Syria Accountability Act of 2003
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
May 1, 2003
View full timeline
Introduced in Senate
May 1, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S5674)
May 1, 2003
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
May 1, 2003
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about S. 982 on the floor
AS
GABB
EMK
OGH+16
Floor Debate
21 membersWhat members said about S. 982 on the floor
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and…
Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator Tom Harkin, my colleague and distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which I chair, in introducing the ``Medicaid Attendant Care Services and Supports Act of 2003.'' This creative proposal addresses a glaring gap in Federal health coverage, and assists one of our Nation's most vulnerable populations, persons with disabilities.
In an effort to improve the delivery of care and the comfort of those with long-term disabilities, this vital legislation would allow for reimbursement for community-based attendant care services, in lieu of institutionalization, for eligible individuals who require such services based on functional need, without regard to the individual's age or the nature of the disability. The most recent data available tell us that 58.5 million individuals receive care for disabilities under the Medicaid program. The number of disabled who are not currently enrolled in the program who would apply for this improved benefit is not easily counted, but would likely be substantial given the preference of home and community-based care over institutional care.
Under this proposal, States may apply for grants for assistance in implementing ``systems change'' initiatives, in order to eliminate the institutional bias in their current policies and for needs assessment activities. Further, if a state can show that the aggregate amounts of Federal expenditures on people living in the community exceeds what would have been spent on the same people had they been in nursing homes, the state can limit the program. No limiting mechanism is mandated under this bill, And finally, States would be required to maintain expenditures for attendant care services under other Medicaid community-based programs, thereby preventing the states from shifting patients into the new benefit proposed under this bill.
Let me speak briefly about why such a change in Medicaid law is so desperately needed. In 1999 the Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C., 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), that the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, requires States, under some circumstances, to provide community-based treatment to persons with mental disabilities rather than placing them in institutions. This decision and several lower court decisions have pointed to the need for a structured Medicaid attendant-care services benefit in order to meet obligations under the ADA. Disability advocates strongly support this legislation, arguing that the lack of Medicaid community-based services options is discriminatory and unhealthful for disabled individuals. Virtually every major disability advocacy group supports this bill, including ADAPT, the Arc, the National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the National Spinal Cord Injury Association.
Senator Harkin and I recognize that such a shift in the Medicaid program is a huge undertaking--but feel that it is a vitally important one. We are introducing this legislation today in an attempt to move ahead with the consideration of crucial disability legislation and to provide a starting point for debate. The time has come for concerted action in this arena.
I urge the Congressional leadership, including the appropriate committee chairmen, to move forward in considering this legislation, and take the significant next step forward in achieving the objective of providing individuals with disabilities the freedom to live in their own communities.
Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to permit certain youths, those exempt from attending school, between the ages of 14 and 18 to work in sawmills under special safety conditions and close adult supervision. I introduced identical measures in the past three Congresses. Similar legislation introduced by my distinguished colleague, Representative Joseph R. Pitts, has already passed in the House in the 105th and 106th Congresses. I am hopeful the Senate will also enact this important issue.
As Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I have strongly supported increased funding for the enforcement of the important child safety protections contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I also believe, however, that accommodation must be made for youths who are exempt from compulsory school-attendance laws after the eighth grade. It is extremely important that youths who are exempt from attending school be provided with access to jobs and apprenticeships in areas that offer employment where they live.
The need for access to popular trades is demonstrated by the Amish community. In 1998, I toured an Amish sawmill in Lancaster County, PA, and had the opportunity to meet with some of my Amish constituency. In December 2000, Representative Pitts and I held a meeting in Gap, PA with over 20 members of the Amish community to hear their concerns on this issue. On May 3, 2001, I chaired a hearing of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations Subcommittee to examine these issues.
At the hearing the Amish explained that while they once made their living almost entirely by farming, they have increasingly had to expand into other occupations as farmland has disappeared in many areas due to pressure from development. As a result, many of the Amish have come to rely more and more on work in sawmills to make their living. The Amish culture expects youth, upon the completion of their education at the age of 14, to begin to learn a trade that will enable them to become productive members of society. In many areas, work in sawmills is one of the major occupations available for the Amish, whose belief system limits the types of jobs they may hold. Unfortunately, these youths are currently prohibited by law from employment in this industry until they reach the age of 18. This prohibition threatens both the religion and lifestyle of the Amish.
Under my legislation, youths would not be allowed to operate power machinery, but would be restricted to performing activities such as sweeping, stacking wood, and writing orders. My legislation requires that the youths must be protected from wood particles or flying debris and wear protective equipment, all while under strict adult supervision. The Department of Labor must monitor these safeguards to insure that they are enforced.
The Department of Justice has raised serious concerns under the Establishment Clause with the House legislation. The House measure conferred benefits only to a youth who is a ``member of a religious sect or division thereof whose established teachings do not permit formal education beyond the eighth grade.'' By conferring the ``benefit'' of working in a sawmill only to the adherents of certain religions, the Department argues that the bill appears to impermissibly favor religion to ``irreligion.'' In drafting my legislation, I attempted to overcome such an objection by conferring permission to work in sawmills to all youths who ``are exempted from compulsory education laws after the eighth grade.'' Indeed, I think a broader focus is necessary to create a sufficient range of vocational opportunities for all youth who are legally out of school and in need of vocational opportunities.
I also believe that the logic of the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Wisconsin v. Yoder supports my bill. In Yoder, the Court held that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law requiring children to attend school until the age of 16 violated the Free Exercise Clause. The Court found that the Wisconsin law imposed a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion by the Amish since attending school beyond the eighth grade ``contravenes the basic religious tenets and practices of the Amish faith.'' I believe a similar argument can be made with respect to Amish youth working in sawmills. As their population grows and their subsistence through an agricultural way of life decreases, trades such as sawmills become more and more crucial to the continuation of their lifestyle. Barring youths from the sawmills denies these youths the very vocational training and path to self- reliance that was central to the Yoder Court's holding that the Amish do not need the final two years of public education.
I offer my legislation with the hope that my colleagues will work with me to provide relief for the Amish community.
Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to introduce legislation designed to improve the Department of Transportation's Essential Air Services program and reinstate Lancaster, PA's eligibility to receive subsidized air service.
The Essential Air Services program provides operating subsidies to airlines, enabling them to serve smaller markets which would otherwise be unable to attract or retain commercial flights. To be eligible to receive such a subsidy, the community where the airport is located must be greater than 70 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. If the airport is located within 70 miles of a hub airport, the Secretary of Transportation may use his or her discretion to award a subsidy if the most commonly used highway route between both places is greater than 70 miles. It is up to the Department of Transportation to determine what route is used in making this mileage determination.
Residents and businesses in many rural and smaller communities throughout the United States rely heavily upon air service to provide a necessary link to larger cities. Lancaster, PA is one such community which had been designated as an Essential Air Services city since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978. Up until the events of September 11, when the Airport faced a sharp decline in passenger revenue, Lancaster had never required a subsidy under this program.
When Lancaster ultimately found it necessary to seek a subsidy for its three daily flights to Pittsburgh, the Department of Transportation issued an Order to Show Cause on March 8, 2002, stating that Lancaster was not eligible for an Essential Air Services subsidy because it was located within 70 miles of Philadelphia International Airport. The Secretary of Transportation declined to use his discretion to award the subsidy because the Department identified a driving route of less than 70 miles between Lancaster City and Philadelphia Airport. While there is no question that such a route exists, it is by no means the most commonly used highway route as required by law.
The route selected by the Department of Transportation is one which the average person would never travel, via back roads and seldom used streets. In making its distance determination, the Department used a 66 mile route along Route 30 which would take over three hours to drive. The more commonly used highway route to the Philadelphia International Airport would be along US 222 to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and then on to I-76, which is over 70 miles.
The legislation I am introducing today addresses this issue by designating an area's local metropolitan planning organization, rather than the Department of Transportation, as the organization responsible for determining the most commonly used highway route. If no such organization exists, the Governor of the State in which the airport is located, or the Governor's designee will make the determination. I believe that a local entity, not the Department of Transportation, is better suited to identify the route most travelers would drive. In such cases where that route exceeds 70 miles, the Department should be required to designate a community as eligible to receive subsidized air service.
My legislation will not place too great a burden upon the Essential Air Services program by allowing additional airports to participate. I am advised that there are only eight other communities, including Lancaster, which could become newly eligible to receive subsidized air service as a result of the changes I am proposing. Further, I would note that of the $113 million the program received in Fiscal Year 2002, there was an excess of $10.9 million which remained unspent and which carried over into Fiscal Year 2003.
Lancaster Airport's only commercial air carrier, Colgan Air, ceased operations on March 23, 2003, because it could not sustain service without a subsidy. The loss of commercial air service has already had a serious impact upon the Lancaster community. I am confident that my legislation will not only reinstate Lancaster's eligibility for subsidized air service and allow for the return of commercial air service, but it will also provide for a greater level of fairness for other communities which rely so heavily upon this important program.
Mr. President, for decades, the United States has engaged the regime in Syria in the hope that Damascus would play a constructive role in bringing about Arab-Israeli peace. The U.S.-Syria…
Mr. President, for decades, the United States has engaged the regime in Syria in the hope that Damascus would play a constructive role in bringing about Arab-Israeli peace. The U.S.-Syria relationship has been ongoing despite the fact that Syria has been ruled by dictatorship with an uninterrupted record of support for terrorism, specifically directed at Israel.
The results of U.S. engagement with Syria have been anything but positive. Throughout the years, Damascus has continued to support international terrorism directed at America and Israel, occupy Lebanon, develop a weapons-of-mass-destruction program, acquire ballistic missiles, and pursue policies counter to U.S. interests.
Since the liberation of Iraq, Syria has played a destabilizing role by allowing terrorist fugitives to enter Syria and by allowing mercenaries to cross into Iraq--or at least not stopping them--to engage U.S. troops. Syria has been able to conduct its policies--which are antithetical to U.S. interests--with near impunity. They have resulted in the loss of hundreds of American lives--especially when you consider the bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut in 1983.
Although Syria is listed--and has been since the 1970s--by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, along with Iran, Libya, Iraq, Cuba, and North Korea, it has not faced the same degree of diplomatic and economic isolation that has been directed at other terrorist states. In fact, Washington maintains full diplomatic relations with Syria, making Syria the only designated state sponsor of terrorism to have such relations with the United States.
Syria's special treatment despite its support for terrorism should be over.
The events of September 11, 2001 have offered a window of opportunity to review many U.S. bilateral relationships and determine whether it is necessary to change the dynamic--and often the status quo--that has characterized these relations. The administration and Congress have done this most notably with Saudi Arabia in seeking greater cooperation in the elimination of terrorist activities operating from Saudi soil.
Now is also an ideal time to reassess U.S. relations with Damascus and demand accountability in our relationship. Equally important, it is time for the Syrian leadership to make a tough choice: it is either with the United States completely in the war on terrorism, or it is not. Either way, shielding Syria from the same economic and political isolation directed at other terrorist states is unmerited and runs counter to U.S. principles in the war against terrorism.
As Under Secretary of State John Bolton stated in testimony before the House International Relations Committee on September 16, 2003, ``Syria remains a security concern on two important counts: terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.'' Bolton added: There is no graver threat to our country today than states that both sponsor terrorism and possess or aspire to possess weapons of mass destruction. Syria, which offers physical sanctuary and political protection to groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Jihad, and whose terrorist operations have killed hundreds of innocent people--including Americans--falls into this category of state of potential dual threat.
Since the 1970s, the U.S. State Department has listed Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism. Specifically, in its ``Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2002'' report, the State Department found that the Syrian Government ``has continued to provide political and limited material support to a number of Palestinian groups, including allowing them to maintain headquarters or offices in Damascus,'' although the Syrian Government insists that the groups' Damascus offices undertake only political and informational activities, not terrorist operations.
Syria maintains close relations with Iran, another autocratic regime listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism and a prominent financial, political, and military backer of these Palestinian terrorist organizations.
Moreover, Syria remains the de facto ruler of Lebanon, which it has forcibly and illegally occupied since 1990. Lebanon, the country in which more than 200 U.S. Marines died in 1983 following a terrorist attack on their Beirut barracks, remains a breeding ground and training center for terrorist organizations.
Terrorism has spawned in Syria due largely to Syria's opposition to the existence of Israel and its subsequent objection to an Arab-Israeli peace process. Although the United States has engaged Syria--and given it a prominent place in discussions--during the past few decades, Damascus has long been an unwilling and uncooperative partner in bringing about Middle East peace. In fact, Syria did not endorse President Bush's Middle East ``roadmap.''
Syria also appears to be in the terror financing business. In April 2003, an Italian government study found that Syria functioned as a hub for an al-Qaida network that moved Islamic extremists and funds from Italy to northeastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group.
And, on October 21, it was reported that U.S. Treasury Department investigators have evidence that $3 billion that belonged to Saddam Hussein's government is being held in Syria-controlled banks in Syria and Lebanon. The Syrian Government has not yet granted Treasury officials access to these accounts, nor has it been willing to share any information about the account holders.
Let's review past U.S. policy toward Damascus. Despite all of Syria's irresponsible and threatening policies, successive U.S. administrations have been willing to engage the Syrian Government. For decades, the United States has pursued a policy of engagement with Syria, trying to win Damascus' support for Middle East peace but to no avail.
As part of this strategy, the United States has maintained full diplomatic relations with Damascus. It also has allowed U.S. companies to invest in Syria, something that cannot be done in other terrorist- sponsor states such as North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Libya.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1999--the last year there was reliable data available--direct investment of U.S. companies into Syria was $6 million, with 13 U.S. businesses having offices in Syria. While this may seem miniscule in terms of the dollar amount, it is notable because it is tolerated at all.
With the death of Syrian President Hafez Assad in 2000 and the ascendancy of his son Bashar to the presidency, there were high expectations that Syria would depart from its anti-Israeli policies and pro-terrorist support of the past and enact political and economic reforms, as well as become a positive influence and player in achieving Middle East peace. Three years into Bashar's term, such developments have not materialized--and without a catalyst to encourage such reform, it appears unlikely that Bashar will proactively change Syria's course.
We need a new approach toward Damascus. Continuation of the current U.S. policy toward Syria must end. For too long, it has been too ineffective and has allowed Syria to pursue with near impunity policies counter to U.S. interests. Moreover, it is unproductive and antithetical to the principles associated with the President's war on terrorism.
The U.S. must pressure Syria to play by the rules. Given that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-
Assad is relatively weak, and recognizing that Bashar deemed it necessary, or least desirable, to provide some assistance to the United States in apprehending al-Qaida, it should be possible to pressure Damascus into changing its policies. That said, Washington must demonstrate that it is serious about having Damascus drop its support of terrorism and its pursuit of policies that endanger peace and stability in the Middle East.
