[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9990-9997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




REAFFIRMING SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF LEBANON UNDER PRIME MINISTER 
                             FOUAD SINIORA

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to 
the resolution (H. Res. 1194) reaffirming the support of the House of 
Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government 
of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 1194

       Whereas, on May 7, 2008, the terrorist group Hizballah, in 
     response to the justifiable exercise of authority by the 
     sovereign, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon, 
     initiated an unjustifiable insurrection by fomenting riots, 
     blocking roads, seizing buildings, and organizing marauding 
     groups of gunmen who took control of much of Beirut, 
     including the sites of key government institutions, and 
     provoked sectarian fighting elsewhere in Lebanon;
       Whereas, in the course of this ongoing insurrection 
     initiated by Hizballah, more than 80 Lebanese citizens have 
     been murdered and more than 250 have been wounded;
       Whereas, in the course of this fighting, Hizballah and 
     allied fighters attacked the residences of Future Party 
     leader Saad Hariri and Progressive Socialist Party leader 
     Walid Jumblatt, both of whose parties are members of the 
     legitimate governing coalition under Prime Minister Fouad 
     Siniora;
       Whereas, in the course of their insurrection, Hizballah and 
     allied fighters forced the Future Party's television station 
     off the air and burned the building housing the Future 
     Party's newspaper;
       Whereas Hizballah and its allies have turned over some of 
     the areas they conquered in Beirut to the Lebanese Armed 
     Forces;
       Whereas key government institutions, including the prime 
     ministry, remain under siege, as do the residences of Saad 
     Hariri and Walid Jumblatt;
       Whereas the purpose of Hizballah's insurrection is to 
     intimidate the legitimate, democratically-elected Government 
     of Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces, and other legitimate 
     Lebanese authorities, so that Hizballah will have maximum 
     freedom of military action, can deepen its control over its 
     ``state within a state'' in Shiite-dominated areas of 
     Lebanon, and can enhance its influence on Lebanese Government 
     decision- making in order to render Lebanon subservient to 
     Iranian foreign policy;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 
     1680, and 1701 affirm the sovereignty, territorial integrity, 
     unity, and political independence of Lebanon under the sole 
     and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 
     1680, and 1701 call for the disbanding and disarming of all 
     militias in Lebanon;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 
     insists that no country transfer arms into Lebanon other than 
     with the consent of the Government of Lebanon;
       Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 
     explicitly forbids Iran from transferring arms to any entity;
       Whereas Hizballah has contemptuously dismissed the 
     requirements of the United Nations Security Council by 
     refusing to disarm;
       Whereas Hizballah and its allies have repeatedly sought to 
     undermine the legitimate Government of Lebanon under Prime 
     Minister Siniora by preventing parliament from meeting and 
     blocking the election of a new President, leaving that office 
     vacant for the past half-year;
       Whereas, contrary to the explicit and binding mandates of 
     the United Nations Security Council, Iran continues to 
     provide training, arms, and funding to Hizballah;
       Whereas, contrary to the explicit and binding mandates of 
     the United Nations Security Council, Syria continues to 
     facilitate the transfer of arms to Hizballah via its 
     territory;
       Whereas Syria, through, inter alia, its support of 
     Hizballah's efforts to undermine Prime Minister Siniora, its 
     suspected campaign of assassinations of Lebanese leaders, its 
     minimal cooperation with the international investigation of 
     these assassinations, and its refusal to delineate its border 
     with Lebanon, shows every sign of wanting to control Lebanon 
     as it did prior to its April 2005 withdrawal;
       Whereas it is highly likely that Hizballah provoked the 
     recent fighting in Lebanon with the blessing of Syria and 
     Iran; and
       Whereas Hizballah and its Lebanese political allies 
     continue to pursue an agenda favoring foreign interests over 
     the will of the majority of Lebanese as expressed in a 
     legitimate and democratic election: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) reaffirms its strong support for the legitimate, 
     democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime 
     Minister Fouad Siniora;
       (2) expresses its profound sympathy to the people of 
     Lebanon, who have again been thrust unjustly, and against 
     their will, into a conflict initiated by Hizballah;
       (3) offers its condolences to all those in Lebanon who have 
     suffered displacement, injury, or death in their family, or 
     among their loved ones, as a consequence of Hizballah's 
     unjustifiable insurrection against the Government of Lebanon;
       (4) condemns--
       (A) Hizballah's illegitimate assault on the sovereign 
     Government of Lebanon, which has led to the worst sectarian 
     warfare in that country since the civil war from 1975 to 
     1990;
       (B) Hizballah for its unprovoked attacks against Lebanese 
     leaders, citizens, and

[[Page 9991]]

