
regional security, and the protection of human rights of the Syrian 
people themselves.
  There is no doubt that Syria actively supports international 
terrorism. The evidence supporting this contention is overwhelming:
  The U.S. State Department has certified Syria on its list of state 
sponsors of terrorism continuously since the 1970s. Syria's dubious 
company on this list includes Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, 
and Communist Cuba.
  Syria provides material support and safe haven to numerous 
international terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular 
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad.
  Syria allows terrorist groups to maintain training camps on Syrian 
soil. Indeed, in October, after a terrorist bombing in Haifa, Israel 
retaliated against a known Islamic Jihad terrorist training camp near 
Damascus.
  Syrian-controlled southern Lebanon is a haven for anti-Israel 
terrorists and a staging ground for terrorist rocket attacks against 
Northern Israel.
  Syria has facilitated the transfer of military equipment from Iran to 
terrorists operating in Syria-controlled Lebanon.
  Syria maintains a robust chemical weapons program, raising the risk 
that Syria could transfer such weapons to terrorists.
  In addition to Syria's long-time efforts to support the deadly aims 
of international terrorist groups, its government has played a 
decidedly unhelpful role in regional security. Most notably, the Syrian 
Government illegally collaborated with the Hussein regime to circumvent 
United Nations resolutions and has worked to undermine Iraqi democracy 
in the wake of the liberation of that country.
  Although Syria voted for the recent U.N. resolution on Iraq, 
ostensibly expressing its support for the reconstruction of a free and 
democratic Iraq, Syria has used nearly every other opportunity to 
undermine the American-led coalition's efforts to liberate the people 
of that country from the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, 
recent media reports indicate that Syria may have accepted and hidden 
Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion.
  In addition, there are credible reports that Syria provided material 
support to Iraqi troops during the war and currently provides safe 
haven to former Hussein regime officials and loyalists. U.S. 
investigators have located $3 billion hidden by the Hussein regime in 
Syrian banks, and Syria has refused to return this money to its 
rightful owners: the people of Iraq.
  During the 1990s, Syria repeatedly defied U.N. sanctions against Iraq 
by participating in enormous black market purchases of oil from the 
Saddam Hussein regime. The proceeds from these sales directly supported 
Hussein's military regime and opulent lifestyle.
  Syria has not acted sufficiently to curb cross-border movement of 
foreign terrorists, including a significant number of Syrian nationals, 
into Iraq. Indeed, in some circumstances, the Syrian Government appears 
to have facilitated their migration to that country; Syrian passports 
have been found in the possession of international terrorists arrested 
by the U.S. military there. These terrorists seek to wage jihad against 
American troops and undermine democracy in Iraq and throughout the 
Middle East.
  In addition to Syria's unhelpful polices in Iraq, it remains a 
spoiler for the development of peace and democracy in Lebanon, a 
country it has forcibly occupied for decades. Its military occupation 
of Lebanon undermines Lebanese efforts to create a sovereign democratic 
state and furthers instability in the region. Syria, a dictatorship, 
wields considerable political control in Lebanon, thereby distorting 
Lebanon's officially democratic process and making that country a de 
facto puppet state of the Syrian Government.
  Unconditional U.S. engagement of Syria has failed to encourage true 
moderation in Damascus; a new approach is necessary to encourage the 
Syrians to cooperate or face the consequences. Other Arab governments 
who say one thing and do another--such as Egypt--would be wise to pay 
attention to the congressional debate about, and support for, the 
Syrian Accountability Act.
  I believe the Syrian Accountability Act will give the administration 
the tools it needs to highlight to the Syrian Government the risk of 
choosing the wrong side in the global war against terrorism. The Syrian 
Government has an opportunity to reform itself, to provide its people 
with the economic and political freedoms they seek, to end its support 
for murderous terrorist organizations, and to become a proponent of 
peace in the Middle East.
