[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4861-4865]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING GRAVE CONCERN OF CONGRESS REGARDING OCCUPATION OF REPUBLIC 
                   OF LEBANON BY SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 32) expressing the grave 
concern of Congress regarding the occupation of the Republic of Lebanon 
by the Syrian Arab Republic, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 32

       Whereas since its invasion of the Lebanese Republic in 
     1976, the regime of the Syrian Arab Republic has implemented 
     a systematic policy of occupation over Lebanon that has 
     transformed the political, social, and economic character of 
     Lebanon;
       Whereas on July 20, 1976, President Hafez al-Assad of Syria 
     stated that ``Syria and Lebanon were one state and one 
     people'';
       Whereas, on October 13, 1990, the Syrian occupation of 
     Lebanon was complete, when Syrian troops launched aerial and 
     ground attacks and occupied the Lebanese presidential palace 
     and the Ministry of Defense, ousting the constitutional 
     government of Prime Minister Michel Aoun of Lebanon;
       Whereas the Syrian regime appointed their own proxy 
     government and president in occupied Lebanon, and started a 
     large-scale persecution operation against the Lebanese people 
     by arresting, abducting, torturing, and killing opponents of 
     the occupation;
       Whereas, on May 22, 1991, following the occupation of 
     Beirut, Lebanon, Syria concluded the Brotherhood Treaty for 
     Coordination and Cooperation with Lebanon;
       Whereas this treaty solidified the integration of the two 
     countries in matters of security and intelligence, finance 
     and trade, and industry and agriculture, by establishing the 
     mechanism for Syrian command under the cover of ``joint'' 
     decisionmaking;
       Whereas the Syrian regime has continued to employ a wide 
     range of policy means to transform Lebanon into a ``client 
     state'' and a Syrian political satellite;
       Whereas Syria clearly tampered with the Lebanese 
     parliamentary elections of 1992, 1996, and 2000, by amending 
     electoral laws which delineated voting districts and laid 
     down intricate procedures for the elections, which were 
     rigged in a way to guarantee results favorable to Syria;
       Whereas Syrian-backed ad-hoc modifications to the Lebanese 
     constitution extended by three years the presidential tenure 
     of Lebanese president Elias Harawi, allowed Emile Lahoud, 
     commander of the Lebanese army, to become president, and 
     extended Lahoud's term in contravention of United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 1559;
       Whereas Lebanese judicial institutions have been utilized 
     and mobilized to impose Syrian control, including the routine 
     issuance of death sentences in abstentia against expatriates 
     and opposition leaders;
       Whereas Lebanese Broadcasting Law No. 382 of 1994 provided 
     the legislative framework for controlling and restricting 
     Lebanese radio and television;
       Whereas the restrictions on the free flow of information 
     and opinion in Lebanon is in sharp contrast to the legacy of 
     journalism in that country;
       Whereas it is widely reported that Syria has utilized the 
     practices of kidnapping and arresting Lebanese citizens, 
     using torture against them, and causing their virtual 
     disappearance;
       Whereas Human Rights Watch reported that in November 1999 
     Syrian authorities in Damascus, Syria, offering no 
     explanation whatsoever, returned to his family the dead body 
     of Lebanese citizen Adel Khalaf Ajouri, aged 52, who had 
     ``disappeared'' in 1990;
       Whereas within Lebanon itself, Syria reportedly operated 
     detention facilities in Tripoli, Beirut, Shtaura in the Bekka 
     Valley, and Anjar on the Lebanese-Syrian border;
       Whereas ``Syrian order'' in Lebanon was institutionalized 
     when Damascus led the process of disarming the Lebanese 
     militias, except for Hezbollah, which Syria retains as a 
     terrorist proxy engaged against the State of Israel;
       Whereas Lebanon, under the control of Syria, continues to 
     serve as a major training center for terrorist organizations 
     such as Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and the 
     Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General 
     Command;
       Whereas a number of Lebanese government officials have 
     actively facilitated and contributed to the Syrian occupation 
     and its activities, thereby threatening regional and global 
     security;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 
     calls for the ``strict respect of the sovereignty, 
     territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of 
     Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the 
     Government of Lebanon throughout Lebanon'', the withdrawal 
     from Lebanon of ``all remaining foreign forces'', ``the 
     disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese 
     militias'', and ``the extension of the control of the 
     Government of Lebanon over all Lebanese territory'';
       Whereas, on February 14, 2005, a bomb exploded in Beirut, 
     Lebanon, killing at least 15 people, including Rafik Hariri, 
     former Prime Minister of Lebanon, and wounding approximately 
     100 other innocent victims;
       Whereas after the bombing, President George W. Bush stated 
     during an address in Brussels that ``Our shared commitment to 
     democratic progress is being tested in Lebanon, a once-
     thriving country that now suffers under the influence of an 
     oppressive neighbor'', called on Syria to ``end its 
     occupation of Lebanon'', and reiterated the provisions of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559;
       Whereas Lebanese opposition leaders gathered after Hariri 
     was killed and issued a statement demanding Syrian troop 
     withdrawal from Lebanon within the next three months, calling 
     for the resignation of the current Lebanese cabinet, and 
     declaring that ``we will fight the current regime and demand 
     our right for a neutral government that makes sure Lebanon 
     steps forward from being a captive state to regaining its 
     full independence and sovereignty''; and