     against Lebanese public and private institutions and for its 
     illegal occupation of territory under the sovereignty of the 
     Government of Lebanon; and
       (C) Syria and Iran for illegally transferring arms and 
     providing other forms of military support to Hizballah, in 
     clear violation of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions 1559, 1680, 1701, and 1747;
       (5) demands that Hizballah immediately cease its attacks 
     and withdraw from all areas in Beirut and elsewhere in 
     Lebanon that it has occupied since May 7, 2008, as a first 
     step towards its total disarmament; and
       (6) urges--
       (A) the United States Government and the international 
     community to immediately take all appropriate actions to 
     support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon 
     under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora;
       (B) the United Nations Security Council to--
       (i) condemn Syria and Iran for their blatant violation of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1680, and 
     1701;
       (ii) condemn Iran for its violation of Chapter-VII-based 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747; and
       (iii) as part of sanctions on Iran for violating Chapter-
     VII-based United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747, 
     prohibit all air traffic between Iran and Lebanon and between 
     Iran and Syria;
       (C) every country controlling possible transit routes from 
     Iran to Lebanon to impose the strictest possible controls on 
     the movement of Iranian vehicles, airplanes, and goods to 
     ensure that Iran is not exploiting its land and airspace for 
     the purpose of illegally transferring arms to Hizballah and 
     other terrorist groups; and
       (D) the European Union, in light of recent and earlier 
     Hizballah actions, to designate Hizballah as a terrorist 
     group and to treat it accordingly.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Ackerman) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution 
and yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Chairman Berman for his 
leadership in getting this vitally important resolution to the floor so 
quickly. It's extremely important that the House be on record telling 
the brave men and women who fought and died defending Lebanon's 
independence and sovereignty that America has not forgotten you and 
will not abandon you.
  While many in the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon, are trying to 
make sense of what has happened, I believe that it is critical that 
they know that the United States and the U.S. Congress still strongly 
support the democratically elected and legitimate Government of 
Lebanon, that we will stand behind its efforts to fully restore 
Lebanon's sovereignty and independence, and that the future of Lebanon 
is not with Iranian and Syrian sponsored thugs and bullies, but with 
the decent people of Lebanon of every sect and confession who only want 
the normal and peaceful life for themselves, for their children, and 
for their country.
  Mr. Speaker, just as Hezbollah sucked Lebanon into its conflict with 
Israel in 2006 by hiding behind its women and children, they have now 
forced the Lebanese people to endure their war against the Lebanese 
state. The insurrection by Hezbollah was unjustified, illegitimate, and 
immoral. No conceivable Lebanese interest was served by it. Only the 
goals of Iran and Syria were advanced by Hezbollah and its allies' 
assault on the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government.
  The pretense that Hezbollah is an authentic Lebanese political actor 
has fallen away, and in the arrogance of power they have declared their 
true allegiance. It is not to Lebanon, and it is not even to the 
Lebanese Shia. Their loyalty is to Iran and Syria, and to the needs and 
interests of Tehran and Damascus. In their Lebanese puppet state, 
Ayatollah Khamenei will be the true president and Bashar al-Assad the 
real prime minister.
  We have seen this kind of fraud before in the 20th century. The 
culmination was called the Warsaw Pact. But what was true in Europe in 
the Cold War remains true today in the Middle East--a captive nation is 
no true ally of its captor, and no amount of power can make a lie 
become the truth. And no amount of thuggery, torture, intimidation and 
murder can make Hezbollah anything other than the terrorist arm of 
foreign powers and an enemy of Lebanese independence and sovereignty.
  The United States and every other decent nation must continue to 
support the Government of Lebanon. The Lebanese Government was 
democratically elected, it is legitimate, and it deserves our aid. 
Justice must ultimately be done for those recently and unjustly killed, 
as well as all those Lebanese murdered for their support of Lebanese 
sovereignty going back to the assassination of former Prime Minister 
Rafic Hariri. I have said many times before, and I will keep repeating 
it, there must be no deal or arrangement that undercuts the Special 
Tribunal for Lebanon.
  Mr. Speaker, you either believe that Lebanon is a sovereign and 
independent state that is to be governed by and for the Lebanese people 
alone, or you don't. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese, whether 
they're Sunni, Shia, Maronite, Orthodox, Druse, or any other group, 
believe in this principle. The entire international community, with the 
reprehensible exceptions of Syria and Iran, believes in this principle. 
The United States certainly believes in it. Only Hezbollah, Amal, and 
the delusional Aounists do not. And that is why Lebanon has suffered 
and remains in pain today.
  I'm very proud of the resolution before us today. I strongly urge its 
adoption by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of House Resolution 1194, which reaffirms America's 
support for the Government of Lebanon and condemns the violent Islamic 
group Hezbollah and its state sponsors, Iran and Syria, for undermining 
the sovereignty and independence of Lebanon.
  For over two decades, Hezbollah and its state sponsors have done 
everything in their power to destroy any hope for a free and democratic 
Lebanon. In response, some have tried to compromise with Hezbollah to 
incorporate it into the Lebanese electoral system, to pretend that it 
is a group of Lebanese freedom fighters instead of a wholly-controlled 
subsidiary of Iran and Syria, to permit it to arm and re-arm in 
violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, and to excuse its 
relentless attacks and incitement against America and Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, America and other responsible nations must stop 
Hezbollah's current attempt to rule by the gun. We must support efforts 
in the U.N. Security Council and elsewhere to ensure that Hezbollah is 
disarmed and that Iran and Syria are barred from rearming that group. 
Moreover, we must hold Iran and Syria accountable for the continuing 
efforts to spread violence and to undermine our allies in the Middle 
East, including Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, Iran and Syria continue to start fires throughout the 
region only to disingenuously step forward and offer to put them out 
for an unconscionable price. We must cease falling prey to their 
deception, and we must stop their deadly behavior, which undermines the 
security of Lebanon and the entire world.
  I thank my good friend and colleague from California, Chairman Berman 
of the Foreign Affairs Committee, for introducing this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), an esteemed member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution 
and ask all Members to support the resolution.

[[Page 9992]]