Therefore, to demonstrate American commitment, the United States should adopt the following measures in pressuring Syria: Enact the Syria Accountability Act now. Among the numerous provisions contained in the bill, the most notable include the calls for Syria to immediately and unconditionally halt support for terrorism; withdraw from Lebanon and provide for Lebanon's full restoration of sovereignty; halt development of certain weapons; and enter into serious unconditional bilateral peace negotiations with Israel.
This bill also states that Syria ``should bear responsibility for attacks committed by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups with offices, training camps, or other facilities'' in Syria or Lebanon. Further, the bill states, that being in violation of key United Nations Security Council resolutions and pursuing policies which undermine international peace and security, ``Syria should not have been permitted to join the United Nations Security Council or serve as the Security Council's President, and should be removed from the Security Council.
Pursuant to the legislation, the United States is empowered to ``will work to deny Syria the ability to support acts of terrorism and efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, WMD.'' In addition, the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose all forms of multilateral assistance to Syria until Damascus withdraws from Lebanon and halts its pursuit of WMD and ballistic missile accumulation.
Until Syria enacts these measures, the President is required to prohibit: the sale of defense articles to Syria that require the issuance of an export license--dual-use items; U.S. businesses from investing in Syria; and export of any goods other than food and medicine to Syria. Diplomatic relations also must be reduced but the degree of that is not defined. The President is given waiver authority for 6-month periods for all of these categories, except the export of dual-use items if it is determined that ``it is in the vital national security interest'' to do so.
The Bush administration should apply uniformity in its policies toward terrorist-sponsoring states. Therefore, the administration should not allow U.S. companies to invest in Syria because it sends the signal that Syria is receiving special treatment from Washington. A fairly dramatic reduction of U.S. diplomatic representation would perhaps strongly suggest to Syria that it is not an American ally and will not be one until it starts acting like one.
Sending a strong message is key.
The United States should apply the proliferation security initiative, PSI, and sanction WMD suppliers. The administration has successfully developed and employed a plan, known as the proliferation security initiative, PSI, to interdict illicit weapons shipments and contraband. PSI was announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. It involves robust cargo inspections and possible interdiction of WMD materials and illegal arms, based on pooled intelligence among participating countries. To date, 11 nations form the core PSI group: Britain, France, Germany, Australia, Japan, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Netherlands, and the United States. While most of the initial PSI activities have focused on North Korea, attention should be paid to Syria--and Iran--with the goal of halting the flow of weapons technology both in and out of Syria.
A critical complementary strategy to PSI is using sanctions on countries that supply Syria with weapons and WMD technology. The People's Republic of China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are known proliferators of these materials, with Russia and North Korea being key suppliers to Syria.
As part of a wider U.S. policy, the administration should attempt to convince its PSI allies to also use sanctions against WMD suppliers.
In conclusion, Syria's actions in the Middle East--and in Iraq, specifically pose a clear, near-term threat to regional stability and to the safety and security of American forces serving in the region.
With the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the defeat of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the United States has made clear that state support for terrorism will no longer be tolerated.
It is overdue for the United States and like-minded nations to hold Syria accountable for its actions. Syria's new head of state has had ample time to make the choice whether Damascus is with the United States as a partner or not in fighting the war on terrorism.
If Syria is not, then it should face the diplomatic and economic consequences as set out in the Syria Accountability Act. As a sponsor of the Senate version, S. 982, I respectfully urge my colleagues to vote for this important measure in the form of H.R. 1828, as amended.
Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation is…
Yes, that is my clear understanding and the clear intent of the legislation. The bill lays out in great detail the serious threat Syrian actions pose to United States interests. Our expectation is that, unless the President can make the certification described in section 5, subsection (d) of the bill, he must impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The national security waiver was only included to address currently unforeseen instances where U.S. national security interests would truly be threatened should such sanctions go forward. We expect the President to use the waiver only for such exceptional circumstances, and not on a routine basis as a way to circumvent congressional intent as so clearly expressed in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.
Amendment No. 2148
Mr. President, under the order, I have how much time remaining on my side?
Does the Senator from Illinois wish to make a few comments? How much time does he need?
I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Illinois, and then I will use the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, I am very pleased we are going to vote on the Syria Accountability bill, a bill I first introduced with Senator Santorum in April of 2002. It has had a very bumpy ride. I am glad the ride will soon end smoothly; at least that is my sense.
On April 18, 2002, with a list of 45 cosponsors, I introduced this bill with Senator Santorum.
On that day, I said:
We cannot afford to rest for one second in pursuing those
who believe that purposely killing innocent civilians is a
legitimate means to political ends. We cannot give
concessions to terrorists nor can we reward them by giving
into their demands. This will only lead to more terror.
With that, Senator Santorum and I introduced the Syria Accountability Act because we knew at that time--and we know today--that by a variety of means the Government of Syria is supporting terrorist groups. It needs to end.
In the 108th Congress, May 1, 2003, now with a total of 81 cosponsors, we introduced our bill again and at that time we said:
If we are serious about peace in the Middle East and a
cessation of terrorism here at home, then we must confront
the Government of Syria in a way that will not lead to war
but to a diffusing of tensions and a more peaceful world.
The administration opposed our bill very strongly. In fact, Secretary Powell came before the Foreign Relations Committee and when Senator Lugar and Senator Biden said to him, do you support or oppose the Syria Accountability Act, Secretary Powell said it would not be helpful to pass it.
I did not agree with him then and I do not agree with him now. When Secretary Powell went to see the head of Syria, what was one of the first things he said to him? He said, you ought to shape up because there is a bill in the Senate, the Syria Accountability Act, and those folks over there are serious.
It proved my point that, in fact, for us to be tough on terrorism gives the State Department the backup they need. I think, frankly, it will be very helpful for us to pass this bill today.
Now, the administration has moved off their opposition and they are neutral on this bill. They are neither for it nor against it. The good news is, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee, finally I think, have decided that maybe Boxer and Santorum have been on the right track. So this is a very big day for us because we have gone through a pretty tough legislative ride. We did not get hearings in the committee. We could not move it.
In addition to Senator Santorum, my original cosponsor of this, I do want to thank Senator Byrd, who made suggestions to perfect our bill, Senator Lugar who worked with Senator Byrd and others, Senator Biden, who agreed to let this come up in an expedited fashion, and over on the House side Representatives Eliot Engel and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen helped us quite a bit in moving this bill.
So it is, in fact, a day that is important. What we are basically saying in our bill is that if Syria does not shape up they are going to face sanctions from this Government. If Syria does not stop supporting terrorism, if Syria does not stop the development of weapons of mass destruction, if Syria does not end its occupation of Lebanon and cease support for the terrorists operating in Iraq, they are going to face a series of escalating sanctions.
The fact is that we have 81 cosponsors--and I see Senator Santorum on the floor now. He worked his side of the aisle, I have worked mine, and we were able to really get these cosponsorships up. On October 15, the House passed its version of the bill 398 to 4. So I have to say we are on to something.
Let me say from the bottom of my heart what I think we are on to. We are on to the premise that the truth shall set you free. We cannot have relationships with Syria and close our eyes to the truth, and the truth is that Syria is, in fact, supporting terrorism in ways that are very clear. They are a major supporter of Hezbollah, an international terrorist organization that has carried out numerous attacks against Americans and Israeli civilian targets. They have operated freely in the Syrian-controlled Beqaa Valley in Lebanon over the past 20 years. Other terrorist groups such as Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command all maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities inside Syria or in areas of Lebanon under Syrian control.
Anyone who has traveled to the region knows that one of the saddest stories in the world is the story of Lebanon and how its people have lost any control over their own destiny. As we fight for democracy in the world, we have to remember that. This was a country at one point that was absolutely considered the Paris in the Middle East, and it has really been lost because it has been taken over in a hostile takeover, I might say, by the power of Syria.
So all of these issues, getting Syria to turn its back on terrorism and not allow these organizations to operate within their borders, Syria allowing the Lebanese people to have a life of freedom and democracy or at least self-determination, however they determine it, these are issues that are crucial. As long as they keep up the status quo, the goal of Middle East peace is quite elusive.
Twenty thousand Syrian troops and security personnel continue to occupy Lebanon and again, as I said, undermine its political independence. It is a direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. What does that say? That resolution calls for strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and political independence of Lebanon.
We also know that Syria is developing weapons that are very dangerous, and that they are not doing enough to prevent terrorists from entering into Iraq. In fact, the terrorist who was attempting to blow up an Iraqi police station was found to be carrying a Syrian passport.
This has to stop. Nations must be held accountable for the proliferation of terrorism and they must be held accountable if they are not doing all they can to pursue Middle East peace or at least allow that peace to take place.
So this legislation has taken a bumpy road. When Senator Santorum and I got together to work on it, people said that is quite a combination. They said if those two can get together on anything, eventually we know we are going to win.
It has taken us almost 2 years but we could not be happier. We want to thank the 80 other Senators who are cosponsors of this bill. We, again, thank Senators Lugar and Biden for allowing this bill to come directly to the floor today. We think it is a historic day.
Our goal is to prevent war and to lay out markers for Syria. We do not want to go to war with Syria. We just want to say, in a truthful way, these are the things that you have been doing wrong. Please meet these markers. Help us. Help us in the world. If you don't, we are going to have some sanctions and they are spelled out. I think others have spelled them out. The idea behind this bill is to avoid a confrontation and instead have a relationship that is respectful between our two nations. I think today we will go a long way to that end.
I believe all my time is used up at this point so I will yield the floor and I hope we will be voting shortly on this.
Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to combat hate crimes. Hate crimes are a violation of all our country stands for. They send the poisonous message…
Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to combat hate crimes. Hate crimes are a violation of all our country stands for. They send the poisonous message that some Americans deserve to be victimized solely because of who they are. Like acts of terrorism, hate crimes have an impact far greater than the impact on the individual victims. They are crimes against entire communities, against the whole Nation, and against the fundamental ideals on which America was founded. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said, ``Criminal acts of hate run counter to what is best in America--our belief in equality and freedom.''
Although there was a significant overall reduction in violent crimes during the 1990s, the number of hate crimes continued to grow. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 9,730 hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2001. That is over 26 hate crimes a day, every day. More than 83,000 hate crimes have been reported since 1991.
The need for an effective national response is as compelling as it has ever been. Hate crimes against Arabs and Muslims rose dramatically in the weeks following the September 11 terrorist attacks. These hate crimes included murder, beatings, arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, anti-Islamic incidents were the second highest-reported type of hate crimes based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes.
Los Angeles and Chicago reported a massive increase in the number of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim crimes after 9/11.
Hate crimes based on sexual orientation continue to be a serious danger, constituting 14 percent of all hate crimes reported.
Each person's life is valuable, and even one life lost is too many. It is not the frequency of hate crimes alone that makes these acts of violence so serious. It is the terror and intimidation they inflict on the victims, their families, their communities, and, in some cases, the entire Nation.
Congress cannot sit silent while this hatred spreads. It is long past time for us to do more to end hate-motivated violence. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act will strengthen the ability of Federal, State and local governments to investigate and prosecute these vicious and senseless crimes. Our legislation is supported by over 175 law enforcement, civil rights, civic, and religious organizations.
The current Federal law on hate crimes was passed soon after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Today, however, it is a generation out of date. It has two significant deficiencies. It does not cover hate crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability. And even in cases of hate crimes based on race, religion, or ethnic background, it contains excessive restrictions requiring proof that the victims were attacked because they were engaged in certain ``federally protected activities.''
Our bill is designed to close these substantial loopholes. It has six principal provisions: 1. It removes the ``federally protected activity'' barrier. 2. It adds sexual orientation, gender and disability to the existing categories of race, color, religion, and national origin. 3. It protects State interests with a strict certification procedure that requires the Federal Government to consult with local officials before bringing a Federal case. 4. It offers federal assistance to State and local law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute heated crimes in any of the federal categories. 5. It offers training grants for local law enforcement. 6. It amends the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act to add gender to the existing categories of race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, and disability.
These much needed changes in current law will help ensure that the Department of Justice has what it needs to combat the growing problem of hate-motivated violence more effectively.
Nothing in the bill prohibits or punishes speech, expression, or association in any way--even ``hate speech.'' It addresses only violent actions that result in death or injury. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly--and as recently as this year, in the cross-burning decision Virginia v. Black--that a hate crimes statute that considers bias motivation directly connected to a defendant's criminal conduct does not violate the First Amendment. No one has a First Amendment right to commit a crime.
A strong Federal role in prosecuting hate crimes is essential, because crimes have an impact far greater than their impact on individual victims. Nevertheless, our bill fully respects the primary role of state and local law enforcement in responding to violent crime. The vast majority of hate crimes will continue to be prosecuted at the state and local level. The bill authorizes the Justice Department to assist State and local authorities in hate crimes cases, but it authorizes Federal prosecutions only when a state does not have jurisdiction, or when it asks the Federal Government to take jurisdiction, or when it fails to act against hate-motivated violence. In other words, the bill establishes an appropriate back-up for State and local law enforcement, to deal with hate crimes in cases where states request assistance, or cases that would not otherwise be effectively investigated and prosecuted.
Working cooperatively, State, local and Federal law enforcement officials have the best chance to bring the perpetrators of hate crimes to justice. Federal resources and expertise in the identification and proof of hate crimes can provide invaluable assistance to state and local authorities without undermining the traditional role of states in prosecuting crimes. As Attorney General Ashcroft has said of current law, ``Cooperation between federal agents and local law enforcement officers and between Justice Department prosecutors and local prosecutors has been outstanding.'' And it will continue to be so, and be even more effective, when this legislation is enacted into law.
Now is the time for Congress to speak with one voice and insist that all Americans will be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. Now is the time to make combating hate crimes a high national priority. The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a needed response to a serious problem that continues to plague the nation, and I urge the Senate to support it.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, it is a privilege to join Senator Fitizgerald and Senator Snowe in introducing the Treatment of Children's Deformities Act. The purpose of our bill is to see that health insurers and health plans cover the treatment of children's congenital and developmental deformities and disorders.
About 7 percent of all children are born with significant problems, including cleft lips or cleft palates, serious skin lesions such as port wine stains, malformations of the ear, or facial deformities. Plastic surgery can correct many of these conditions, but too often parents face significant barriers in obtaining care for their children. More than half of all plastic surgeons report that these patients are denied insurance coverage or had the struggle to receive it. Too often, insurers deny coverage by calling the treatment cosmetic or not medically necessary.