  If Syria's leaders decide to embark on a moderate and peaceful path, 
it will find the United States to be a benevolent and helpful ally. But 
if it continues to support international terrorism, Syria's leaders 
will find themselves international pariahs, with fewer resources or 
friends to help them maintain their increasingly tenuous grip on power.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, a bipartisan piece of legislation 
of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  The time has come for the Senate to send a strong message to Syria 
that its support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its 
development of weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable and will 
not be tolerated.
  This legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from 
California, Senator Boxer, and Senator Santorum provides the President 
with maximum flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria 
subject to a national security waiver.
  Specifically, it requires that sanctions be imposed on Syria unless 
the President certifies that Syria: is not providing support for 
international terrorists; has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and 
other security personnel from Lebanon; has ceased the production, 
development, acquisition, or transfer of weapons of mass destruction 
and long range ballistic missiles, and; has ceased support for 
terrorist activities inside of Iraq.
  If the President does not make such a certification, the bill 
requires the President to prohibit the export to Syria of military 
items and dual use technology and impose two or more sanctions from a 
list of options including: prohibiting the export of products of the 
United States--other than food and medicine--to Syria; prohibiting 
United States businesses from investing or operating in Syria; 
restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C. and New 
York; and reducing diplomatic contacts with Syria.
  I, for one, believe that sanctions should be imposed only as a last 
resort and that all avenues should be explored to change another 
state's behavior before taking such action.
  With regard to Syria, Congress has passed numerous resolutions 
calling on Syria to change its ways and Republican and Democratic 
administrations alike have made it clear that Syria's actions are 
wholly inconsistent with a peace-loving and productive member of the 
international community.
  Nevertheless, words have not achieved the results we are looking for 
and as a result, we must take further substantive action.
  Syria's behavior and actions leave a lot to be desired and have 
severely hindered the Arab-Israeli peace process.
  First, it continues to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by 
the State Department and is reported by the Secretary of State to 
provide ``safe haven and support to several terrorist groups'' 
including Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine.
  Despite repeated calls by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Syria 
cease its support for terrorism and close the facilities and offices of 
these groups, it has refused to do so.
  Second, for over 20 years Syria has ignored United Nations Security 
Council resolutions and has failed to withdraw completely from Lebanon, 
maintaining 20,000 troops and security personnel in that sovereign 
country. The presence of those troops restricts the political 
independence of Lebanon and harms relations between Israel and Lebanon.

[[Page S14413]]

  Finally, Syria has continued its development and deployment of short 
and medium range ballistic missiles and biological and chemical 
weapons. It has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and has one 
of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East. It is reported 
to have three production facilities for chemical weapons and has a 
stockpile of the nerve agent sarin.
  In the post-September 11 world, we all understand the dangers posed 
by states who sponsor terror and seek weapons of mass destruction.
  I had hoped that Syria would realize that it is in its best interests 
to turn a new page in its relations with the United States and the 
international community and cease its support for terror, withdraw from 
Lebanon, and halt its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons.
  It has not done so and it is time for the United States Senate to 
respond. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, for decades, the United States has engaged 
the regime in Syria in the hope that Damascus would play a constructive 
role in bringing about Arab-Israeli peace. The U.S.-Syria relationship 
has been ongoing despite the fact that Syria has been ruled by 
dictatorship with an uninterrupted record of support for terrorism, 
specifically directed at Israel.
  The results of U.S. engagement with Syria have been anything but 
positive. Throughout the years, Damascus has continued to support 
international terrorism directed at America and Israel, occupy Lebanon, 
develop a weapons-of-mass-destruction program, acquire ballistic 
missiles, and pursue policies counter to U.S. interests.
  Since the liberation of Iraq, Syria has played a destabilizing role 
by allowing terrorist fugitives to enter Syria and by allowing 
mercenaries to cross into Iraq--or at least not stopping them--to 
engage U.S. troops. Syria has been able to conduct its policies--which 
are antithetical to U.S. interests--with near impunity. They have 
resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives--especially when you 
consider the bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 
1983.
