[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
H.R. 5272, PEACE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS ACT OF 2000
=======================================================================
MARKUP
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
__________
Serial No. 106-191
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/
international--relations
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
69-975 WASHINGTON : 2001
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman
WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DAN BURTON, Indiana Samoa
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
DANA ROHRABACHER, California CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California PAT DANNER, Missouri
PETER T. KING, New York EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
Carolina STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
MATT SALMON, Arizona JIM DAVIS, Florida
AMO HOUGHTON, New York EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
TOM CAMPBELL, California WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
KEVIN BRADY, Texas BARBARA LEE, California
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California [VACANCY]
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
Richard J. Garon, Chief of Staff
Kathleen Bertelsen Moazed, Democratic Chief of Staff
Laura L. Rush, Professional Staff Member
Shennel A. Nagia, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Markup of H.R. 5272, ``Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000.''
A bill to provide for a United States response in the event of
a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state................ 1
APPENDIX
Prepared statements:
The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on
International Relations........................................ 15
Bills and Amendments:
Text of H.R. 5272................................................ 16
Amendment to H.R. 5272 offered by Mr. Gejdenson, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Connecticut, Mr. Berman, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California, and
Mr. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York....................................................... 23
H.R. 5272, PEACE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS ACT OF 2000
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:22 p.m. in Room
2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman
presiding.
Chairman Gilman. The Committee on International Relations
now convenes a business meeting in open session to consider
H.R. 5272, the Peace Through Negotiations Act. The chair lays
the bill before the committee. The clerk will report the title
of the bill.
Ms. Bloomer. H.R. 5272, a bill to provide for the United
States response in the event of a unilateral declaration of a
Palestinian state.
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the first reading of
the bill is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for
amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. 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----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the bill is considered
as having been read. It is open for amendment at any time. I
will now recognize myself to introduce a bill.
Because I, and along with many of my colleagues, remain
very much concerned about the possibility that Mr. Arafat and
the PLO will declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, the
committee is today marking up legislation that would underscore
the need for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the
Palestinians. Our Peace through Negotiations Act of 2000, which
I introduced on behalf of myself, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Nadler, Ms.
Lowey, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr. Bereuter, recognizes that
resolving the political status of the territory controlled by
the Palestinian Authority is one of the central issues of the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian threat to declare an independent state
unilaterally constitutes a fundamental violation of the
underlying principles of the Oslo Accords and the Middle East
peace process. That threat continues unabated. Mr. Arafat has
not rescinded his announced intention of making such a
declaration.
The measure before us would establish that it is the policy
of the United States to oppose any unilateral declaration of a
Palestinian state, and that diplomatic recognition should be
withheld if such a state is unilaterally declared. And in that
event this legislation would prohibit all U.S. assistance to
the Palestinians except for humanitarian aid, and would
downgrade the PLO office in Washington.
Additionally, this measure would encourage other countries
and international organizations to join with the United States
in withholding diplomatic recognition of such an independent
state and would authorize the President of the United States to
withhold payment of U.S. contributions to international
organizations that recognize any unilaterally declared
Palestinian state.
Over 18 months ago, Congress spoke with one voice about the
prospects of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the
Palestinians. Nonbinding legislation adopted by both houses
stated, and I quote, ``any attempt to establish Palestinian
statehood outside the negotiating process will invoke the
strongest congressional opposition.''
This Peace through Negotiations Act is a measured and
binding response to that possibility. Accordingly, I am urging
our colleagues to strongly support this measure, which we
expect to take up on the suspension calendar later today or
tomorrow.
Mr. Gejdenson.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gilman is available in
the appendix.]
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, first, I would request and
urge the chairman not to move this today. We are going to mark
it up today, but I would hope that you would hold this for the
suspension calendar for next week. We have the first serious
high level meeting between the head of the Israeli government,
Mr. Barak, and Mr. Arafat at Mr. Barak's residence.
We have worked on this an awfully long time, and I would
hope that the suspension calendar could be held for one more
week to give us time to make sure that we in no way
unintentionally harm the process. But I would say that I have
an amendment at the desk where I think there is general
agreement among most of the members that I have spoken to which
would simply--I will wait, and at the appropriate time if you
recognize me, offer the amendment. I would just say that I
would hope that we would not move this on the suspension
calendar today, and at the appropriate time I have an
amendment.
Chairman Gilman. May I suggest that the gentleman offer his
amendment at this point, and----
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will read the amendment.