The medical, developmental, and psychological problems associated with denied or delayed treatment of these deformities are enormous. Treatment often requires a series of treatments as the child grow. No child should be forced to live with an untreated cleft lip or a facial deformity while parents appeal an insurer's unfair denial. Delayed or denied treatment puts a child's physical and mental health at risk.
Our bill requires health insurers and health plans to provide coverage to treat a child's congenial or developmental deformity, or disorders caused by disease, trauma, infection, or tumor. It is supported by many medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. I urge the Senate to support this important bill, and give children and families the support they deserve.
Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate bill, S. 982,…
Mr. President, I stand in support of the Syria Accountability Act, H.R. 1828, which the House of Representatives passed, 398-4, last month. I am an original cosponsor of the Senate bill, S. 982, introduced by my colleagues, Senators Santorum and Boxer, which has over 80 cosponsors as of today. Today, I support the amendment to H.R. 1828 submitted by my able colleague and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in coordination with Senators Santorum and Boxer. I commend my colleagues for their good work.
It is well within Congress's prerogative to write and implement sanctions, but the practice of doing so, as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee knows so well, can raise important points about the overall constitutional prerogative of the executive in its right to conduct foreign policy. The amendment prepared by Senator Lugar, in cooperation with the original sponsors of the bill, preserves the prerogatives of both branches of government, and, at the same time, I believe, unifies and solidifies our nation's policy on the question of terrorism, and, in particular, Syria's contribution to peace, stability and progress in the Middle East.
Quite frankly, Syria has largely failed to contribute significantly to peace and stability in the Middle East, a stability that U.S. blood and treasure is now invested to achieve. We have watched the administration give Syria ample opportunities, since September 11, 2001, to make its contribution. Quite frankly, Mr. President, the administration flattered the Damascus dictatorship by giving it this time to join with the civilized world in unequivocally renouncing terrorism completely, as well as dismantling all manifestations of material and political support for terrorist organizations.
Some suggest that Syria has played a game of sitting on the fence, when it came to the war on terrorism. However, Mr. President, Syria was never on the fence. Syria is on the other side of the fence, with the other state sponsors of terrorism we have labeled as such since 1979. And today I will agree with what Secretary Powell told President Assad earlier this year: By refusing to cooperate, he was ``on the wrong side of history.''
Since 1979, Syria has appeared every year on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. It has been so identified for its role in terrorist acts, as well as the support it gave--and continues to give, to this very day--to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, terrorist organizations that, to this very day, organize and commit acts of aggression or terrorism.
Throughout the 1990s, Syria played coy with U.S. administrations attempting to engage it in the Middle East peace process. Who can forget the scene of the long-suffering Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, waiting hours outside of Hafez Assad's office on his umpteenth visit, at the very same time Iranian weapons were being transferred to Hezbollah at the Damascus airport? Who can forget President Clinton's futile attempt in Geneva, near the end of his term and near the end of Assad's brutal life, to re-engage the
dictator in peace talks? On the question of peace or normal relations with Israel, in every aspect but the desire to reclaim territory for itself, Syria has most definitely been a rejectionist state.
There are persistent reports that Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons, including sarin and possibly also VX, which it could combine with one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East. Coalition forces are not in Iraq to rid that former dictatorship of its weapons of destruction while we look the other way on similar weapons held by another Ba'athist regime. The era of that ideology of Arab oppression, along with the threat of weapons of mass destruction to maintain that oppression, is over.
Syria has not assisted us in our historic mission in Iraq. Joining the Security Council in unanimous approval of Resolution 1441, the Syrians were quick to denounce the threat and use of force to achieve the goals of the resolution. Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our officials--from the President, to the Secretary of State, to the Secretary of Defense--have publicly criticized Syria for its lack of cooperation. Syria's border has remained open to fleeing Ba'athist officials, and to international terrorists anxious to die fighting against Coalition forces. Our officials believe that Syria holds up to $3 billion of Saddam's ill-gotten loot, funds that the Governing Council could use for reconstruction, funds that would lessen the obligations we have undertaken in this body this week.
Syria invaded Lebanon more than a quarter-century ago, and maintains approximately 15,000 troops there to this day. Throughout this period, Syria has backed the Shi'ite terrorist organization, Hezbollah, an organization that has been tied to terrorism around the world. Twenty years ago, a Hezbollah suicide bomber killed almost 300 U.S. Marines as they slept in their barracks in Beirut. Hezbollah continues to attack across borders, shelling Israel as late as last week. Nothing Hezbollah does is without Syrian sanction. The Middle East will not see peace, and the United States should not consider itself secure as long as Hezbollah, with its Syrian backers, exists.
So it is time to go to the source and sanction Syria. This bill outlines a series of goals and commensurate diplomatic and economic sanctions to apply to the Syrian regime. It maintains flexibility of policy choice for the administration, but it is clear in stating the Congress's intent, in resolve and policy, to further isolate the decrepit dictatorship in Damascus.
I do not know if this bill will motivate Damascus to cross the fence and join the anti-terror coalition of civilized nations. I suspect that to believe so would be pollyannaish. But I do believe that the way we act today will declare to the Damascus dictatorship that there are costs to being on the wrong side of the fence in the war on terror.
September 11, 2001 began a new era in U.S. foreign policy, and the President's policies since that watershed event have been based on clarity of vision. Against the threat of terrorism, which lurks and breeds in the shadows, we have responded with clarity of purpose. Against the traditional approaches of diplomacy, which balance nuance against process, we have demanded progress. Against previous approaches that part-time antagonism toward a mutual enemy should be rewarded with full-time tolerance of non-compliance with our stated goals, we say today: No longer.
President Assad will receive this message clearly. Perhaps Syria will modify its behavior. If it does not, Syria can join the list of rogue states who failed because they challenged the order of the civilized world.
The American public has read reports in the press about Syria's cooperation with us in identifying, in the months after September 11, members of Al-Qaida. I have read no where, nor have I heard any analyst argue, that such cooperation was because Syria was dedicated to our defense, or to our global war on terrorism. Since then, the American public has heard many members of the current administration express disappointment with Syria's behavior, and they have seen many reports of Syria's lack of cooperation. And one thing is clear in a democracy, Mr. President: Our foreign policy must have the support of the public.
I will always respect the President's foreign policy prerogative, and I have defended the executive's prerogative under Republican and Democratic administrations. I have supported ``quiet diplomacy'' for small results. But a diplomacy that produces invisible results is not quiet, it is silent. Today, I believe the members of the President's administration agree with me.
For the reasons I have stated here, this bill will pass overwhelmingly, as it did in the House of Representatives. We may consider this the Senate's contribution today to the war on global terrorism.
Show 8 more
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate soon will be taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass the…
Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate soon will be taking action on the Syria Accountability Act. Much work has been devoted to this legislation, and I believe that we are ready to pass the bill. I would like to thank the majority leader for his support of this bill and the process that led to it. I also would like to thank Senators Santorum and Boxer for their commitment to this bill and their bipartisan cooperation in reaching agreement of an important amendment. A critical component of this amendment provides the President with the ability to calibrate U.S. sanctions against Syria in response to positive Syrian behavior when such adjustment is in the national security interests of the United States.
On October 30, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held an excellent hearing on U.S. relations with Syria. Among other witnesses, we heard from William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, and Ambassador Cofer Black, the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator.
These hearings underscored the difficulties presented by recent Syrian behavior. Hopes that reform could take root in Syria after the fall of Saddam Hussein have dimmed considerably. Instead, tensions have increased between the United States and Syria, and a cycle of retaliation and revenge has derailed possible progress in the ``Road Map'' to peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The Israeli retaliatory attack on an Islamic Jihad terrorist camp in Syria has underscored that the ``no war and no peace'' status quo in the region cannot be taken for granted.
Many experts thought that when President Bashar al-Assad replaced his father 3 years ago, he would adopt a more pragmatic approach to negotiations with Israel and to internal political and economic reforms. Syrian cooperation with the United States in relation to al- Qaida terrorists held promise for cooperation in other areas. Assistant Secretary Burns noted last June in Congressional testimony that ``the cooperation the Syrians have provided in their own self-interest on al- Qaida has saved American lives.''
But Syria's subsequent failure to stop terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, from using Syria as a base for training and planning suicide bombings in Israel has continued. Syria also has failed to withdraw its forces from Lebanon or take concrete steps in support of the Road Map peace plan. It reportedly has continued to maintain stockpiles of chemical weapons and to pursue development of lethal biological agents.
Moreover, Syria is working against the U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq by refusing to release assets in Syrian accounts that Saddam Hussein's regime stole from the Iraqi people.
These and other Syrian transgressions have led both Houses of the U.S. Congress to support the bill before us today, which stiffens the economic and diplomatic sanctions already imposed on Damascus for being a state sponsor of terrorism. I support this bill, which is based on the presumption that modifying Syria's behavior requires a tough response. But as we give the administration additional sticks to use against Syria, we should be careful about restricting our government's flexibility in responding to new diplomatic opportunities. Syria has shown the ability to make better choices--for example, supporting U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 in November 2002, which held Iraq in ``material breach'' of its disarmament obligations and voting for the more recent Resolution 1511, which calls upon all nations to support the U.S.-led effort in Iraq. I believe the amendment to this bill provides the President with the necessary flexibility.
Even as we tighten restrictions on Syria, we should be emphasizing to the Syrians why it is in their interest to recalculate their approach towards the United States. Syria shares a 400-mile border with Iraq. With more than 135,00 U.S. troops deployed in Iraq, Syria needs to reconsider where its future security interests lie. This is not a threat of U.S. military action but a statement of the new reality on Syria's borders. Moreover, Syrian forces that continue to occupy Lebanon are draining the Syrian economy while providing few positive returns. Continued Syrian occupation of Lebanon invites further possible military action from Israel.
The Syrian leadership also must adjust to the end of its ``under the counter'' oil deals with Saddam Hussein. Syria must negotiate new and transparent arrangements to meet its energy needs. Syria's economy will not thrive without opening up to investment and trade, particularly with Iraq. Significant benefits could accrue to Syria from an economically vibrant Iraqi trading partner, increased trade with Europe and the United States, and even possible membership in a Middle East Free Trade Agreement down the road.
In this context, Syria may find motivation to return to the negotiating table. An agreement on the Golan Heights that would provide security guarantees for Israel while respecting Syria's sovereignty could be the key to resolving a host of other problems, including Syria's occupation of Lebanon, its support of Palestinian terror groups, and its economic and political isolation. Although success of such an agreement would depend ultimately on the parties themselves, the United States must seek to leverage obvious Syrian interests in pursuit of a viable settlement.
The Syrian regime has some difficult choices to make. It can continue to harbor and support groups devoted to terror, or it can act in ways that will help restore stability and peace in the region and thereby create a better economic future for its people. It cannot do both. This bill, as amended, adds to the tools available to the President to move Syria toward a more responsible course. I commend the bill to the Senate and hope that we will pass it by a strong vote.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his speech and for his thoughtful comments.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania as much time as he should require, with the time allotted to our side on this amendment.
Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.
I thank the Chair. I now yield time to the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.
Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his important argument.
How much time remains on our side?
I thank the Chair.
I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be counted against the side of the opposition to the bill as opposed to our side.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, there have been consecutive Republican speeches on this amendment. We will be prepared to recognize the distinguished Senator from California. She will ask for her own recognition, but we hope she will have an opportunity to speak at this point.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I will take this occasion to tell the Senate that today we celebrate the birthday of
the distinguished Senator from California. Senator Boxer is a year younger. This is an excellent day for her to offer this legislation, and we commend and thank the Senator.
I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
Mr. President, I note no more Senators on our side of the aisle wish to speak. Therefore, I yield the remaining time.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act. In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the…
Mr. President, I rise to introduce a critical piece of legislation, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act.
In the aftermath of the tragic events of 9-11, the Federal Government has reassessed the Nation's vulnerabilities to acts and threats of terrorism.
And in response, the United States Congress gave the Department of Justice expanded powers to detain suspected terrorists, conduct surveillance and obtain confidential information on American citizens. In addition, we have created the new Department of Homeland Security-- the largest reorganization of the Federal Government since the 1940s.
In short, the events of 9-11 required us to reevaluate our safety concerns and the security of the Nation.
Echoing this need, President Bush said before the United Nations on November 10, 2001, that ``we have the responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them.''
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. And I believe the American people want the U.S. Senate to follow through with concrete legislative action.
However, we have failed to address a significant remaining threat: the accessibility to firearms and explosives within our own borders.
How can we truly protect this Nation, if we do not enact legislation which prevents terrorists and potential terrorists from acquiring guns in the United States?
Terrorists have identified the lax gun laws of the United States as a means to advance their evil goal to terrorize and harm the American people.
In December 2001, during the war on terror, we attacked a terrorist training facility south of Kabul. Found among the rubble at that facility was a manual called: ``How I Can Train Myself for Jihad.''
This manual, contains an entire section on ``Firearms Training'' and singles out the United States for its easy availability of firearms. It stipulates that terrorists living in the U.S. should ``obtain an assault weapon legally, preferably AK-47 or variations.'' It also advises would-be terrorsts on how they should conduct themselves in order to avoid arousing suspicion as they amass and transport firearms.
There are other examples where terrorists have sought to take advantage of this nation's lax gun laws.
On the eve of the September 11 terrorist attack, on September 10, 2001, a Federal jury convicted Ali Boumelhem, a known member of the terrorist group Hezbollah on seven counts of weapons charges and conspiracy to ship weapons and ammunition to Lebanon.
And we have seen how firearms can be used to terrorize an entire community.
We are all familiar with the case of John Muhammad and John Malvo, who terrorized the Washington, DC area for more than three weeks as they embarked on a shooting spree with a sniper rifle, shooting 13 innocent people before being caught.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge agrees that there is a dangerous link between guns and terror. During his confirmation hearing before Governmental Affairs Committee on January 17, 2003, in response to a question I asked him about guns and terror, Secretary Ridge said:
[W]hen anyone uses a firearm, whether it's the kind of
terrorism that we are trying to combat with al Qaeda and
these non-state terrorists, or as a former district attorney
involved in the conviction of an individual who used firearms
against innocent citizens--regardless of how we define
terrorism, that individual and that family felt that they
were victims of a terrorist act. Brandishing a firearm in
front of anybody under any set of circumstances is a
terrorist act and needs to be dealt with.
Well, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act deals with it. The Act deals with this threat that leaves America especially vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.
The Homeland Security Gun Safety Act would enact specific measures that would help prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms within our own borders.
Under current law, there are cases when law enforcement is blocked from conducting an adequate investigation when a terrorist or criminal tries to buy a gun.
Current law says if law enforcement takes over three days to conduct a background check on someone who wants a weapon--just hand over the gun.