  Although Syria is listed--and has been since the 1970s--by the State 
Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Iran, Libya, 
Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, it has not faced the same degree of 
diplomatic and economic isolation that has been directed at other 
terrorist states. In fact, Washington maintains full diplomatic 
relations with Syria, making Syria the only designated state sponsor of 
terrorism to have such relations with the United States.
  Syria's special treatment despite its support for terrorism should be 
over.
  The events of September 11, 2001 have offered a window of opportunity 
to review many U.S. bilateral relationships and determine whether it is 
necessary to change the dynamic--and often the status quo--that has 
characterized these relations. The administration and Congress have 
done this most notably with Saudi Arabia in seeking greater cooperation 
in the elimination of terrorist activities operating from Saudi soil.
  Now is also an ideal time to reassess U.S. relations with Damascus 
and demand accountability in our relationship. Equally important, it is 
time for the Syrian leadership to make a tough choice: it is either 
with the United States completely in the war on terrorism, or it is 
not. Either way, shielding Syria from the same economic and political 
isolation directed at other terrorist states is unmerited and runs 
counter to U.S. principles in the war against terrorism.
  As Under Secretary of State John Bolton stated in testimony before 
the House International Relations Committee on September 16, 2003, 
``Syria remains a security concern on two important counts: terrorism 
and weapons of mass destruction.'' Bolton added: There is no graver 
threat to our country today than states that both sponsor terrorism and 
possess or aspire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria, which 
offers physical sanctuary and political protection to groups such as 
Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihad, and whose terrorist operations 
have killed hundreds of innocent people--including Americans--falls 
into this category of state of potential dual threat.
  Since the 1970s, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a 
state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, in its ``Patterns of Global 
Terrorism, 2002'' report, the State Department found that the Syrian 
Government ``has continued to provide political and limited material 
support to a number of Palestinian groups, including allowing them to 
maintain headquarters or offices in Damascus,'' although the Syrian 
Government insists that the groups' Damascus offices undertake only 
political and informational activities, not terrorist operations.
  Syria maintains close relations with Iran, another autocratic regime 
listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism and a 
prominent financial, political, and military backer of these 
Palestinian terrorist organizations.
  Moreover, Syria remains the de facto ruler of Lebanon, which it has 
forcibly and illegally occupied since 1990. Lebanon, the country in 
which more than 200 U.S. Marines died in 1983 following a terrorist 
attack on their Beirut barracks, remains a breeding ground and training 
center for terrorist organizations.
  Terrorism has spawned in Syria due largely to Syria's opposition to 
the existence of Israel and its subsequent objection to an Arab-Israeli 
peace process. Although the United States has engaged Syria--and given 
it a prominent place in discussions--during the past few decades, 
Damascus has long been an unwilling and uncooperative partner in 
bringing about Middle East peace. In fact, Syria did not endorse 
President Bush's Middle East ``roadmap.''
  Syria also appears to be in the terror financing business. In April 
2003, an Italian government study found that Syria functioned as a hub 
for an al-Qaida network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from 
Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the 
recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group.
  And, on October 21, it was reported that U.S. Treasury Department 
investigators have evidence that $3 billion that belonged to Saddam 
Hussein's government is being held in Syria-controlled banks in Syria 
and Lebanon. The Syrian Government has not yet granted Treasury 
officials access to these accounts, nor has it been willing to share 
any information about the account holders.
  Let's review past U.S. policy toward Damascus. Despite all of Syria's 
irresponsible and threatening policies, successive U.S. administrations 
have been willing to engage the Syrian Government. For decades, the 
United States has pursued a policy of engagement with Syria, trying to 
win Damascus' support for Middle East peace but to no avail.
  As part of this strategy, the United States has maintained full 
diplomatic relations with Damascus. It also has allowed U.S. companies 
to invest in Syria, something that cannot be done in other terrorist-
sponsor states such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Libya.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1999--the last 
year there was reliable data available--direct investment of U.S. 
companies into Syria was $6 million, with 13 U.S. businesses having 
offices in Syria. While this may seem miniscule in terms of the dollar 
amount, it is notable because it is tolerated at all.
