Expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the occupation of the Lebanese Republic by the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time in opposition to this resolution not so much to object to the well-intended notions of the gentlewoman and the promotion of freedom and liberty. It is just that I do not think this is going to achieve it. As a matter of fact, when we pursue resolutions like this and a more aggressive foreign policy of telling other countries what to do, I see it as more of a threat to our security rather than helping our security.

I, for one, would admit I personally do not know what is best for the Lebanese and the Syrians, the Iraqis, or anybody else in the region; but I would argue the case that traditionally in this country up until probably the past 100 years, we took a different position on foreign policy. We took a position of nonintervention, one where we strived for neutrality, and we argued the case that we did not have any business in the internal affairs of other nations. No matter how well intended, there always seem to be ramifications. There seem to be unintended consequences. There seems to be a condition called ``blow-back,'' where it comes back and ends up where we suffer more than anybody else.

For instance, we are in Iraq right now with all these good intentions. We have been there for a couple of years. We have spent over $200 billion, and this week they came out with a survey and they talked about the most dangerous city in the world and where security is the worst, and that city is not Beirut.

In the last 2 years, every one of us would have rather have been in Beirut than we would have been in Iraq. And yet we have 140,000 troops there protecting the Iraqis and promoting freedom and liberty and elections, and it sounds good. But I think if we are honest with ourselves, the results are not nearly as wonderful as we would like them to be.

The other thing that concerns me is that we lose credibility when we talk about what we want and what we will impose on other nations, because when we are claiming that the Lebanese cannot possibly have elections with the presence of foreign troops, at the same time we daily hear the bragging about the great election in Iraq where we had these 140,000 troops and total martial law in order for an election to take place. I am all for the elections, and I am a strong supporter of self-determination; but I do not correlate that with our policies.

We saw demonstrations, first a little at a demonstration orchestrated in support of getting Syria out of Lebanon, and then there was a response to that where 500,000 showed up supporting Hezbollah claiming they supported Syria, and then of course following that there was a much bigger demonstration. So the people have had freedom to express themselves. But the one thing about all the demonstrations, we never saw a sign that said,

America, come save us, come in here, tell us what to do, tell us what to do with our elections. They have had elections going on for you in Lebanon without any violence directed against Syrian troops as we see daily in Iraq. They have an election coming up in May. It has been scheduled all along. It is not like they have been avoiding them.

We complain a lot about the Syrians being there, and if I have a personal preference, since I believe in self-determination, I would have the troops out just as I would have our troops out of most other places. But I would have foreign troops out of the Golan Heights. Why are we so excited about the Syrian troops, who were invited by the Lebanese Government? Why are we not excited about foreign troops in the Golan Heights and in the over 100 countries where that we have troops?

So I think we lose credibility. I think the Arab people just laugh at us and say, oh, yes, they are for these wonderful elections, and they have got to get these troops out; and at the same time we have troops all over the place.

The Syrians went into Lebanon in 1976, and if we go back and look at history, it was at the urging of the Government of the United States because there was about to be an election. And at that time, it was perceived that the election would undermine the minorities, the Christians and the Druse. So, therefore, it was in our interest at that time to interfere with the election, just as we have interfered so many times since then over the world.

Just think of the elected leader in 1953 in Iran, the elected leader, Mossadeq. But he did not follow what we wanted him to do with regards to oil. So what did we do? We sent in the CIA. We overthrew him, and then we had our puppet government, the Shah, for 25 years, which did nothing more than provide fodder for the radicals, and we radicalized the ayatollahs against us.

In a conversation with a veteran of the CIA, an expert in this region, he explained, at least he sincerely believed, that we did a tremendous favor for Osama bin Laden, and that is to go into Iraq, expose ourselves, and then create the chaos of Iraq. Where there was no al Qaeda before, it is now a haven for al Qaeda.

It has served as a recruiting ground for al Qaeda. So no matter how well the intentions are, we should look at the conclusions; what finally happens.

Our problem very simply comes from the violation of the basic principle that we should follow, and that is that we should be friends with nations and trade with nations, and that we should be neutral in foreign affairs, because it does not serve our interests. It costs a lot of money and it costs a lot of credibility and it costs a lot of lives.