[[Page 4862]]

       Whereas the ongoing mass demonstrations by the Lebanese 
     people resulted in the dramatic resignation of the Lebanese 
     Cabinet on February 28, 2005: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Lebanese Republic is a captive country;
       (2) the occupation of Lebanon represents a long-term threat 
     to the security of the Middle East and United States efforts 
     to promote political and economic liberalization in the 
     region, and this issue should be raised by the President and 
     the Secretary of State in all appropriate bilateral and 
     multilateral forums;
       (3) the President should direct the United States Permanent 
     Representative to the United Nations to present and secure 
     support for a United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     classifying Lebanon as a captive country and calling for the 
     immediate release of all Lebanese detainees in Syria and 
     Lebanon;
       (4) the President should freeze all assets in the United 
     States belonging to Lebanese government officials who are 
     found to support and aid the occupation of Lebanon by the 
     Syrian Arab Republic;
       (5) all countries should fully and immediately implement 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559;
       (6) it should be the policy of the United States to--
       (A) support independent human rights and pro-democracy 
     advocates in Lebanon; and
       (B) seek the full restoration of sovereign democratic rule 
     in Lebanon; and
       (7) the United States should provide assistance through the 
     Middle East Partnership Initiative and the Broader Middle 
     East and North Africa Initiative for broadcasts and civil 
     society efforts to assist individuals, organizations, and 
     entities that support Lebanese sovereignty and the promotion 
     of democracy in Lebanon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent he be 
permitted to control the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 32, 
expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the occupation of 
the Republic of Lebanon by the Syrian Arab Republic.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the leadership for bringing this important resolution 
before the House today at a time when hundreds of thousands of Lebanese 
are flocking to the streets issuing cries for freedom. It is critical 
that the United States Congress reaffirm its commitment to the 
restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and independence and specifically 
acknowledge the plight that Lebanon has endured as a captive nation. 
House Concurrent Resolution 32 does exactly that, Mr. Speaker.
  For too long Lebanon has been denied its independence by the regime 
in Damascus, a regime that has imposed its will upon the Lebanese 
people through electoral intimidation, through political persecution, 
through assassination of opposition leaders and brutal military force. 
But the Lebanese people's desire to be free and sovereign could not be 
silenced and could not be repressed any longer.
  The protests that have followed the Valentine's Day bombing in Beirut 
that killed former Prime Minister Hariri ushered in an immediate demand 
from a unifiable and diverse Lebanese opposition for Syria to withdraw 
from Lebanon. The streets of Beirut earlier this week boasted the 
largest anti-Syrian demonstration in Lebanese history and possibly the 
largest pro-democracy rally in Middle East history in response to the 
Syrian and Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah rally a week earlier.
  For the first time, a number of moderate Shiites joined the Druze, 
Sunnis and Christian groups whose anger and grief over the brutal 
tactics of the Syrian occupiers and their Lebanese collaborators have 
galvanized them into action, into a coordinated effort to reclaim 
Lebanon's sovereignty.
  House Concurrent Resolution 32 clearly articulates the threat to U.S. 
national security interests and to regional stability posed by Syria's 
presence in Lebanon. And the threat is not limited to Syrian 
intelligence and military, but to its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, which 
uses Lebanese territory as a launching pad for attacks against Israel 
and a training ground for terrorists targeting U.S. and other Western 
interests.
  Thus, at a time when this body has clearly articulated our stand 
regarding Hezbollah just a few days ago, let us underscore that we will 
not tolerate an appeasement of Hezbollah in Lebanon.
  House Concurrent Resolution 32 builds on recent developments and 
calls for the President to instruct the U.S. Permanent Representative 
to the United Nations to present and secure support for a Security 
Council resolution classifying Lebanon as a captive nation.
  It calls for the President, pursuant to existing law, to freeze all 
assets in the U.S. belonging to Lebanese Government officials who are 
found to support and aid in Syria's occupation of Lebanon.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it calls for the United States policy to 
include support for the independent human rights and pro-democracy 
advocates in Lebanon and for the full restoration of sovereign 
democratic rule there.
  The resolution underscores the U.S. position against Syria's brutal 
occupation of Lebanon and U.S. policy about holding state sponsors of 
terrorism accountable for their actions. Calling for Syria to depart 
from Lebanon once and for all is in keeping with the post-9/11 approach 
of forcing terrorists out of their caves and placing them on the run. 
The U.S. position on Syrian withdrawal forces the terrorists to retreat 
to their own soil; and in doing so, it seeks to limit their impact so 
that freedom and democracy can flourish once again in Lebanon and 
throughout the region.
  The Lebanese people have had enough, and they will not allow their 
territory to continue to be used as a staging ground for terrorists and 
their state sponsors. Let us stand with the Lebanese people and 
overwhelmingly adopt this resolution.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 32 and send a 
clear message to the Syrian terrorist regime to get out of Lebanon. Not 
to the border; not to the Bekaa Valley. Completely out.
  God willing, as our Arab-speaking Lebanese brothers and sisters would 
say, inshallah, we will soon witness a free, independent, sovereign, 
and democratic Lebanon.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution 
not so much to object to the well-intended notions of the gentlewoman 
and the promotion of freedom and liberty. It is just that I do not 
think this is going to achieve it. As a matter of fact, when we pursue 
resolutions like this and a more aggressive foreign policy of telling 
other countries what to do, I see it as more of a threat to our 
security rather than helping our security.
  I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the 
Lebanese and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region; 
but I would argue the case that traditionally in this country up until 
probably the past 100 years, we took a different position on foreign 
policy. We took a position of nonintervention, one where we strived for 
neutrality, and we argued the case that we did not have any business in 
the internal affairs of other nations. No matter how well intended, 
there always seem to be ramifications. There seem to be unintended 
consequences. There seems to be a condition called ``blow-back,'' where 
it comes back and ends up where we suffer more than anybody else.

