[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 165 (Tuesday, October 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15522-S15535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROTECT THE PEACE PROCESS
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this bill, which would mandate a move of
the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999, may be
popular with a very vocal segment of the United States population, but
it represents precarious foreign policy for the United States as a
whole. The United States has played a central role in carrying forward
the very difficult and sensitive negotiations that will, hopefully,
bring a lasting peace to Israel and the Middle East. It ill behooves us
now to undermine what is arguably the single most sensitive issue of
the negotiations, that of the status of the holy city of Jerusalem, by
impetuously acting to side with one party to the negotiations. If the
United States is to be credible as a facilitator of the peace process,
it must act with fairness and impartiality.
Proponents of this legislation argue that negotiations on the final
status of Jerusalem are to be complete by May, 1999, so that this bill
is compatible with the timetable of the peace process. But this
presupposes the outcome of the negotiations, which do not even begin
until next May. This may be exactly what the proponents desire. If it
is ``imperative to establish now the U.S. conviction that realistic
negotiations must be premised on the principle that Jerusalem is the
capital of Israel and must remain united,'' as an October 20, 1995
mailing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
asserts, then what is left to negotiate at all? Acting in advance of
the negotiations undermines the incentive for the Palestinians, who
also have political and religious claims to the city, to participate in
the talks.
United States support for Israel is well known. Israel and the United
States have close military and diplomatic ties. The United States
provides more economic aid and military assistance to Israel than to
any other single state. Moving the United States Embassy from its
current location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem at this time is not necessary
to help shore up Israeli support for the peace process. It can wait and
let the ground breaking in 1999 serve as a visible signal of the
success of the peace negotiations, should the outcome be as expected.
Not moving the Embassy at this time is, in my view, probably more
important to help shore up the willingness of the Palestinians to
continue along this rocky path to peace. Let the ground breaking for a
new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in 1999 be a visible sign of U.S. support
for the final outcome of the negotiations, if that is the result,
rather than a continuing reminder to them that the negotiations were
rigged from the outset.
Jerusalem is an ancient city, considered holy by three of the world's
religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. There is no more volatile
mixture in the world than religion and politics, and Jerusalem has
suffered the devastating effects over the centuries as wars,
occupations, and divisions have forever marked her walls and buildings.
Peace is within our grasp, if we can act with sensitivity to
acknowledge the ancient and competing claims to this most contested
plot of land. No one, I believe, wants a city torn by terror and
divisiveness, a Jerusalem that cannot stand as a beacon of tolerance
and understanding among three religions and all of the peoples of the
Middle East. Therefore, I will vote against this bill, which does so
much to undermine the peace process.
Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I recognize the city of Jerusalem as the
united, undivided, eternal, and sovereign capital of Israel, and where
the United States Embassy is located should reflect that reality. While
some have urged caution about relocating our mission in the midst of
the peace process, it is my sense that such a move, as envisioned by
the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, will not create a detour on the
road to achieving a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.
Jerusalem stands today as an international city, where the rights of
all ethnic religious groups are protected and freedom of worship is
guaranteed. Diverse religious faiths coexist peacefully. This week we
are seeing a hopeful spirit of internationalism expressed by many world
leaders celebrating the founding of the United Nations 50 years ago.
Like the community of nations joining together in support of the United
Nations many religious faiths and sects engender a collective spirit of
interdenominational harmony in Jerusalem.
Madam President, Prime Minister Rabin has told the Israeli people
that ``I assure you that Jerusalem will remain united under Israel's
sovereignty, and our capital forever.'' That expression leads me to the
conclusion that the final status talks on the city should not focus on
issues of overall sovereignty. Rather, making permanent each
denomination's jurisdiction over its respective holy sites and
collateral issues of autonomy should be the subject of the negotiations
next year.
Even President Clinton has stated that ``I recognize Jerusalem as an
undivided city, the capital of Israel--whatever the outcome of the
negotiations, Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain
an undivided city, accessible to all.'' That statement represents a
consensus that our Embassy belongs in the functional capital of Israel.
Among the 184 countries we maintain diplomatic relations with, Israel
is the single exception to the rule of locating
[[Page S 15523]]
the United States chancery in the designated capital of each foreign
nation. We have a responsibility to respect the decisions of where all
countries locate their seat of government, and Israel should not be
viewed in a different light.
Thus far in the peace talks, Israel has sacrificed the tangible--
land--for the intangible--the security of its people. As we continue
down the road of peace, Israel will cede valuable territory, natural
resources, and political authority, while Palestinians will enjoy
broader political and economic freedoms. There are no long-term
guarantees for Israel. A single Hamas-sponsored terrorist attack can
disrupt any sense of peace achieved at the negotiating table.
Madam President, that is why I endorse this move to demonstrate our
long-term commitment to having our Embassy in Jerusalem which will
symbolize the united and undivided character of this city. Such a move
will not stand in the way of achieving a comprehensive peace. It will
simply lay to rest doubts about the U.S. position on the status of our
Embassy.
I also support the modified substitute offered by the majority leader
last night that includes compromise language providing the President a
national security interests waiver. I think it is appropriate that the
President should be given the authority to waive the legislation if it
would have dire consequences on the peace process.
Madam President, I joined as a cosponsor of this legislation some
time ago, and believe it sends the right message at the right time to
Israel. It is our decision alone to move the Embassy. With upcoming
ceremonies in the rotunda of the Capitol celebrating the 3,000th
anniversary of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, I believe we will be
serving the interests of peace in the Middle East by passing this
legislation. So I urge my colleagues to support this effort to relocate
our Embassy to the capital of the Jewish homeland.
Mr. COHEN. Madam President, this week in the Capitol rotunda the
United States Congress will host the United States Inaugural Ceremony
of Jerusalem 3000, beginning the celebration of the 3,000th anniversary
of the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
It is a particularly appropriate time for the Senate to act on this
important legislation that would reaffirm our commitment to Jerusalem
as the undivided capital of Israel by directing the relocation of the
United States Embassy to Jerusalem by 1999.
It has been over a decade since a majority of the Members of
Congress, and I was proud to be among this group, called for the
movement of our Embassy to where it belongs--in the capital of Israel.
Since then, as Senator Moynihan has recited in detail, the Senate and
the other body have repeatedly adopted by overwhelming and frequently
unanimous votes legislation calling on the United States to affirm
Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital.
Most recently, nearly every Member of the Senate signed a letter to
the President urging that the relocation take place no later than May
1999. This letter clearly rejected the assertion of some that declaring
our intent to move our Embassy would endanger the peace process, noting
that:
United States policy should be clear and unequivocal. The
search for peace can only be hindered by raising utterly
unrealistic hopes about the future status of Jerusalem among
the Palestinians and understandable fears among the Israeli
population that their capital city may once again be divided
by cinder block and barbed wire.
We also endorsed in that letter Prime Minister Rabin's declaration
that ``United Jerusalem will not be open to negotiation. It has been
and will forever be the capital of the Jewish people, under Israeli
sovereignty, a focus of the dreams and longings of every Jew.''
The bill we have before us, of which I am proud to be an original
cosponsor, brings this legislative process to fruition by establishing
in law United States policy that Jerusalem should be recognized as the
capital of Israel and that our Embassy should be relocated there no
later than May 31, 1999, and by authorizing funding beginning this year
for construction of a United States Embassy in Jerusalem.
To help that ensure the executive branch implements this policy
faithfully, the bill requires semiannual reports from the Secretary of
State, beginning in January, on the progress made toward opening our
Embassy in Jerusalem. It also would give the State Department a strong
financial incentive by limiting the availability of its construction
funding after 1999 until the Embassy opens in Israel's capital. As a
practical matter, this limitation would not actually take effect until
the middle of the year 2000, given the historical spend-out rates for
the State Department's construction budget. But it emphasizes the
importance Congress places on this matter.
Even with this inherent flexibility, however, the administration has
shown resistance to this legislation. In response, Senator Dole has now
added a broad waiver authority that would allow the President to
suspend this limitation on State Department construction if he believes
it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the
United States.