Just think of what the interference in Iraq has cost us: Over 1,500 men; over 11,000 battle casualties, with another 9,000 sent home because of illness; and over $200 billion. And there is no end in sight. Today we had to pass another $82 billion, which was not put into the budget, to continue this process. My argument is it comes not because we make a misjudgment, not that this resolution is simply a misjudgment of the day; it just is that is part of the misjudgments that we have made now for many, many decades in overall foreign policy.

It is fully endorsed. The American people certainly have not been up in arms about it and have endorsed it, along with the large majority in the Congress. But long term it does not work. Just look how long the American people supported Vietnam, until finally they had to throw up their arms and demand an end to the senseless war.

But, ultimately, not only do the people get very angry and upset and frustrated with the loss of life, there are economic limitations to this as well, and that is something that I do not think anybody here hardly pays any attention to; that is how long can we continue to spend this money and not have this come back to really haunt us economically? The 1960s came back to haunt us in the 1970s, and the basic financial condition of this country is much worse than it was in the 1970s. Yet there is no hesitation.

I see resolutions like this as not restraint, but encouragement, without looking back and seeing how we participated in contributing to the problems that we have in the Middle East. So I am making the suggestion, why do we not think about overall policy with consistency, and think almost what is in our best interests?

I would like to read a quote from Ronald Reagan, because he was involved in Lebanon and our government was involved in the early 1980s. In his memoirs he admits it was a serious mistake, and we ought to take advice from Ronald Reagan on what he said about his misadventure in Lebanon. We were in there in 1983. This is what he writes in his memoirs several years later.

``Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry into paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have.''

Further quoting Ronald Reagan, ``In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave . . . yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policies there.''

He concluded with advising us to stay clear. I would like to suggest that I believe that is pretty good advice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points regarding the unintended consequences of our foreign policy, as well as what might happen in Lebanon.

It has been said about our administration that we hope the Lebanese people will be able to express their view at the ballot box through free elections without interference and outside intimidation. That sounds like a pretty good suggestion, with the conclusion by the administration that when there is outside interference the elections are unreliable.

Once again, I ask the question, does that not raise the question of whether or not the elections in Iraq are as reliable, as is supposed?

Also, President Bush said that these elections must take place without external forces, and all the troops must be out. The UN resolution calls for the troops out as well as the security forces, but the resolution also calls for disarming the people of Lebanon.

In other words, this resolution takes the position that we should go in Lebanon and repeal the Lebanese Second Amendment rights so that nobody has any guns. I just see that as an interference that is going to lead to trouble.

We see civil strife precipitating a civil war in Iraq, and I think what our involvement here now is liable to lead to that type of situation, rather than peace and prosperity and elections.

It is said that this has all come out from the murder and killing of Hariri, and most people now just assume that the government of Syria had something to do with that. Yet there is no evidence for that. There is absolutely zero benefit for the Syrian government to have killed Hariri.

But there is a theory that some of the radical Muslims in Syria that object to Assad, because he is too moderate, because he endorsed the Persian Gulf War and because he takes some of our prisoners and he participates in the interrogations of our prisoners, that he is seen as too liberal, too friendly with the West, and some suppose that that could have been the reason that the murder had occurred, believing that it would bring down the government of Assad.

Now, that could be an unintended consequence, that consequence that could have a great deal of significance, and that is that the radicals end up taking over, some individuals more radical than Assad, end up taking over Syria, which is always the possibility. But too often these unintended consequences occur and then we do not know how to respond to them.

In Iraq in January of this year there was some polling done, an expression by the people on what they thought about foreign occupation. Eighty-two percent of the Sunnis, I guess understandably so, said that all foreign troops ought to leave, and 69 percent of the Shiites said all foreign troops ought to leave. I wonder why that is not important to anybody?

Instead, we are talking about occupation for years, about building 14 bases in Iraq. How long do we stay in these countries and why is it so necessary for us to be telling other people what to do and when to do it and how to do it and stirring up nothing but anti-American sentiment, while at the same time, even though our goals may be well- intentioned, they are never achieved? We just do not achieve them. And to think that the election under the conditions that we are condemning in Lebanon is the salvation, is the evidence that we are having tremendous achievement, I think is something that we are just pulling the wool over our eyes.

John Adams gave us some pretty good advice about what we should do overseas. And I think that when we have resolutions like this, and we do have them continuously, and we have done them for decades. It was a preliminary to our invasion of Iraq starting specifically in 1988; But Adams advised, he made a suggestion and he made a statement, he says: ``America goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.''