[[Page 4863]]

  For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good 
intentions. We have been there for a couple of years. We have spent 
over $200 billion, and this week they came out with a survey and they 
talked about the most dangerous city in the world and where security is 
the worst, and that city is not Beirut.
  In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in 
Beirut than we would have been in Iraq. And yet we have 140,000 troops 
there protecting the Iraqis and promoting freedom and liberty and 
elections, and it sounds good. But I think if we are honest with 
ourselves, the results are not nearly as wonderful as we would like 
them to be.
  The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we 
talk about what we want and what we will impose on other nations, 
because when we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot possibly have 
elections with the presence of foreign troops, at the same time we 
daily hear the bragging about the great election in Iraq where we had 
these 140,000 troops and total martial law in order for an election to 
take place. I am all for the elections, and I am a strong supporter of 
self-determination; but I do not correlate that with our policies.
  We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated 
in support of getting Syria out of Lebanon, and then there was a 
response to that where 500,000 showed up supporting Hezbollah claiming 
they supported Syria, and then of course following that there was a 
much bigger demonstration. So the people have had freedom to express 
themselves. But the one thing about all the demonstrations, we never 
saw a sign that said, America, come save us, come in here, tell us what 
to do, tell us what to do with our elections. They have had elections 
going on for you in Lebanon without any violence directed against 
Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq. They have an election coming up 
in May. It has been scheduled all along. It is not like they have been 
avoiding them.
  We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a 
personal preference, since I believe in self-determination, I would 
have the troops out just as I would have our troops out of most other 
places. But I would have foreign troops out of the Golan Heights. Why 
are we so excited about the Syrian troops, who were invited by the 
Lebanese Government? Why are we not excited about foreign troops in the 
Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries where that we have troops?
  So I think we lose credibility. I think the Arab people just laugh at 
us and say, oh, yes, they are for these wonderful elections, and they 
have got to get these troops out; and at the same time we have troops 
all over the place.
  The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at 
history, it was at the urging of the Government of the United States 
because there was about to be an election. And at that time, it was 
perceived that the election would undermine the minorities, the 
Christians and the Druse. So, therefore, it was in our interest at that 
time to interfere with the election, just as we have interfered so many 
times since then over the world.
  Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, 
Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards 
to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and 
then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did 
nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized 
the ayatollahs against us.
  In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this 
region, he explained, at least he sincerely believed, that we did a 
tremendous favor for Osama bin Laden, and that is to go into Iraq, 
expose ourselves, and then create the chaos of Iraq. Where there was no 
al Qaeda before, it is now a haven for al Qaeda.