I should also note that the bill carefully states that the rights of
every ethnic and religion group should be protected in the undivided
capital of Jerusalem. Three major faiths revere Jerusalem as a holy
city. The best way to protect the religious interests of members of all
these faiths is to ensure that Jerusalem never again is divided, which
would only threaten to reignite religious conflict.
Madam President, Senator Dole and Senator Moynihan are to be
commended for their persistent leadership in ensuring that this
legislation has finally come for a vote on the floor of the Senate. I
hope that, once the House of Representatives gives its approval, this
legislation will be signed into law by the President, who during the
1992 campaign clearly stated that ``I recognize Jerusalem as an
undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel.'' Given the very strong
support this bill rightly enjoys in both Houses of Congress, I think
the President's advisers would be unwise to suggest another course of
action.
And once this bill is enacted into law, through whichever mechanism,
I trust that the President will move expeditiously to implement it and
attain its objective before the May 1999 deadline.
Madam President, many of us in the Senate have had the opportunity to
help cultivate America's special relationship with the State of Israel.
As a strategic ally and an island of stability and democracy in an
important but troubled region, Israel steadfastly supported American
interests during the cold war. During the gulf war, when Saddam Hussein
sought to gain control over Middle Eastern energy resources, Israel
stood firmly with America, enduring savage attacks on its civilian
population that were designed to split Israeli policy from United
States policy.
Having protected U.S. interests in a hostile region for decades, the
American-Israeli strategic alliance today is the foundation for the
Middle East peace process. Without steadfast United States support for
Israel, those among Israel's neighbors who have accepted the necessity
for a negotiated peace settlement would not have done so. And without
our continued steadfast support, the peace process will not be
successful. Nowhere is this need greater than on the question of the
status of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is and will remain the undivided capital of the State of
Israel, and we must not miss the opportunity to underline that fact--
particularly today on the eve of the inauguration of the celebration of
the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem's establishment as the capital of
Israel. This legislation will help to ensure that the fourth millennium
of this holy city will begin with an era of peace.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can pass
it with a large majority and ensure its swift enactment into law.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1322, a bill to
relocate the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
In the over 180 countries where the United States has a diplomatic
presence, Israel is the only country where our diplomatic presence is
outside of the capital city. It is time to pledge ourselves to moving
our Embassy to Jerusalem, which is the legitimate capital of Israel. It
is in our interest to
[[Page S 15524]]
strongly support Israel and its continued administration of Jerusalem.
I am a cosponsor of this legislation, along with 63 other Senators.
In a year some characterize as a very partisan year, you have a
bipartisan consensus on this issue. Senators have come together for the
national interest, something which is above politics.
This is what this bill is all about: The national interest. I have
heard that this bill is solely about politics of the Presidential kind.
That is not true--the proof is in the list of cosponsors: This list is
bipartisan and balanced.
I have heard the argument against this bill, that moving our Embassy
ahead of schedule would endanger the Middle East peace process. I am
not persuaded by this argument. The United States has consistently
recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. If we want to be an honest
broker in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, we should be
honest about our view of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem.
This bill would allow us to break ground in 1996 for the new Embassy.
Next year will be the 3,000th anniversary year of Jerusalem. King David
relocated his throne from Hebron to Jerusalem 3 millennia ago. Next
year, America should move its Embassy to the city of David.
This bill is not a statement of animosity against any religion.
Almost all Senators are on record supporting Israel's administration of
Jerusalem as a unified and universal city, open to all followers of the
three great world religions. This it has done for 28 years, and that
will not be jeopardized.
This bill is not a statement against any country. This bill is for
the official recognition on our part that our ally Israel has its
governmental seat in Jerusalem. The peace negotiations can and should
continue. We should facilitate such negotiations. Relocating our
Embassy does not and should not have anything to do with ongoing peace
talks.
So I think we should pass this bill, and I think the President should
sign it. Jerusalem has always been at the crossroads of history and
faith. We should begin next year to place our presence there.
I am reminded that people of the Jewish faith say at the end of the
Passover and Yom Kippur services, ``Next year, in Jerusalem.'' This
expresses their hope of return and the centrality of Jerusalem in the
Jewish faith.
I say something similar, Madam President: That I hope this bill
passes, and next year, we will be in Jerusalem breaking ground for a
new Embassy in the Holy City.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Israel
Embassy Relocation Act. I thank the sponsors of this legislation for
amending it to give Israel more flexibility on when construction on our
new Embassy will begin.
Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel. For thousands
of years the Jewish people prayed, ``next year in Jerusalem.'' This
prayer helped to sustain Jews even through the darkest days of the
diaspora.
Even after Israeli independence, the holy sites of Jerusalem were
closed to Christians and Jews. The Jewish quarter of the old city was
destroyed. But since Jerusalem was unified in 1967, Jerusalem is open
to all religions for the first time in its history.
I have visited Israel with Jews who were there for the first time.
When we visited the Western Wall, I saw what it meant for them to touch
the stones that their ancestors could only dream of. I saw that
Jerusalem is not just a city or a capital. It is the religious and
historic homeland of the Jewish people.
Why is Israel the only nation with which we have diplomatic relations
that is not allowed to chose its own capital? The sight for the U.S.
Embassy is in west Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since its
independence. We should have moved our Embassy long ago.
So over the years, I have supported every effort of Congress to call
upon the executive branch to move our Embassy to Jerusalem. And each
successive administration has ignored us.
But now, as Israel takes courageous steps toward peace, we are
raising this issue again. And what should have been a clear statement
on Jerusalem has become a political debate.
When this legislation was first introduced, I had some concerns about
the requirement that construction on the new Embassy must begin in
1996. I did not cosponsor it because I believe that we would be
imposing our own deadlines on the peace process. This new bill removes
the arbitrary dates that fit United States elections rather than the
will of the Israeli people. This issue is too important to politicize.
Madam President, this year we celebrate the 3,000 anniversary of
Jerusalem. Let us mark this great event by reaffirming that Jerusalem
is and always will be the capital of the State of Israel.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I stand here today to strongly support S.
1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995.
I wish to commend the majority leader for his efforts in introducing
this bill. I also wish to commend the efforts of Senator Kyl and a
number of my Democratic colleagues for ensuring that we possess a bill
that will have, I hope, unanimous support here in the Senate.
The issue of Jerusalem has been debated on this floor for over a
decade. I have always believed that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel,
and I believe that now is the time for the United States Congress to
recognize this reality. That is why I signed the letter to Secretary
Christopher on March 20, 1995--along with 92 of our colleagues--that
declared that ``we believe that the United States Embassy belongs in
Jerusalem.''
I understand that this legislation has been modified to address
concerns that we may be restricting the President's foreign
policymaking powers. With these modifications, I encourage the
administration to join us in correcting a diplomatic anomaly that we
have visited on our closest ally in the Middle East for too long: Of
the diplomatic relations we hold with over 180 nations around the
world, Israel is the only country in which our Embassy is not in the
capital.
I have been and remain a strong supporter of the Middle East peace
process. But through the years of my support, I have always maintained
that the policy process must be driven by the participants, and that
the United States' role is to support, not dictate, the terms of the
negotiations. Israel has made some courageous concessions over these
negotiations. It has waged a fight for peace that has been, on some
days, as bloody as its previous wars.
Next year will begin the ``Final Status'' negotiations. There has
been much positioning by certain parties over the future of Jerusalem.
But Israeli governments have not vacillated over this issue, and their
position has always been clear: Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli
Government, and Jerusalem shall remain the united capital of Israel.
This is the conviction of the Israeli Government, the only democratic
state and our most valuable ally in the region.
This should be our conviction now. Our ambivalence beyond this point
will only muddle, and I believe frustrate, the final status
negotiations. The parties must set the terms, and we must not confound
expectations by perpetuating the anomaly of the U.S. Embassy in Tel
Aviv. If we wish to continue supporting the peace process, and I firmly
believe we should, then we must make clear that it is the policy of the
U.S. Government to have its Embassy in Jerusalem by the conclusion of
the peace negotiations at the end of this century.