  I want to compliment Chairman Berman and Chairman Ackerman and 
Ranking Member Manzullo for their leadership in bringing this very 
important resolution to the House floor.
  No one has suffered more in the Middle East than the small country of 
Lebanon, caught in the crossfire of many different attacks from many 
different forces, not the least of which is Hezbollah. This resolution 
reaffirms the House's strong support for the legitimate democratically 
elected government, expresses sympathy to the people of Lebanon and 
condolences to those in Lebanon who have been displaced, injured, and 
lost relatives as a result of Hezbollah's violent action.
  It urges the U.S. Government and the international community to 
immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the 
legitimate Government of Lebanon under the extraordinary leadership of 
Prime Minister Siniora, condemns Hezbollah and its state sponsors, Iran 
and Syria, for its efforts to undermine the Lebanese Government, 
including from approximately May 5-12, fomenting riots, blocking roads, 
seizing buildings, seizing control of West Beirut, and engaging in 
sectarian fighting in much of Lebanon.
  The resolution demands that Hezbollah, as a first step toward total 
disarmament, immediately cease its attacks and withdraw from all areas 
in Lebanon that it has occupied.
  The resolution urges the U.N. Security Council to condemn Iran and 
Syria for their violations of multiple UNSC resolutions and to sanction 
those nations by banning air traffic between Iran and Lebanon and 
between Iran and Syria. It urges every country controlling possible 
transit routes between Iran and Lebanon to impose strict controls to 
prevent Iran from arming Hezbollah. And it urges the European Union to 
designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group. This is a very good 
resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who has traveled to Lebanon 12 out of the 14 
years that I've been a Member of the House, I can tell you that Lebanon 
is caught in a very, very difficult situation.
  I want to give credit, also, to President Bush and Secretary Rice for 
the interest that they've taken in Lebanon. More recently, the 
President was in the Middle East and spoke out in defense of Lebanon 
and calling on those countries, including the group Hezbollah, to cease 
and desist from their activity that they're participating in in this 
small country. I compliment President Bush and Secretary Rice for their 
involvement and their encouragement to the country of Lebanon and to 
the leaders that they met with most recently to become more involved in 
trying to help solve the problem and detach Hezbollah from the kind of 
hold that they have on the country.
  One other thing, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also encourage the 
Parliament in Lebanon, who have the responsibility for electing a 
president and have not taken on that responsibility, and given the fact 
that the Office of President of Lebanon has been vacant for a number of 
months, I call on the Parliament of Lebanon to convene themselves and 
elect a president. This would send a very strong message around the 
region and around the world that Lebanon is a country that can stand on 
its own and stand up to these terrorist groups if it has the help from 
other countries.
  So I encourage the Speaker of the Parliament in Lebanon to take on 
the responsibility to call the Lebanese Parliament into session and to 
elect a president. I think it would be a very, very important move.
  Again, I thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs for their interest in 
the country of Lebanon and the way that they have struck a very strong 
cord against Hezbollah and their activities in Lebanon. I urge all 
Members to support the resolution.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee 
on Domestic Policy, Dennis Kucinich.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.
  I think that this House has concurrence, that we share concern about 
Lebanon. I certainly do, having had the chance, twice in the last 2 
years, to not only visit the country, the northern and the southern 
part, but to meet with all the parties to the disputes.
  One of the things that I thought was most telling was that there was 
a concern about working out an agreement without the interference of 
outside parties, without the interference of Iran or the interference 
of the United States. There is a feeling of Lebanon-for-Lebanon that 
exists very strongly in Lebanon. Yet the Lebanese have not had the 
opportunity to really stand that way.
  Having gone to Lebanon, as I did right after the war that went past 
one month in the summer of 2006, and seeing the devastation there, 
there is no appetite for war on the part of the Lebanese people.

                              {time}  1615

  The role of Hezbollah is certainly worth looking at. It's also worth 
considering the depth of support they have among the Lebanese people.
  We have to be very careful about how we dictate a certain policy in 
Lebanon for its effect on Lebanon and for its effect on the region. So, 
therefore, I must reluctantly oppose this resolution, as well intended 
as it might be, because I'm concerned that it will be seen by some as 
the United States trying to instigate more civil unrest in Lebanon at 
the same time that we say that we're supporting the central government.
  I have met with Prime Minister Siniora. He has been a good friend of 
the United States. But he had to sit by while the United States either 
looked the other way or encouraged, depending on whose story you 
accept, the continued bombing of Lebanon, which actually undermined his 
government.
  So we have a condition in Lebanon that really has been going on now 
for over 25 years, with Lebanon having only tenuous control of their 
own affairs, with the interference of so many outside governments.
  We should be doing everything we can to strengthen a process of 
dialogue in Lebanon. I don't believe that this resolution accomplishes 
that. I think it accomplishes the opposite.
  Again, I'm in support of whatever we can do to stabilize Lebanon. I 
just have my doubts that this resolution will accomplish that. I 
appreciate the concern of the sponsors. I think we need to have more of 
a discussion----
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I certainly will.
  Mr. LaHOOD. The gentleman knows that he and I have had a number of 
discussions about Lebanon.
  I know of your deep interest in the country, and I know that you've 
traveled there.
  The one thing, Mr. Speaker, that I would say to the gentleman is that 
Prime Minister Siniora did not turn a blind eye on a number of 
occasions when the bombing was taking place. He called for a cessation 
of the bombing in the southern part of the country; so I want to be 
sure the record is clear on this.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I appreciate your pointing it out.
  Mr. LaHOOD. He did not sit by and allow his country----
  Mr. KUCINICH. I agree with you, and I appreciate your correcting the 
record in that he wasn't for it, that's for sure. But I'm suggesting to 
you that the fact that we had someone who was supporting us, and yet we 
continued as a government, our government did nothing to discourage the 
continued bombing of Lebanon during that period after the 6 days that 
Israel thought they basically had accomplished their objectives.
  I was in southern Lebanon. I saw the devastation. And I talked to 
people both on the Israeli side and on the Lebanese side, and I see 
that there was a desire to stop but it continued. We undermined the 
Siniora government. What I'm suggesting is that it's the United States 
interference in Lebanon that does not serve the country's purpose of 
peace well. I don't see our purpose there as being benign, to my good

