Mr. ENGEL. May I just say-because the question for me is not whether one group is for it or against it.

Mr. GABRIEL. Right. I just want to clear the record, Mr. Engel. Mr. ENGEL. The question is, you talk about diplomacy and quiet persuasion, and let me just ask you how has diplomacy and quiet persuasion for 23 years gotten us any closer to the withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon. I mean, it would seem logical to me that pressure on Damascus is needed to get Syria to remove its armed forces from Lebanon, wouldn't you agree?

Mr. GABRIEL. Mr. Engel, I would like to answer that question. I don't argue with you that we have not moved forward very far with Syria along the lines that you have articulated, but I don't believe, quite frankly, Mr. Engel, and I'm being clinical about this, not anything else. I don't believe that we are going to see sanctions lead to a change in the way Syria operates in the region that you are talking about. I don't see it. I only see us losing leverage, and we are left

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I don't know what leverage we have. We haven't gotten them to leave Lebanon in 23 years.

Mr. GABRIEL. If I may finish. You are left with only military measures, if we do that, in my opinion, Mr. Engel. I commend you for introducing this bill because I think the debate is the most important thing we've had.

However, I would suggest, and I would ask a couple of questions. If we care so much about Lebanon sovereignty, why is it that Lebanon's sovereignty is not part the Comprehensive Peace Settlement? Why isn't it? Why has not America weighed in on the enforcement of the Taif Accords? Why does American policy toward Lebanon always defer to its other primary interest in the region. Let's be honest with ourselves. We don't have a strong U.S. American policy that guarantees the sovereignty and integrity of Lebanon. I would like to work with you and others to find that out, but I don't think sanctions, quite frankly, will get us there. All it does is reduce our leverage to move forward will not change opinions in the region.

Mr. GILMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Rohrabacher? I am going to turn the Chair over to Mr. Rohrabacher since I have another meeting to attend to.

I want to thank our panelists for being here, and for your extensive testimony that will be very helpful to our Committee as we weigh this measure. Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Before the Chairman manages to leave, let me just say that it has been my honor to work with Ben Gilman, and he has been a shining light of integrity and hard work in this Committee. He has taught me what it means to be a responsible congressman. So Ben, you will be sorely missed, but we got a lot of things to do before you get out the door.

Now that I have taken over the Chair, I am going to call on my good friend, Mr. Berman, and let him proceed with his questioning. Mr. BERMAN. Ambassador Gabriel, in a way you have made an argument for this bill, and the movement of this bill because you keep talking about trying to get the Administration to focus on our very serious problems with Syria. I think it might be fair to say that it is the introduction of this bill, and its movement, that will

focus that much as some of the earlier legislation in the previous Administrations focused the Administration on Russian and Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology to Iraq and to Iran.

Mr. GABRIEL. I absolutely agree that the introduction of the bill focused attention and has created important debate. But its passage would not accomplish the goals set out in this legislation.

Mr. BERMAN. Now as a supporter of the bill, I guess I would like to ask Mr. Levitt-I recall several things in recent history that were sort of said authoritatively. One was that one thing about the Syrians, when you made a deal with the Syrians, the deal stuck. And primarily, the argument was in the context of observing the red lines in terms of Syrian incursions into Israel or shootings.

Secondly, we used to count on this incredible hostility between the Syrian regime and the Iraq regime based on the hostility of similar parties. The Ba'ath parties of both countries and a deep enmity. In fact, Syria joined our coalition in the original Gulf War. What has happened to deal with that historic rivalry that has changed the situation to allow this much closer cooperation between Syria and Iraq, including helping Iraq rebuild its military capabilities?

Third, this notion that Colin Powell went to Syria and said you had better constrain Hezbollah and what's its doing or Israel will deal with them. Now do you think that Syria then put restraints on Hezbollah because of their desire for better relations with the United States or because they didn't want to contemplate what Israel might do in response to continued Hezbollah attacks? How about those three for starters?

Mr. LEVITT. Thank you for asking those questions. Let me try them in the reverse order because this is a point I wanted to raise. A number of people have been commenting they didn't think that this bill would accomplish all the things it sets out to do; and frankly, that's only one of the two main things that this bill is out to do.