Jerusalem just celebrated its 3,000th anniversary. Let us now declare
that the U.S. Embassy will reside in that holy city by the end of this
troubled 20th century. Let us now pass resoundingly S. 1322.
Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I strongly support S. 1322, the
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act, legislation which
would locate the United States Embassy in Israel in Jerusalem, Israel's
capital city.
It is customary, indeed, universal, that an embassy is located in the
capital city of every sovereign nation in which a diplomatic presence
is maintained; that is why I cosponsored S. 1322, along with 62 of my
colleagues.
Madam President, Jerusalem is Israel's chosen seat of government. It
is where the President, Prime Minister, Parliament, Supreme Court,
central
[[Page S 15525]]
bank, and all other authoritative institutions of state are
headquartered. It has been the capital of Israel since 1950. Moving the
American Embassy is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what is in
fact the reality--Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.
Presently, the United States maintains diplomatic relations with 184
countries around the world. Of these, Israel is the only nation in
which our Embassy is located in a city not regarded by the host nation
as its capital.
Imagine, Madam President, the huge outcry, within and outside of
government, if any foreign nation refused to locate its embassy in our
capital or insisted that it would maintain relations with us, but not
in the location we designated as our capital city. That kind of refusal
would create serious and unnecessary tensions between the United States
and that country. After all, the question of where to locate the
capital of the United States is for the United States to decide--and no
one else.
That same logic applies in this case to the capital of Israel. The
question of where to locate its capital is for Israel to decide and no
other nation or power to frustrate. And Israel decided long ago that
Jerusalem would be its capital.
If the argument is made that Middle East peace negotiations are at a
delicate stage, and that this is not the time for this legislation, my
response to that is: Peace negotiations are always at a delicate stage.
The pendency of discussions should not force an untenable
discrimination against one of the negotiators.
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 1950. The time for
waiting is over. Forty-five years is a long enough period for closure
of what should be a matter of simple fairness.
Critics of this legislation also argue that the passage--even the
discussion--of this legislation will undermine the peace process,
thereby harming Israel's security and strategic interests. However, the
Government of Israel and its citizens, the ultimate authorities on
Israel's security and strategic interests, do not share that view. They
enthusiastically support the relocation of the American Embassy to the
capital city, Jerusalem.
Others argue that the relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem
would prejudge and prejudice the final status of Jerusalem negotiations
under the Oslo agreement. I do not agree. The site the United States is
considering for a future Embassy is in an area that has been part of
Israel since its founding in 1948. Moreover, Israel's right to this
section of Jerusalem is uncontested, even by the Palestine Liberation
Organization.
Madam President, I understand and appreciate the uniqueness of the
city of Jerusalem. It is unique in the world as a holy place. The
hilltop city is sacred to Jews as the site of their ancient temple, to
Christians as the birthplace of Christianity, and to Moslems as the
site from which Muhammad ascended into heaven. It is all of these
things--and it is also the capital of Israel.
Each and every U.S. Embassy abroad exists to represent our Government
to the government of the country in which it is located. The Government
of Israel is in Jerusalem. Jerusalem, therefore, is the only place our
Embassy should be.
The logic of locating our Embassy in Israel's capital city is
overwhelming and compelling, which is why this legislation enjoys such
widespread, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of
Representatives. I urge the prompt passage of this legislation, and I
look forward to the day in the near future when the United States
Embassy opens in Israel's capital--Jerusalem.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act. Like almost all of my
colleagues, I believe that an undivided Jerusalem is the legitimate
capital of the State of Israel, and that United States policy should
clearly reflect that. Accordingly, the United States Embassy should be
housed in Israel's capital, just like it is in every other country, and
not in the country's economic center.
Of course, the Jerusalem issue is practically unique in world
politics. The ancient city is holy for Jews, Christians, and Moslems,
and both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital.
The Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre is sacred for Christians to honor
Christ's death. Moslems claim the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa
mosque as the site of Abraham's sacrifice. Jews pray at the Kotel, the
Western Wall, the last remaining wall of the ancient synagogues, as
well as the scores of other holy sites nestled in so many quarters.
Named as the City of Peace, Jerusalem has unfortunately been split by
war. Throughout history, Arabs and Jews and Christians have locked each
other out, and have often accused each other of desanctifying religious
monuments, and barring access to each other's holy places.
Incidents have occurred where Moslems have felt offended by
desecrations of their holy monuments and religious foundations. My own
memory is seared by the defacing of meaningful and historic synagogues
in the Old City's Jewish Quarter in 1947-67, when the city was not
controlled by Israel. I remember with pain the laundry that hung on the
Wailing Wall, a place of immensely spiritual and sacred value for Jews.
I cannot forget the pictures of Jewish tombstones thrown around the
Mount of Olives cemetery just at the foot of the walls of the Old City.
Though the international community has tried to split Jerusalem under
the political solution of corpus separatum, to my mind, the
spirituality and emotion of the city make division impossible. Given
the 3,000 years of the history of Jerusalem, it will always be the
heart of the Jewish people and the capital of the Jewish state. Indeed,
it is the capital of the sovereign nation of Israel--a sovereignty the
United States has heavily invested in and fiercely supported for 45
years. If our support for Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel is
to mean anything, then the United States should recognize Israel's
capital appropriately.
Waiting years--if not decades--for the right moment to move the
United States Embassy is not an appropriate recognition of Israel's
sovereignty. As much as I hate to admit it, I do not think there will
ever be a right time for a move with such emotional associations. And
therefore, now is as right as ever. In exchange, Israel must guarantee
universal access to other religions who seek to honor their holy places
as well. I believe that, save some very unfortunate incidents, Israel
for the most part has protected the right of access to Moslem and
Christian holy places, and has a responsibility to continue to do so.
I am very sensitive to concerns that such a move by the United States
at this time would undermine the peace process. I understand the risk
that perhaps the United States would compromise its important position
as an honest broker in the peace process: To that, I respond that
America's position is nonnegotiable since Israel's claim to Jerusalem
is nonnegotiable. Already, there should be no doubt of what the United
States position is; hiding our Embassy in Tel Aviv does not change
that.
I am also troubled by suggestions that such a move would predetermine
the outcome of the final status talks between Israel and the Palestine
Liberation Organization, and tie the chairman's hands in other critical
negotiations. I am not persuaded, however, that the move of the U.S.
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would have such a devastating
effect. It is important to keep this proposal in perspective, and not
underestimate the power of the commitment of the parties themselves to
the peace process--wherever the U.S. Embassy is housed. Further, I
believe that Prime Minister Rabin's own assertions that Israel will not
cede Jerusalem are just as important to the process, and can guide
United States actions on the issue.
The stationing of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has been a
widely supported proposal. The Democratic Party has included it as a
plank in our platform since 1967. Sweeping majorities in Congress have
urged it for years. It has not been a partisan issue; it has not been a
personal crusade for just a few Members of Congress. Indeed, it is when
we have broad-based and bipartisan support such as this that coherent
and successful policies emerge. Israel has always been a beneficiary of
such unity. For that reason, I appreciate Senator Dole working
[[Page S 15526]]
with the administration to craft a bill that can have near-unanimous
support, and to avoid the nonsense of division on an issue like
Jerusalem.
This year Jerusalem is celebrating its 3,000th anniversary. For it to
remain the unclaimed capital of Israel is a shame. We should honor it,
and the State of Israel, with the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation
Implementation Act.
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I fully recognize that Israel is one of
the most strategic and important allies of the United States--the only
working democracy in the Middle East. We should never waver in our
support for a nation that has been militarily threatened by its
neighbors since its founding over 40 years ago.
But I also strongly support the peace process that Israeli Prime
Minister Rabin and the Palestine Liberation Organization began over 2
years ago. A glimmer of hope has emerged in recent years that the
longstanding hostilities that have fueled conflict in this volatile
region of the world may soon come to an end. It is imperative that the
United States stand firmly behind the efforts of Israel and the
Palestinians to reach agreement on the many disagreements that have
divided these peoples for so long.
In announcing its accord on Jericho and the Gaza Strip 2 years ago,
Israel and the PLO also agreed to negotiate the permanent status of
Jerusalem beginning next year. The United States has stood firmly--and
indeed has been a leader--behind negotiations on these and other
unresolved issues that are aimed at achieving long-term peace.