[[Page 9993]]

friend, and I say this having talked to all sides. Let Lebanon be for 
Lebanon. Let the United States and all the other nations of the world 
provide some support when asked for it, but we have to be very careful 
about injecting ourselves in a way that we try to determine the outcome 
for that country. We do not do well when we try to determine the 
outcome of who should govern another country. It always, in the last 
few years, has been very difficult for us to do that.
  I appreciate, though, the dedication that my good friend has to peace 
in Lebanon. We both agree on the necessity of civility there. We may 
have differences as to how that would be achieved.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. I don't want to belabor this to my friend from Ohio, Mr. 
Speaker, but I want to say this: I visited right after the bombing 
stopped in the southern part of Lebanon. I visited there, Mr. Speaker, 
with some other Members of Congress, and I can tell you this: The 
Siniora government and all government officials decried very much what 
was happening in the southern part of the country and asked the United 
States to help in this instance to raise an enormous amount of money to 
help rebuild the southern part of the country. And President Bush got 
on the telephone, Mr. Speaker, talked to a number of countries, raised 
an enormous amount of money, billions of dollars. Siniora, the Prime 
Minister, went to France and actually met with leaders and raised an 
enormous amount of money.
  The country of Lebanon, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, has encouraged 
the kind of involvement of our country to help raise money to rebuild 
the south and also to say to those who have taken a place in the 
country for no other good but to disrupt the country that this is not 
the kind of activity that they want.
  And so we do disagree on this, Mr. Speaker, and I do disagree with 
the gentleman from Ohio. We need to speak out. That's what this 
resolution does. It speaks out about a group of people in Lebanon whose 
only goal is to disrupt the country and to try to take over, for no 
good, and that's why this resolution is well drafted and well written.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, will my friend yield?
  Mr. LaHOOD. Of course.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I'm maintaining that our government, the United States, 
has really not been for dialogue so as to try to bring all the parties 
together. We have pursued a path that has been quite narrow and that, 
in effect, keeps the conflict going. So I have concerns about that.
  I would agree that Mr. Siniora is trying to do everything he can, but 
I also think that he's limited to what he can do because of the 
parameters that he has to work within in order to keep the confidence 
of the administration in Washington, DC. And that's my concern.
  So this resolution, I don't think, really addresses the much deeper 
need for dialogue within Lebanon by the Lebanese instead of the United 
States injecting its point of view and its mandate onto Lebanon.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Well, I would say this, Mr. Speaker: I would say there 
are a lot of back-channel talks going on that don't get the kind of 
headlines and the kind of publicity. But there are activities taking 
place, unbeknownst to many who serve here and unbeknownst really to the 
public. I think these are good discussions. But I urge the House to 
support this resolution because for one of the few times that I've been 
here in 14 years, it really sets out, I think, the right language that 
we, as the House of Representatives, want to send as a message to the 
Prime Minister of Lebanon and to a group there that wants to hurt the 
country and hurt the people in the country and have set on a course to 
do that.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First let me express my appreciation for the gentleman from Ohio and 
for his good intentions and for his support of dialogue. Certainly 
nobody is against dialogue.
  But we have a situation here where a democratic, freedom-loving, 
sovereign people are insisting on the results of their own self-
determined election that they came to through democratic processes and 
are doing that in the face of outside interference in the form of armed 
opposition, murders, assassinations that are being sponsored by 
Hezbollah, financed by the Iranian and Syrian regimes. And the 
gentleman instead calls for dialogue. We call for nothing other than 
dialogue.
  This is a nonbinding sense of the Congress resolution. And while 
other countries are running interference and murdering the people of 
Lebanon and preventing their democratic government from governing, we 
are sending them a message of hope, a message of support. And the 
gentleman's protestations say that we shouldn't interfere, let them 
have a dialogue.
  What we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is the equivalent of a rape, and 
I have just heard the argument that what we should do is not interfere 
and take sides between the victim and the raper and to say let them 
have a dialogue and work it out, while each and every day the rape 
continues. As a civilized, democratic society, we cannot sit idly by 
without saying a word.
  I do appreciate the argument of those who are against violence, who 
are against arms, and who are against war. I stand with them on that. 
But we have no alternative than to act and at least send a message of 
support. There is no interference other than our best wishes while 
others are sending arms. There is nothing in the 17 whereases in this 
resolution that suggests that we're in favor of violence. And if the 
gentleman and those who argue his argument are truly opposed to raising 
an army, let them at least raise their voice. Let them speak out with 
us on this resolution. Let us reaffirm our dedication to the principles 
of democracy and self-determination of a people who have already made 
their choice in their election, and to stand by them, not by providing 
arms or violence, but by sending them the wishes of this Congress, of 
the American people, expressing our support for their determination to 
continue in their quest to effectuate the democracy to which they are 
entitled.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. KUCINICH. My concern is this: that you had an assistant Secretary 
of State for the U.S., David Welch, who went to Lebanon, and he went 
there to basically make sure that the government took a hard-line 
position and that it would forestall the possibility of any dialogue. 
And then one of the clients of the United States, or so-called clients, 
basically escalated the situation by taking on the issue of disarmament 
of Hezbollah, which really ought to be done within the parameters of 
the Lebanese discussion.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Reclaiming my time, the Security Council of the United 
Nations has asked for the disarmament of Hezbollah. This is not our 
request. This is the United Nations. This is the international 
community. This is the entire peaceful world that has asked for that.
  As far as the administration, I don't speak for the administration, 
heaven forbid. This is our Congress, and together Democrats and 
Republicans have joined in with words. Words are powerful. Words are 
important weapons. And if you want to avoid the weapons that go bang in 
the night, then words of support are important, important to a people 
who are under siege, whose democracy is being eroded by rogue states 
and terrorist organizations using violence and assassination, trying to 
blow up members of their elected parliament so that they no longer have 
a majority to continue their democratic work.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. ACKERMAN. I yield.
  Mr. KUCINICH. How much more effective it would be if the disarming of 
Hezbollah, which should occur, would occur within the context of an 
agreement within Lebanon as opposed to being imposed by someone else. 
The Lebanese should have control of their own government.