The second thing I think that the bill will accomplish, and there is no question it will, certainly take positive steps toward accomplishing this, is revitalizing the power of our deterrent word. The case you cited is a perfect example. When Powell went to Syria and said that he wanted attacks across the Blue Line to stop, the only reason those attacks stopped is because the Syrians knew-because Powell told them-this was the message that Israel will retaliate. You know what, the Syrians know that when Israel says they are going to do it, they're going to do it. If Powell had said I want those attacks across the Blue Line to stop or else we're going to get angry and there will be consequences, nothing would have happened. I guarantee you.

So I do think that this bill will make positive steps toward achieving all these important goals if for no other reason than because it will show Syria that we mean business, and it doesn't stop there. Then we've got to continue with diplomacy and all these other issues. I don't think this means that tomorrow, after we pass the bill, the next step is military. That doesn't have to be the case. In terms of this Syrian-Iraqi relationship, what changed is a lot has changed in the international arena in the region and in terms

of convenience. The oil deal is extremely important. The Syrian economy is in tatters. It's in shambles. The Iraqi oil deal pumps in approximately $1.1 billion dollars annually, each, to Syria and Iraq. That can't be looked over.

You have two regimes that in the past year have been a focus of attention-not just because of their being Ba'ath regimes, et cetera that recognize that our focus on Iraq is going to mean that there will be focus on Syria. That also drives them together.

One of the reasons-there was a question before about how this has come up in the press. The Syrian press is so animated by this debate and angry about this debate. Angry about the possibility of this act passing. I think that's because they fear that this is one of many steps that the United States is taking, indicating after Iraq, Syria is next. Now that doesn't have to be the case.

I think what this case says, most forcefully, is that you can't have it both ways. We will not tolerate double dealing. You can't work with us on this terrorist group and work against us on that terrorist group.

In terms of Syrian reputation for sticking to its deals, the Israelis were the ones who articulated this, and they maintained—and they're right there on the front line, so I take them at their word. They are not known to be close friends with the Syrians. So if they are saying it, I believe it. That when it came to the Syrians, if you made a deal, you could take them at their word and they would stick to it.

Now it's also important to note that was referring to Syria under the regime of Hafez Assad. We don't know what exactly would be the case-if it would be similar or very different under Bashar. Bashar has continued to disappoint whether it comes to internal reforms; developing a very, very close personal and dangerous relationship with Ñasrallah; allowing and facilitating an increase in terrorist activity by Hezbollah and all these other groups.

The fact, for example, that Syria is now directly providing arms to Hezbollah is a huge, huge break in tradition.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. The Chair will now take his time, and I mean, me. Let me mention, first of all, Mr. Ambassador, your conversations with the Maronite leader reflect the conversations I've had in Lebanon. I have taken two trips to Lebanon and met with leaders from every group, and your conversation with the Maronite exactly reflects that, and I will say that once the official conversations are over, you just hear people saying they all remember the massive bloodshed that was going there 25 years ago. They do not take that lightly.

When we talk about the existence of somebody strong arming somebody or assassinating somebody off in the side, these people remember when people were dying by the hundreds on a daily basis. They have every reason to be concern that Lebanon not evolve back into that.

Now with that said, let me suggest that I am not supportive of Syria continuing an occupation of Lebanon. I mean, I don't believe in that, but just be aware there are so many forces at play in Lebanon. I would hope that as this works out with Syria's withdrawal, as it did with the Israeli withdrawal, that it's being done in a way

that does not reignite that cycle that was going where so many hundreds of people were killed.

I was in the White House when Ronald Reagan sent the Marines into Lebanon. That was one of my saddest days when those Marines were blown to hell. I remember the first name on that list, Sergeant David Battle. The first name on the list of Marines who gave their lives in Lebanon.

That man happened to be one of my family's best friends. My brother grew up with him. I grew up with him. He is gone and he left two children. That was as a result of the United States being in the mist of that conflict and we could not end it.

I am just going to say it. The Syrians went in and that conflict. eventually ended. Now there are undercurrents of repression that no American can except, but let's not expect the Syrians to listen to us when are saying other things when we don't give them credit where credit is due.