That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And besides, it is a threat to our national security.

Jefferson's suggestion was for peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations and entangling alliances with none. And we have way too many entangling alliances, making these huge commitments which will come to an end not because anybody is going to pay much attention to what I say, but they will come to an end because this country is on the verge of bankruptcy.

We cannot continue to raise our national debt by $650 billion a year and pretend that we can police the world and at the same time increase entitlements here at home. So one day we will have to face up to these realities, and it will all come to an end.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make one point about the resolution. The statement toward the ends says: The President should direct the United States Representative to the United Nations to present and secure reports for the United Nations Security Council classifying Lebanon as a captive country in calling for the immediate release of Lebanese detainees in Syria and Lebanon.

Now that is pretty interesting that we are going to tell them who they can release and who they should release. But the question I have, and maybe the sponsors of the resolution could answer this: Will that include that we insist that they release the prisoners that we have sent to Syria?

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 32) expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the occupation of the Republic of Lebanon by the Syrian Arab Republic, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and ask unanimous consent he be permitted to control the time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 32, expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the occupation of the Republic of Lebanon by the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the leadership for bringing this important resolution before the House today at a time when hundreds of thousands of Lebanese are flocking to the streets issuing cries for freedom. It is critical that the United States Congress reaffirm its commitment to the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty and independence and specifically acknowledge the plight that Lebanon has endured as a captive nation. House Concurrent Resolution 32 does exactly that, Mr. Speaker.

For too long Lebanon has been denied its independence by the regime in Damascus, a regime that has imposed its will upon the Lebanese people through electoral intimidation, through political persecution, through assassination of opposition leaders and brutal military force. But the Lebanese people's desire to be free and sovereign could not be silenced and could not be repressed any longer.

The protests that have followed the Valentine's Day bombing in Beirut that killed former Prime Minister Hariri ushered in an immediate demand from a unifiable and diverse Lebanese opposition for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon. The streets of Beirut earlier this week boasted the largest anti-Syrian demonstration in Lebanese history and possibly the largest pro-democracy rally in Middle East history in response to the Syrian and Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah rally a week earlier.

For the first time, a number of moderate Shiites joined the Druze, Sunnis and Christian groups whose anger and grief over the brutal tactics of the Syrian occupiers and their Lebanese collaborators have galvanized them into action, into a coordinated effort to reclaim Lebanon's sovereignty.

House Concurrent Resolution 32 clearly articulates the threat to U.S. national security interests and to regional stability posed by Syria's presence in Lebanon. And the threat is not limited to Syrian intelligence and military, but to its terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, which uses Lebanese territory as a launching pad for attacks against Israel and a training ground for terrorists targeting U.S. and other Western interests.

Thus, at a time when this body has clearly articulated our stand regarding Hezbollah just a few days ago, let us underscore that we will not tolerate an appeasement of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

House Concurrent Resolution 32 builds on recent developments and calls for the President to instruct the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations to present and secure support for a Security Council resolution classifying Lebanon as a captive nation.

It calls for the President, pursuant to existing law, to freeze all assets in the U.S. belonging to Lebanese Government officials who are found to support and aid in Syria's occupation of Lebanon.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, it calls for the United States policy to include support for the independent human rights and pro-democracy advocates in Lebanon and for the full restoration of sovereign democratic rule there.

The resolution underscores the U.S. position against Syria's brutal occupation of Lebanon and U.S. policy about holding state sponsors of terrorism accountable for their actions. Calling for Syria to depart from Lebanon once and for all is in keeping with the post-9/11 approach of forcing terrorists out of their caves and placing them on the run. The U.S. position on Syrian withdrawal forces the terrorists to retreat to their own soil; and in doing so, it seeks to limit their impact so that freedom and democracy can flourish once again in Lebanon and throughout the region.

The Lebanese people have had enough, and they will not allow their territory to continue to be used as a staging ground for terrorists and their state sponsors. Let us stand with the Lebanese people and overwhelmingly adopt this resolution.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 32 and send a clear message to the Syrian terrorist regime to get out of Lebanon. Not to the border; not to the Bekaa Valley. Completely out.