Ms. Bloomer. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson: Page 3,
strike line seven and all the follows through line 14 and
insert the following----
Chairman Gilman. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as having been read. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized.
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment
on behalf of Mr. Berman and Mr. Ackerman and myself. The
amendment simply gives the President the ability, if he finds
it in the national interest, the security interest of the
United States, to waive some of these provisions, and to waive
provisions if an agreement between the Palestinians and the
Israelis is concluded.
Chairman Gilman. Is there any comment on the gentleman's
amendment?
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about the
gentleman's amendment. I understand he has substantial support
for it, but it does go directly opposite the way the
legislation is written to make it clear that the President has
very little flexibility in issuing the waiver. I think this
dramatically undercuts the impact of the legislation.
Mr. Gejdenson. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Bereuter. I would be----
Mr. Gejdenson. I think the gentleman may have seen earlier
versions. This does not waive the cut of funds directly to the
Palestinian Authority. It simply gives the President the
ability to waive some of the people-to-people funds on the West
Bank and Gaza, some of the democracy-building things. Even if
we have a situation where the Palestinian Authority has taken
an action we object to, it seems to me it is our national
interest, it is in the regional national interest, if the
President deems it so, to continue to try to build democratic
institutions and some of those other issues.
Mr. Bereuter. Reclaiming my time, I may, in fact, have
thought it is broader than the gentleman's new amendment has
indicated.
My understanding of the original legislation is that there
were relatively few exceptions on what could continue to flow.
One was humanitarian assistance. There was one more that was
something of that nature; I have forgotten. But you are saying
for counterterrorism.
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes. The other thing we would make sure is,
for instance, that the counterterrorism effort continues.
Chairman Gilman. Go ahead, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Gejdenson. The amendment makes that happen. In the
legislation--part of the art of the language we use in drafting
legislation here is that many things that we would generally
support and assume in the original language would be permitted
are not permitted, and so what we try to do is clarify that,
including the question of whether we continue cooperating with
them on counterterrorism efforts without the amendment.
Mr. Bereuter. I just hope we are not eviscerating the
legislation process here. Thank you.
Mr. Berman. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Is the
amendment before us now?
Chairman Gilman. Yes. The amendment is before us, but point
of inquiry, Mr. Gejdenson, would you elaborate on what is in
your amendment? Would you specify what the waiver would
encompass?
Mr. Gejdenson. It gives the President the authority to
waive several sections which are enumerated in the bill, three,
four, and five of Section 4(a) in the bill, if the President
deems it in the national security interests of the country.
Chairman Gilman. Well, what does that include, Mr.
Gejdenson?
Mr. Gejdenson. It allows people-to-people assistance on the
West Bank and Gaza and international organization and obviously
funding.
Chairman Gilman. And does it waive any other provision?
Mr. Gejdenson. No.
Chairman Gilman. A point of inquiry was raised by----
Mr. Berman. [continuing]. Mr. Berman.
Chairman Gilman. [continuing]. Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. There are a number of important policy
statements in this. I think this is a very important bill. I
think it is very important to move the bill and to try to get
it to the President's desk before we leave here this year.
The bill does a number of things. It makes some policy
statements, and then it has six, as I understand it, six
specific obligations or prohibitions in some cases. The waiver
amendment does not apply to number one, which is downgrading
the status of the Palestinian office in the United States. If
the whole premise of the upgrading of the status was because of
Oslo and the willingness to settle conflicts through
negotiating processes, the unilateral declaration of
independence is directly contrary to that and directly
undermines those principles that were agreed to at Oslo, and I
do not think that should be waived under any circumstance. This
amendment does not waive that.
Number two is the prohibition of U.S. assistance to the
government of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. This
amendment does not waive that.
Chairman Gilman. You are saying the amendment does not
waive----
Mr. Berman. The amendment does not waive that prohibition,
so neither the downgrading nor the prohibition on aid directly
to the government.
On assistance to the West Bank and Gaza, a variety of kinds
of programs not done through a government of a unilaterally
declared state, but through NGOs and other kinds, as the
ranking member mentioned, people-to-people programs,
infrastructure kinds of issues, health care kinds of issues--
things that would not generally be thought of as humanitarian
assistance but were still important to the quality of lives of
people, a limited waiver would be allowed in that situation.
The fourth one is irrelevant, whether there is a waiver or
not because it simply authorizes the United States to withhold
contributions to international organizations that recognize a
unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Since it is not a
mandate, whether you waive it or not is not relevant.