  With the death of Syrian President Hafez Assad in 2000 and the 
ascendancy of his son Bashar to the presidency, there were high 
expectations that Syria would depart from its anti-Israeli policies and 
pro-terrorist support of the past and enact political and economic 
reforms, as well as become a positive influence and player in achieving 
Middle East peace. Three years into Bashar's term, such developments 
have not materialized--and without a catalyst to encourage such reform, 
it appears unlikely that Bashar will proactively change Syria's course.
  We need a new approach toward Damascus. Continuation of the current 
U.S. policy toward Syria must end. For too long, it has been too 
ineffective and has allowed Syria to pursue with near impunity policies 
counter to U.S. interests. Moreover, it is unproductive and 
antithetical to the principles associated with the President's war on 
terrorism.
  The U.S. must pressure Syria to play by the rules. Given that the 
government of Syrian President Bashar al-

[[Page S14414]]

Assad is relatively weak, and recognizing that Bashar deemed it 
necessary, or least desirable, to provide some assistance to the United 
States in apprehending al-Qaida, it should be possible to pressure 
Damascus into changing its policies. That said, Washington must 
demonstrate that it is serious about having Damascus drop its support 
of terrorism and its pursuit of policies that endanger peace and 
stability in the Middle East.
  Therefore, to demonstrate American commitment, the United States 
should adopt the following measures in pressuring Syria: Enact the 
Syria Accountability Act now. Among the numerous provisions contained 
in the bill, the most notable include the calls for Syria to 
immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism; withdraw 
from Lebanon and provide for Lebanon's full restoration of sovereignty; 
halt development of certain weapons; and enter into serious 
unconditional bilateral peace negotiations with Israel.
  This bill also states that Syria ``should bear responsibility for 
attacks committed by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with offices, 
training camps, or other facilities'' in Syria or Lebanon. Further, the 
bill states, that being in violation of key United Nations Security 
Council resolutions and pursuing policies which undermine international 
peace and security, ``Syria should not have been permitted to join the 
United Nations Security Council or serve as the Security Council's 
President, and should be removed from the Security Council.
  Pursuant to the legislation, the United States is empowered to ``will 
work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of terrorism and efforts 
to acquire weapons of mass destruction, WMD.'' In addition, the United 
States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose all 
forms of multilateral assistance to Syria until Damascus withdraws from 
Lebanon and halts its pursuit of WMD and ballistic missile 
accumulation.
  Until Syria enacts these measures, the President is required to 
prohibit: the sale of defense articles to Syria that require the 
issuance of an export license--dual-use items; U.S. businesses from 
investing in Syria; and export of any goods other than food and 
medicine to Syria. Diplomatic relations also must be reduced but the 
degree of that is not defined. The President is given waiver authority 
for 6-month periods for all of these categories, except the export of 
dual-use items if it is determined that ``it is in the vital national 
security interest'' to do so.
  The Bush administration should apply uniformity in its policies 
toward terrorist-sponsoring states. Therefore, the administration 
should not allow U.S. companies to invest in Syria because it sends the 
signal that Syria is receiving special treatment from Washington. A 
fairly dramatic reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation would 
perhaps strongly suggest to Syria that it is not an American ally and 
will not be one until it starts acting like one.
  Sending a strong message is key.
  The United States should apply the proliferation security initiative, 
PSI, and sanction WMD suppliers. The administration has successfully 
developed and employed a plan, known as the proliferation security 
initiative, PSI, to interdict illicit weapons shipments and contraband. 
PSI was announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. It involves robust 
cargo inspections and possible interdiction of WMD materials and 
illegal arms, based on pooled intelligence among participating 
countries. To date, 11 nations form the core PSI group: Britain, 
France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the 
Netherlands, and the United States. While most of the initial PSI 
activities have focused on North Korea, attention should be paid to 
Syria--and Iran--with the goal of halting the flow of weapons 
technology both in and out of Syria.