I certainly recognize that Israel declared Jerusalem to be its
capital in 1950. However, since 1967 the United States has called for a
negotiated resolution of Jerusalem's status, a position restated by the
September 1993 agreement between Israel and the PLO. I am convinced
that the question of when we construct our Embassy in Israel should be
left to the President and the State Department. Having Congress dictate
to the State Department a construction schedule for our Embassy would
surely disrupt and possibly derail the ongoing Mideast peace process, a
most sensitive diplomatic effort.
Although the administration is given a national security waiver in
the compromise version of this legislation, there is still no guarantee
that the Embassy move could be waived if the peace process is halted.
That is why the State Department remains opposed to this bill. Because
of my support for the Mideast peace process and executive branch
authority on foreign policy, I will vote against S. 1322.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of this
resolution to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I
strongly believe that Jerusalem is, and will always be, the undivided
capital of the state of Israel. The United States Embassy should have
been moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem long ago, and I have supported
many past efforts to that end. Earlier this year, I joined 91 other
Senators in a letter to Secretary of State Christopher urging that our
Embassy be moved as soon as possible.
Beyond the protocol concerns of maintaining an embassy outside a
state's declared capital city, the U.S. Government is ignoring the
centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people by keeping its embassy in
Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is more than just a capital for the people of
Israel. Israelis cherish Jerusalem for its historical and religious
significance and hold it in great affection. As a result, this
continued reluctance to move the Embassy to Israel's precious capital
and most important city is perceived as the ultimate diplomatic snub.
It is only appropriate that we correct this slight.
Jerusalem has emotional resonance that reaches far beyond the Middle
East as the religious capital for all Jews and as an important
religious site for many other faiths. The Israeli Government has earned
our praise in its valiant efforts to ensure that people of all faiths
have unhindered access to their holy sites. Unfortunately, Jerusalem
has not always been so accessible, as Senator Lautenberg detailed for
the Senate yesterday.
Mr. President, I have been somewhat skeptical as to whether we can
pass legislation that will really move our Embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem. The administration has expressed reasonable concerns that
this measure is ill-timed and that in its original form could have had
an adverse effect on the peace process. I am pleased that Senators
Feinstein and Lautenberg were able to work with the original sponsors
of this measure to achieve a compromise to address the administration's
concerns.
With or without this legislation, I continue to urge the
administration to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as soon as
possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to send that
message to the administration.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1332, a bill to
relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. I have long supported placing
the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. It is time that the United States
recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by placing our Embassy
there. Such recognition is long overdue--47 years overdue. Over time,
the location of the Embassy in Tel Aviv has taken on a significance
that is at odds with our strong and unwavering support for Israel and
Jerusalem as its undivided capital.
The United States failure to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel has only served to embolden the enemies of Israel, leading them
to think perhaps the United States, Israel's closest ally, was
ambivalent about the status of Jerusalem. We are not. And it is long
past time for us to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to an
undivided Jerusalem as the historic, governmental, and spiritual
capital of Israel.
Much of the discussion on this bill has addressed concerns that
relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would have a detrimental
effect on the peace process. The opposite is true. An essential part of
the peace process involves a clear understanding between the parties on
a number of issues, an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is
one. PLO compliance is another. On both counts, I want to be absolutely
clear: both are essential to a lasting peace in the Middle East. Both
are good for Israel and both are good for the Palestinian people. Both
are fundamental prerequisites for moving forward into a phase of good
relations between Israel and its neighbors. Both are necessary for
stability, economic development, good government, and the rule of law
for the Palestinian people.
Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I want to join the strong chorus of
bipartisan support for S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act.
As an original cosponsor of this bill, as well as the legislation
introduced early this year, S. 770, I am pleased the Senate is taking
decisive action. This bill already has more than 60 cosponsors--a
testament once again to the strong bond between the people of the
United States and Israel, our friend and ally in the Middle East. I
urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this
legislation and send it to the White House as soon as possible.
Swift passage would not only be appropriate, but timely. In less than
2 weeks, Prime Minister Rabin and Mayor Olmert of Jerusalem will be
with us here in the Capitol to commemorate the 3,000th anniversary of
the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by King David.
It was 45 years ago, in 1950, when Jerusalem formally was reestablished
as the capital of Israel. Throughout this city's rich history,
Jerusalem has been an important city to people of many faiths. It has
been occupied by military governments, psuedo-states, and empires.
However, for three centuries, only one State has called Jerusalem her
capital--the State of Israel. Jerusalem is and should forever be the
capital of Israel. Jerusalem is where our Embassy belongs.
The Senate repeatedly has expressed in a strong, unified voice that
the United States Embassy in Israel should be relocated to Jerusalem.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to join a vast majority of my
colleagues--92 to be exact--in a letter to Secretary of State Warren
Christopher, urging that the State Department begin taking concrete
steps to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The legislation we
will pass today more than gets the process moving. Specifically, S.
1322 would set a definitive timeline for the construction and
relocation of the
[[Page S 15527]]
United States Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. It would authorize
funding over the next 2 years to ensure the timeline is met, including
the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem by May 31, 1999.
Madam President, I strongly disagree with those who claim that this
legislation could threaten the Middle East peace process. There is no
rational basis to question the Senate's commitment to achieving a
lasting peace in the Middle East. All want to see the peace process
succeed. The safety and security of all the people of Israel is
critical to attaining a stable environment in the Middle East.
Clearly, a number of issues in the peace process remain to be worked
out. However, there are a few facts that are not in dispute: Jerusalem
is an undivided city. Jerusalem is a city open to all people of all
nationalities and faiths. Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel. By
relocating our Embassy in this historic city, we simply reinforce these
facts--facts that reinforce U.S. policy. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Again, Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
this very important legislation. Throughout my career in the Senate,
this body has passed a number of nonbinding resolutions recognizing
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. U.S. policy is clear. Congress has
spoken many times. Now the time has come for action. I commend the
majority leader, my friends and colleagues from New York--Senator
D'Amato and Senator Moynihan--and my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl,
for their tenacious leadership to see this bill through to final
passage today. I can think of no action by the United States to be more
appropriate on this extraordinary year--the 3,000th anniversary of King
David's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel--than to
place our Embassy in Israel's capital city, Jerusalem--a city forever
free, forever undivided and forever the capital of the people of
Israel.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise today to speak about S. 1322--
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995. Let me say at
the outset that I share the fundamental premise of the sponsors of this
legislation, namely that Jerusalem is and should remain the undivided
capital of the State of Israel. I also agree that the logical extension
of that premise is that the U.S. Embassy should therefore appropriately
be located in that city.
I have joined with my colleagues on numerous occasions expressing
this view. Most recently, on March 20, I joined with 92 of my Senate
colleagues on a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating
our view that:
it would be appropriate for planning to begin now to ensure
such a move no later than the agreements on permanent status
take effect and the transition period has ended, which
according to the Declaration of Principles is scheduled for
May 1999.
Mr. President, several weeks ago I had the privilege of being present
at the White House to witness the historic signing of the Interim
Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza by Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak
Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. With the stroke of their pens,
they took, the peoples of the Middle East one step closer to lasting
peace. All of the efforts of those who were the enemies of peace could
not deter these two brave leaders from their goal of finding the common
ground that made that agreement a reality.
Since the establishment of the State of Israel more than 47 years
ago, the people of Israel have sought to live in peace with their
neighbors in the Middle East. For too long Israeli efforts to reach out
for peace and dialog with its Arab counterparts were met with rejection
and terrorism. Fortunately that has now largely changed. Clearly the
break up of the Soviet Union and the gulf war were defining moments
that totally reshaped the political landscape in the Middle East and
improved the prospect for peace.
Mr. President, I fully understand the emotional attachment that
Israelis--indeed all Jews--have for Jerusalem. I also respect the
significance of this city for those of Moslem and Jewish faiths. Under
Israeli sovereignty, all nations have enjoyed complete freedom of
worship in a united Jerusalem. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem
will in no way effect freedom of access to holy places or Moslem and
Christian continued control of their respective holy sites in that
city.