Chairman Gilman. Does this waive that provision?
Mr. Berman. It waives a discretionary authorization. It is
not worth the time we have already spent discussing it because
since the administration does not have to do that one under
your bill, waiving the provision that they do not have to do
anyway. So that one is just really of no legal or optical or
any other kind of significance.
Number five deals with a limited waiver for the U.S. voting
against different kinds of international assistance. I can
envision a situation where some international financial
institution wants to give money, the World Bank, to deal with
the sewage systems in the refugee camps. And I am prepared, as
much as I want this bill to move and to pass, to allow a
limited waiver for that kind of a program. This amendment does
that.
And then the sixth, which is very----
Chairman Gilman. You are saying the amendment would waive
this provision.
Mr. Berman. It would not waive it. It would allow----
Chairman Gilman. Would not waive it?
Mr. Berman. It would allow the President, in limited
circumstances, to waive it.
Chairman Gilman. Giving the President discretion, then, to
waive it. Is that what you are saying?
Mr. Berman. Under the standards of the amendment, that is
right, where he makes certain declarations, reports, and
certifications.
Mr. Rothman. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Berman. Sure.
Mr. Rothman. I have a question for the gentleman with
regard to number 5(b). This would allow a waiver of the
extension by one of the international lending organizations of
financial assistance, a waiver of an extension of a loan to ``a
unilaterally declared Palestinian state.'' So that would seem
to me not to be so limited. It could be for any purpose. It
would not have to be to help sick children or to put in sewage
systems. It could be for any purpose that the Palestinian
Authority, or at that point the Palestinian state, applied to
this international body for a loan, which body receives a
significant amount of its financial resources from the United
States taxpayers.
Mr. Gejdenson. Well put, but the absence of a waiver
prohibits the extension of any kind of a loan or other
financial or technical assistance without regard to the merits
of the specific thing.
Mr. Rothman. Will the gentleman yield for one more
question?
Mr. Gejdenson. Yes.
Mr. Rothman. Obviously, the gentleman wants to make, I
think, the same point that I do when we supported the
underlying bill, which is to make a clear and unambiguous
statement to either Israel or the Palestinian Authority that
unilateral actions of the nature that this bill discusses, of
the magnitude of declaring a state, would have the most severe
consequences, unambiguous, and rather hurtful. And this number
five, in particular, might eliminate some of the sting of the
underlying bill, and it disturbs me greatly.
Mr. Berman. If I could just reclaim my time to add one
element to that. Most of all, I want a law. I want a law that
says you do this--we did not get to number six yet, for which
there is no waiver which prohibits any money spent on
recognizing a unilaterally declared, independent state. I want
a law that does that without question, without chance for
waiver. I want a law that mandates the downgrading of the
status of the office. I want a law that stops and prohibits aid
to the government, and I know that the administration and, I
have it on very good information, the U.S. Senate would like to
waive everything and put a waiver in for everything.
So to me, this is an attempt to keep as much of the sting
in the bill and still leave some room for useful programs that
improve the quality of life of the people there without
enhancing the government. And, in fact, to the contrary,
because of the other things, indicating where we stand should
they do this.
So on balance, given the practicalities of getting a law at
a very late stage in the session and all this, I think this is
not perfect. Maybe I would want to define a waiver for certain
kinds of international assistance and no waiver for other
kinds, but I do not think time permits us to go case by case
like that.
Mr. Rothman. Well, would the gentleman support an effort to
amend this amendment by eliminating this number five?
Mr. Berman. I would support an amendment that tried to
delineate between certain kinds of assistance programs going to
this area and others, but I would not support just flipping it
around.
Mr. Rothman. Would the gentleman further yield? I am
sufficiently concerned that without that I am going to vote
against the amendment. I have not decided, even without number
five, whether I am going to vote against the amendment or not.
I am concerned about it, and, frankly, as a negotiator, if the
sentence says they want a broad waiver, the natural response
would be a bill with no waiver and let the conference committee
hash it out.
Mr. Berman. If we go to conference on this----
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Berman, would you complete your
presentation?
Mr. Berman. Well, again, the sixth of these; there is no
waiver, that is, no funds available under any law may be used
to extend U.S. recognition to a unilaterally declared
Palestinian state, including, but not limited to, funds for the
salary of an ambassador, consul, other diplomatic personnel,
costs of embassy, et cetera, et cetera. No waiver allowed for
that.
On the key statements of where we stand on both aid to the
government and on diplomatic status and status of the
Palestinian office here, there are no waivers allowed on this.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Lantos.