  A critical complementary strategy to PSI is using sanctions on 
countries that supply Syria with weapons and WMD technology. The 
People's Republic of China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are 
known proliferators of these materials, with Russia and North Korea 
being key suppliers to Syria.
  As part of a wider U.S. policy, the administration should attempt to 
convince its PSI allies to also use sanctions against WMD suppliers.
  In conclusion, Syria's actions in the Middle East--and in Iraq, 
specifically pose a clear, near-term threat to regional stability and 
to the safety and security of American forces serving in the region.
  With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the defeat of 
the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States has made clear 
that state support for terrorism will no longer be tolerated.
  It is overdue for the United States and like-minded nations to hold 
Syria accountable for its actions. Syria's new head of state has had 
ample time to make the choice whether Damascus is with the United 
States as a partner or not in fighting the war on terrorism.
  If Syria is not, then it should face the diplomatic and economic 
consequences as set out in the Syria Accountability Act. As a sponsor 
of the Senate version, S. 982, I respectfully urge my colleagues to 
vote for this important measure in the form of H.R. 1828, as amended.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria 
Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives 
passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate 
bill, S. 982, introduced by my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Boxer, 
which has over 80 cosponsors as of today. Today, I support the 
amendment to H.R. 1828 submitted by my able colleague and chairman of 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in coordination 
with Senators Santorum and Boxer. I commend my colleagues for their 
good work.
  It is well within Congress's prerogative to write and implement 
sanctions, but the practice of doing so, as the chairman of the Senate 
Foreign Relations Committee knows so well, can raise important points 
about the overall constitutional prerogative of the executive in its 
right to conduct foreign policy. The amendment prepared by Senator 
Lugar, in cooperation with the original sponsors of the bill, preserves 
the prerogatives of both branches of government, and, at the same time, 
I believe, unifies and solidifies our nation's policy on the question 
of terrorism, and, in particular, Syria's contribution to peace, 
stability and progress in the Middle East.
  Quite frankly, Syria has largely failed to contribute significantly 
to peace and stability in the Middle East, a stability that U.S. blood 
and treasure is now invested to achieve. We have watched the 
administration give Syria ample opportunities, since September 11, 
2001, to make its contribution. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the 
administration flattered the Damascus dictatorship by giving it this 
time to join with the civilized world in unequivocally renouncing 
terrorism completely, as well as dismantling all manifestations of 
material and political support for terrorist organizations.
  Some suggest that Syria has played a game of sitting on the fence, 
when it came to the war on terrorism. However, Mr. President, Syria was 
never on the fence. Syria is on the other side of the fence, with the 
other state sponsors of terrorism we have labeled as such since 1979. 
And today I will agree with what Secretary Powell told President Assad 
earlier this year: By refusing to cooperate, he was ``on the wrong side 
of history.''
  Since 1979, Syria has appeared every year on the State Department's 
list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has been so identified for its 
role in terrorist acts, as well as the support it gave--and continues 
to give, to this very day--to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and 
Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that, to this very day, organize and 
commit acts of aggression or terrorism.
  Throughout the 1990s, Syria played coy with U.S. administrations 
attempting to engage it in the Middle East peace process. Who can 
forget the scene of the long-suffering Secretary of State, Warren 
Christopher, waiting hours outside of Hafez Assad's office on his 
umpteenth visit, at the very same time Iranian weapons were being 
transferred to Hezbollah at the Damascus airport? Who can forget 
President Clinton's futile attempt in Geneva, near the end of his term 
and near the end of Assad's brutal life, to re-engage the

[[Page S14415]]

dictator in peace talks? On the question of peace or normal relations 
with Israel, in every aspect but the desire to reclaim territory for 
itself, Syria has most definitely been a rejectionist state.
  There are persistent reports that Syria has a stockpile of chemical 
weapons, including sarin and possibly also VX, which it could combine 
with one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East. 