We can all be justly proud of the enormous progress that has been
made to date to undo the destruction and distrust that are the
byproduct of decades of hatred and havoc in the Middle East. But we
must also be realistic about the difficult issues that remain to be
resolved. We must also be mindful of actions we might take here in this
body that could further complicate efforts to reach a final agreement.
It is within that context that the administration's opposition to
legislatively mandating the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem
by a date certain should be understood. Having said that, I believe
that at this point not to vote in support of this legislation would
send the wrong signal to those who would prefer to see the Middle East
remain in turmoil. It would send the wrong signal to those who may hold
some allusion that our views about the undivided nature of the capital
of Israel will somehow change.
Mr. President, I also would note that the changes that have been made
to the original legislation by its sponsors do address some of the
specific concerns expressed by the administration about earlier
versions. I am pleased that ongoing discussions concerning the
inclusion of Presidential waiver authority bore fruit.
Mr. President, while I may have had some doubts about the specific
wording of the legislation or the timing of its consideration, I
wholeheartedly endorse its intent, and will join with my colleagues at
the appropriate time in support of final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. DOLE. Madam President, this is an historic day for the Senate.
Long discussed and long promised, today marks the day that means a U.S.
Embassy in Jerusalem will be a reality. On October 13, 1995, along with
Senators Moynihan, Kyl, Inouye, and 61 other colleagues, I introduced
S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995. It modifies S.
770, introduced last May, by deleting the requirement setting the
groundbreaking must be begun on the Embassy by May 1996. This
legislation states that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital
of Israel and that our Embassy should be relocated to that city no
later than May 1999. That is the bottom line.
I wish to say at the outset that the sponsors of this legislation do
not want to undermine the peace process. We support the process of
building peace in the Middle East.
In our view this legislation is not about the peace process, as the
Senator from Arizona pointed out in a meeting we had the other day with
the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, the Senator from New
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and the Senator from Connecticut, Senator
Lieberman, time and time again.
This legislation is not about the peace process, it is about
recognizing Israel's capital. Israel's capital is not on the table in
the peace process, and moving the United States Embassy to Jerusalem
does nothing to prejudge the outcome of any future negotiations.
Years ago, I expressed some concern about the impact of Jerusalem and
related issues could have on the prospects for peace. But we live in a
very different world today. The Soviet empire is gone, and Arab States
can no longer use cold war rivalries in their differences with Israel.
Iraqi aggression against Kuwait has been reversed with American forces
fighting shoulder to shoulder with Arab allies. American military
forces remain in the Persian Gulf region. Jordan has joined Egypt in
making genuine peace with Israel. The second phase of the Declaration
of Principles is being implemented, Gaza is under Palestinian control,
and Israeli withdrawal from West Bank towns has begun.
Even yesterday Arafat met with a group of 100 some Jewish leaders in
New York City. I never thought it would happen. It happened.
No one can fail to see that the Middle East has changed dramatically.
In my view, now is the time to set the deadline for moving the American
Embassy to Jerusalem.
In the more than 5 months since this legislation was introduced,
there was not one single overture from the Clinton administration.
There were veto
[[Page S 15528]]
threats and legal arguments, but no effort to even discuss our
differences. Despite the administration's refusal to talk, the sponsors
of the legislation remained willing to address concerns about the bill.
I had no doubt we can work it out and move forward on this
legislation.
I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Feinstein,
and others for their willingness to cooperate and work out some of the
differences we had, along, of course, with Senator Kyl, Senator
Lieberman, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Inouye.
The administration raised concerns over the lack of a waiver
provision in the bill. Last Friday, they proposed a national interest
waiver with no limits. In the interest of getting the broadest possible
support--we hope, even including the support of the White House--the
substitute adopted last night included a national security interest
waiver. If the waiver is exercised, funding withholding would take
place in the next fiscal year. This should take care of any possibly
unforseen impact of the legislation. Despite having the votes to
prevail, we have demonstrated our willingness to meet the concerns
raised. We did not want a confrontation with the White House. In sum,
we have gone the extra mile, and now is the time for the Senate to
speak.
Some have said the Israeli Government is opposed to this legislation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The architect of the Oslo
accord, Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin recently made Israeli
Government views very clear:
Any timing for transferring any embassy to Jerusalem, is
good timing. The earlier the better. Israel is the only
nation in the world that doesn't have a recognized capital.
As I said when introducing this legislation, the time has come to
move beyond letters, expressions of support, and sense-of-the-Congress
resolutions. The time has come to enact legislation that will get the
job done.
Madam President, we have a very sound piece of legislation before us
today. I would particularly like to thank the lead sponsors and those
who have been helpful in the process.
I am pleased that Senator Feinstein and Senator Lautenberg agreed to
cosponsor the legislation after the substitute was worked out last
night.
It would seem to me we ought to have unanimous or near unanimous
support for this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that several items referred to in my
statement be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Shaw, Pittman,
Potts & Trowbridge,
June 27, 1995.
To: American Israel Public Affairs Committee
From: Gerald Charnoff, Charles J. Cooper, and Michael A.
Carvin
Re S. 770; Bill to Relocate U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem
i. introduction
This memorandum is in response to your request for an
analysis of the constitutionality of the ``Jerusalem Embassy
Relocation Implementation Act of 1995,'' hereinafter S. 770,
a measure introduced by Senator Dole in the first session of
the 104th Congress. Maintaining that Jerusalem should be
recognized by the U.S. as the capital of Israel, the bill, in
a Statement of Policy, states that groundbreaking for the
U.S. embassy in Jerusalem ``should begin'' by 31 December
1996 and that the embassy ``should be officially open'' by 31
May 1999. S. 770, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 3(a). The
measure further establishes that no more than 50% of the
funds appropriated to the Department of State in fiscal year
1997 for ``Acquisition & Maintenance of Buildings Abroad''
may be obligated until the Secretary of State certifies that
construction has begun on the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. Id.
Sec. 3(b). Similarly, not more than 50% of the funds
appropriated in the same account for fiscal year 1999 may be
obligated prior to certification by the Secretary of State
that the Jerusalem embassy has officially opened. Id.,
Sec. 3(c). Additional provisions, contained in sections four
and five of the measure, earmark certain funds for the
relocation effort.'' \1\
\1\ Footnotes at end of letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice
has taken the position that the funding mechanism
incorporated into S. 770 is an unconstitutional infringement
on the President's powers. See Bill to Relocate the United
States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Op. Off. Legal
Counsel (May 16, 1995) (``The proposed bill would severely
impair the President's constitutional authority to determine
the form and manner of the Nation's diplomatic relations.'')
(hereinafter ``OLC Op.'').
ii. analysis
The Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') Opinion argues that
the President has primary responsibility for foreign affairs
and that his specific power to recognize foreign governments
to exclusive. OLC Op., p. 2-3. Accordingly, OLC concludes
that ``Congress may not impose on the President its own
foreign policy judgments as to the particular sites at which
the United States' diplomatic relations are to take place.''
Id. at 3. OLC maintains that the imposition of fixed-
percentage restrictions on the State Department's FY 1997 and
FY 1999 acquisition and maintenance funds until specified
steps are completed in the relocation effort constitutes an
impermissible restriction on the President's discretion in
foreign affairs. Although OLC does not in any way dispute
Congress' plenary power over the purse, it maintains that
Congress may not ``attach conditions to Executive Branch
appropriations requiring the President to relinquish his
constitutional discretion in foreign affairs.'' Id. at 4,
quoting Issues Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138
and Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 102-140, 16 Op. Off. Legal
Counsel at 30-31 (1992) (emphasis added.). In support of this
assertion, OLC places exclusive reliance on prior Executive
Branch opinions which criticize congressional appropriations
riders that directly required the President to take (or
refrain from) a particular action by stating that no
appropriated funds could be used for the congressionally
proscribed action. Id. at 3-4. See also Issues Raised by
Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 & Section 503 of Pub. L.