Mr. Lantos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, since I
am a strong supporter of the peace process, and the unilateral
declaration for statehood by the Palestinians would terminate
the peace process, I strongly support your legislation.
Clearly, the message is simple. In the event Mr. Arafat and his
group unilaterally declare the independence of the Palestinian
state, they have destroyed the possibility of pursuing the
peace process. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to make clear
what the consequences will be.
I strongly share the view of my friend and colleague from
Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, who raised questions about waivers. I
do not think there is any waiver that is called for in this
instance.
I am not one, Mr. Chairman, who is preoccupied by process,
but I have got to raise a question about the manner in which
this legislation is being presented to us. I stood with a group
of colleagues from the Senate and the House on July 26. We
presented a piece of legislation which is virtually identical
to this one. Nothing happened to that piece of legislation
between July 26 and September 26. At 3:12 yesterday afternoon,
we were sent an e-mail concerning this piece of legislation,
which I saw for the first time today.
Now, I think it is singularly inappropriate to proceed
along these lines, even though I strongly support the substance
of the legislation. It is also singularly inappropriate to
request cosponsorships from members who are not members of this
committee and totally ignore members of this committee who
would have wished to sponsor this legislation.
I think, Mr. Chairman, we are owed an apology. This was
appallingly mishandled. And nevertheless I support the
legislation and oppose the concept of----
Chairman Gilman. I thank you for your support, and I just
want to mention that the prior measure had some technical
defects, and that is why it lingered in the committee. And you
should have been advised in enough time to make some comment.
We will now----
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. I will be very brief and reluctantly rise in
opposition to Mr. Berman's waiver amendment.
You know, again and again when we have human rights or very
important legislation before this committee, the administration
always wants the widest possible waiver. That is if they want
the legislation at all. When we were working the religious
freedom legislation through the House and the Senate, we
reluctantly agreed to, almost as a condition of passage, the
waiveability of what they construed to be sanctions. The same
thing is happening with the trafficking legislation. We have a
very broad waiver on that as well. Okay? If that is the price
of getting a consensus, so be it.
But I think here we are dealing with a dramatically
different situation. The action has not yet been taken,
although it has been threatened by Yasir Arafat, and I think
that is no time to show anything but resolve that there will be
a predictable penalty if, and only if, the PLO goes ahead, and
Yasir Arafat in particular, in declaring Palestinian statehood.
So I think perhaps at some point in the legislation--I hope
it does not--some well meaning waiver may be inserted. But
coming out of the blocks, as we are today, when we want to send
the clearest, unambiguous message to the PLO, I respectfully
submit to my friend from California that this is not the time
for this amendment to be approved.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any others? Mr.
Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. We are discussing this, and I want to
emphasize that I do not think there is any difference here in
Congress or in this committee as to what our policy ought to be
in the Middle East, which is total and complete rejection of a
unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians.
The question that is really before us, and one that is of
great interest here in Washington but not of terribly great
interest to those in the Middle East, is to what extent should
Congress set forth what American foreign policy is or to what
extent should the President have discretion. And this bill is
Congress's effort to put our own stamp on foreign policy and,
frankly, leave a lot of things to the President that the bill
does not even address. But these are areas where I hope the
President would be very strong.
First, the President should take all of the actions
outlined in this bill, if there is such a unilateral
declaration of statehood; second, we ought to immediately move
our embassy to Jerusalem; and third, we should support Israel
in whatever tough actions it would need to take in response to
this complete cancellation of the peace process.
The question then is, though, do we leave these decisions
to the President, or do we mandate them in a bill? And I think
that this bill, with the amendment, is the best we can do here
in Congress to put our stamp on foreign policy. It leaves a lot
to the President. It gives him a waiver authority if the
amendment is adopted, but we have got only 2 weeks to pass a
bill. We ought to pass a bill almost unanimously, and putting
in this waiver will certainly provide some comfort to those who
believe that our foreign policy should be fine tuned by the
State Department and by the President even after Congress
adjourns, because none of these actions will occur while we are
in session.
So I think that there is no division that America stands
against unilateral declaration of statehood, and we ought to
reach a compromise as to what extent the White House determines
our reaction and to what extent Congress determines our
reaction. But I would hope that the President would take the
strongest possible action and beyond this bill. But beyond
that, I hope he communicates to the Palestinian side that he is
willing to take these actions, and so for that reason there is
no declaration of statehood, and these actions become
unnecessary.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Any other members
seeking recognition on either side? Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a strong supporter
of the peace process, and I think it is well known that I
oppose any unilateral action taken by either side. I believe
that that forgoes and forestalls the peace process.