Coalition forces are not in Iraq to rid that former dictatorship of its 
weapons of destruction while we look the other way on similar weapons 
held by another Ba'athist regime. The era of that ideology of Arab 
oppression, along with the threat of weapons of mass destruction to 
maintain that oppression, is over.
  Syria has not assisted us in our historic mission in Iraq. Joining 
the Security Council in unanimous approval of Resolution 1441, the 
Syrians were quick to denounce the threat and use of force to achieve 
the goals of the resolution. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi 
Freedom, our officials--from the President, to the Secretary of State, 
to the Secretary of Defense--have publicly criticized Syria for its 
lack of cooperation. Syria's border has remained open to fleeing 
Ba'athist officials, and to international terrorists anxious to die 
fighting against Coalition forces. Our officials believe that Syria 
holds up to $3 billion of Saddam's ill-gotten loot, funds that the 
Governing Council could use for reconstruction, funds that would lessen 
the obligations we have undertaken in this body this week.
  Syria invaded Lebanon more than a quarter-century ago, and maintains 
approximately 15,000 troops there to this day. Throughout this period, 
Syria has backed the Shi'ite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, an 
organization that has been tied to terrorism around the world. Twenty 
years ago, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed almost 300 U.S. Marines as 
they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Hezbollah continues to attack 
across borders, shelling Israel as late as last week. Nothing Hezbollah 
does is without Syrian sanction. The Middle East will not see peace, 
and the United States should not consider itself secure as long as 
Hezbollah, with its Syrian backers, exists.
  So it is time to go to the source and sanction Syria. This bill 
outlines a series of goals and commensurate diplomatic and economic 
sanctions to apply to the Syrian regime. It maintains flexibility of 
policy choice for the administration, but it is clear in stating the 
Congress's intent, in resolve and policy, to further isolate the 
decrepit dictatorship in Damascus.
  I do not know if this bill will motivate Damascus to cross the fence 
and join the anti-terror coalition of civilized nations. I suspect that 
to believe so would be pollyannaish. But I do believe that the way we 
act today will declare to the Damascus dictatorship that there are 
costs to being on the wrong side of the fence in the war on terror.
  September 11, 2001 began a new era in U.S. foreign policy, and the 
President's policies since that watershed event have been based on 
clarity of vision. Against the threat of terrorism, which lurks and 
breeds in the shadows, we have responded with clarity of purpose. 
Against the traditional approaches of diplomacy, which balance nuance 
against process, we have demanded progress. Against previous approaches 
that part-time antagonism toward a mutual enemy should be rewarded with 
full-time tolerance of non-compliance with our stated goals, we say 
today: No longer.
  President Assad will receive this message clearly. Perhaps Syria will 
modify its behavior. If it does not, Syria can join the list of rogue 
states who failed because they challenged the order of the civilized 
world.
  The American public has read reports in the press about Syria's 
cooperation with us in identifying, in the months after September 11, 
members of Al-Qaida. I have read no where, nor have I heard any analyst 
argue, that such cooperation was because Syria was dedicated to our 
defense, or to our global war on terrorism. Since then, the American 
public has heard many members of the current administration express 
disappointment with Syria's behavior, and they have seen many reports 
of Syria's lack of cooperation. And one thing is clear in a democracy, 
Mr. President: Our foreign policy must have the support of the public.
  I will always respect the President's foreign policy prerogative, and 
I have defended the executive's prerogative under Republican and 
Democratic administrations. I have supported ``quiet diplomacy'' for 
small results. But a diplomacy that produces invisible results is not 
quiet, it is silent. Today, I believe the members of the President's 
administration agree with me.
  For the reasons I have stated here, this bill will pass 
overwhelmingly, as it did in the House of Representatives. We may 
consider this the Senate's contribution today to the war on global 
terrorism.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today the Senate is voting on H.R. 1828, 
the Syria Accountability Act. I would like to explain to my colleagues 
why I will be voting against this legislation.