That is ludicrous--especially when we are in an elevated state of terrorist threat.
When we are at Code Yellow, the Department of Homeland Security has determined that we are at a significant risk of terrorist attack.
The bill I am introducing today would suspend these loopholes in our gun safety laws when we are at Code Yellow or above in the interest of homeland security.
The three-day limit on law enforcement is nothing more than a loophole in our laws put there by the gun lobby.
And it's a dangerous loophole--a recent study showed that, from December 1998 to June 2001, nearly 10,000 people who should not have been permitted to buy guns, did receive guns because the three-day period passed before law enforcement could finish a background check.
Our bill will also require that the Federal Government retain records of weapons transactions while we are in an elevated state of alert. There is no reason we should handicap law enforcement during such a dangerous time.
This bill will also close a number of loopholes that have allowed rogue gun dealers to skirt the law. These are the same few gun dealers that are now the subject of lawsuits across the country.
These dangerous loopholes that the gun lobby built into our gun laws now pose a major threat to homeland security.
This bill will help shut down those loopholes. The bill would require gun dealers to: immediately report ``missing'' guns or face suspension of their license; and put appropriate security measures in place to prevent theft of their weapons; and check with the FBI's Stolen Gun Registry to make sure that secondhand weapons they purchase are not stolen.
This bill will also step up enforcement of gun dealers: law enforcement would not be restricted in its ability to inspect dealers. Currently, law enforcement is only allowed one unannounced inspection per year.
The bill will also increase the penalties for violations of gun dealer laws to a felony. Right now, the maximum penalty is only a misdemeanor. It has no teeth.
I know the NRA will cry wolf to gun owners about this bill. But this bill will not affect the vast majority of honest, law abiding Americans who want to purchase guns. This bill focuses on preventing weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists and criminals.
Over 75 percent of background checks are performed in mere minutes. However, there are those purchasers who raise red flags that require further investigation.
Those are red flags we can no longer afford to ignore.
When we are at Code Yellow, everyday Americans are prevented from taking a tour of the White House--but a terrorist can buy weapons.
It makes no sense.
This bill offers Congress a clear choice: protect our homeland or protect the gun lobby.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of my bill, the Homeland Security Gun Safety Act, be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that I hope will take us one step closer to achieving permanent protections for Montana's magnificent Rocky Mountain Front. The Front, as we call it back…
Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today that I hope will take us one step closer to achieving permanent protections for Montana's magnificent Rocky Mountain Front.
The Front, as we call it back home, is part of one of the largest and most intact wild places left in the lower 48. To the North, the Front includes a 200 square mile area known as the Badger-Two Medicine in the Lewis and Clark National Forest. This area sits just south-east of Glacier National Park, one of our greatest national treasures. The Badger-Two Medicine area is sacred ground to the Blackfeet Tribe. In January of 2002, portions of the Badger-Two, known as the Badger-Two Medicine Blackfoot Traditional Cultural District, were declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
South of the Badger-Two, the Front includes a 400 square mile strip of national forest land and about 20 square miles of BLM lands, including three BLM Outstanding Natural Areas.
Not only does the Front still retain almost all its native species, but it also harbors the country's largest bighorn sheep herd and second largest elk herd. The Rocky Mountain Front supports one of the largest populations of grizzly bears south of Canada and is the only place in the lower 48 states where grizzly bears still roam from the mountains to their historic range on the plains.
Because of this exceptional habitat, the Front offers world renowned hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities. Sportsmen, local land owners, hikers, local communities and many other Montanans have worked for decades to protect and preserve the Front for future generations.
In short, a majority of Montanans feel very strongly that oil and gas development, and Montana's Rocky Mountain Front, just don't mix. The habitat is too rich, the landscape too important, to subject it to the roads, drills, pipelines, industrial equipment, chemicals, noise and human activity that come with oil and gas development.
Building upon a significant public and private conservation investment and following an extensive public comment process, the Lewis and Clark National Forest decided in 1997 to withdraw for 15 years 356,000 acres in the Front from any new oil and gas leasing. This was a significant first step in protecting the Front from development that I wholeheartedly supported.
However, in many parts of the Rocky Mountain Front, oil and gas leases exist that pre-date the 1997 decision or are located in the Badger-Two Medicine area, where the lease suspension could be lifted soon. These leaseholders have invested time and resources in acquiring their leases. Several leaseholders have applied to the federal government for permits to drill. These leases are the subject of my proposed bill.
History has shown that energy exploration and development in the Front is likely to result in expensive and time-consuming environmental studies and litigation. This process rarely ends with a solution that is satisfactory to the oil and gas lessee. For example, in the late 1980's both Chevron and Fina applied for permits to drill in the Badger Two Medicine portion of the Front.
After millions of dollars spent on studies and years of public debate, Chevron abandoned or assigned all of its lease rights, and Fina sold its lease rights back to the original owner.
Therefore, I think we should be fair to those leaseholders. We want them to continue to provide for our domestic oil and gas needs, but they are going to have a long, difficult and expensive road if they wish to develop oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain Front.
My legislation would direct the Interior Department to evaluate non- producing leases in the Rocky Mountain Front and look at opportunities to cancel those leases, in exchange for allowing leaseholders to explore for oil and gas somewhere else, namely in the Gulf of Mexico or in the State of Montana. In conducting this evaluation, the Secretary would have to consult with leaseholders, with the State of Montana, the public and other interested parties.
When Interior concludes this study in two years, the bill calls for the agency to make recommendations to Congress and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on the advisability of pursuing lease exchanges in the Front and any changes in law and regulation needed to enable the Secretary to undertake such an exchange.
Finally, in order to allow the Secretary to conduct this study, my bill would continue the current lease suspension in the Badger-Two Medicine Area for three more years. This lease suspension would only apply to the Badger-Two Medicine Area, not the entire Front.
That's it, that's all my bill does. It doesn't predetermine any outcome, it doesn't impact any existing exploration activities or environmental processes. It just creates a process through which the federal government, the people of Montana and leaseholders can finally have a real, open and honest discussion about the fate of the Rocky Mountain Front.
I would also point out that the Administration recently completed an inventory of the onshore oil and gas reserves on federal lands in five basins in the Interior West, including the Rocky Mountain Front, also known as the Montana Thrust Belt. The Administration's study found that this area contains the smallest volumes of oil and gas resources of all five of the Western inventory areas. For example, the mean estimate of all natural gas reserves in the Uinta/Pinceance Basin in Colorado and Utah is 22 trillion cubic feet. In the Front, the mean estimate is only 8.6 trillion cubic feet.
Additionally, the study concluded that in reality, the vast majority of Federal lands in the interior West are available for leasing with few if any restrictions. Although a large percentage of federal lands in the Front are currently unavailable for leasing, many of those lands are unavailable because they lie under Glacier National Park, Indian lands, and already established wilderness areas, which comprise much of the Federal land in the Front. So, not only is the Front relatively poor in terms of oil and gas reserves, many of those reserves--by Congressional mandate, executive order or treaty--will never be available for leasing.
We should look for ways to fairly compensate leaseholders for investments they've made in their leases if they decide to leave the Front rather than waste years and millions fighting to explore for uncertain--and small--oil and gas reserves. A lot of Montanans just don't want to see the Front developed, and they will fight to protect it. Including me.
So, developers can wait years, or decades, or most likely never, for oil and gas to flow from the Front. Or we can look at ways to encourage domestic production much sooner, in much more cost effective, appropriate and efficient ways somewhere else.
That is what I hope this legislation will accomplish Mr. President, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it.
Mr. President, today Senator Specter and I and others introduce the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act of 2003, MICASSA. This legislation is needed to truly bring people…
Mr. President, today Senator Specter and I and others introduce the Medicaid Community-Based Attendant Services and Supports Act of 2003, MICASSA. This legislation is needed to truly bring people with disabilities into the mainstream of society and provide equal opportunity for employment and community activities.
In order to work or live in their own homes, Americans with disabilities and older Americans need access to community-based services and supports. Unfortunately, under current Federal Medicaid policy, the deck is stacked in favor of living in an institution. The purpose of our bill is to level the playing field and give eligible individuals equal access to community-based services and supports.
The Medicaid Community Attendant Services and Supports Act accomplishes four goals.
First, the bill amends Title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide a new Medicaid plan benefit that would give individuals who are currently eligible for nursing home services or an intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded equal access to community-based attendant services and supports.
Second, for a limited time, States would have the opportunity to receive additional funds to support community attendant services and supports and for certain administrative activities. Each State currently gets Federal money for their Medicaid program based on a set percentage. This percentage is the Medicaid match rate. This bill would increase that percentage to provide some additional funding to States to help them reform their long term care systems.
Third, the bill provides States with financial assistance to support ``real choice systems change initiatives'' that include specific action steps to increase the provision of home and community based services.
Finally, the bill establishes a demonstration project to evaluate service coordination and cost sharing approaches with respect to the provision of services and supports for individuals with disabilities under the age of 65 who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.
Some States have already recognized the benefits of home and community based services. Every State offers certain services under home and community based waiver programs, which serve a capped number of individuals with an array of home and community based services to meet their needs and avoid institutionalization. Some States also are now providing the personal care optional benefit through their Medicaid program.
However, despite this market progress, home and community based services are unevenly distributed within and across states and only reach a small percentage of eligible individuals.
Those left behind are often needlessly institutionalize because they cannot access community alternatives. A person with a disability's civil right to be integrated into his or her community should not depend on his or her address. In Olmstead v. LC, the Supreme Court recognized that needless institutionalization is a form of discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act. We in Congress have a responsibility to help States meet their obligations under Olmstead.
This MICASSA legislation is designed to do just that and make the promise of the ADA a reality. It will help rebalance the current Medicaid long term care system, which spends a disproportionate amount on institutional services. For example, in 2000, 49.5 billion dollars were spent on institutional care, compared to 18.2 billion on community based care. In the same year, only 3 States spent 50 percent or more of their long term care funds under the Medicaid program on home and community based care.
And that means that individuals do not have equal access to community based care throughout this country. An individual should not be asked to move to another state in order to avoid needless segregation. They also should not be moved away from family and friends because their only choice is an institution.
For example, I know a young man in Iowa, Ken Kendall, who is currently living in a nursing home because he cannot access home and community based care. Ken was injured in a serious accident at the age of 17 and sustained a spinal chord injury. With the help of community based services covered by his insurance company, Ken could live in his home in Iowa City. Remaining independent made a tremendous difference in his life.
However, several years ago, Ken lost his health insurance and after a time, he went onto Medicaid. As a Medicaid recipient, Ken was only given the option to live in a nursing home in Waterloo, almost two hours from his friends and family in Iowa City. In the nursing home, Ken has become isolated. He is very far from his family and friends and does not have access to transportation. He has not been to a restaurant or a movie since he moved to the nursing home over two years ago. His life has dramatically changed from when he lived in his own apartment and hired his own attendants to care for him. MICASSA would give him that choice again--the choice to control his own life and live a full and meaningful life in his home community surrounded by his friends and family.
Federal Medicaid policy should reflect the consensus reached in the ADA that Americans with Disabilities should have equal opportunity to contribute to our communities and participate in our society as full citizens. That means no one has to sacrifice their full participation in society because they need help getting out of the house in the morning or assistance with personal care or some other basic service.
I am very pleased that the administration has included the Real Choice Systems Change grants in its budget this year at $40 million dollars. Senator Specter and I have supported these grants for several years now. I also applaud the administration's commitment to The President's New Freedom Initiative for People with Disabilities and believe that this legislation helps promote the goals of that initiative.
Community based attendant services and supports allow people with disabilities to lead independent lives, have jobs, and participate in the community. Some will become taxpayers, some will get an education, and some will participate in recreational and civic activities. But all will experience a chance to make their own choices and govern their own lives.
This bill will open the door to full participation by people with disabilities in our workplaces, our economy, and our American Dream, and I urge all my colleagues to support us on this issue. I want to thank Senator Specter for his leadership on this issue and his commitment to improving access to home and community based services for people with disabilities. I would also like to thank Senators Kennedy, Cochran, Biden, Landrieu, Kerry, Corzine, Schumer, and Clinton for joining me in this important initiative.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign to improve disclosure of stock option grants in company financial statements while, at the same time, delaying…
Mr. President, I rise in support of legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign to improve disclosure of stock option grants in company financial statements while, at the same time, delaying the adoption of new accounting standards that could fundamentally distort reported earnings.
I believe that at this time of continued economic weakness it is critical that we take action to both increase transparency and improve corporate governance, without which we cannot hope to restore investor confidence.
The Broad-Based Stock Option Plan Transparency Act would increase the transparency of stock option grants at all levels of public companies, particularly executive compensation, and would provide investors with additional tools to make investment decisions.
Increased disclosure provisions in the bill include: expanded disclosure of the dilutive effect of employee stock options on reported earnings per share; a ``plain English'' discussion of share value dilution, which would allow individual investors to understand the impact of options grants on their investment; more prominent placement and increased comparability of stock option-related footnotes; and a summary of stock options granted to the 5 most highly compensated executives of the company.
These provisions help us fulfill the goal of greater transparency in our markets and improved corporate governance. With passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting reform legislation last summer, we took a major step in that direction, and I believe this bill adds to those achievements.
If individual investors do not feel comfortable with the information reported by public companies or the advice given by banks and other major players in our financial markets, they will not feel comfortable making new investments and our markets are unlikely to recover.
In addition to requiring new disclosure of the impact of employee stock options on a company's earnings per share, this bill also requires the SEC to
monitor the effectiveness of increased disclosure requirements for 3 years.
The bill also specifies that the SEC must examine the impact of broad-based stock option plans on worker productivity and the performance of the firms which use such plans.
As anyone who has spent time in Silicon Valley can attest, the phenomenal achievements of high tech companies in California and across the country would not have been possible without employee stock options.
Stock options give employees a stake in the success of their company and create a degree of employee loyalty, productivity, and achievement that simply would not be possible if cash were the only form of compensation available. Moreover, it has allowed start-ups that are cash-poor to hire and retain talent that might otherwise have been available only to established firms.
A mandatory expensing standard will sharply limit the use of stock options, particularly for rank and file workers, and will slow our economic recovery.
Without a strong high tech sector developing new technologies and bringing new products to market, we cannot hope to return to the robust economic growth of the last decade.
Moreover, mandatory expensing could actually decrease transparency for the average investor. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has indicated it will implement such a rule within the next year, but has not come up with an adequate means of valuing those options for expensing purposes.
The binomial pricing model currently used to value short-term derivatives, also known as Black/Scholes, does not work with the types of long-term, restricted options packages granted to employees. Without an accurate valuation methodology, we risk giving investors a much less accurate picture of a company's financial health than they would have otherwise.