I believe at this point we should be very careful in moving
forward only because the discussions and negotiations are
taking place, and the timing right now for this seems to be a
bit much. It seems that his could encumber the peace process if
we move this out this week, and certainly if we do move it out,
we should have this amendment supporting the national security
waiver included.
But I would also back up Mr. Gejdenson's point with regard
to deferring this for another week because I think that in our
commitment to the peace process we must let the peace process
move forward, and we are at such a vulnerable and sensitive
time in that process that any message that could undermine
either side, I think, would be very detrimental. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you, Ms. Lee. Any other members
seeking recognition? Mr. Ackerman.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first,
let me applaud your efforts and your intention in this
legislation. I wholeheartedly agree with everything that you
are trying to do here. I would also echo the sentiments of
those who have previously stated that a unilateral declaration
of independence would be a total disaster for the peace process
and would undermine any pretense that the parties are willing
to discuss amongst themselves and come to compromises as to
what the outcome might be. And I think it would be disastrous
for Mr. Arafat and his organization as well.
That being said, to deny the President of the United
States, either this President or whosoever the next President
might be, the ability to act in at least very limited
circumstances in what are the unforeseeable security interests
of the United States would be an extraordinary policy folly on
the part of this committee.
Certainly, we all argue and work toward a stronger role for
this committee and the Congress in the formation of our policy
matters, but to deny the historic role of the President, and we
have done this whether the President be a Democrat or
Republican, whether the House was in one direction or another.
It never mattered, but to say that the President should not
have, and here it only applies to three sections of the bill,
those sections not affecting policy, not affecting the intent,
not affecting the very structure and fiber and reason for
submitting the legislation, to deny that the President, in our
national security interests, should have his hand tied would be
a move that no thoughtful person on the committee should abide.
I will yield to my friend, Mr. Berman.
Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just
want to make one point, a little bit sort of taking off on the
comments of the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee. This is
not just about trying to punish the PLO or the Palestinian
Authority for doing something which is a very breach of the
commitments that were made at the time of the Oslo Agreements.
It is an effort to deter this conduct. It is an effort to say
there are consequences if you do this. This is not something
that we will issue a few press releases about and then forget
about and things will go on as normal. That is to say there are
going to be costs, economic, political, diplomatic, to this
decision, and it is only fair to tell you beforehand what some
of those costs are.
Mr. Sherman, the gentleman from California, mentioned some
other costs in the hands of the President, which I think also
should be stated by the Executive Branch, but they are
peculiarly within his domain.
So I think the combination of moving this bill before we
leave here--we are only going to be here two or 3 weeks. We
will not be in session at the next scheduled time when
apparently the Palestinian National Council or whomever it is
is going to consider this issue of the unilateral declaration
of independence--before we leave, letting them know maximizes
our ability to deter that outcome, and, therefore, that is why
the timing of this--I am not saying it is today or tomorrow;
what I am saying is before we leave here in early, mid-October
is critical.
Chairman Gilman. Thank you.
Mr. Bereuter. Will the gentleman from New York yield?
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter. I was just asking the gentleman to yield. I
do not need much time.
Mr. Ackerman. I would be delighted to yield.
Mr. Bereuter. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think
the gentleman from California just weakened his own case. This
is not meant to be punitive, it is meant to be preventive, it
is meant to be deterring. That is a better deterrent than if,
in fact, there is a question about what the President will or
will not waive. So I think the gentleman has weakened his own
case----
Mr. Ackerman. Believe it or not, that is actually what I
understood the gentleman from California to have said.
Mr. Berman. Just to clarify, there is no deterrent in a
bill that gets mired down in the U.S. Senate and never gets to
the President's desk. There is no deterrent in a bill which is
vetoed by the President. A bill that takes significant action
in many respects unwaivable, that becomes law, that has the
Congress and the President speaking with one voice, that is how
you maximize the deterrent.
I believe the Gejdenson amendment is an effort to try and
achieve that balance to maximize the chances of getting that
law and still have a punch, and that is why I cosponsored his
amendment.
Chairman Gilman. Mr. Bereuter? If there are no further
questions, let me note that the principal purpose of the
Gejdenson amendment is to provide a limited waiver authority to
the President with respect to two of the five mandatory
provisions in the bill.