No. 102-140, 16 Op. Off. of Legal Counsel 18, 19 (1992),
citing Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 102-140, 105 Stat. at 820
(1991) (``[N]one of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used by the Department of State to issue more than one
official or diplomatic passport to any United States
government employee. . . .''); Appropriations Limitation for
Rules Vetoed by Congress, 4B Op. Off. of Legal Counsel 731,
731-32 (1980), citing H.R. 7484, Sec. 608, 96th Cong., 2nd
Sess. (1980) (``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available to implement . . . any regulation which has
been disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly
adopted. . . .'').
OLC's assertion concerning the primacy of the Chief
Executive in foreign affairs is well-supported,\2\ and its
further assertion that Congress may not interfere with these
foreign policy prerogatives even when exercising its spending
power is also consistent with long-standing Executive Branch
precedent, although Congress has taken a different view.\3\
The issue has never been resolved judicially.\4\ However,
OLC's assertion that S. 770 ``requires'' or ``compels'' the
President to move the Embassy to Jerusalem, and is thus
subject to the same constitutional objections as
appropriation riders containing such unconditional
requirements, is belied by the plain language of the bill and
is otherwise unsupported by law or Executive Branch opinions.
S. 770 does not purport to restrict the President's ability
to maintain an Embassy in Tel Aviv or to otherwise interfere
with the President's authority to use appropriated monies in
any manner he believes best serves the Nation's foreign
policy interests. Rather, the measure merely states that,
absent compliance with an established timetable for
relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel, Congress will
invoke its spending power to reduce the aggregate funding
level that can be obligated in certain related discretionary
accounts. Instead of a prohibition on the ability of the
President to use money to exercise his constitutional powers,
S. 770 merely provides a fiscal incentive for the President
to exercise his discretion in a certain manner, though
leaving him capable of eschewing these incentives and acting
in direct contravention of Congress' wishes. Thus, such a
mechanism in no way restricts the ability of the President to
use his foreign affairs power to employ appropriated money as
he sees fit.
That being so, S. 770 is different in this critical respect
from any other appropriation rider ever objected to by
Executive Branch officials as an unconstitutional
infringement on the President's foreign affairs power or
other executive powers. In all such cases, the appropriations
riders have directed a particular course of action or
inaction by prohibiting certain uses of appropriated funds,
even if the President desired to take such actions in
fulfilling his constitutionally-assigned duties. Issues
Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 & Section 503 of
Pub. L. No. 102-140, supra, citing Section 503 of Pub. L. No.
102-140, 105 Stat. at 820 (1991) (``[N]one of the funds
provided in this Act shall be used by the Department of State
to issue more than one official or diplomatic passport to any
United States government employee. . . . ''); Appropriations
Limitation for Rules Vetoed by Congress, supra, citing H.R.
7584, Sec. 608, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1980) (``None of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available shall be
available to implement . . . any regulation which has been
disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly
adopted. . . .'').
[[Page S 15529]]
The Attorney General and OLC have reasoned that if Congress
is without constitutional power to make decisions for the
President in areas the Constitution commits to his
discretion, it matters not whether that intrusion is embodied
in appropriations or other legislation. In exercising its
power of the purse, Congress has no greater authority to
usurp the President's exclusive constitutional authority than
when it acts pursuant to other enumerated powers. See, The
Appropriations Power & the Necessary & Proper Clause, 68
Wash. U. L. Q. 623, 30 (1990) (``[W]hen we hear discussions
about Congress' weighty role in . . . the foreign relations
power, and Congress adverts to `the power of the purse,' it
does not make sense. Congress still has to point to a
substantive power. The power of the purse . . . is only
procedural.'') (remarks by the Honorable William Barr).
Here, in contrast, Congress imposes no restrictions on
appropriated funds: such funds may continue to be used to
maintain an Embassy in Tel Aviv should the President decide
to leave the Embassy there. Accordingly, there is nothing in
S. 770 ``requiring the President to relinquish his
constitutional discretion in foreign affairs'' and thus OLC's
reliance on Executive Branch condemnation of such
appropriation riders is entirely misplaced. OLC Op., p. 4.
To be sure, if the President retains the status quo in
Israel, the State Department will have less funds in two
upcoming fiscal years than it would otherwise have, and so S.
770 is plainly designed to influence the President's decision
on the Jerusalem Embassy. But this sort of ``horse trading''
is a basic staple of relations between the two political
branches and hardly infringes the President's constitutional
authority or powers. For example, the President has
unfettered constitutional authority to nominate whomever he
desires for, say, Surgeon General, and Congress does not
unconstitutionally interfere with that presidential
appointment authority by abolishing or reducing the funding
for the Surgeon General's Office if certain nominees are
proposed. Similarly, Congress may constitutionally pledge to
reduce financial support for certain foreign interests or
international organizations simply because it is displeased
with the President's exercise of his responsibilities as
foreign affairs spokesman or Commander-in-Chief. Since the
use of these sorts of quid pro quos to influence the
President's exercise of his constitutional duties does not
unconstitutionally interfere with those duties, S. 770's
establishment of such a device is similarly within Congress'
constitutional authority.
By entrusting the President with the authority to
definitively resolve certain questions, the Framers did not
erect a prophylactic shield protecting the President against
all attempts to influence the manner in which he resolves
those issues. Accordingly, the Founders did not erect some
special constitutional protection for the President which
immunizes him from the give and take of inter-branch
disagreements. Rather, they expected that a President of
``tolerable firmness'' would be able to resist congressional
blandishments to pursue a course he deemed unwise, assuming
such appropriations riders survived his veto in the first
instance. Alexander Hamilton, ``The Federalist No. 73,'' at
445 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
For this reason, even those scholars who believe Congress
``ought not be able to regulate Presidential action by
conditions on the appropriation of funds . . . if it could
not regulate the action directly,'' Henkin, supra at 113,
acknowledge that establishment of financial penalties or
incentives to influence presidential action is permissible.
Henkin, supra at 79. (``Since the President is always coming
to Congress for money for innumerable purposes, domestic and
foreign, Congress and Congressional committees can use
appropriations and the appropriations process to bargain also
about other elements of Presidential policy and foreign
affairs.''). Indeed, the Attorney General has favorably
opined on the constitutionality of an appropriation rider
that imposed a markedly more onerous restriction on the
President's exclusive Commander-in-Chief powers than S. 770
imposes on his foreign policy discretion. In 1909, Congress
attached the following rider to the Navy's appropriation:
``[N]o part of the appropriations herein made for the
Marine Corps shall be expended for the purpose for which said
appropriations are made unless officers and enlisted men
shall serve on board all battleships and armored cruisers,
and also upon such other vessels of the navy as the President
may direct, in detachments of not less than eight percentum
of the strength of the enlisted men of the navy on said
vessels.'' Naval Appropriations Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 753,
773, reprinted in Appropriations--Marine Corps--Service on
Battleships, 27 Op. Att'y Gen. 259 (1909).
The Attorney General found this restriction constitutional
because, ``Congress has power to create or not to create . .
. a marine corps, make appropriation for its pay, [and]
provide that such appropriation shall not be made available
unless the marine corps be employed in some designated way .
. .'' 27 Op. Att'y Gen. at 260.
So far as we can discern, neither OLC nor the Attorney
General have subsequently disavowed or undermined the
vitality of this Attorney General Opinion, although they
opined at times that appropriation riders could not direct
the President to take action within his constitutional
sphere. Presumably, then, even Executive Branch officials
have recognized a distinction between impermissible riders
that mandate certain action or inaction and permissible ones
which, like the Marine Corps appropriation, provide the
President with at least a nominal choice between two courses
of action, with financial ``penalties'' if he chooses the
disfavored option. In the 1909 naval appropriation, the
President's ``choice'' was between having marines constitute
eight percent of battleship crews or having no funding for
the Marine Corps at all. This complete defunding penalty for
exercising the disfavored option is obviously far more
draconian than the 50% reduction in construction funding
occasioned by S. 770.