I have spoken with the chief executive officers of a number of companies in my state, including John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, Craig Barrett, CEO of Intel, and Richard Kovacevich, CEO of Wells Fargo. Each one of those corporate leaders has told me that a mandatory expensing standard would lead them to sharply limit the number of options he grants to his employees.
They also told me that it would lead them cut back on hiring and possibly send more jobs abroad. I found those comments disturbing, and they should give us pause and compel us to act prudently. That is why we should support further study of the accounting treatment of stock options, during which period no new accounting rules pertaining tot stock options could be adopted.
I would like to describe briefly the impact of employee stock options on the value of an investor's holdings in the company that granted the option.
In order for employee stock options not to be counted as an expense, they must be set at or above the average closing price of the company's stock during a fixed period. They are also generally restricted, and usually cannot be exercised for several years after their grant date.
Should the value of the underlying shares fall during the life of the option, the options are underwater and are effectively worthless. Should the share price increase, however, the exercise of those options creates no cash charge to the company whatsoever. Instead, it increases the total number of shares outstanding.
To take one concrete example, Cisco Systems recently reported approximately 7.3 billion shares outstanding in their latest annual report. They also reported approximately 600 million options to purchase shares that were ``in the money,'' or had an exercise price below the current share price.
If all those options were exercised, and no shares were repurchased, each share would be entitled to approximately 8 percent less in dividends than before. In fact, the actual dilution would likely be somewhat less.
If options are expensed, however, the impact on Cisco's bottom line would be dramatic, despite the fact that their only tangible impact is on the number of shares outstanding. Had Cisco expensed their stock options for the 2001 fiscal year, their reported profits would have been 171 percent lower. A roughly $1 billion profit would instead have been a nearly $1 billion loss.
Yet the actual value of those options now is almost nil. They were all granted at exercise prices well above the current share price, and may never be exercised.
Options are not a cash expense and represent no tangible exchange of assets. They are a form of incentive pay that may ultimately be worthless. In short, they are nothing like a cash salary.
The legislation introduced by Senators Boxer and Ensign recognizes the need for further study, but does not place an indefinite moratorium on FASB action. It is a balanced bill that will help the average investor and ultimately strengthen our financial markets.
I urge my colleagues to support the Broad-Based Stock Option Transparency Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to express my strong support for the Syria Accountability Act. I commend the…
I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to express my strong support for the Syria Accountability Act. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership and the efforts he has made on this legislation to bring us to this point. Let me also thank my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, for her tireless and effective advocacy of this legislation. I am very pleased this legislation is now pending. I congratulate my colleagues as well as others who have made the effort to bring us to a point where I believe on a strong bipartisan basis this legislation will pass this afternoon.
This day has been a long time coming. We have heard administration officials argue that this straightforward response to the behavior of the Syrian Government reduces the President's flexibility to deal with the ``bigger picture.'' We believe that it is not only morally right, but will actually strengthen the President's hand in explaining the ``big picture'' to the Syrians.
Had our years of entreaties to the Syrians not fallen on deaf ears, and had promises from Syria over the last several years not turned out to be little
more than empty rhetoric, this bill might not have been necessary.
However, it appears to many of us that the point where we can continue to sit back and hope for Syria to change course has passed. The time has come to show Syria that continued inaction will no longer be tolerated and will come at a price.
The behavior we seek from Syria is not different than what we expect of every other country in the world community--an end to its support for terrorism, and enforcement of its own international agreements and United Nations Security Council resolutions.
Syria simply has failed one too many times to live up to these obligations, and this legislation backs up our hopes for Syrian compliance along with the very real threat of sanctions.
The Syria Accountability Act holds Syria accountable for its behavior by imposing sanctions unless the Syrian Government certifies that: It is no longer providing support for terrorists and terrorism; it has withdrawn all of its military and intelligence personnel from Lebanon; it has ceased its attempts to produce, acquire, or transfer weapons of mass destruction; and it has ended its support for terrorists in Iraq.
I am pleased with the bipartisan process that produced this landmark legislation, and I especially want to commend Senator Levin for his leadership in ensuring that the President maintains the maximum flexibility to wisely wield the tools created by H.R. 1828. The national security waiver, which allows the President to waive certain sanctions if they are deemed counterproductive to U.S. security interests, will allow our government to effectively press for reform in Syria without endangering our efforts in the global war against terrorism.
There are three reasons we need to pass this unambiguous statement of U.S. intent.
First, as remarkable as it is to imagine, the Government of Syria still provides safe haven and material support for some of the most objectionable terrorist organizations in the world.
Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PIJ, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Abu Musa Organization, and the Popular Struggle Front all maintain offices in Damascus. Members of the Syrian Government have, on occasion, condoned suicide bombings against civilians within Israel, calling them legitimate military operations.
Syria alternates between defending these offices in Damascus as solely for press purposes, uninvolved in the conduct of terrorist attacks, and promising they will shut the offices down. To date, its promises have amounted to nothing. Meanwhile, its defense of these offices is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. It is simply not acceptable to provide support for an office whose sole purpose is to call attention to, and encourage support for, attacks on innocent civilians.
Moreover, reports indicate that planning for the recent and horrendous attack at a restaurant frequented by Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs in Haifa is connected to offices in Damascus.
We are also beginning to learn from the intelligence community that Syria may have allowed military equipment and personnel to flow into Iraq on the eve of and during the war, both of which were used against our troops in that country.
Although the administration reports that the situation on the Syria- Iraq border is ``improving,'' the international community should expect nothing but full cooperation from Syria on something so basic as stopping the flow of terrorists through its territory.
Second, in signing the 1994 Taif Accords, Syria pledged itself to the ``security and independence of Lebanon.'' To date, it has helped with neither. Instead, it continues to support the Lebanese Hezbollah and undermine the democratic aspirations of the people of Lebanon by occupying that country.
In 1999, Israel withdrew its forces from southern Lebanon after being told by the international community that doing so would increase its security. Cynically, Syria exploited the resulting security vacuum and permitted attacks on Israel from that region, all in contravention of Security Council Resolution 425. It is especially disappointing that we have to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to call on a member of the United Nations Security Council to enforce its own resolutions.
Third, the Syria Accountability Act--a clear statement of America's resolve--should help put an end to the series of mixed signals coming from the Bush administration. Over the course of the last 3 years, we have heard various policies from the different spokes-people for different agencies of the U.S. Government. In fact, we have even heard competing policies and concerns from offices within the same State Department.
As I said at the beginning, I wish this bill were not necessary. Unfortunately, we all recognize that it has become necessary. This bill will make clear to Syria what we expect of it. If it is not willing to end its support for terrorism or uphold its agreements, it should not be accepted as a full partner in the international community.
I urge adoption of the legislation and again congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I am voting for the Syria Accountability Act because I believe it is important to call attention to Syria's continuing military occupation of Lebanon in violation of international law,…
Mr. President, I am voting for the Syria Accountability Act because I believe it is important to call attention to Syria's continuing military occupation of Lebanon in violation of international law, and its support for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah, that are responsible for ongoing, deadly incursions into Israel.
It is well established that the Syrian Government rules through fear and repression. Torture by Syrian security forces is routine. The denial of basic human rights has been widely documented. We should condemn these policies.
And there are allegations that Syria supplied Iraqi forces with military equipment, which the Secretary of Defense has described as hostile acts against the United States.
The United States is justified in seeking to apply political and economic pressure on Syria in an effort to change its policies. That said, there are some aspects of this legislation that I do not support, and I want to take a moment to discuss them as I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about my vote. Most importantly, I do not want my vote for this legislation to be cited as an endorsement for military action against Syria.
For examples, Section 4, entitled ``Statement of Policy,'' says that it is the policy of the United State that ``the United States shall impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction.'' I doubt that anyone disagrees that we should try to do that. But by what means? Will support for this legislation be cited at some point in the future by the administration, or others, as a green light for launching a unilateral, military attack to ``impede Syria's ability to support acts of international terrorism?'' That is precisely what was done by the White House when it cited resolutions passed a decade ago to justify a unilateral attack against Iraq years later, even though that was not what many, if any of us who supported those resolutions intended at the time. Over and over again, the administration, in an effort to justify their precipitous use of force against Iraq, cited passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 as evidence that Congress supported the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. What the administration kept omitting in numerous public statements is that one section of that act made clear that nothing in the act was to be construed as authorizing the use of U.S. military force against Iraq. I am concerned that the Syria Accountability Act could be distorted in a similar way. I do not support military action against Syria, and I am in no way endorsing such action by voting for this legislation today.
The same can be said of the statement that it is the policy of the United States that ``efforts against Hezbollah will be expanded given the recognition that Hezbollah is equally or more capable than al Qaeda.'' First, I do not know if it is true that Hezbollah is ``equally or more capable than al Qaeda.'' Perhaps it is. I don't know, and I doubt the authors of this legislation can be certain that it is, especially given the difficulties we have had in obtaining reliable information about these organizations. In any event, while I might support expanded efforts against Hezbollah, it would depend on what those efforts are. For example, I am not in favor of sending U.S. troops to Lebanon to engage in combat against Hezbollah. I do not want my vote today to be construed as supporting any expanded efforts against Hezbollah regardless of what they might be.
Similarly, the legislation states that it is United States policy that ``Syria will be held accountable for any harm to Coalition armed forces or to any U.S. citizens in Iraq if the Government of Syria is found to be responsible due to its facilitation of terrorist activities and its shipments of military supplies to Iraq.'' Syria should be held accountable. But in what way? The legislation, once again, is silent. My support for efforts to hold Syria accountable, should
the evidence warrant it, depends on what those efforts are.
Finally, the legislation says that it is the policy of the united States that ``the United States will not provide any assistance to Syria and will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria ends all support for terrorism, withdraws it armed forces from Lebanon, and halts the development and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and medium- and long-range surface-to-surface ballistic missiles.'' We all want Syria to do those things, and I am not in favor of providing assistance to the Syrian Government. But this legislation goes farther. It purports to cut off any assistance to the Syrian people, even through private voluntary organizations. I do not believe in punishing the citizens of a country simply because their government is corrupt or abusive, so I have concerns about this provision.
There are also aspects of Section 5 of the legislation, entitled ``Penalties and Authorization,'' which concern me. For example, among the sanctions that the President could impose are a prohibition on U.S. businesses from investing or operating in Syria. It is not obvious to me how this will penalize the Syrian Government, but it will hurt U.S. businesses. While the record is mixed, there are examples of U.S. businesses contributing to social, economic and even political change in other repressive countries.
Of more concern is that the legislation encourages the President to reduce U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria. I am uneasy with this approach, as I believe we should consider expanding our diplomacy and people-to-people contacts with Syria. It is in our interest to promote dialogue with a country with which we have such profound differences, and which poses a military threat to Israel. Reducing those contacts could further misunderstanding and exacerbate tensions between us. It is also worth mentioning that after the September 11 attacks, Syria reportedly cooperated with the United States in intelligence sharing about al-Qaida.
I do not believe this legislation will persuade Syria to do any of the things we want it to do. I am aware that the Administration has opposed it in the past. This legislation seems to start us down a road of intensifying tensions between the U.S. and Syria without a clear end game other than invading Syria, which I do not support and I doubt many other Senators support. However, I agree that Syria's support for terrorism and its violations of human rights deserve condemnation, and I will vote for this legislation with the caveats I have mentioned.
Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Indiana for working very closely with Senator Boxer and me on this very important piece of legislation, which is a very timely piece of legislation. The…
Mr. President, I, too, thank the Senator from Indiana for working very closely with Senator Boxer and me on this very important piece of legislation, which is a very timely piece of legislation.
The House passed this legislation a few months ago and sent it over here. We have been working diligently with both Senator Lugar and Senator Biden, and they have been most cooperative in working with the administration to craft a bill that I think meets some of the concerns the administration has, some of the concerns the committee has experienced in dealing with sanctions bills, and particularly the issue of the waiver authority of the President.
The House-passed bill did not allow the President to waive sanctions on military or dual-use items--``dual use'' meaning they could be used for civilian or military purposes. I think the chairman of the committee rightly expressed concern about that, that the precedent generally is that the President have waiver authority in the case of vital national security interests or national security interests.
We negotiated as to what that standard should be. We obviously wanted the highest level of scrutiny before the President could waive that which would be vital national security interests. The lowest level would just be sort of a national interest test. And we compromised on a national security interest waiver. It is sort of a midlevel, if you will, waiver authority or waiver standard. We think that is appropriate here for all of the items, all of the potential sanctions that may be imposed by the President under this act.
So the President, under the revised bill we have before us, does impose sanctions, but it gives the President the flexibility to waive. But he has a threshold he must meet and make the case that that threshold is made in order to waive these sanctions. So we give the President the hammer that I think is necessary and that so many have talked about here.
Syria is a bad actor in the region. It is part of the ``axis of evil,'' in my opinion. It is a country that sponsors terrorism, that supports terrorism, that encourages terrorism, not only against American interests, not only against Israel, but it is occupying, through setting up these terrorist organizations, as well as their own military force, what was a very moderate and progressive Arab country, Lebanon.
That is a heinous act, and I find it somewhat remarkable that the rest of the Arab world does not continue to condemn it and do what we do: try to ratchet up the pressure on Syria to get
out of Lebanon, to allow the people in Lebanon to determine their own government and to freely elect people who could serve the best interests of the Lebanese people, not the dictator in Damascus.
So we have, really, a purpose beyond our national security interest, although I would argue that a free and prosperous Lebanon--and given the history of that country, and being a bridge between the Middle East and West--that would be a very stabilizing presence in the Middle East, to have a country with a democratically elected government, and not being the threat Lebanon now poses, not because of the people themselves but because of the terrorists who reside in southern Lebanon, because of the other heinous acts that are conducted by the terrorist groups based in Lebanon that they project throughout the world.
This is a very important issue for national security. It is a very important issue for the peace in the Middle East.
I am very gratified that the Senate could come to a conclusion on this bill and bring it to the floor of the Senate and have it pass on a day when we honor our veterans, as we should. We had people fight and lose their lives in Lebanon, and they did so bravely and courageously. But I have to say, it was not one of the proudest moments for me as an American to see our troops withdraw from Lebanon and not stay there to fight another day, with the oppression Syria was imposing upon that country.
This is a chance for us to begin the process of reengaging in Lebanon, reengaging the Syrians who have been nothing but trouble and fomenting trouble throughout the Middle East and being disruptive of the peace process in the Middle East.
I say to the Senator from Indiana, thank you for the time. Thank you for your willingness to bring this bill to the floor and to move this bill forward.