                              {time}  1245

  It has served as a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. So no matter how 
well the intentions are, we should look at the conclusions; what 
finally happens.
  Our problem very simply comes from the violation of the basic 
principle that we should follow, and that is that we should be friends 
with nations and trade with nations, and that we should be neutral in 
foreign affairs, because it does not serve our interests. It costs a 
lot of money and it costs a lot of credibility and it costs a lot of 
lives.
  Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 
men; over 11,000 battle casualties, with another 9,000 sent home 
because of illness; and over $200 billion. And there is no end in 
sight. Today we had to pass another $82 billion, which was not put into 
the budget, to continue this process. My argument is it comes not 
because we make a misjudgment, not that this resolution is simply a 
misjudgment of the day; it just is that is part of the misjudgments 
that we have made now for many, many decades in overall foreign policy.
  It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up 
in arms about it and have endorsed it, along with the large majority in 
the Congress. But long term it does not work. Just look how long the 
American people supported Vietnam, until finally they had to throw up 
their arms and demand an end to the senseless war.
  But, ultimately, not only do the people get very angry and upset and 
frustrated with the loss of life, there are economic limitations to 
this as well, and that is something that I do not think anybody here 
hardly pays any attention to; that is how long can we continue to spend 
this money and not have this come back to really haunt us economically? 
The 1960s came back to haunt us in the 1970s, and the basic financial 
condition of this country is much worse than it was in the 1970s. Yet 
there is no hesitation.
  I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, 
without looking back and seeing how we participated in contributing to 
the problems that we have in the Middle East. So I am making the 
suggestion, why do we not think about overall policy with consistency, 
and think almost what is in our best interests?
  I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan, because he was 
involved in Lebanon and our government was involved in the early 1980s. 
In his memoirs he admits it was a serious mistake, and we ought to take 
advice from Ronald Reagan on what he said about his misadventure in 
Lebanon. We were in there in 1983. This is what he writes in his 
memoirs several years later.
  ``Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred 
and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. 
Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain 
instant entry into paradise was so foreign to our own values and 
consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' 
safety that it should have.''
  Further quoting Ronald Reagan, ``In the weeks immediately after the 
bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave 
. . . yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to 
rethink our policies there.''
  He concluded with advising us to stay clear. I would like to suggest 
that I believe that is pretty good advice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Let me first 
pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her work on this resolution, and for her 
outstanding leadership on our Subcommittee on the Middle East and 
Central Asia.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House expresses the grave 
concern of the Congress regarding the ongoing occupation of Lebanon by 
Syria.
  Mr. Speaker, I first visited Lebanon and Syria in 1956, almost half a 
century ago. Lebanon was a prosperous, free, open and democratic 
society. I remember going to the Bekaa Valley, to the City of Ba'albak, 
where among the ancient Roman ruins Shakespeare was performed on 
alternate nights in English and French.