  As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Near East 
Subcommittee, I have come to appreciate the great importance of U.S. 
leadership in working to restart the Middle East peace process. In 
recent visits to the region--the West Bank, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and 
Afghanistan--I heard a uniform chorus in these Arab and Muslim nations 
that active United States involvement was urgently needed to halt the 
continuing violence between Israel and the Palestinians. I regret that 
this administration has not actively responded to these pleas for 
peace.
  I have also learned that our disinterest in becoming involved in 
Middle East peace has contributed to the sharply declining image of the 
United States in the Arab/Muslim world. Indeed, according to the 
recently released report of the Advisory Group on Public Diplomacy for 
the Arab and Muslim World--``the Djerejian report''--hostility toward 
America has reached shocking levels, and the bottom has fallen out of 
Arab and Muslim support for the United States. The report also 
documents that ``large majorities in the Arab and Muslim world view 
United States policy through the prism of the Arab-Israeli conflict.''
  I am troubled by these developments and fear that the 
administration's emerging hard line toward Syria, in addition to 
passage of this bill, will only add fuel to this fire. It is true that 
the Syrian Government can do more to work with the United States in 
combating terrorism in the region, and the administration has made some 
very clear requests of the Syrian Government. But if Syria does not 
respond to our requests, most, if not all, of the sanctions 
contemplated by the Syrian Accountability Act can already be imposed by 
the administration. This means that a bill that is widely perceived as 
a crackdown against Syria has little substantive effect. Indeed, 
Patrick Clawson of CSIS testified to our committee last week, ``Some 
might say that the act is largely symbolic, but do not underestimate 
the importance of symbols.'' And that concerns me, because the symbol 
of the United States as cracking down on an Arab nation ultimately 
harms our interests in many very important parts of the world.
  So in reality I would describe this bill as a ``lose-lose'' for the 
United States: We're getting little additional muscles against Syria 
while further antagonizing the Arab world. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Syria has long been considered by the United 
States to be a rogue state. Syria continues to associate with terrorist 
groups, including those that have carried out ruthless attacks that set 
back the cause of peace in the Middle East, leading it to be placed on 
the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. Syria has 
occupied Lebanon continuously since 1976, in violation of U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 520.
  The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and 
economic pressure on Syria to change its foreign policy. However, I 
will vote against the Syria Accountability Act.
  Of the 22 pages of this bill, only six pages relate to sanctions that 
the United States may apply to Syria. The other pages contain 51 
clauses of findings, senses of Congress, and statements of policy. 
These nonbinding provisions build a case against Syria, and I fear that 
those provisions could later be used to build a case for a military 
intervention against Syria.
  In many cases, the non-binding clauses in the bill appear to gloss 
over the complex situation with respect to

[[Page S14416]]

Syria. For example, on page 11, the bill speaks of ``hostile actions'' 
by Syria against U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Yet, the evidence is 
inconclusive as to the role of the Government of Syria in the attacks 
that have been carried out against our troops in Iraq. Such 
insinuations could be used to build the case for a preemptive military 
intervention against Syria, which, unfortunately, is a very real 
possibility because of the dangerous doctrine of preemption hatched by 
the administration.
  Other language in the nonbinding clauses may simply be ill-
considered. For example, on page 7, the bill quotes an unclassified CIA 
report that says that it is ``highly probable'' that Syria is working 
on biological weapons. In the very next clause, however, the bill 
quotes an Under Secretary of State as saying that Syria ``is pursuing'' 
the development of biological weapons. It is exactly this kind of 
shading of intelligence probabilities becoming certainties for which 
Congress has criticized the administration and its intelligence 
agencies for creating the hysteria that led to war in Iraq. Could 
Congress be so willing to make the same mistake with respect to Syria?