I will enter into a colloquy with Senator Boxer to discuss our desire and our hope that the President not immediately think about waiving these provisions; that he think carefully about any kind of waiver; that we try to impose some sanctions and send a message. Given the activities of the Syrians in the Middle East and the activities of Syria in Iraq, it is such an important and relevant discussion, that the President use these sanctions that are available to him for him to do so.
Mr. President, I wish to enter into a colloquy with my colleague, Senator Boxer of California, concerning the waiver authority extended to the President for the sanctions contained in the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003.
Mr. President, as the original cosponsor of the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003, I want to clarify the bill's intent with the original sponsors, Senator Boxer. Is it the Senator's understanding that--given the seriousness of the charges against the Syrian regime and the fact that the highest levels of the U.S. Government have already made it clear that there will be consequences to the Syrians if there is no change in their behavior-- the national security waiver contained in the bill is meant to address only those circumstances where United States national security interests are indeed severely threatened?
Show 11 more
Since September 11, the bar for assistance in our war against terrorism has been raised, and the Syrian Government is no longer entitled to a free pass. The United States must no longer allow Syria…
Since September 11, the bar for assistance in our war against terrorism has been raised, and the Syrian Government is no longer entitled to a free pass. The United States must no longer allow Syria to get away with taking with the right hand what it gives with the left.
Unfortunately, the Government of Syria remains an obstacle to peace in Iraq, settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--indeed, Syria has rebuffed repeated Israeli offers to make peace between Israel and Syria--democratic development and sovereignty for the Lebanese people, regional security, and the protection of human rights of the Syrian people themselves.
There is no doubt that Syria actively supports international terrorism. The evidence supporting this contention is overwhelming:
The U.S. State Department has certified Syria on its list of state sponsors of terrorism continuously since the 1970s. Syria's dubious company on this list includes Hussein's Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Communist Cuba.
Syria provides material support and safe haven to numerous international terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Islamic Jihad.
Syria allows terrorist groups to maintain training camps on Syrian soil. Indeed, in October, after a terrorist bombing in Haifa, Israel retaliated against a known Islamic Jihad terrorist training camp near Damascus.
Syrian-controlled southern Lebanon is a haven for anti-Israel terrorists and a staging ground for terrorist rocket attacks against Northern Israel.
Syria has facilitated the transfer of military equipment from Iran to terrorists operating in Syria-controlled Lebanon.
Syria maintains a robust chemical weapons program, raising the risk that Syria could transfer such weapons to terrorists.
In addition to Syria's long-time efforts to support the deadly aims of international terrorist groups, its government has played a decidedly unhelpful role in regional security. Most notably, the Syrian Government illegally collaborated with the Hussein regime to circumvent United Nations resolutions and has worked to undermine Iraqi democracy in the wake of the liberation of that country.
Although Syria voted for the recent U.N. resolution on Iraq, ostensibly expressing its support for the reconstruction of a free and democratic Iraq, Syria has used nearly every other opportunity to undermine the American-led coalition's efforts to liberate the people of that country from the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, recent media reports indicate that Syria may have accepted and hidden Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion.
In addition, there are credible reports that Syria provided material support to Iraqi troops during the war and currently provides safe haven to former Hussein regime officials and loyalists. U.S. investigators have located $3 billion hidden by the Hussein regime in Syrian banks, and Syria has refused to return this money to its rightful owners: the people of Iraq.
During the 1990s, Syria repeatedly defied U.N. sanctions against Iraq by participating in enormous black market purchases of oil from the Saddam Hussein regime. The proceeds from these sales directly supported Hussein's military regime and opulent lifestyle.
Syria has not acted sufficiently to curb cross-border movement of foreign terrorists, including a significant number of Syrian nationals, into Iraq. Indeed, in some circumstances, the Syrian Government appears to have facilitated their migration to that country; Syrian passports have been found in the possession of international terrorists arrested by the U.S. military there. These terrorists seek to wage jihad against American troops and undermine democracy in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
In addition to Syria's unhelpful polices in Iraq, it remains a spoiler for the development of peace and democracy in Lebanon, a country it has forcibly occupied for decades. Its military occupation of Lebanon undermines Lebanese efforts to create a sovereign democratic state and furthers instability in the region. Syria, a dictatorship, wields considerable political control in Lebanon, thereby distorting Lebanon's officially democratic process and making that country a de facto puppet state of the Syrian Government.
Unconditional U.S. engagement of Syria has failed to encourage true moderation in Damascus; a new approach is necessary to encourage the Syrians to cooperate or face the consequences. Other Arab governments who say one thing and do another--such as Egypt--would be wise to pay attention to the congressional debate about, and support for, the Syrian Accountability Act.
I believe the Syrian Accountability Act will give the administration the tools it needs to highlight to the Syrian Government the risk of choosing the wrong side in the global war against terrorism. The Syrian Government has an opportunity to reform itself, to provide its people with the economic and political freedoms they seek, to end its support for murderous terrorist organizations, and to become a proponent of peace in the Middle East.
If Syria's leaders decide to embark on a moderate and peaceful path, it will find the United States to be a benevolent and helpful ally. But if it continues to support international terrorism, Syria's leaders will find themselves international pariahs, with fewer resources or friends to help them maintain their increasingly tenuous grip on power.
I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) are necessarily absent.
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of…
Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Syria Accountability Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor of the Senate companion. Syria is listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism, and yet fewer U.S. sanctions apply to Syria than to any other country on the list. This Act will authorize a range of sanctions against Syria, prohibiting exports to Syria of dual-use items and requiring the President to choose from a set of other sanctions, including prohibitions on exports of most U.S. goods to Syria and on American investment in Syria, restrictions on Syrian diplomats in the United States and on U.S. diplomatic contacts with Syria, prohibitions on Syrian aircraft in the United States, and blocking of transactions in Syrian government property.
These sanctions are appropriate, and, in my view, long overdue. Despite recent U.S. efforts to engage in dialogue with Syria, Damascus has refused to renounce its support for terrorism. It provides terrorist organizations with political and material support. It has turned away from negotiations with Israel. And it continues to occupy southern Lebanon, where its forces destabilize the Middle East by supporting Hezbollah and undermining Lebanese sovereignty.
Syria acts as the safe haven for a broad array of terrorist organizations and Palestinian groups committed to the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command are all active in Damascus. The Syrian government has not only refused to sever ties with these organizations; it has defended their use of Syrian territory to disseminate propaganda that attacks Israel, thereby undermining efforts to bring peace to the region. Worse, the offices maintained by these groups provide operational support for terrorist activities, notwithstanding the Syrian government's claims that they are engaged only in political and informational activities. These activities include the deadly and despicable suicide bombings, conducted by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against civilians in Israel.
Syria is also a supporter of Hezbollah, which is responsible for the killing of hundreds of Americans and is one of the biggest obstacles to our efforts to combat global terrorism. Throughout much of southern Lebanon, occupying Syrian forces support and protect Hezbollah, allowing it to deploy thousands of rockets that threaten Israel and destabilize the region, and to launch attacks against civilian targets in Israel civilian areas. Syria also permits Hezbollah to receive assistance from Iran.
The Syrian occupation of Lebanon represents a long-standing threat to stability in the Middle East. While Syria has reduced its forces in recent years, it still maintains as many as 20,000 troops and security personnel in Lebanon. In addition to harboring Hezbollah, those forces exert undue influence in Lebanon and prevent the Lebanese government from deploying its own troops to southern Lebanon, as required by U.N. Security Council Resolution 520. It is long past time for Syrian forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for Lebanon to cease to be a refuge for terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah.
Syria has not moderated its unrelenting hostility to Israel, nor has it demonstrated a commitment to negotiations. Moreover, it has used its position on the world stage and within the Arab world to undermine efforts to bring peace and stability to the region. As a frequent sponsor of U.N. resolutions related to the conflict in the Middle East, Syria has consistently promoted a perspective that castigates Israeli security measures without condemning the terrorist threat faced by Israel.
While I have long supported this act and welcome its passage, I believe that our ability to influence Syria's behavior and deter its support for terrorism also requires a multilateral strategy. The effect of this act will unfortunately be limited by the lack of support for sanctions against Syria among our friends and allies. It is critical that the administration demonstrate global leadership on this issue as well as other aspects of the war on terrorism. By reaching out to the international community and by appealing to our common interest in curtailing global terrorism and achieving peace in the Middle East, we can ensure that the sanctions we are imposing today are truly effective.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will simplify and update a provision of the tax code that affects the sale of timber. It is both a simplification measure and a fairness…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation which will simplify and update a provision of the tax code that affects the sale of timber. It is both a simplification measure and a fairness measure. I call it the Timber Tax Simplification Act.
Under current law, landowners that are occasional sellers of timer are often classified by the Internal Revenue Service as ``dealers.'' As a result, the small landowner is forced to choose, because of the tax code, between two different methods of selling their timber. The first method, ``lump sum sales provides for good business practice but is subjected to a high income tax. The second method ``pay-as-cut'' sales, allows for lower capital gains tax treatment, but often results in an underrealization of the fair value of the contract. Why, one might ask, do these conflicting incentives exist for our Nation's timber growers?
Ealier in this century, outright, or ``lump sum,'' sales on a cash in advance, sealed basis, were associated with a ``cut and run'' mentality that did not promote good forest management. ``Pay-as-cut sales,'' however, in which a timber owner is only paid for timber that is harvested, were associated with ``enlighted'' resource management. Consequently, in 1943, Congress, in an effect to provide an incentive for improved forest management, passed legislation that allowed capital gains treatment under 631(b) of the IRS Code for pay-as-cut sales, leaving lump-sum sales to pay the much higher rate of income tax. It is said that President Roosevelt opposed the bill and almost vetoed it.
Today, however, Section 631(b) like so many provisions in the IRS Code, is outdated. Forest management practices are much different from what they were in 1943 and lump-sum sales are no longer associated with poor forest management. And while there are occasional special situations where other methods may be more appropriate, most timber owners prefer this method over the ``pay-as-cut'' method. The reasons are simple: title to the timber is transferred upon the closing of the sale and the buyer assumes the risk of any physical loss of timber to fire, insects, disease, storms, etc. Furthermore, the price to be paid for the timber is determined and received at the time of the sale.
Unfortunately, in order for timber owners to qualify for the favorable capital gains treatment, they must market their timber on a ``pay-as-cut'' basis under Section 631(b) which requires timber owners to sell their timber with a ``retained economic interest.'' This means that the timber owner, not the buyer, must bear the risk of any physical loss during the timber sale contract period and must be paid only for the timber that is actually harvested. As a result, this type of sale can be subject to fraud and abuse by the timber buyer. Since the buyer pays only for the timber that is removed and scaled, there is an incentive to waste poor quality timber by breaking the tree during the logging process, underscaling the timber, or removing the timber without scaling. But because 631(b) provides for the favorable tax treatment, many timber owners are forced into exposing themselves to unnecessary risk of loss by having to market their timber in this disadvantageous way instead of the more preferable lump-sum method.
Like many of the provisions in the tax code, Section 631(b) is outdated and prevents good forestry business management. Timber farmers, who have usually spent decades producing their timber ``crop,'' should be able to receive equal tax treatment regardless of the method used for marketing their timber.
In the past, the Joint Committee on Taxation has studied this legislation to consider what impact it might have on the Treasury and found that it would have no real cost--only a ``negligible change'' according to their analysis.
The IRS has no business stepping in and dictating the kind of sales contract a landowner must choose. My legislation will provide greater consistency by removing the exclusive ``retained economic interest'' requirement in the IRC Section 631(b). Reform of 631(b) is important to our Nation's non-industrial, private landowners because it will improve the economic viability of their forestry investments and protect the taxpayer from unnecessary exposure to risk of loss. This in turn will benefit the entire forest products industry, the U.S. economy and especially small landowners.
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid and others in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003. This bill would establish research centers…
Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator Harry Reid and others in introducing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003. This bill would establish research centers that would be the first in the Nation to specifically study the environmental factors that may be related to the development of breast cancer. The lack of agreement within the scientific community and among breast cancer advocates on this question highlights the need for further study.
It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2003 will enable us to conduct more conclusive and comprehensive research to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer. Before we can find the answers, we must determine the right questions we should be asking.
While more research is being conducted into the relationship between breast cancer and the environment, there are still several issues that must be resolved to make this research more effective. They are as follows:
There is no known cause of breast cancer. There is little agreement in the scientific community on how the environment affects breast cancer. While studies have been conducted on the links between environmental factors like pesticides, diet, and electromagnetic fields, no consensus has been reached. There are other factors that have not yet been studied that could provide valuable information. While there is much speculation, it is clear that the relationship between environmental exposures and breast cancer is poorly understood.
There are challenges in conducting environmental research. Identifying linkages is difficult. Laboratory experiments and cluster analyses, such as those in Long Island, New York, cannot reveal whether an environmental exposure increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. Epidemiological studies must be designed carefully, because environmental exposures are difficult to measure.
Coordination between the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Cancer Institute, NCI, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS, needs to occur. NCI and NIEHS are the two institutes in the NIH that fund most of the research related to breast cancer and the environment; however, comprehensive information is not currently available.
This legislation would establish eight Centers of Excellence to study these potential links. These ``Breast Cancer Environmental Research Centers'' would provide for multi-disciplinary research among basic, clinical, epidemiological and behavioral scientists interested in establishing outstanding, state-of-the-art research programs addressing potential links between the environment and breast cancer. The NIEHS would award grants based on a competitive peer-review process. This legislation would require each Center to collaborate with community organizations in the area, including those that represent women with breast cancer. The bill would authorize $30 million for the next five years for these grants.
``Genetics loads the gun, the environment pulls the trigger,'' as Ken Olden, the Director of NIEHS, frequently says. Many scientists believe that certain groups of women have genetic variations that may make them more susceptible to adverse environmental exposures. We need to step back and gather evidence before we come to conclusions--that is the purpose of this bill. People are hungry for information, and there is a lot of inconclusive data out there, some of which has no scientific merit whatsoever. We have the opportunity through this legislation to gather legitimate and comprehensive data from premier research institutions across the nation.
According to the American Cancer Society, each year 800 women in Rhode Island are diagnosed with breast cancer, and 200 women in my state will die of this terrible disease this year. We owe it to these women who are diagnosed with this life-threatening disease to provide them with answers for the first time.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and cosponsoring this important legislation, and ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to mint a commemorative coin celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA in 2007.…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Allen, to mint a commemorative coin celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, VA in 2007.
The lasting significance of Jamestown stretches far beyond its contributions to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our Nation is indebted to the 104 original inhabitants of Jamestown who, after completing a harrowing journey across the Atlantic in May of 1607, established the first permanent English settlement in America.
