[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 25328-25329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to express my concern about 
amendment No. 3017, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which among other 
things--and most troubling--would designate the Iranian Revolutionary 
Guard as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act.
  I think we all have a great deal of concern about the activities of 
Iran. We as a nation have stood strongly and will continue to speak 
strongly about those activities. We have taken no options off the 
table. I fully support all of those precepts.
  At the same time, I do not believe that any serious student of 
American foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists. 
We know there are problems in Iraq. We are trying to decipher the 
extent of those problems as they relate to Iranian weapons systems and 
the allegations of covert involvement. We also know that in Iraq other 
nations are playing covertly. The Saudis, for instance, are said to 
have the plurality of the foreign insurgents operating in Iraq and the 
majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq. We also know there is 
potential for volatility in the Kurdish area of Iraq with respect to 
the relations with Turkey.
  We are addressing these problems. In fact, the ``whereas'' clauses in 
this amendment speak clearly as to how our troops on the ground are 
addressing these problems.
  I fought in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam 
war because of the location of Vietnam, the propinquity of China. I 
think it can fairly be said that in virtually every engagement in which 
I was involved in Vietnam, we were being shot at with weapons made 
either in China or in Eastern Europe. There is a reality to these kinds 
of wars, and we are addressing those realities. But they need to be 
addressed in a proper way.
  Probably the best historical parallel comes from the situation with 
China during the Vietnam war. China was a rogue state, had nuclear 
weapons, would spout a lot of rhetoric about the United States, and had 
an American war on its border. We created the conditions in which we 
engaged China aggressively, through diplomatic and economic and other 
means. And we have arguably succeeded, along with the rest of the world 
community, in bringing China into a proper place in that world 
community.
  That is not what this amendment is about. The first concern I have, 
when we are talking about making the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a 
terrorist organization, is, who actually defines a terrorist 
organization? The Congress, to my knowledge, has never defined a 
terrorist organization. The State Department defines terrorist 
organizations. At last count, from the information that I have 
received, there are 42 such organizations that have been identified by 
the State Department in accordance with the laws the Congress passed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Current List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations

     1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
     2. Abu Sayyaf Group
     3. Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
     4. Ansar al-Islam
     5. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
     6. Asbat al-Ansar
     7. Aum Shinrikyo
     8. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
     9. Communist Party of the Philippines/New People's Army (CPP/
         NPA)
     10. Continuity Irish Republican Army
     11. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group)
     12. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
     13. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
     14. Hizballah (Party of God)
     15. Islamic Jihad Group
     16. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
     17. Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) (Army of Mohammed)
     18. Jemaah Islamiya organization (JI)
     19. ai-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad)
     20. Kahane Chai (Kach)
     21. Kongra-Gel (KGK, formerly Kurdistan Workers' Party, PKK, 
         KADEK)
     22. Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LT) (Army of the Righteous)
     23. Lashkar i Jhangvi
     24. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
     25. Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
     26. Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM)
     27. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
     28. National Liberation Army (ELN)
     29. Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
     30. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
     31. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLF)
     32. PFLP-General Command (PFLP-GC)
     33. al-Qa'ida
     34. Real IRA
     35. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC)
     36. Revolutionary Nuclei (formerly ELA)
     37. Revolutionary Organization 17 November
     38. Revolutionary People's Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
     39. Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
     40. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
     41. Tanzim Qa'idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) (al-
         Qaida in Iraq) (formerly Jama'at al-Tawhid wa'al-Jihad, 
         JTJ, al-Zarqawi Network)
     42. United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

  Mr. WEBB. The second concern I have is that we as a government have 
never identified an organization that is a part of a nation state as a 
terrorist organization. From the statement of

[[Page 25329]]

the Senator from Connecticut yesterday, there are potentially 180,000 
people in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who are part of a military 
force of an existing state. Categorizing this organization as a 
terrorist organization is not our present policy of keeping the 
military option on the table. It is for all practical purposes 
mandating the military option. It could be read as tantamount to a 
declaration of war.
  What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved 
against us, we attack them. What is a terrorist organization? 
Traditionally, we have defined a terrorist organization as a 
nongovernmental entity that operates along the creases of international 
law and does harm to internationally protected people.
  By the way, it is kind of interesting to note that last week the 
Iraqi Government claimed that Blackwater is a terrorist organization 
for the way it operates inside Iraq. I am not making that allegation. I 
am giving an example of how people categorize these groups.
  The Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian Government. If they 
are attacking us, they are not a terrorist organization. They are an 
attacking army. But are they? I am not sure about that. If they were, 
we would be hearing some pretty strong expressions of support.
  Last weekend we had Admiral Fallon, who is General Petraeus's 
operational commander, responsible for all of the nations in that 
region, not simply Iraq, saying:

       I expect there will be no war and that is what we ought to 
     be working for.

  We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work 
together for the benefit of all.

       This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me--

  Says Admiral Fallon--

       which is not helpful and not useful . . . I expect there 
     will be no war. . . .

  We have General Petraeus, whose comments are widely quoted in the 
``whereas'' clauses.
  When he was testifying in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee in 
his official testimony, he did mention that Iran was using the Quds 
Force to turn Shiite militias into a Hezbollah-like force to fight a 
proxy war, et cetera. But then when he was asked a question about it, 
General Petraeus said: The Quds Force itself, we believe, by and large, 
those individuals have been pulled out of the country as have been the 
Lebanese Hezbollah trainers who were being used to augment that 
activity.
  We have the statement of Prime Minister Maliki in today's Washington 
Post. He said: Iran's role in fomenting violence diverges from the 
administration's. His opinion. His government has begun a dialogue with 
Iran and Syria, according to him, and has explained to them that their 
activities are unhelpful. Our relations with these countries have 
improved, he said, to the point they are not interfering in our 
international affairs.
  Asked about the Revolutionary Guard forces, which the U.S. military 
charges are arming, training, and directing Shiite militias in Iraq, 
Maliki said:

       There used to be support through borders for these 
     militias. But it has ceased to exist.

  Now, I am not saying all of this is factually 100 percent right. I am 
not saying the other side is right. Here is what I am saying: We 
haven't had one hearing on this. I am on the Foreign Relations 
Committee, I am on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote 
on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States 
views the Iranian military, and we have not had one hearing. This is 
not the way to make foreign policy. It is not the way to declare war, 
although this clearly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted 
this way. These who regret their vote 5 years ago to authorize military 
action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach, 
because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many 
are seeking to do good.
  The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and acts are 
bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are a regrettable 
substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this administration. This kind 
of rhetoric will only encourage the Iranian people to rally around bad 
leadership because of the fear of foreign invasion. Fear of the outside 
is the main glue that authoritarian regimes historically use when they 
face trouble on the inside.
  Admiral Fallon agrees with this view. The Baker-Hamilton report was 
adamant about the need to engage these nations. The facts of our 
economy say so. Going back to the beginning of the Iraq war, in the 
fall of 2002, 5 years ago, oil was $25 dollars a barrel; it is $82 a 
barrel today. The price of gold was below $300, yesterday it was $740.
  The value of our currency is at an all-time low against the Euro, at 
parity for the first time in 30 years with the Canadian dollar. This 
proposal is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream. It is not a prescription 
for success. At best it is a deliberate attempt to divert attention 
from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst it could be read as a 
backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action 
without one hearing and without serious debate.
  I believe this amendment should be withdrawn so we can hold sensible 
hearings and fulfill our duty to truly examine these far-reaching 
issues. If it is not withdrawn, I regrettably intend to vote against 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________