  The United States should use economic and diplomatic leverage to 
pressure Syria to change its support for terrorism and alter its 
foreign policy. The sponsors of this legislation have made improvements 
to several nonbinding provisions in this bill, and they have worked to 
address some of my more serious concerns. While I appreciate their 
cooperation, I still cannot support this legislation. The findings, 
statements of policy, and sense of Congress provisions in the Syria 
Accountability Act could be used to build a case against Syria that 
could too easily be hyped to imply congressional support for preemptive 
military action against that rogue state. I will vote against this bill 
because of that dangerous course that it may portend.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 1 minute 54 seconds.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I note no more Senators on our side of the 
aisle wish to speak. Therefore, I yield the remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the 
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), and the Senator 
from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Nelson) 
would each vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 445 Leg.]

                                YEAS--89

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Byrd
     Chafee
     Enzi
     Jeffords

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Graham (FL)
     Hagel
     Inouye
     Kerry
     Lieberman
     Nelson (NE)
  The bill (H.R. 1828) was passed, as follows:
  Mr. FRIST. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am proud of my colleagues throughout 
the Senate for the overwhelming support just given on the Syria 
Accountability Act. I believe this bill sends an unambiguous signal to 
the administration and to the Syrian regime that the Congress considers 
Syrian support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its 
pursuit of dangerous weapons all significant threats to the United 
States and to global security.
  I am particularly concerned that this administration has let Syria 
off the hook. Despite the support the Syria Accountability Act just 
had, there are waivers that concern me. Syria's record is not one that 
we can look at with any assurances that they are going to do what they 
have to.
  The administration claimed that al-Assad's regime's support for the 
global war on terrorism is so valuable that he should not be pressed on 
other issues, including the failure of the Syrians to secure the Iraqi 
border, thereby permitting the constant infiltration of foreign 
terrorists pouring into Iraq.
  Apparently, the Syrians must have shared intelligence about al-Qaida, 
and FBI and CIA officials have reportedly met in Syria with Syrian 
intelligence officers to discuss terrorism. The Syrians have also 
helped to capture a top al-Qaida figure, a Syrian-born German citizen 
who is part of the Hamburg cell that planned the September 11 attack.
  So while Syria might be sharing information on al-Qaida, at the same 
time it is deliberately thwarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace 
process.
  Syria harbors leaders who order, plan, and finance terror attacks 
against Israeli citizens. Operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the 
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al Aqsa Martyrs 
Brigades, which I might add is a terrorist group affiliated with Yasser 
Arafat's political party FATAH, are regularly receiving training in 
Syrian camps.
  So what is perplexing is why this administration has refused to force 
the Syrians to stop training Palestinian extremists even as it promotes 
a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
  No Palestinian roadmap to peace, no negotiations will be successful 
between Palestinians and Israelis as long as Syria continues to occupy 
Lebanon and to train and churn out suicide bombers.
  I am worried that the administration has made a cynical tradeoff, 
focusing on supposed Syrian support for the hunt for al-Qaida while 
ignoring the Syrian's deliberate obstruction of the peace process.
  Last month, when the Islamic Jihad successfully blew up an Arab-owned 
seaside restaurant in Haifa, killing 19 Israelis, including 5 
Palestinian Israelis, Israel responded by striking one of the 
Palestinian training camps, choosing a time when it was empty to avoid 
collateral damage. The Bush administration responded with a bland 
statement urging both Israel and Syria to avoid actions that heighten 
tensions or could lead to hostilities.
  Despite President Bush's call for Damascus to expel terrorist 
organizations from Syria and close down its camps, the Syrians have 
directly refused. They have made a mockery of President Bush's famous 
claim that you are ``either with us or against us in the war on 
terrorism.''
  We in the Senate have just passed the Syria Accountability Act, but 
Syria will not be held accountable until the administration decides to 
end its tradeoffs in the global war on terrorism,

[[Page S14417]]

prioritizing the fight against some forms of terror over others.
  The message we want to send has to be clear and direct. We will not 
tolerate any support for terrorism, especially among those who purport 
to be our friends.
  Everyone has seen the Syrian action in Lebanon and we know how 
treacherous that is. They occupy the country and pretend they want to 
make peace, but they do not want to. They have not indicated by their 
actions that they want to.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________