I believe this is an important bill, and as the gentleman
has indicated, it is a sound, preventative measure, and I am
concerned that we do not want to weaken the measure in any
manner.
I do want to note in particular that I agree with Mr.
Rothman's concern about allowing the President to waive the
prohibition on U.S. support for international lending to a
unilaterally declared Palestinian state. The fact is that only
sovereign states are eligible for international loans, so
allowing such lending to go forward for a Palestinian entity
would imply a de facto recognition of Palestine as a state.
For that reason, I do not believe that that prohibition
should be available. Accordingly, I will oppose the Gejdenson
amendment.
We will now move on the Gejdenson amendment. All in favor
of the Gejdenson amendment, signify in the usual manner.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Gilman. Opposed?
[A chorus of nos.]
Chairman Gilman. The Gejdenson amendment is adopted.
Mr. Lantos. I ask for a rollcall, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gilman. A rollcall is requested. The clerk will
call the roll.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman?
Chairman Gilman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gilman votes no. Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter?
Mr. Bereuter. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Bereuter votes no. Mr. Smith?
Mr. Smith. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger?
Mr. Ballenger. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ballenger votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Tancredo votes no. Mr. Gejdenson?
Mr. Gejdenson. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes. Mr. Lantos?
Mr. Lantos. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman?
Mr. Berman. Aye.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?
Mr. Ackerman. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brown votes yes. Ms. McKinney?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings?
Mr. Hastings. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hastings votes yes. Ms. Danner?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman?
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?
Mr. Wexler. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Rothman?
Mr. Rothman. No.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Pomeroy?
Mr. Pomeroy. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks?
Mr. Meeks. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?
Mr. Crowley. Yes.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. The clerk will call the absentees.
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Goodling?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Leach?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hyde?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burton?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gallegly?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Manzullo?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Royce?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. King?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Chabot?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Sanford?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Salmon?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Houghton?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Campbell?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. McHugh?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Brady?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Burr?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Gillmor?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Radanovich?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Cooksey?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Faleomavaega?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. McKinney?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Ms. Danner?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hilliard?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
Ms. Bloomer. Mr. Hoeffel?
[No response.]
Chairman Gilman. Are there any further members who have not
indicated their vote? If not, the clerk will report the tally.
Ms. Bloomer. On this vote there were 14 ayes and eight nos.
Chairman Gilman. The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman
from Nebraska. Are there any other amendments? If not, the
gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a
motion.
Mr. Bereuter. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek
consideration of the pending bill as amended on the suspension
calendar.
Chairman Gilman. The question is on the motion of the
gentleman from Nebraska. As many who are in favor, signify in
the usual manner.
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairman Gilman. Opposed?
[A chorus of nos.]
Chairman Gilman. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Without objection, the chairman is authorized to make motions
under Rule 22, with reference to a conference on the bill or a
counterpart bill passed by the Senate. Further proceedings on
the measure are postponed. The committee stands adjourned.
Thank you for participating.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee meeting was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of New York, Chairman, Committee on
International Relations
Because I and many of my colleagues remain very concerned about the
possibility that Yasser Arafat and the PLO will declare a Palestinian
state unilaterally, the Committee is today marking up legislation today
that would underscore the need for a negotiated settlement between
Israel and the Palestinians.
The ``Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000'', which I introduced
on behalf of myself, Mr. Gejdenson, ADD IN OTHER ORIGINAL COSPONSORS,
recognizes that resolving the political status of the territory
controlled by the Palestinian Authority is one of the central issues of
the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Palestinian threat to declare an independent state unilaterally
constitutes a fundamental violation of the underlying principles of the
Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process. That threat continues
unabated.
Our measure would establish that it is the policy of the United
States to oppose the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and
that diplomatic recognition should be withheld if one is unilaterally
declared. The bill would also prohibit all US assistance to the
Palestinians except for humanitarian aid, and would downgrade the PLO
office in Washington, D.C.
Additionally, the measure would encourage other countries and
international organizations to join the United States in withholding
diplomatic recognition, and would authorize the President of the United
States to withhold payment of US contributions to international
organizations that recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.
Over eighteen months ago, Congress spoke with one voice about the
prospects of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians.
Non-binding legislation adopted by both houses stated that ``any
attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating
process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition.''
The Peace Through Negotiations Act is a measured, but legislatively
binding response to that possibility. I urge our colleagues' strong
support for this bill, which we expect to take up on the suspension
calendar later today.
__________