[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 153 (Thursday, September 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9600-H9601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     EXTENDING AUTHORITIES UNDER MIDDLE EAST PEACE FACILITATION ACT

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2404) to extend authorities under the Middle East Peace 
Facilitation Act of 1994 until November 1, 1995, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hefley). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. HAMILTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not 
intend to object, and I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], chairman of the committee, to explain his unanimous-consent 
order.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2404 temporarily extends the Middle 
East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994, which otherwise would have expired 
on October 1, 1995. That act was previously extended by Public Law 104-
17 and by Public Law 104-22.
  H.R. 2404 extends the act until November 1, 1995, and includes a 
transition provision to make certain that there is no lapse in the 
act's authority.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
do not intend to object, I simply want to note that I do not think it 
is helpful to Israel, to the Palestinians or to maintaining momentum in 
the peace process to have to come to this floor every 30 or 45 days to 
extend these authorities on a short-term basis. I hope that we will be 
able to make this the last short-term extension of the Middle East 
Peace Facilitation Act and that we can instead fashion a provision that 
holds the parties to the Middle East peace process to the terms of the 
agreements they have negotiated but which does not go beyond those 
terms.
  Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Indiana for yielding 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is now the third time that we are renewing the 
Middle East Peace Facilitation Act. This, in my opinion, is not really 
the way to go about it. Each time we renew it, we say it is for a 
temporary moment until we can put the law together and pass a new 
Middle East Peace Facilitation Act and each time there is just a simple 
renewal.
  I do not think this is a good process. We have had legislation 
introduced. I have introduced a bill. We have had no markups on the 
committee. We had one hearing last week, but we have not had any 
markups.
  The Senate is moving ahead with its foreign ops bill. Senator Helms 
and Senator Pell are putting together language. Quite frankly, I see no 
reason why we should cede our authority to the Senate. Why should the 
Senate language ultimately be the language that is adopted?
  I think that this House has a very important role to play and, 
frankly, I think that our Committee on International Relations ought to 
put all the legislation that has been proposed at a hearing, talk about 
it, do a markup, have a markup of the bill, and we ought to come up 
with new MEPFA language. That is the way I think that we ought to 
proceed.
  Yasser Arafat's feet must be held to the fire. I know there is a 
signing going on in the White House today. I intend to be there. All of 
us hope and pray for Middle East peace, but I think a just peace will 
only be a just peace if there is compliance on all sides, and that 
includes the PLO and it includes Mr. Arafat.
  I believe that United States money should continue to flow for this 
process, if the Palestinians, if Mr. Arafat is keeping his pledges. If 
he does not, then I think the money ought to stop; only Mr. Arafat and 
the PLO can determine that.
  So I do not think an automatic renewal is the way to go. I understand 
it is only for 30 days and I will not object to the 30 days, but I will 
be hard-pressed 30 days from now to come here and agree to another 
extension.
  Again, I think that the peace process will only work and American 
money should only continue to flow if both sides are adhering to what 
they agreed. We do not have that now. The covenants are still in 
place, talking about the destruction of Israel, the PLO covenants, and 
Yasser Arafat's track record has been less than admirable. So I think 
that while we probably have no choice today, again, I think that our 
committee, and I would hope that the chairman, in fact, I wonder if the 
chairman would give a commitment that we would have a markup of my bill 
and other bills that have been proposed and also perhaps that our 
committee can formulate a bill.

  Again, I see no reason why this House has to cede its authority on 
this important sphere to the Senate. Why should 

[[Page H 9601]]
the Senate foreign operations bill be the core to any new Middle East 
Peace Facilitation Act that is proposed?
  While Senator Helms and Senator Pell are putting together their 
language and doing a good job, I think we have an equal role to play, 
not simply a role of following the Senate.
  So I am wondering if the chairman can give me assurances that we will 
indeed have a markup in this House and that this House will come up 
with its own bill and not simply rubberstamp the Senate version in the 
foreign ops bill.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I 
yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, in response to the concerns of the gentleman 
from New York, we share those concerns. We will have an opportunity in 
the next 30 days to take a good, hard look at all of those problems. 
And hopefully our committee will be able to address some of the 
gentleman's concerns.
  I thank the gentleman for raising this issue.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was not objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 2404

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
     103-236), as amended Public Law 104-22, is amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 1995,'' and inserting ``November 1, 
     1995,''.
       (b) Consultation.--For purposes of any exercise of the 
     authority provided in section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 
     103-236) prior to October 5, 1995, the written policy 
     justification dated June 1, 1995, and submitted to the 
     Congress in accordance with section 583(b)(1) of such Act, 
     and the consultations associated with such policy 
     justification, shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of 
     section 583(b)(1) of such Act.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________