In short, there is an obvious and constitutionally
significant difference between an appropriations law
forbidding the President to take action which the
Constitution leaves to his discretion and a law which merely
sets out the negative financial consequences that will ensue
if the President pursues a certain policy. This distinction
between coercive laws and laws which offer financial
incentives to exercise one's sovereign power in the preferred
way has been well-recognized by the Supreme Court in directly
analogous circumstances.
Most notably, in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987),
the Supreme Court considered a congressional statute, known
as Section 158, which directed the Secretary of
Transportation to withold five percent of allocable highway
funds from any state in which individuals under the age of 21
could legally purchase or possess alcohol. Like S. 770, the
funding mechanism in Dole constituted a congressional attempt
to provide indirect financial inducement to affect policy in
an area presumably beyond Congress' power to legislate
directly.
Despite earlier recognition that the ``Twenty-first
Amendment grants States virtually complete control over
whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to
structure the liquor distribution system,'' \5\ the Court
upheld this statutory incursion into state sovereignty,
asserting that the ``encouragement to state action found in
Sec. 158 is a valid use of the spending power.'' Dole, 483
U.S. at 212. Accordingly, even though the Constitution
assigned to the states the responsibility for establishing
drinking ages, and thus Congress presumably could not direct
the states to set a minimum age, this funding restriction was
permissible because ``Congress has acted indirectly under its
spending power to encourage uniformity in the States'
drinking ages.'' Id. at 206. Thus, such restrictions are
permissible because the potential recipient of appropriated
federal funds is free to reject Congress' financial
inducement and exercise unfettered discretion in the relevant
area, so long as the recipient is willing to endure the
financial sacrifice that ensues. Id. at 211-212 (``Congress
has offered . . . encouragement to the States to enact higher
minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose. But
the enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the
States not merely in theory but in fact.''). Similarly, in
upholding federal appropriation riders requiring the
regulation of State employees' political activities, the
Supreme Court has ruled that even though Congress ``has no
power to regulate local political activities as such of state
officials,'' the federal government nevertheless ``does have
power to fix the terms upon which its money allotments to
states shall be disbursed.'' Oklahoma v. Civil Service
Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 143 (1947). The Court found that the
state's sovereignty remained intact because the state could
adopt ``the `simple expedient' of not yielding to what she
urges is federal coercion.'' Id. at 143-144.
Thus, Dole would seem to directly establish that the sort
of conditional funding provided by S. 770 is constitutionally
permissible. In Oklahoma and Dole, the Tenth and Twenty-first
Amendments provided the states with exclusive authority over
their employees' political activities and citizens' legal
drinking age, yet Congress did not unconstitutionally
infringe these powers by offering financial incentives to
adopt a particular policy. By the same token, the fact that
the Constitution vests the President with exclusive
recognition authority does not disable Congress from using
its plenary spending power to seek to influence the exercise
of that authority.
Like the drinking-age restriction in Dole, the funding
mechanism in S. 770 merely attempts to induce recipients of
federal funds to pursue policy ends advocated by Congress via
clearly established conditions on future appropriations,
while leaving that decisionmaker with the option of refusing
such conditions. The President may exercise his discretion to
retain the American embassy in Tel Aviv and accept the
potential of reduced congressional funding in certain related
discretionary accounts, or he can move the embassy. S. 770
does nothing to alter the fundamental fact that the decision
as to where to locate the U.S. embassy in Israel ``remains
the prerogative'' of the President ``not merely in theory but
in fact.'' Dole, 483 U.S. at 211-12.\6\
To be sure, the President differs from state governments
because, as noted, he cannot pursue any action requiring
expenditures without congressional funding. Thus a blanket
prohibition against using appropriated funds does not leave
him with any option to pursue the proscribed activity.
Because of this distinction, a straightforward restriction
against using any funds for an action
[[Page S 15530]]
otherwise within the President's constitutional power is an effective
prohibition against taking such action and thus presents a
different, and more difficult, constitutional question. As
noted, however, that is not the situation here. The President
has been offered a choice directly analogous to that offered
the states in Dole--he may pursue the congressionally
disfavored option and accept the financial consequences or
acquiesce to the preferred option without any such sacrifice.
OLC has nonetheless previously sought to distinguish Dole
on the grounds that the Supreme Court's decision in
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for
the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 111 S. Ct. 2298 (1991)
(hereinafter ``MWAA'') found Dole ``inapplicable'' to issues
that ``involve separation-of-powers principles.'' Issues
Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 and Section 503
of Pub. L. No 102-140, supra, at 31. This assertion is
patently untrue. MWAA in no way suggests that, while Congress
is free to use its spending power to influence the sovereign
power of states guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and the
Constitution's basic structure, the sovereign powers of the
President are somehow different and thus immune from such
congressional blandishments. Contrary to OLC's misleading
selective quotation, MWAA never said Dole's rationale was
``inapplicable'' to cases involving ``separation-of-powers
principles,'' it simply stated that Dole's rationale was
``inapplicable to the issue presented by this case.'' MWAA,
1111 S. Ct. at 2309 (emphasis added). Dole's rationale was
inapplicable not because the sovereign authority of the
President is somehow different from that of the states, but
because the infringement of executive powers in MWAA was
obviously and significantly different from the funding
appropriation conditions at issue in Dole.
The issue that divided the dissenting and majority opinions
in MWAA was whether Congress was effectively responsible for
creating the Board of Review, which was composed of Members
of Congress and had veto power over the Airport Authority's
important decisions. Id. at 2313 (White, J. dissenting). The
dissent argued that no separation-of-powers issue was
implicated by this Board of Review because the Commonwealth
of Virginia (and the District of Columbia) had created that
Board and no federalism principles prevented the states from
so utilizing the talents of Members of Congress. Id.
According to the dissent, the fact that Congress had coerced
Virginia to make this decision was of no moment because this
``coercion'' was no different than Congress' use of the
spending power to influence states in Dole. Id. at 2316-17.
In the section of the opinion relied upon by OLC, the
majority refuted both prongs of the dissent's arguments:
``Here, unlike Dole, there is no question about federal
power to operate the airports. The question is whether the
maintenance of federal control over the airports by means of
the Board of Review, which is allegedly a federal
instrumentality, is invalid, not because it invades any state
power, but because Congress' continued control violates the
separation-of-powers principle, the aim of which is to
protect not the States but ``the whole people from
improvident laws.'' Chadha, at 951, 103 S. Ct. at 2784.
Nothing in our opinion in Dole implied that a highway grant
to a State could have been conditioned on the State's
creating a ``Highway Board of Review'' composed of Members of
Congress.''--Id. at 2309.
The first two sentences merely make the obvious point that
since MWAA deals with a ``federal instrumentality'' and there
was no question about the propriety of ``federal power to
operate the airports,'' there is simply no issue of federal
interference with state power.\7\ Since there was no question
of federal interference with, or bargaining for, state power,
the only relevant question was who controlled the federal
power--Congress or the Executive. In that regard, Congress
had not ``bargained'' with the Executive by establishing
financial conditions analogous to S. 770, but had directly
commandeered control over the Airport Authority by
establishing the Review Board.
The third sentence in the quoted passage simply says that
Dole is inapplicable because the infringement in MWAA is
different from the appropriation restriction in Dole and
would be impermissible if applied to the states. This
obviously belies the assertion that Dole was found
inapplicable because different standards govern infringement
on the President's powers than those which govern state
intrusions. Specifically, Dole was distinguishable because,
in MWAA, Congress did not provide money in return for
Virginia exercising its sovereignty in a certain way. Rather,
Virginia agreed to transfer its sovereignty over the Airport
Authority to Congress. As the opinion's derisive citation to
a ``Highway Board of Review'' makes clear, while the federal
government may use its spending power to influence a state's
exercise of its own sovereignty, Congress cannot use its
spending power to induce the state to enhance congressional
authority by creating congressionally-controlled federal
instrumentalities. In short, Virginia was not trading away
its own state power over airports; it had none. Rather, it
was trading away the pre-existing Executive power over the
airports to Congress. Since Virginia obviously had no
Executive power to trade, Congress could not invoke Dole to
justify its exercise of Executive power.