[[Page 4864]]

  Since 1976, Syria has occupied Lebanon with brutal force. Our 
resolution appropriately demands that the occupation end now.
  Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the people of Lebanon tore down gigantic 
billboards in Lebanon that portrayed the former and current Syrian 
dictators, Mr. Assad and his father. Just imagine having in the United 
States huge billboards of Joe Stalin or the ayatollahs of Tehran, how 
we would feel about this? Well, that is how the Lebanese people felt 
about having these gigantic billboards pay tribute to a country which 
occupies their land.
  As we speak, there is no Syrian embassy in Lebanon. What could speak 
more eloquently of the colonial outlook that the Syrian regime has 
towards Lebanon? In colonial times, the colonial power did not have an 
embassy in its colony because it did not recognize it as an 
independent, sovereign nation. That is precisely the attitude of Syria 
towards Lebanon today.
  All of us have been inspired by what the Lebanese call their 
``independence'' uprising. By passing our resolution, the Congress will 
express its solidarity with the brave anti-Syrian occupation, freedom-
loving demonstrators in Martyrs Square in Beirut.
  Mr. Speaker, Bashar Assad, Syria's ruler, continues to play games 
with the international community. As his speech earlier this month 
showed, he still believes he can ignore the international community's 
demand that Syria withdraw immediately and totally from Lebanon. Let us 
not be fooled by his promises of gradual withdrawal delinked from time 
tables. If you can tell a man by his friends, all you need to know 
about Assad is that his only friend in Lebanon is the terrorist gang 
Hezbollah.
  Mr. Speaker, Syria has not only persecuted the Lebanese people, 
arresting, abducting, torturing and killing opponents, most recently 
the Prime Minister of Lebanon, it has also destroyed Lebanon's lively 
institutions, rendering them little more than outposts of Syrian 
control.
  These crimes have taken place on the soil of what was once the Arab 
world's lone democracy. That is why it is vital that the Lebanese 
people succeed in throwing off Syrian rule and that the Lebanese be 
allowed to conduct free and fair parliamentary elections this spring, 
unimpeded by the fist of Syria's military or the brutal machinations of 
its intelligence agents.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand shoulder to shoulder with those who seek full 
restoration of sovereign, democratic rule in Lebanon. I strongly 
support this resolution, and urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
sending a message of hope to the Lebanese people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points regarding the 
unintended consequences of our foreign policy, as well as what might 
happen in Lebanon.
  It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese 
people will be able to express their view at the ballot box through 
free elections without interference and outside intimidation. That 
sounds like a pretty good suggestion, with the conclusion by the 
administration that when there is outside interference the elections 
are unreliable.
  Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of 
whether or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable, as is supposed?
  Also, President Bush said that these elections must take place 
without external forces, and all the troops must be out. The UN 
resolution calls for the troops out as well as the security forces, but 
the resolution also calls for disarming the people of Lebanon.
  In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go 
in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that 
nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going 
to lead to trouble.
  We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think 
what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of 
situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections.
  It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of 
Hariri, and most people now just assume that the government of Syria 
had something to do with that. Yet there is no evidence for that. There 
is absolutely zero benefit for the Syrian government to have killed 
Hariri.
  But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that 
object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the 
Persian Gulf war and because he takes some of our prisoners and he 
participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as 
too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that 
could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that 
it would bring down the government of Assad.
  Now, that could be an unintended consequence, that consequence that 
could have a great deal of significance, and that is that the radicals 
end up taking over, some individuals more radical than Assad, end up 
taking over Syria, which is always the possibility. But too often these 
unintended consequences occur and then we do not know how to respond to 
them.
  In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an 
expression by the people on what they thought about foreign occupation. 
Eighty-two percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably so, said that 
all foreign troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of the Shiites said 
all foreign troops ought to leave. I wonder why that is not important 
to anybody?
  Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 
bases in Iraq. How long do we stay in these countries and why is it so 
necessary for us to be telling other people what to do and when to do 
it and how to do it and stirring up nothing but anti-American 
sentiment, while at the same time, even though our goals may be well-
intentioned, they are never achieved? We just do not achieve them. And 
to think that the election under the conditions that we are condemning 
in Lebanon is the salvation, is the evidence that we are having 
tremendous achievement, I think is something that we are just pulling 
the wool over our eyes.