Now in terms of the actual purpose of this bill, which is the other half of the bill is aimed at, not the occupation of Lebanon, but the support of terrorism. I recently had a visitor from the Syrian government come to my office to visit me. The purpose was to complain about this piece of legislation. I will just have to say they visited me because I have a reputation of when Israel does something I don't hesitate to condemn those acts when Israel does something.

Thus, I have some kind of acceptability in terms of people understanding that I try to be honest about the issues in the Middle East because there are a lot of people who can't ever say Israel has done something wrong. But with that said, the Syrian leader who came to see me was complaining about this, and I just said, well, guess what, Syria is supporting terrorist organizations that kill women and children. There is no excuse for that. So if you want this legislation-I will go on record right now for the Syrian friends who are watching, if you don't want this legislation to go forward, have your government make an official statement condemning terrorism and suggesting that Syria will no longer support any organization that targets women and children and elderly people and noncombatants. Now if Syria wants to continue supporting organizations that attack soldiers, well, that's war. They are at war with Israel. That's not terrorism. But I will tell you that when people explode bombs and senior citizens are murdered or children are killed or women and children are killed, there is no accepting that. There is no ignoring it. Syria is involved in that type of support for organizations that are doing that.

If the Syrians don't want this legislation to go forward, they can easily stop it tomorrow by having a press conference, and announcing that there will no longer be any support in any place in Syria for an organization that does those deeds. So I hope someone is listening, and I'm trying to call it as I see it.

With that said, let me suggest also that there are lot of people who are targeting women and children in the Middle East. Again, to be fair about it, Syria has to expect this act from the United States, but other people should start really examining their soul and trying to find out if there are other countries and other organi

zations that are killing women and children to achieve their ends as well. That's my definition of terrorism.

Eliot, I want to commend you. As I say, I am somewhat supportive of your legislation; although, I maybe disagree with the analysis of Lebanon. I do want them out of Lebanon because I believe all people have a right to self-determination. The Lebanese people do as well. I will be very happy to have any of you make a final comment-a 1-minute comment on what I just said or anything you else you heard in the hearing. We will just go straight on down, and we are going give you the last word.

Mr. GABRIEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Committee Members for all this time. I would like to commend Representative Engel for this bill because as Mr. Berman rightly put, if it wasn't for this bill, we wouldn't have this debate. I mean that sincerely that it has helped the debate in the foreign policy arena that we need to have right now. I hope that we can find a common way forward, but I thank the Committee for hearing us out.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you. Mr. Levitt?

Mr. LEVITT. Thank you. I similarly thank the Committee for having this hearing. I think it is very important to discuss these issues in the kind of detail we discussed today.

I think it is also important to mention that I don't think any of us wanted to have to have a debate over this particular bill. Nothing would make any of us happier than to have a free Lebanon and to have Syria engage in activity other than state-sponsorship of terrorism.

For the most part, this is not out of anger, but out of concern. We would prefer to have purely diplomatic relations with Syria. We would prefer to be able to focus on nothing other than business relations, but the bottom line is the business relations that we have with Syria are not even tertiary to the primary national interest concerns regarding the war on terrorism, liberating Iraq, the Middle East peace process, et cetera. These are what are at the front of the agenda right now and with good reason. People's lives are at stake, and you just can't play with that.

What we have been doing to date has been allowing Syria to kind of ride the wave of the status quo relationship because they know we're not going to take them to task. We've become background noise and it's to our detriment, not only with Bashar Assad, but with Saddam Hussien, with Arafat and with others in the region who understand the language of background noise. Thank you.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Mr. Reinsch?

Mr. REINSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As an American who is not of Lebanese descent, and is not an expert on either the country or the region, this has been a very enlightening debate for me. I commend the Committee for having the kind of dialogue or encouraging the kind of dialogue that has taken place. I think it's been thought-provoking.

Our view, as I said in my testimony, is focused less on the specifics of the region than on the fact that in our experience—we've observed a lot of these-the kinds of things the bill proposes simply don't work and they do have costs.