[[Page 9994]]


  Mr. ACKERMAN. Let me say I'm not opposed to that happening. Let them 
disarm themselves. But let us in the meantime do what we can to be the 
voice of democracy and freedom.
  The world looks at us as a beacon. We have spent so much of the 
goodwill that we have built up over 230 years of this democracy. At 
least let us speak out for freedom, speak out for freedom in the case 
of a people who are under siege, who are in the throes of having their 
duly elected government taken away from them by terrorist organizations 
and rogue regimes.
  We know what Hezbollah is. The world knows what it is. We cannot 
stand idly by and not utter a word of support. This is our word of 
support. This is the resolution of this Congress. Would that it be 
more. Would that it be more forceful. Would that it be more effective. 
But at least we can continue to give those people who insist on living 
lives of freedom a rekindling of the belief that we too believe in what 
they believe in and that we support them in their struggle.
  If the gentleman is prepared to yield back his time, I will do so.
  Mr. MANZULLO. I am prepared to yield back. I want to commend the 
gentleman for his impassioned speech.
  I thank you for the things you have said this afternoon in this 
Chamber.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. You're quite welcome.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194, mainly 
because this legislation reads like an authorization to use force in 
Lebanon.
  As the key resolved clause of H. Res. 1194 states:

       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (6) urges--
       (A) the United States Government and the international 
     community to immediately take all appropriate actions to 
     support and strengthen the legitimate Government of Lebanon 
     under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora;

  This language is eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war 
authorization, H.J. Res. 114, which read:

       (a) Authorization--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

  I find it outrageous that this legislation, which moves us closer to 
an expanded war in the Middle East, is judged sufficiently ``non-
controversial'' to be placed on the suspension calendar for 
consideration on the House Floor outside of normal parliamentary order. 
Have we reached the point where it is no longer controversial to urge 
the President to use ``all appropriate actions''--with the unmistakable 
implication that force may be used--to intervene in the domestic 
affairs of a foreign country?
  Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has been mediating the conflict between 
rival political factions in Lebanon and has had some success in halting 
the recent violence. Currently, negotiations are taking place in Qatar 
between the Lebanese factions and some slow but encouraging progress is 
being made. Regional actors--who do have an interest in the conflict--
have stepped up in attempt to diffuse the crisis and reach a peaceful 
solution. Yet at the critical stage of negotiations the U.S. House is 
preparing to pass a very confrontational resolution endorsing one side 
and condemning competing factions. In threatening to use ``all 
appropriate actions'' to support one faction, the United States is 
providing a strong disincentive for that one faction to continue 
peaceful negotiations. Passing this resolution will most likely 
contribute to a return of violence in Lebanon.
  This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one 
faction in Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the 
other side. Wouldn't it be better to be involved on neither side and 
instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve 
the conflict?
  Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in sight. The 
war in Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly a 
trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber 
rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very 
legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic 
political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States.
  This resolution leads us closer to a wider war in the Middle East. It 
involves the United States unnecessarily in an internal conflict 
between competing Lebanese political factions and will increase rather 
than decrease the chance for an increase in violence. The Lebanese 
should work out political disputes on their own or with the assistance 
of regional organizations like the Arab League. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this march to war and to reject H. Res. 1194.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, 
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  With this resolution, we affirm our support for the legitimate 
government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and condemn the actions of 
Hizballah that recently provoked the most severe sectarian conflict in 
Lebanon since the miserable 15-year civil war that ended in 1990.
  As we meet this morning, the fate of Lebanon hangs in the balance. 
Will Lebanon belong to its secular, pro-Western majority--or will it 
fall to Iran and its proxies? Terrorist Hizballah, showing contempt for 
legitimate authority and employing violence against Lebanon's most 
progressive forces, has made a strong bid to prove that the answer to 
that question is that pro-Iranian forces will dominate Lebanon. That is 
why it is important for this body to go on record--forcefully--as 
backing the Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's democratically-elected 
government. We cannot win the battle for the Lebanese--they must do 
that themselves--but we can at least demonstrate our solidarity.
  When the government sought to assert its sovereignty by taking on 
Hizballah's illegal, private intelligence network, Hizballah responded 
by taking over parts of Beirut by force, shutting the major roads to 
the airport and initiating sectarian violence throughout Lebanon.
  Hizballah fighters also shut down Saad Hariri's pro-government 
television station and torched the building housing Hariri's newspaper. 
They besieged the homes of Hariri and Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, 
another pillar of the legitimate governing coalition under Prime 
Minister Fouad Siniora.
  These actions were intended to deepen Hizballah's control of its 
state-within-a-state, to intimidate Lebanon's rulers and thereby 
increase Hizballah's influence throughout the nation, and, most 
worrisome, to push Lebanon deeper into an Iranian-Syrian sphere of 
influence.
  Unfortunately, Hizballah's violence worked, and the government backed 
down rather than risk civil war. At least for now, the government has 
abandoned its plans to close Hizballah's private communications network 
and remove a pro-Hizballah general who presides over security at Beirut 
International Airport. Perhaps the government will re-coup some of its 
losses during negotiations with Hizballah now taking place in Qatar--
but it will not be easy.
  Let me make two points. First, it is time to go beyond words. It is 
time for the United Nations Security Council to take specific actions 
in response to Syria's and Iran's flouting of Lebanese sovereignty in 
direct contravention of UN Security Council resolutions. Resolution 
1701 forbids the transfer of arms into Lebanon without the consent of 
the Lebanese government. Resolution 1747, passed under Chapter VII, 
forbids Iran from transferring arms to any entity.
  Iran provides training, equipment, and arms for Hizballah. Syria, at 
the least, facilitates the transfer of these arms. The resolution 
before us urges the Security Council to ban all air traffic between 
Iran and Lebanon and between Iran and Syria. It calls on all states on 
transit routes between Iran and Lebanon to implement strict controls. A 
total ban on commercial flights to and from Iran and Syria--such as 
that which brought Libya to its knees--also should not be ruled out.
  Second, it is long past time for the European Union to designate 
Hizballah as a terrorist group and treat it accordingly. The European 
insistence that Hizballah should be seen as a legitimate political 
party is now transparently undermined by facts on ground, including the 
more than 80 Lebanese who have needlessly perished in the fighting of 
the past week.
  Legitimate political parties do not have an independent military 
capability. They do not initiate wars with neighboring states. And they 
do not engage in international terrorism.
  Last week The New York Times quoted Israeli journalist Ehud Yaari as 
labeling Iran's growing regional influence as ``a pax Iranica.'' 
Fortunately, there are brave men and women in Lebanon who want to 
resist this pax Iranica, and at their head, I believe, is Prime 
Minister Siniora and his government, even if their most recent effort 
to assert their sovereignty over the Hizballah terrorists has fallen 
short. Now is the time for us to affirm our support for him and his 
legitimate, democratically-elected government and to urge the 
international community to do likewise.