The legacies of Jamestown extend from the founding of our representative democracy in which we serve today, to the free market enterprise system on which our economy has flourished. Our unshakeable traditions of common law, agricultural production, manufacturing, and our free market economy received their humble beginnings from the entrepreneurial spirit of the Jamestown colonists.
The colonists established and implemented the principles of a representative government to build our American democracy that has withstood the test of time and internal conflict. The Jamestown settlers elected America's first democratic assembly, the Virginia House of Burgesses. The structure and procedures of this first legislative body still resonates in the chamber we serve in today. Our political philosophies and traditions took hold in the untamed landscape of Jamestown Island and remain the cornerstone of our republic today.
Jamestown also marked the beginning of the American cultural identity, hosting a combination of diverse cultural traditions. The settlement united English, Native American, and African cultures compelling each one to learn valuable lessons from the others. The colonists at Jamestown were the first immigrants to travel to America, making us a nation of immigrants of which we are so proud today.
The colony at Jamestown showcased the triumph of American ingenuity and hard work. Colonists at Jamestown were forced to battle starvation, disease, and the weather of their new home. Life in Jamestown was a struggle, and the determination shown by the colonists set the foundation for the revolutionary ideas that guided Americans through the colonial era.
Now 395 years later, the history of our Nation continues to come alive in Jamestown. Since 1994, archaeologists have found the remains of the original Jamestown fort constructed in 1607 and over 350,000 artifacts from the colonial period. These fascinating discoveries have given scholars, visitors, and most importantly, America's young people, a realistic view of 17th century American life. The continuing restoration and discovery of the original Jamestown colony provides all Americans with a window on their roots, and to the foundation on which this great Nation was built.
The proceeds from this commemorative coin will help both the National Park Service and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities continue their research at the Jamestown site, complete necessary construction projects at the Jamestown National Park, and provide funds for events surrounding the 400th anniversary celebration. In addition, this legislation would help ensure that the Jamestown Rediscovery project will have adequate funds to continue educating the American public on our colonial history. In the 106th Congress, the House and Senate created the Jamestown 400th Commemoration Commission to ensure that the anniversary in 2007 is a truly national event. This legislation that I introduce today continues along this same line.
Recent events have brought about a renewed reverence and interest in our nation's history among the American people. This legislation would help bring national attention to this important anniversary and would serve as a fitting tribute to America's first permanent settlers. This event celebrates America's colonial history and gives every American a chance to help support America's Hometown, Jamestown, VA.
I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join me in supporting our Nation's and Virginia's colonial traditions with this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in wishing a happy birthday to Senator Boxer. I also thank Senator Boxer and Senator Santorum for their tenaciousness in…
Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee in wishing a happy birthday to Senator Boxer. I also thank Senator Boxer and Senator Santorum for their tenaciousness in advancing this bill. It is long overdue and it is to be celebrated by all of us.
Senator Lugar, Senator Biden, and the Foreign Relations Committee have worked this bill into a condition where we can bring it to the floor, giving the President sufficient discretion, and make clear that we will continue to engage in diplomacy with the Syrians but we are going to do it on a more realistic basis, a basis that has consequences, a basis that deals with facts, not fantasy, and truly makes progress in the Middle East.
It is a matter of historical record that for a long time, several decades now, the Syrians have occupied the nation of Lebanon, their smaller neighbor to their west. In the course of that, whatever their motives were for going in, they have stayed there for gain. They have denied democracy to the Lebanese people, they have denied them self- determination, and they have been responsible for keeping the breach and the wound alive in Lebanon.
But as it relates to this bill, I also have to take note of the fact it is Veterans Day. We thank our veterans. We celebrate our veterans. We owe them a great debt.
As we think of yesterday's veterans, I am reminded of today's veterans, many of whom, from the State of Oregon, are in Iraq now and who are in harm's way for the cause of American liberty and the safety of the American people and our allies in the ongoing war on terrorism. The truth is, much that is aimed at them today comes from Syria. It comes from car bombers holding Syrian passports. Indeed, just the other day we learned the car bomb that was interdicted and the person pulled out of the car that was filled with explosives was from Syria. Syria maintains a porous border with Iraq that simply cannot remain as it is because if it does, it will mean the death of more of our soldiers. We want them home and we want them safe.
There is more than a porous border that concerns me with Syria. It is the fact that Syria provides a safe harbor, indeed a safe haven, a heaven, if you will, for terrorists. For those who conspire to murder on a massive scale, Syria gives them a place to stay, gives them protection, and a place to hide their money and their weapons before they can bring them into conflict with American soldiers. Who knows what also may be there from the arsenals of Saddam Hussein. Who knows what weapons of mass destruction may even be there as well.
All of this needs to end. Our President needs to have the tools, the diplomatic tools necessary to prosecute the case with Syria in a way that gets us beyond the status quo because the status quo is unacceptable and the status quo is deadly and the status quo has to be over. I join with Republicans and Democrats alike today in urging passage of the Syria Accountability Act, for the sake of our country, for the sake of the Middle East, for the sake of Muslims, for the sake of Jews, for the sake of Christians, and all who have suffered much.
The road to Damascus has brought so much murder, so much conspiracy, so much weaponry, so much blood money that has been used against the peace process and those who are the advocates of a peaceful resolution in the Middle East.
It is a matter of Scriptural record that a man named Saul on the road to Damascus once saw an awful lot of light, changed his way, and even changed his name. We know him today as the Apostle Paul. What we need now on the road to Damascus is a lot more light because all we have been getting is so much darkness. We need a new beginning with Syria. The President needs a new authority against Syria. This bill is crafted in a way that is helpful diplomatically so we can avoid hostilities. But let us have the courage in this war on terrorism to go where the facts take us. Let us all pray it does not take us down the road to Damascus, but we have to be realistic.
This bill is a very good start. I urge the Senate to adopt it today by a very large margin.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, a bipartisan piece of legislation of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. The time has come for the Senate…
Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, a bipartisan piece of legislation of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.
The time has come for the Senate to send a strong message to Syria that its support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its development of weapons of mass destruction are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
This legislation, introduced by my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer, and Senator Santorum provides the President with maximum flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria subject to a national security waiver.
Specifically, it requires that sanctions be imposed on Syria unless the President certifies that Syria: is not providing support for international terrorists; has withdrawn all military, intelligence, and other security personnel from Lebanon; has ceased the production, development, acquisition, or transfer of weapons of mass destruction and long range ballistic missiles, and; has ceased support for terrorist activities inside of Iraq.
If the President does not make such a certification, the bill requires the President to prohibit the export to Syria of military items and dual use technology and impose two or more sanctions from a list of options including: prohibiting the export of products of the United States--other than food and medicine--to Syria; prohibiting United States businesses from investing or operating in Syria; restricting the travel of Syrian diplomats in Washington, D.C. and New York; and reducing diplomatic contacts with Syria.
I, for one, believe that sanctions should be imposed only as a last resort and that all avenues should be explored to change another state's behavior before taking such action.
With regard to Syria, Congress has passed numerous resolutions calling on Syria to change its ways and Republican and Democratic administrations alike have made it clear that Syria's actions are wholly inconsistent with a peace-loving and productive member of the international community.
Nevertheless, words have not achieved the results we are looking for and as a result, we must take further substantive action.
Syria's behavior and actions leave a lot to be desired and have severely hindered the Arab-Israeli peace process.
First, it continues to be listed as a state sponsor of terrorism by the State Department and is reported by the Secretary of State to provide ``safe haven and support to several terrorist groups'' including Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Despite repeated calls by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Syria cease its support for terrorism and close the facilities and offices of these groups, it has refused to do so.
Second, for over 20 years Syria has ignored United Nations Security Council resolutions and has failed to withdraw completely from Lebanon, maintaining 20,000 troops and security personnel in that sovereign country. The presence of those troops restricts the political independence of Lebanon and harms relations between Israel and Lebanon.
Finally, Syria has continued its development and deployment of short and medium range ballistic missiles and biological and chemical weapons. It has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention and has one of the largest missile inventories in the Middle East. It is reported to have three production facilities for chemical weapons and has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin.
In the post-September 11 world, we all understand the dangers posed by states who sponsor terror and seek weapons of mass destruction.
I had hoped that Syria would realize that it is in its best interests to turn a new page in its relations with the United States and the international community and cease its support for terror, withdraw from Lebanon, and halt its pursuit of chemical and biological weapons.
It has not done so and it is time for the United States Senate to respond. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Deformities Act of 2003, which will require insurance companies to cover corrective surgeries for children with congenital or developmental…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Deformities Act of 2003, which will require insurance companies to cover corrective surgeries for children with congenital or developmental deformities.
According to the March of Dimes, 3.8 percent of babies born annually--about 150,000 babies per year suffer from birth defects. Approximately 50,000 of these babies require reconstructive surgery. Examples of these deformities include cleft lip, cleft palate, skin lesions, vascular anomalies, malformations of the ear, hand, or foot, and other more profound craniofacial deformities.
Plastic surgeons are able to correct many of these problems, and doing so is critical to both the physical and mental health and development of the child. On average, children with congenital deformities or developmental anomalies will need three to five surgical procedures before normalcy is achieved. An increasing number of insurance companies are denying access
to care by labeling the surgical procedures cosmetic or nonfunctional in nature. In some cases, carriers may provide coverage for initial procedures, but resist covering later, necessary procedures, claiming that they are cosmetic and not medically necessary.
Although insurance companies ultimately have decided to cover some of these procedures, families have had to battle through the appeals process of insurance companies for extended periods of time, thereby forcing children to wait unnecessarily for needed surgeries. The treatment plan for children with congenital defects usually requires staged surgical care in accordance with the child's growth pattern. Onerous and time-consuming appeals procedures can jeopardize the physical and psychological health of children with deformities.
The American Medical Association defines cosmetic surgery as being performed to reshape normal structures of the body in order to improve the patient's appearance and self-esteem. In contrast, reconstructive surgery is defined as being performed on abnormal structures of the body, caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease. According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, reconstructive surgery is performed in order to improve function and approximate a normal appearance.
The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 will prohibit insurers from denying coverage for reconstructive surgery for children. This bill identifies the difference between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery and incorporates the American Medical Association's definition of reconstructive surgery. The measure requires group and individual health insurers and group health plans to provide coverage for treatment of a minor child's congenital or developmental deformity, disease, or injury. The legislation defines ``treatment'' to include reconstructive surgical procedures. These are procedures that are performed on abnormal structures of the body caused by congenital defects, developmental abnormalities, trauma, infection, tumors, or disease.
The Treatment of Children's Deformities Act of 2003 has been endorsed by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and several other medical organizations. Fifteen States have already enacted legislation that to different degrees require insurance companies to cover treatment of craniofacial and congenital anomalies. While governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed into law legislation that is similar to the legislation I introduce today.
I would like to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Snowe for cosponsoring this important legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill so that children who suffer from congenital deformities or developmental anomalies do not have to wait unnecessarily for needed treatment.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following the conclusion of my remarks.
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation is to ensure that American taxpayers and American businesses are protected when the Federal Government procures property or services. The purpose of…
Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation is to ensure that American taxpayers and American businesses are protected when the Federal Government procures property or services.
The purpose of this legislation is to close certain loopholes that allow Federal agencies to enter into contracts through a process that does not ensure full and open competition. Current law provides several exceptions that allow Federal agencies to limit competition or provide a sole-source contract. My legislation does not eliminate any of these exceptions, but it does place a 90-day limitation on the broadest exceptions to ensure that a full and fair bidding process takes place as soon as possible.
This bill does not extend the 90-day limitation on sole-source or limited-source contracts when full and open competition is not practicable. For example, the legislation will continue to allow sole- source or limited-source contracts when there is a threat to the national security of the United States or when the property or service is only available from one party.
But we must take a common-sense approach to shield taxpayers from waste and abuse. This bill does just that. I have heard from people throughout my state who believe that the administration is abusing its authority in providing sole-source and limited-source contacts in Iraq.
One example is the sole-source contract worth up to $7 billion that was awarded earlier this year to Kellogg, Brown and Root--a subsidiary of Halliburton--to extinguish oil fires in Iraq. The exception under Federal law used to provide KBR with the sole-source contract was that a full and open bid process would cause unacceptable delays. While it is understandable that oil fires cannot be allowed to burn while an open bid process takes place, it is not acceptable that the term of this contract was 2 years.
Recently, the administration announced that this contract would be terminated and an open bid process take place. While I applaud this move, I fear it would not have happened without the outcry of the American people. My legislation will ensure that certain sole-source contracts will be limited to 90 days. During the 90-day period, a full and open competition would take place so that the long-term contract is awarded to the qualified low-bidder.
It is the responsibility of Congress to ensure that these contracts are awarded in a competitive manner whenever possible. This legislation is a step in the right direction.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Syria Accountability Act, a bill that aims to end Syrian support for terrorism by diplomatic and economic means.
It is well known that terrorist organizations like Hizballah, Hamas, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine maintain offices, training camps, and other facilities on Syrian territory and in areas of Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces. We must address this issue not with saber rattling but by confronting the Government of Syria in a diplomatic way that shows the seriousness of our concerns.
The Syria Accountability Act works to achieve our foreign policy goals by expanding economic and diplomatic sanctions against Syria until the President certifies that Syria has ended its support of terrorism, withdrawn from Lebanon, ceased its chemical and biological weapons program, and no longer illegally imports Iraqi oil. The bill provides flexibility to the President by allowing him to choose from a variety of sanctions, as well as the authority to waive sanctions if it is in the interest of United States national security.
I hope this legislation will receive the support of the Administration and Congress because it provides the President with the flexibility to target specific sanctions against Syria, but in no way threatens or condones the use of military force against Syria.
Mr. President, I am proud of my colleagues throughout the Senate for the overwhelming support just given on the Syria Accountability Act. I believe this bill sends an unambiguous signal to the…
Mr. President, I am proud of my colleagues throughout the Senate for the overwhelming support just given on the Syria Accountability Act. I believe this bill sends an unambiguous signal to the administration and to the Syrian regime that the Congress considers Syrian support for terrorism, its occupation of Lebanon, and its pursuit of dangerous weapons all significant threats to the United States and to global security.
I am particularly concerned that this administration has let Syria off the hook. Despite the support the Syria Accountability Act just had, there are waivers that concern me. Syria's record is not one that we can look at with any assurances that they are going to do what they have to.
The administration claimed that al-Assad's regime's support for the global war on terrorism is so valuable that he should not be pressed on other issues, including the failure of the Syrians to secure the Iraqi border, thereby permitting the constant infiltration of foreign terrorists pouring into Iraq.