God willing, as our Arab-speaking Lebanese brothers and sisters would say, inshallah, we will soon witness a free, independent, sovereign, and democratic Lebanon.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Yleem Poblete and Paul Ostburg Sanz, long and dedicated, hardworking members, staffers on our committee on these measures and the work of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

I would like to thank Chairman Hyde of the International Relations Committee, for understanding the need to support the Lebanese people at this critical time, and moving this resolution quickly through the Committee.

I would also like to commend our leadership for their commitment to freedom and democracy for all the people of the Middle East.

Lastly, I must make special mention of the efforts and cooperation of our Subcommittee Ranking Member, Gary Ackerman, and especially our Full Committee Ranking Member, Tom Lantos.

Tom Lantos has experienced first hand what happens when one appeases dictators and ignores the oppression of human beings. We cannot stand idly by and allow Syria to continue to deny the Lebanese people their rights and their nation.

Thanks to the cooperation of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are able to send a clear and unified message to both the Syrian oppressors and to the Lebanese people. As we did with the Syrian Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration, we have an opportunity today, by supporting H. Con. Res. 32, to demonstrate a united front and show that freedom transcends party lines, geographic borders, and language barriers.

When it comes to freedom and democracy, the U.S. is speaking with one voice, as the Lebanese people are speaking with one voice.

In so doing, we become one with our brothers and sisters in Lebanon as they seek to remove the shackles of Syrian tyranny and occupation.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this resolution and his leadership in bringing it forward. I am going to support the resolution. I, too, am troubled by what we have seen with the Syrian government. I am heartened by some activities in the Middle East. I think there is some real progress. But I would step back for a moment and ask us to reflect on something that has been happening that does not reflect so well on our government.

Just moments ago, the House overwhelmingly approved an amendment advanced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and me that dealt with making sure that money that we approved in the supplemental was not used to torture suspects of terrorism. We have this sense, and it is one that the people I represent feel very strongly about, that we have a responsibility and an obligation as the world's oldest democracy to be upholding our standards of rule of law, of due process. We have made torture illegal not just because people are concerned that it is an immoral practice, we do so because it is not a good way to get useful information.

Dictatorships torture indiscriminately, but it is not a way, as the Intelligence Community well understands, that we get good information upon which to base activities that may put our men and women at risk and to protect United States interests. Furthermore, we do not torture suspects of terror because if we do so, then any information that is gathered from that process taints any potential case and we cannot bring people to justice in a court of law.

Last but not least, we do not torture because we want a standard established where we can use our moral authority to make sure that Americans abroad are protected, whether they are in uniform or they are civilians.

There are a variety of moral, practical reasons why we are against torture. Yet I would note that there are too many press accounts for us to ignore, too many reports from nongovernmental organizations that the United States is participating in and condoning torture on behalf of prisoners that we have taken to other countries. There is a famous case that now the Canadian government wants investigated where the United States kidnapped a Canadian citizen and rendered this person to Syria where he was tortured. We have called for this Congress to get on top of what is, I am afraid, an emerging scandal, where we use extraordinary rendition, where we kidnap and transport people, where there is not effective oversight, where Congress does not know what is going on, where there are people who are not being held accountable, where there are problems that we have seen with people who have been in custody of the CIA and some of the American prisons that we have had in Afghanistan and Iraq.

We, as a Congress, need to be doing our job because we do not believe in torture; it is illegal; it is against international conventions; it is against the interests of the United States. And I must re-emphasize the irony when we come forward with a resolution that points out the problems, legitimate problems, the abuses in Syria, and then it appears as though the United States is willing to offer up people to countries like Syria, where we thought they are in fact going to be tortured.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that Congress gets ahead of this issue, that Congress does its job to investigate these widespread reports that are coming through now our own legal system, that are coming through the media, that are coming from nongovernmental organizations, that we exercise our oversight to make sure that we have our own house in order. There should be no prospect that we are on one hand going to be a Congress that condemns torture and abuse of human rights in Syria, and on the other hand we are going to look the other way when we may be offering up people who are suspects, not convicted of anything, to be turned over to the hands of these same torturers.

I would sincerely hope that we will have activity on the part of all of us to make sure the many committees in Congress do their job to provide this oversight and that we are not relying on the media, nongovernmental organizations, and what trickles through the legal system to do a job that we should be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Let me first pay tribute to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her work on this resolution, and for her outstanding leadership on our Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the House expresses the grave concern of the Congress regarding the ongoing occupation of Lebanon by Syria.