[[Page 9995]]

  That is why I support this resolution, and ask my colleagues to 
support it as well.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, although I support the legitimate Government of 
Lebanon, I could not support H. Res. 1194 because it contains language 
calling upon the United States ``to immediately take all appropriate 
actions to support and strengthen'' the current Government of Lebanon.
  I believe this wording is unnecessarily broad and could he construed 
by some to implicitly endorse military action against any state or 
organization that this administration deems a threat to the Lebanese 
government. Because the resolution does not expressly exclude the use 
of force as one of the ``appropriate actions'' to be taken by the 
United States, I was not able to support it.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concerns 
of the proponents of this resolution regarding the need to bring peace 
to Lebanon. I also add my voice in opposition to the use of violence 
against innocent civilians for any reason. It is wrong. I have always 
condemned such acts and certainly want to express my condolences to 
those killed, injured, or otherwise affected by the recent fighting.
  I have been to Lebanon. I have talked to Parliamentarians in that 
country about the needs of that country. I have also supported a series 
of resolutions since coming to Congress expressing strong support for 
restoring and respecting Lebanon's sovereignty, disarming militias, and 
allowing the Lebanese people and their representatives to direct the 
affairs of the country without outside influence from any quarter.
  My concern with this resolution is that it does nothing to bring the 
fighting to an end or to achieve any of its goals that it intends to 
advance, especially in light of recent events. Instead of writing 
resolutions that make Congress feel good, at this time the U.S. should 
be supporting and cooperating with countries in the region working to 
actually bring an end to the violence and putting Lebanon on track to 
resolve the political paralysis that has gripped the country.
  I did not vote for this measure because I believe it does not move us 
forward in helping to bring peace to the region, especially in light of 
recent events that saw the Arab League and Qatar in particular take 
leading roles in actively working diplomatically to end the violence. 
While this resolution was pending a vote before the House, the Lebanese 
parties including the Lebanese government and its Arab neighbors were 
hammering out an agreement to resolve the political crisis fueling the 
recent violence which has crippled the country.
  I have included a copy of New York Times articles on these regional 
efforts well as another article outlining the announcement by Israel of 
its negotiations with Syria using Turkey as a mediator. Nothing 
guarantees that these talks will succeed but it certainly shows that 
some of the parties most affected by violence in the region are tired 
of empty rhetoric and are willing to sit down and engage in diplomacy 
to prevent there country from returning to civil war.
  Now is an opportunity to encourage the Lebanese and others in the 
region to build on these efforts to defuse tensions and begin to take a 
positive way forward. According to the reports, the Lebanon agreement 
was reached--not because of the Congressional resolution--but because 
the Lebanese parties, with the help of their neighbors in the region, 
sat down at the negotiating table to try and save their country from 
civil war.
  According to these reports, the agreement addresses some of the 
issues that have polarized and paralyzed Lebanon and also makes clear 
that all parties ``commit themselves not to use weapons or violence in 
order to achieve political gains under any circumstances.''
  While the agreement is not perfect and it remains to be seen whether 
it will change the situation on the ground, it has received the 
endorsement of all parties, Saudi Arabia, the U.N, and even the Bush 
Administration. The agreement will not resolve all the pressing 
problems in Lebanon but it helped check the most pressing of the 
moment: a slow march back to civil war.
  While many Lebanese were expressing relief at this news and returning 
to deserted streets in Beirut, the House was voting on a resolution 
which had been eclipsed by events on the ground. Rather than amending 
the resolution to reflect new developments in the region and to support 
diplomatic to put an end to the violence, the only option presented to 
the House was a vote on a resolution that proposed no new solutions. 
Given the opportunity to vote on an amended resolution supporting the 
work of regional actors and the Lebanese government to find a solution, 
I would have gladly joined my colleagues.
  Because of the diplomatic intervention by Qatar and others, we now 
have a ``ceasefire'' and a possible way out of the cycle of violence 
that has torn this nation apart.
  The U.S. should continue to support the democratically elected 
government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and can do so by supporting 
diplomatic efforts by all parties to end the political crisis 
underlying the violence.
  The head of Lebanon's U.S.-backed Army is Michel Suleiman--who 
oversaw the Army's deployment in the south under the U.N. resolution 
which halted the Hezbollah-Israel war in 2006. Suleiman, who will 
become the country's President under the agreement, recently stated 
that ``I cannot save the country alone. This mission requires the 
efforts of all.'' I hope rather than passing outdated resolutions, the 
Administration and Congress will rally along with others to provide the 
diplomatic and other support needed by President Suleiman and the 
Lebanese people to make the most of this opportunity.
  Now Lebanon has another chance to repair itself. Let's not waste it.