                              {time}  1300

  John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do 
overseas. And I think that when we have resolutions like this, and we 
do have them continuously, and we have done them for decades. It was a 
preliminary to our invasion of Iraq starting specifically in 1988; But 
Adams advised, he made a suggestion and he made a statement, he says: 
``America goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.''
  That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking 
for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford 
it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so 
much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It 
is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the 
moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And 
besides, it is a threat to our national security.
  Jefferson's suggestion was for peace, commerce, and honest friendship 
with all nations and entangling alliances with none. And we have way 
too many entangling alliances, making these huge commitments which will 
come to an end not because anybody is going to pay much attention to 
what I say, but they will come to an end because this country is on the 
verge of bankruptcy.
  We cannot continue to raise our national debt by $650 billion a year 
and pretend that we can police the world and at the same time increase 
entitlements here at home. So one day we will have to face up to these 
realities, and it will all come to an end.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 4865]]

  Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The 
statement toward the ends says: The President should direct the United 
States Representative to the United Nations to present and secure 
reports for the United Nations Security Council classifying Lebanon as 
a captive country in calling for the immediate release of Lebanese 
detainees in Syria and Lebanon.
  Now that is pretty interesting that we are going to tell them who 
they can release and who they should release. But the question I have, 
and maybe the sponsors of the resolution could answer this: Will that 
include that we insist that they release the prisoners that we have 
sent to Syria?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Yleem Poblete and Paul Ostburg 
Sanz, long and dedicated, hardworking members, staffers on our 
committee on these measures and the work of the Subcommittee on the 
Middle East and Central Asia.
  I would like to thank Chairman Hyde of the International Relations 
Committee, for understanding the need to support the Lebanese people at 
this critical time, and moving this resolution quickly through the 
Committee.
  I would also like to commend our leadership for their commitment to 
freedom and democracy for all the people of the Middle East.
  Lastly, I must make special mention of the efforts and cooperation of 
our Subcommittee Ranking Member, Gary Ackerman, and especially our Full 
Committee Ranking Member, Tom Lantos.
  Tom Lantos has experienced first hand what happens when one appeases 
dictators and ignores the oppression of human beings. We cannot stand 
idly by and allow Syria to continue to deny the Lebanese people their 
rights and their nation.
  Thanks to the cooperation of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, we are able to send a clear and unified message to both the 
Syrian oppressors and to the Lebanese people. As we did with the Syrian 
Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration, we have an 
opportunity today, by supporting H. Con. Res. 32, to demonstrate a 
united front and show that freedom transcends party lines, geographic 
borders, and language barriers.
  When it comes to freedom and democracy, the U.S. is speaking with one 
voice, as the Lebanese people are speaking with one voice. In so doing, 
we become one with our brothers and sisters in Lebanon as they seek to 
remove the shackles of Syrian tyranny and occupation.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to encourage U.S. support of the 
people of Lebanon in their struggle to free themselves from Syrian 
occupation. Syria has illegitimately held control over its neighbor for 
25 years, a situation which can no longer be permitted to continue.
  Syria has proved itself an utterly destructive force upon its 
neighbor, Lebanon. Syria has systematically deprived the Lebanese 
people of their many liberties. It has illegally extended the terms of 
pro-Syrian officials within the Lebanon government by altering the 
Lebanese constitution. It has and continues to intimidate Lebanese 
dissenters with threats of political persecution. Lebanese citizens 
with views not in keeping with Syrian authorities have been arrested, 
kidnapped, tortured and in some instances even killed. The Lebanese 
press has been effectively stifled in order to repress anti-Syrian 
sentiment. Finally, and most reprehensively, Syria has allowed and even 
funded the continued existence of the terrorist group Hezbollah within 
the southern Shebaa farm region of Lebanon. Today Hezbollah is the 
largest international terrorist organization on the globe, with cells 
in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. The presence of Hezbollah 
ensures continued turmoil within Lebanon and throughout the 
international community.
  When it first sent troops to help quell the Lebanese civil war, Syria 
claimed its purpose was to stabilize the country. Instead Syria has 
consistently prevented Lebanon from becoming the stable and prosperous 
state for which many Lebanese patriots, including the late former Prime 
Minister Rafik Hariri, have toiled.
  Today the people of Lebanon are taking to the streets, crying out for 
their freedom from this foreign oppression. As an American of Lebanese 
descent, my heart is with them. My ancestors came to this country in 
search of greater freedom. Now, as I watch the Lebanese freedom 
movement, I am filled with the hope that the citizens of my country of 
origin will soon have the chance to claim the liberties for which my 
ancestors sought in coming to the United States.
  Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow members to pass H. Con. 
Res. 32 in support of the Lebanese struggle for independence. Syria 
must be made to know in no uncertain terms that we expect the complete 
withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon, the immediate dissolution of 
Hezbollah, and the immediate termination of interference within 
Lebanon's government.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the 
House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. 
Res. 32, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________