Mr. Speaker, I first visited Lebanon and Syria in 1956, almost half a century ago. Lebanon was a prosperous, free, open and democratic society. I remember going to the Bekaa Valley, to the City of Ba'albak, where among the ancient Roman ruins Shakespeare was performed on alternate nights in English and French.

Since 1976, Syria has occupied Lebanon with brutal force. Our resolution appropriately demands that the occupation end now.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the people of Lebanon tore down gigantic billboards in Lebanon that portrayed the former and current Syrian dictators, Mr. Assad and his father. Just imagine having in the United States huge billboards of Joe Stalin or the ayatollahs of Tehran, how we would feel about this? Well, that is how the Lebanese people felt about having these gigantic billboards pay tribute to a country which occupies their land.

As we speak, there is no Syrian embassy in Lebanon. What could speak more eloquently of the colonial outlook that the Syrian regime has towards Lebanon? In colonial times, the colonial power did not have an embassy in its colony because it did not recognize it as an independent, sovereign nation. That is precisely the attitude of Syria towards Lebanon today.

All of us have been inspired by what the Lebanese call their ``independence'' uprising. By passing our resolution, the Congress will express its solidarity with the brave anti-Syrian occupation, freedom- loving demonstrators in Martyrs Square in Beirut.

Mr. Speaker, Bashar Assad, Syria's ruler, continues to play games with the international community. As his speech earlier this month showed, he still believes he can ignore the international community's demand that Syria withdraw immediately and totally from Lebanon. Let us not be fooled by his promises of gradual withdrawal delinked from time tables. If you can tell a man by his friends, all you need to know about Assad is that his only friend in Lebanon is the terrorist gang Hezbollah.

Mr. Speaker, Syria has not only persecuted the Lebanese people, arresting, abducting, torturing and killing opponents, most recently the Prime Minister of Lebanon, it has also destroyed Lebanon's lively institutions, rendering them little more than outposts of Syrian control.

These crimes have taken place on the soil of what was once the Arab world's lone democracy. That is why it is vital that the Lebanese people succeed in throwing off Syrian rule and that the Lebanese be allowed to conduct free and fair parliamentary elections this spring, unimpeded by the fist of Syria's military or the brutal machinations of its intelligence agents.

Mr. Speaker, we stand shoulder to shoulder with those who seek full restoration of sovereign, democratic rule in Lebanon. I strongly support this resolution, and urge all of my colleagues to join me in sending a message of hope to the Lebanese people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in strong support of this resolution. I want to commend my friend from New Jersey for his leadership on this issue. The resolution before the House supports the people of Syria who live under a violent and repressive regime. The last Congress, this body passed the Syria Accountability Act with 297 cosponsors. That bill primarily addressed Syria's behavior in the Middle East, including its sponsorship of terrorist groups and its continuing occupation of Lebanon. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, focuses on Syria's domestic misbehavior for which Damascus must also be held fully accountable. After all, nobody has suffered more from the brutality of the

Syrian government than the Syrian people.

According to the State Department's annual human rights report released recently, Syria continues to commit egregious human rights abuses, including torture, arbitrary detentions of political prisoners without trial, censorship and harassment of journalists, protections for spouse-rapists, and light sentences for so-called honor killings. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, Syria is engaged in an unceasing campaign to harass and intimidate human rights organizations.

In recent days, the world has focused on Syria's outrages against the Lebanese people and, indeed, another resolution we are considering today deals directly with that issue. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot credibly say we favor political reform in the Middle East if we ignore Syria's depredations against its own citizens.

Syria is certainly, and I quote, one of the world's most repressive regimes, as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has indicated. Accordingly, it is important that this Congress be on record not merely in condemning the Syrian government for its actions against its neighbors but, more importantly, to express our support for the Syrian people in their struggle to achieve the kind of government they deserve.

When I met with Syrian President Assad in Damascus, I urged him to change his government's behavior at home and abroad so that Syria could rejoin the ranks of the civilized world. This resolution is one result of his failure to heed that advice.

Mr. Speaker, a Syria that is accountable to world standards and norms, a Syria that respects its own citizens and no longer occupies Lebanon or supports terrorism against Israel must be a central goal of our project of reforming the Middle East. In the long run, a Middle East in which people are stakeholders in public life offers the greatest hope for peace and safety in the region and beyond.

I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 18.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may consume to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.