                [From the New York Times, May 22, 2008]

                  Israel Holds Peace Talks With Syria

                           (By Ethan Bronner)

       Jerusalem.--Israel and Syria announced on Wednesday that 
     they were engaged in negotiations for a comprehensive peace 
     treaty through Turkish mediators, a sign that Israel is 
     hoping to halt the growing influence of Iran, Syria's most 
     important ally, which sponsors the anti-Israel groups 
     Hezbollah and Hamas.
       Senior Israeli officials from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's 
     office and their Syrian counterparts were in Istanbul on 
     Wednesday, where both groups had been staying separately, at 
     undisclosed locations, since Monday. The mediators shuttled 
     between the two. Syria and Israel have not negotiated this 
     seriously in eight years.
       Syria's motives are clear: it wants to regain the Golan 
     Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 war, and to re-
     establish a relationship with the United States, something it 
     figures it can do through talks with Jerusalem.
       For Israel--which has watched the Palestinian group Hamas 
     take over Gaza and gain ground in the West Bank, and the 
     Lebanese group Hezbollah display raw power in Beirut--an 
     effort to pull Syria away from Iran could produce enormous 
     benefits. An announcement on Wednesday of a peace deal that 
     gives Hezbollah the upper hand in Lebanon's government 
     probably added to Israel's sense of urgency.
       The American government opposed Israeli-Syrian negotiations 
     because they feared that such a negotiation would reward 
     Syria at a time when the United States is seeking to isolate 
     it for its backing of Hezbollah and its meddling in Lebanon, 
     Bush administration and Israeli officials said. The United 
     States yielded when it became clear that Israel was 
     determined to go ahead, they said.
       The talks come less than a week after President Bush, 
     speaking to the Israeli Parliament, created a stir by 
     criticizing those who would negotiate with ``terrorists and 
     radicals.'' Mr. Bush's remarks have become an issue in the 
     American presidential campaign because they were widely 
     perceived as a rebuke to Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic 
     front-runner.
       Turkey, a Muslim country and member of NATO, is a close 
     ally of the United States. It is also Syria's neighbor and 
     has an interest in securing regional peace.
       The Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been 
     working on convening negotiations for some time, an official 
     in his office said, including holding phone conversations 
     with leaders on both sides, and assigning a special envoy to 
     handle the diplomatic back-and-forth. The fact that messages 
     were being exchanged has been public for a couple of months, 
     because of official Syrian statements.
       The senior Israeli official said that shortly after Mr. 
     Olmert became prime minister more than a year ago, he went to 
     Turkey and held a long one-on-one meeting with Mr. Erdogan in 
     which it was decided that Turkey would mediate between Israel 
     and Syria.
       Efforts to sign a treaty with Syria have often competed 
     with those to build a comprehensive peace with the 
     Palestinians. On Wednesday, Israeli officials tried to make 
     clear that they were not seeking to upstage an important 
     conference opening in Bethlehem--an attempt to make stability 
     easier in the West Bank through economic investment--by 
     saying that both tracks remained vital to them.
       While Wednesday's announcement indicated the first real 
     progress on the Israeli-Syrian front in years, and while both 
     sides have clear goals and motivation for success, there is 
     equally good reason for skepticism about the possibility of 
     success.
       Mr. Olmert is politically weak, with a thin parliamentary 
     majority partly dependent on the right-wing religious Shas 
     party. He faces a criminal investigation that many Israelis 
     believe should lead him to step down or refrain from 
     undertaking negotiations with the country's enemies. 
     Moreover, twice before, under Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin

[[Page 9996]]

     and Ehud Barak, similar efforts to sign a deal with Syria 
     failed.
       In Israel, two-thirds of the public oppose a return of the 
     Golan Heights to Syria, according to numerous opinion polls, 
     and many strategists and generals have said that giving up 
     the strategic advantage of the Heights in exchange for 
     promises or even written treaties makes no sense.
       ``In a period in which Iran is on the march and extending 
     its influence from Lebanon to Iraq, for Israel to consider 
     giving up the Golan barrier would be a strategic error of the 
     highest order,'' said Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem 
     Center for Public Affairs and a former official and adviser 
     to conservative governments under the Likud Party, which is 
     now the opposition.
       ``You have to make a cold assessment whether Israel could 
     drive a wedge between Syria and Iran,'' Mr. Gold said. 
     ``Unfortunately, in the present period, Iran has Syria within 
     its grip to a far greater extent than it did in the 1990s 
     when previous negotiations with the Syrians were held.''
       On the other hand, many other Israeli officials and 
     analysts see great benefits for Israel. Syria is a prime 
     sponsor of Hezbollah and provides it with rockets and arms, 
     many from Iran. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have headquarters in 
     Damascus, and Israel will seek, in these negotiations, to 
     have them closed.
       To pull Syria out of the orbit of Iran and return it to the 
     more pro-Western world of Egypt, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia 
     would be a major victory for Israel.
       A real peace treaty with Syria would bring Israel 
     significant advantages in Lebanon and the Palestinian 
     territories.
       After the midday announcement here of the existence of the 
     talks, the Israeli airwaves were filled with officials of the 
     right and center expressing skepticism about the outcome and 
     saying that Israel should not leave the Golan Heights. 
     Politicians of the left, though, expressed hope.
       Ran Cohen, a member of Parliament from the dovish Meretz 
     Party, told Israel Radio: ``I think this move is very 
     important, very positive. It's too bad it did not begin a 
     long time ago.''
       Others said they feared that the announcement was an 
     attempt to divert attention from Mr. Olmert's legal troubles.
       ``I very much welcome any process that can advance peace 
     between us and our neighbors, first and foremost with 
     Syria,'' said Eitan Kabel, secretary general of the Labor 
     Party, which is in the government with Mr. Olmert's Kadima 
     Party. ``I very much hope this isn't some sort of spin whose 
     goal is pull a screen over the situation that the prime 
     minister is in.''
       In the past, the sticking point in negotiations has been 
     whether yielding the Golan to the Syrians gave them 
     sovereignty all the way to the waterline of the Sea of 
     Galilee. The Syrians say yes, but the Israelis have said no, 
     fearing the loss of water rights and full access to the lake.
                                  ____
                                  