Apparently, the Syrians must have shared intelligence about al-Qaida, and FBI and CIA officials have reportedly met in Syria with Syrian intelligence officers to discuss terrorism. The Syrians have also helped to capture a top al-Qaida figure, a Syrian-born German citizen who is part of the Hamburg cell that planned the September 11 attack.
So while Syria might be sharing information on al-Qaida, at the same time it is deliberately thwarting the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.
Syria harbors leaders who order, plan, and finance terror attacks against Israeli citizens. Operatives of the Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which I might add is a terrorist group affiliated with Yasser Arafat's political party FATAH, are regularly receiving training in Syrian camps.
So what is perplexing is why this administration has refused to force the Syrians to stop training Palestinian extremists even as it promotes a resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
No Palestinian roadmap to peace, no negotiations will be successful between Palestinians and Israelis as long as Syria continues to occupy Lebanon and to train and churn out suicide bombers.
I am worried that the administration has made a cynical tradeoff, focusing on supposed Syrian support for the hunt for al-Qaida while ignoring the Syrian's deliberate obstruction of the peace process.
Last month, when the Islamic Jihad successfully blew up an Arab-owned seaside restaurant in Haifa, killing 19 Israelis, including 5 Palestinian Israelis, Israel responded by striking one of the Palestinian training camps, choosing a time when it was empty to avoid collateral damage. The Bush administration responded with a bland statement urging both Israel and Syria to avoid actions that heighten tensions or could lead to hostilities.
Despite President Bush's call for Damascus to expel terrorist organizations from Syria and close down its camps, the Syrians have directly refused. They have made a mockery of President Bush's famous claim that you are ``either with us or against us in the war on terrorism.''
We in the Senate have just passed the Syria Accountability Act, but Syria will not be held accountable until the administration decides to end its tradeoffs in the global war on terrorism,
prioritizing the fight against some forms of terror over others.
The message we want to send has to be clear and direct. We will not tolerate any support for terrorism, especially among those who purport to be our friends.
Everyone has seen the Syrian action in Lebanon and we know how treacherous that is. They occupy the country and pretend they want to make peace, but they do not want to. They have not indicated by their actions that they want to.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who does such an outstanding job on so many issues and really is a national treasure for us on international…
Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, who does such an outstanding job on so many issues and really is a national treasure for us on international affairs and international issues, for allowing me recognition to speak on this bill. I thank the cosponsors, Senators Santorum and Boxer, for their work in bringing this issue in front of the body. I urge its passage.
I urge usage of the Syria Accountability Act by the President. Several of these issues have already been covered. I wish to address them with some specificity by saying 43 and counting--43 and counting. That is the number of dictatorships that are left in the world. There were 45 at the start of this year. Two have changed over. Dramatic changes are taking place in some other countries. But there are 43 dictatorships.
One of the harshest is Syria. It is a state sponsor of terrorism, one of five countries in the world that we recognize is a state sponsor of terrorism. We are facing terrorists coming from Syria on a daily basis in Iraq. You can hardly visit with any of our leadership working on the issue of Iraq and bringing democracy to that country without hearing them talking about foreign terrorists coming into Iraq. The largest percentage of those is coming through Syria. Another percentage is coming from Iran, which is another country that needs to go through a democratic metamorphosis and become a democracy. Iran is not a democracy today. We need to confront that.
We need to confront, for the safety of our troops, these foreign terrorists coming in from Syria who are being sponsored by the Syrian Government.
We know for some period of time Syria has sponsored Hezbollah, one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world, certainly very active in the Middle East, active in Lebanon, active in Israel, active, it appears, in support of going into Iraq. We know the historical legacy of Syria associated with Iraq and the Baathist Party regime that controlled both countries. It did control Iraq; it doesn't now. It is a ruthless, dictatorial, Stalinesque type of organization. They use political prisoners, torture, all sorts of means to
maintain control by the Baathist leadership. The Syria Baathist leadership is the same sort of leadership we saw in Iraq. They are a bad lot. It is time we put pressure on Syria to change.
President Bush last week made a beautiful speech to the National Endowment for Democracy calling for democracy throughout the world and saying that is the natural state of mankind, to be free and at liberty. Yet we see a dearth of liberty and freedom throughout much of the Middle East, particularly in countries such as Syria.
I hope the President will use the Syria Accountability Act to bring greater pressure on the dictators in Damascus, on bringing them a clear point that we will not tolerate this use of terrorism; we will not tolerate their attacks on our troops; that we will not tolerate a regime that is a dictatorship; that the people of Syria deserve better. The people of Lebanon deserve better than to be minding the dictator paymasters that exist in Damascus. The President really needs to use this power that is being given by the Congress to the administration for these sanctions in Syria.
I urge that we pass this act. I urge the President to use these sanctions. And I urge us to use all the means at our disposal to tighten the noose around the leadership of the dictators in Damascus. What they are doing in Syria, what they are allowing to flow out of their country, that would stop. This is one of the few countries left in the world that continues to be state sponsors of terrorism on a very aggressive basis. It must stop. We must show resolve in that.
I state my support for the bill and yield the floor.
Bill Text
Latest available legislative text
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 982 Introduced in Senate (IS)]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 982
To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in
the Middle East, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 1, 2003
Mrs. Boxer (for herself and Mr. Santorum) introduced the following
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon,
stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal
importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in
the Middle East, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Syria Accountability Act of 2003''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373
(September 28, 2001) mandates that all states ``refrain from
providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities
or persons involved in terrorist acts'', take ``the necessary
steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts'', and ``deny
safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit
terrorist acts''.
(2) The Government of Syria is currently prohibited by
United States law from receiving United States assistance
because it is listed as a state sponsor of terrorism.
(3) Although the Secretary of State lists Syria as a state
sponsor of terrorism and reports that Syria provides ``safe
haven and support to several terrorist groups'', fewer United
States sanctions apply with respect to Syria than with respect
to any other country that the Secretary lists as a state
sponsor of terrorism.
(4) Terrorist groups, including Hizballah, Hamas, the
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, maintain
offices, training camps, and other facilities on Syrian
territory and operate in areas of Lebanon occupied by the
Syrian armed forces and receive supplies from Iran through
Syria.
(5) United Nations Security Council Resolution 520
(September 17, 1982) calls for ``strict respect of the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political
independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority
of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army
throughout Lebanon''.
(6) More than 20,000 Syrian troops and security personnel
occupy much of the sovereign territory of Lebanon, thereby
exerting undue influence upon its government and undermining
its political independence.
(7) Since 1990 the Senate and House of Representatives have
passed seven bills and resolutions calling for the withdrawal
of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon.
(8) Large and increasing numbers of the Lebanese people
from across the political spectrum in Lebanon have mounted
peaceful and democratic calls for the withdrawal of the Syrian
Army from Lebanese soil.
(9) Israel has withdrawn all of its armed forces from
Lebanon in accordance with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 425 (March 19, 1978), as certified by the United
Nations Secretary General.
(10) Even in the face of this United Nations certification
that acknowledged Israel's full compliance with Resolution 425,
Syria permits attacks by Hizballah and other militant
organizations on Israeli outposts at Shebaa Farms, under the
false guise that it remains Lebanese land. Syria also permits
attacks on civilian targets in Israel.
(11) Syria will not allow Lebanon, a sovereign country, to
fulfill its obligation in accordance with Security Council
Resolution 425 to deploy its troops to southern Lebanon.
(12) As a result, the Israeli-Lebanese border and much of
southern Lebanon is under the control of Hizballah, which
continues to attack Israeli positions and allows Iranian
Revolutionary Guards and other militant groups to operate
freely in the area, destabilizing the entire region.
(13) The United States provides $40,000,000 in assistance
to the Lebanese people through private nongovernmental
organizations, $7,900,000 of which is provided to Lebanese-
American educational institutions.
(14) In the State of the Union address on January 29, 2002,
President George W. Bush declared that the United States will
``work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their
state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make
and deliver weapons of mass destruction''.
(15) The Government of Syria continues to develop and
deploy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
(16) The Government of Syria is pursuing the development
and production of biological and chemical weapons.
(17) United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 (August
6, 1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions restrict the sale
of oil and other commodities by Iraq, except to the extent
authorized by other relevant resolutions.
(18) Syrian President Bashar Assad promised the Secretary
of State in February 2001 to end violations of Security Council
Resolution 661 but this pledge has not been fulfilled.
(19) In direct violation of United Nations Sanctions, Syria
has been importing 200,000 barrels of Iraqi oil on a daily
basis since 2000, which has provided Iraq with up to
$1,200,000,000 annually.
(20) There are reports that Syria is pursuing the
development of chemical weapons, such as VX and Sarin, and is
harboring fugitive Iraqi officials.
(21) On April 20, 2003, President Bush said there were
positive signs that Syria will cooperate on the issue of
harboring fugitive Iraqi officials.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Government of Syria should immediately and
unconditionally halt support for terrorism, permanently and
openly declare its total renunciation of all forms of
terrorism, and close all terrorist offices and facilities in
Syria, including the offices of Hamas, Hizballah, the Popular
Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command;
(2) in accordance with United Nations Security Council
Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982), which calls for the strict
respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity,
the Government of Syria should immediately declare its
commitment to completely withdraw its armed forces, including
military, paramilitary, and security forces, from Lebanon, and
set a firm schedule for such withdrawal;
(3) the Government of Syria should halt the development and
deployment of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and
cease the development and production of biological and chemical
weapons;
(4) the Government of Syria should halt illegal imports and
transshipments of Iraqi oil and come into full compliance with
United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 and subsequent
relevant resolutions;
(5) the Governments of Lebanon and Syria should enter into
serious unconditional bilateral negotiations with the
Government of Israel in order to realize a full and permanent
peace; and
(6) the United States should continue to provide
humanitarian and educational assistance to the people of
Lebanon only through appropriate private, nongovernmental
organizations and appropriate international organizations,
until such time as the Government of Lebanon asserts
sovereignty and control over all of its territory and borders
and achieves full political independence, as called for in
United Nations Security Council Resolution 520.
SEC. 4. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States that--
(1) Syria should bear responsibility for all attacks
committed by Hizballah and other terrorist groups with offices
or other facilities in Syria, or bases in areas of Lebanon
occupied by Syria;
(2) the United States will work to deny Syria the ability
to support acts of international terrorism and efforts to
develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction;
(3) the Secretary of State will continue to list Syria as a
state sponsor of terrorism until Syria ends its support for
terrorism, including its support of Hizballah and other
terrorist groups in Lebanon and its hosting of terrorist groups
in Damascus, and comes into full compliance with United States
law relating to terrorism and United Nations Security Council
Resolution 1373 (September 28, 2001);
(4) the full restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty,
political independence, and territorial integrity is in the
national security interest of the United States;
(5) Syria is in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 520 (September 17, 1982) through its
continued occupation of Lebanese territory and its encroachment
upon its political independence;
(6) Syria's obligation to withdraw from Lebanon is not
conditioned upon progress in the Israeli-Syrian or Israeli-
Lebanese peace process but derives from Syria's obligation
under Security Council Resolution 520;
(7) Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction and
ballistic missile programs threaten the security of the Middle
East and the national interests of the United States;
(8) Syria has violated United Nations Security Council
Resolution 661 (August 6, 1990) and subsequent relevant
resolutions by purchasing oil from Iraq; and
(9) the United States will restrict assistance to Syria and
will oppose multilateral assistance for Syria until Syria
withdraws its armed forces from Lebanon, halts the development
and deployment of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles, and complies with Security Council Resolution 661 and
subsequent relevant resolutions.
SEC. 5. PENALTIES AND AUTHORIZATION.
(a) Sanctions.--Unless the President makes the certification
described in subsection (d), the President shall take the following
actions:
(1) Prohibit the export to Syria, and prohibit the issuance
of a license for the export to Syria, of--
(A) any defense articles or defense services for
which special export controls are warranted under the
Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), as
identified on the United States Munitions List
maintained under section 121.1 of title 22, Code of
Federal Regulations; and
(B) any item identified on the Commerce Control
List maintained under part 774 of title 15, Code of
Federal Regulations.
(2) Impose two or more of the following sanctions:
(A) Prohibit the export of products of the United
States (other than food and medicine) to Syria.
(B) Prohibit United States businesses from
investing or operating in Syria.
(C) Restrict travel of Syrian diplomats assigned to
Washington, District of Columbia or the United Nations
in New York, New York, to a 25-mile radius of
Washington or the United Nations headquarters building,
respectively.
(D) Reduce United States diplomatic contacts with
Syria (other than those contacts required to protect
United States interests or carry out the purposes of
this Act).
(E) Block transactions in any property in which the
Government of Syria has any interest, by any person, or
with respect to any property, subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.
(b) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of paragraph
(2) of subsection (a) if--
(1) the President determines that it is in the national
security interest of the United States to do so; and
(2) submits to the appropriate congressional committees a
report that contains the reasons for such determination.
(c) Authority To Provide Assistance to Syria and Lebanon.--The
President is authorized to provide assistance to Syria and Lebanon
under chapter 1 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151 et seq.) (relating to development assistance), if the
President--
(1) makes the certification described in subsection (d);
(2) determines that substantial progress has been made in
negotiations aimed at achieving--
(A) a peace agreement between Israel and Syria; and
(B) a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon;
and
(3) determines that the Government of Syria is strictly
respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity, and
political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive
authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese
army throughout Lebanon, as required under paragraph (4) of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 (1982).
(d) Certification.--The President shall transmit to the appropriate
congressional committees a certification of any determination made by
the President that--
(1) the Government of Syria does not--
(A) provide support for international terrorist
groups; and
(B) allow terrorist groups, such as Hamas,
Hizballah, the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine--General Command to maintain facilities in
Syria;
(2) the Government of Syria has withdrawn all Syrian
military, intelligence, and other security personnel from
Lebanon;
(3) the Government of Syria has ceased the development and
deployment of ballistic missiles and has ceased the development
and production of biological and chemical weapons; and
(4) the Government of Syria is no longer in violation of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 661 or a subsequent
relevant United Nations resolution.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
(a) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and every 12 months thereafter until the
President makes the certification described in section 5(d), the
Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional
committees a report on--
(1) the progress made by the Government of Syria toward
meeting the conditions described in paragraphs (1) through (4)
of section 5(d); and
(2) any connection between individual terrorists and
terrorist groups that maintain offices, training camps, or
other facilities on Syrian territory, or operate in areas of
Lebanon occupied by the Syrian armed forces, and the attacks
against the United States that occurred on September 11, 2001,
and other terrorist attacks on the United States or its
citizens, installations, or allies.
(b) Form.--The report submitted under subsection (a) shall be in
unclassified form but may include a classified annex.
SEC. 7. DEFINITION OF APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES.
In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.
<all>