                [From the Herald Tribune, May 22, 2008]

          Agreement Struck in Lebanon To End Political Crisis

                  (By Robert F. Worth and Nada Bakri)

       Beirut, Lebanon.--The agreement reached by Lebanese 
     political factions early Wednesday amounted to a significant 
     shift of power in favor of the militant Shiite group 
     Hezbollah and its allies in the opposition, who won the power 
     to veto any cabinet decision.
       The sweeping deal to form a new government promised an end 
     to 18 months of political deadlock here, and underscored the 
     rising power of Iran and Syria, which have backed Hezbollah 
     in a proxy battle against the governing coalition and its 
     American and Saudi allies.
       Government leaders said they had given way on major 
     provisions because they felt the alternative to an agreement 
     was war. They also said they won a pledge that no faction 
     would use its weapons internally, as Hezbollah and its allies 
     did during street battles this month in the worst internal 
     fighting since Lebanon's 15-year civil war.
       ``We avoided civil war,'' said Walid Jumblatt, a leader of 
     the governing coalition. He added that the agreement called 
     for a future dialogue on weapons, a clause that he and other 
     government leaders hoped would eventually allow them to raise 
     the issue of Hezbollah's arsenal.
       The agreement was brokered by Arab mediators in Doha, 
     Qatar, and involved intensive last-minute diplomacy among the 
     major regional players in Lebanon, including Syria, Iran and 
     Saudi Arabia. Before the agreement, an Iranian adviser 
     assured Saudi officials that Iran did not want a 
     confrontation with Arab nations, said an adviser to the Saudi 
     government, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because 
     he was not authorized to comment publicly. Iran agreed to use 
     its influence to prevent Hezbollah from entering Sunni Muslim 
     areas of Lebanon, the adviser said; such incursions occurred 
     during the clashes two weeks ago.
       The agreement specifies a new government and a new election 
     law, ending an 18-month opposition sit-in that had suffocated 
     business in Beirut's downtown commercial center. It also 
     calls for the election of the army chief, General Michel 
     Suleiman, as president. The post has been vacant since 
     November.
       But the deal leaves unresolved the questions that provoked 
     the crisis in December 2006. Those include Hezbollah's 
     weapons and Lebanon's relations with Syria, which ended its 
     29-year military presence here in 2005 after the 
     assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
       The divisive issue of cooperation with a United Nations 
     tribunal to investigate Hariri's murder and 10 other killings 
     that followed also remains to be solved. Pro-government 
     officials accuse Syria of involvement in those 
     assassinations.
       The governing coalition hailed the new pact as a fair 
     compromise, as did officials in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, 
     and France.
       In Washington, the Bush administration portrayed the 
     agreement as a good step. C. David Welch, the assistant 
     secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said that the 
     deal could make Syria's eventual return to Lebanon 
     impossible. He contended that the fighting had so damaged the 
     images of Hezbollah and Syria as its backer that Lebanon's 
     Sunnis and Christians would not welcome Syria back.
       In the past, the United States has urged the government 
     majority to take a firm stand in its conflict with the 
     Hezbollah-led opposition.
       Many Lebanese voiced relief at the news that their 
     country's long political stalemate appeared to be over. 
     Crowds flooded happily into the usually empty downtown on a 
     warm afternoon, and many shops that had been closed for more 
     than a year were reopening. The tents where opposition 
     members had camped out for 18 months were slowly being 
     dismantled, with people packing their gear into pickup 
     trucks.
       ``We came here to celebrate; it's a dream coming true,'' 
     said Chadi Ahmadieh, 32, who works at Solidere, the company 
     that rebuilt the downtown area. But he added: ``This solution 
     is like a shot of anesthesia that will at least get us 
     through the summer. There are still differences over many 
     issues.''
       The agreement was announced as Israel acknowledged that it 
     was involved in indirect talks on a possible peace deal with 
     Syria brokered by Turkey. That fueled speculation that the 
     two developments were linked, though officials involved in 
     the Doha talks said they knew of no connection.
       But some analysts said Hezbollah's decision to assert 
     itself militarily this month might have been partly based on 
     a calculation that it could be endangered by a deal between 
     Israel, its nemesis, and Syria, its backer.
       ``Hezbollah's decision to use force might have been partly 
     motivated by a fear that Syria and Israel were going to make 
     peace, and that it had to consolidate its power in Lebanon 
     before that happened,'' said Paul Salem, the director of the 
     Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
       The agreement in Doha provides for a government of 16 
     cabinet seats for the governing majority, 11 for the 
     opposition and 3 to be nominated by the new president. That 
     will allow the opposition to veto cabinet decisions, a demand 
     the governing coalition refused to accept until now.
       Heated last-minute negotiations over how to reshape 
     Lebanon's electoral districting system which will 
     significantly influence power-sharing after the 2009 
     parliamentary elections led to a compromise that divides the 
     country into smaller districts, allowing for more equal 
     representation of its various sects.
       Several Lebanese government officials said they felt they 
     had no choice but to accept the deal. Although their side has 
     long had strong verbal support from the United States and 
     Saudi Arabia, they appeared to have overplayed their hand 
     earlier this month when they challenged Hezbollah's private 
     telecommunications network and its control over the Beirut 
     airport.
       Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, declared those 
     government decisions an act of war, and the group sent its 
     fighters and their allies into the streets on May 7. Within a 
     day, the Shiite group had seized most of west Beirut. The 
     violence continued in northern and eastern Lebanon, leaving 
     at least 62 people dead and threatening to push the country 
     into an open war.

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1194.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. 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.

[[Page 9997]]



                          ____________________