As this detailed review establishes, MWAA said that Dole
was inapplicable because 1) there was no state power to
bargain away, and 2) states cannot enhance congressional
power in return for congressional dollars. Nothing in MWAA
suggests that Dole was inapposite because the Executive,
unlike states, in somehow disabled from agreeing to exercise
his sovereign authority in a particular manner in return for
increased congressional monies.
To the contrary, like the states, the Executive Branch,
``absent coercion . . . has both the incentive and the
ability to protect its own rights and powers, and therefore
may cede such rights and powers.'' MWAA, 111 S. Ct. at 2309.
The fact that preserving the President's powers against
congressional enactments is ultimately designed to protect
the ``whole people from improvident laws'' does not suggest a
different rule, since the federalism concerns implicated in
Dole were also designed to preserve the people's liberty. See
U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1626-27 (1995) (``Just as the
separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the
Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of
excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power
between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the
risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.''), quoting
Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991); New York v.
U.S., 112 S. Ct. 2408, 2431 (1992) (``[t]he Constitution
divides authority between federal and state governments for
the protection of individuals.'') (emphasis added.)
To be sure, under MWAA, Congress could not condition
appropriations on the President's agreement to establish an
``Israeli Embassy Board of Review,'' where congressional
agents determine the location of the Embassy. The President
cannot transfer his recognition powers to congressional
decisionmakers and, as indicated, there is a plausible
argument that Congress cannot directly supplant the
President's decisionmaking authority on such matters, even
though directives in appropriations bills. Like any other
sovereign, however, the President may consider many factors
in making his own decisions. Just as he may consider the
reaction of foreign countries, he may also consider a
negative congressional reaction. Accordingly, nothing
precludes Congress from seeking to influence that decision
through use of its own constitutional powers including the
spending power.
Indeed, OLC's contrary position demeans the President's
constitutional status and certainly cannot be advanced in the
name of a strong Executive. The OLC Opinion suggests that the
President, unlike the states, lacks the ability or the will
to resist Congress' financial inducements. Particularly given
the existence of his veto power, this view of the President's
authority vis-a-vis Congress is obviously untenable and
irreconcilable with the Framers' views. The Framers did not
erect a prophylactic constitutional umbrella protecting the
President from the persuasive power of Congress' financial
inducements, they forged only a shield against congressional
directives. OLC simply ignores this vital distinction and the
Executive Branch and judicial precedent which support it.
Under these precedents and a proper understanding of the
constitutional framework, S. 770 does not violate any
separation-of-powers principle or infringe any constitutional
authority of the President.
footnotes
\1\ Section 4 of S. 770 merely reprograms $5 million in funds
appropriated in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State,
the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
1995. Pub. L. No. 103-317, 108 Stat. 1724, 60 (1994) (Title V
contains appropriations specifically for the Department of
State and related agencies.) Specifically, $5 million
previously contained in the aggregate account for expenses of
general administration is earmarked for costs incurred in
activities associated with the relocation of the U.S. embassy
in Israel: Id., Sec. 4 (``Of the funds appropriated for
fiscal year 1995 for the Department of State and related
agencies, not less than $5,000,000 shall be made available
until expended for costs associated with relocating the
United States Embassy in Israel. . . .'').
The $5 million authorization is to remain in effect without
temporal restriction until such funds are expended. Sec. 4
Though the President is in no way obligated to spend the $5
million earmarked for the relocation effort, such funds
cannot be used for any other purposes. General Accounting
Office, ``Principles on Federal Appropriations Law'' 6-6 (2.
ed., 1992) (In an appropriations bill providing $1,000 for
``[s]moking materials . . . of which not less than $100 shall
be available for Cuban cigars . . . portions of the $100 not
obligated for Cuban cigars may not be applied to the other
objects of the appropriation.''); Earmarked Authorizations,
64 Comp. Gen. 388, 394 (1985) (asserting that where measure
providing funding for the National Endowment for Democracy
earmarks ``Not less than $13,800,000'' for projects of the
Free Trade Union Institute, ``awards should not be made''
where there is no worthy programs, ``but the consequence of
this [non-allocation] is not to free the unobligated earmarks
for other projects.''). Similarly, Section 5 of the bill
earmarks a specified amount of the funds authorized to be
appropriated in the Department of State's general account for
``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' in fiscal
years 1996 and 1997, requiring that such earmarked funds be
spent on the embassy relocation effort. As in Section 4, the
budget authority is not temporarily restricted and is to last
``until expended'' on the relocation effort. Given the
identical requirement that ``not less than [the earmarked
amount] . . . shall be made available'' in fiscal years 1996
and 1997 respectively, the President has discretion as to
whether to use the money, but cannot use earmarked funds for
other general purposes.
\2\ See, e.g., Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of
Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 705-06 n. 18 (1976) ( ``[T]he conduct of
[diplomacy] is committed primarily to the Executive Branch.''
); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410
(1964) (``Political recognition is exclusively a function of
the Executive.'');
[[Page S 15531]]
United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942) (Asserting that the
executive's constitutional authority to recognize governments
``is not limited to a determination of the government to be
recognized. It includes the power to determine the policy
which is to govern the question of recognition.'').
\3\ Congress has repeatedly used its control over
appropriations to influence executive actions on foreign
policy and has repeatedly opined that these conditions are
constitutional. See, e.g., William C. Banks & Peter Raven-
Hansen, ``National Security and the Power of the Purse'' 3-4
(1994); Louis Henkin, ``Foreign Affairs and the
Constitution'' 114 (1972). (``Congress has insisted and
Presidents have reluctantly accepted that in foreign affairs
. . . spending is expressly entrusted to Congress and its
judgment as to the general welfare of the United States, and
it can designate the recipients of its largesse and impose
conditions upon it.''); ``Report of the Committees
Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair,'' S. Rept. No. 100-216,
H. Rept. No. 100-433, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 475 (1987)
(``[W]e grant without argument that Congress may use its
power over appropriations . . . to place significant limits
on the methods a President may use to pursue objectives the
Constitution put squarely within the executive's
discretionary power.'' ). Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1985, Pub. L. No. 98-473,
Sec. 8066, 98 Stat. 1837, 1935 (1984), reprinted in Banks,
supra at 138. ( ``During fiscal year 1985, no funds available
to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of
Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States
involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or
expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of
supporting . . . military or paramilitary operations in
Nicaragua. . . .'' ); Arms Control Export Act of 1976, Pub.
L. No. 94-329, Sec. 404, 90 Stat. 729, 757-58 (1976) ( ``[N]o
assistance of any kind may be provided for the purpose, or
which would have no effect, of promoting . . . the capacity
of any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual
to conduct military or paramilitary operations in Angola. . .
.'' ).
\4\ It is well-established that Congress may not use its
spending power to coerce activity that itself violates a
provision of the Constitution. See United States v. Butler,
297 U.S. 1, 69-70, 74 (1936): United States v. Lovett, 328
U.S. 303, 315-16 (1946) (striking a funding restriction as a
bill of attainder in violation of the U.S. Constitution).
Obviously, this doctrine has no application here since the
Constitution does not prohibit moving the American Embassy in
Israel to Jerusalem. However, OLC, as it has in the past,
further maintains that the spending power cannot be used to
force the President to take action that is perfectly
constitutional, if the appropriation restricts the
President's power to exercise his unfettered discretion in an
area within his constitutional authority. There is no
judicial precedent either way on OLC's extension of the
independent constitutional bar principle in a separation-of-
powers context. In the context of congressional funding
conditions on state governments, the Supreme Court has
unequivocally rejected an expanded notion of the independent
constitutional bar:
``[T]he ``independent constitutional bar'' limitation on the
spending bar is not, as petitioners suggest, a prohibition on
the indirect achievement of objectives which Congress is not
empowered to achieve directly. Instead, we think that the
language in our earlier opinions stands for the
unexceptionable proposition that the power may not be used to
induce activities that would themselves be
unconstitutional.''
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 210 (1987). See also
Oklahoma v. Civil Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127 (1947). Of
course, the President, unlike the states, has no access to
funds other than those appropriated by Congress. Thus, unlike
the situation with state governments, a prohibition
precluding the President from spending any appropriated
monies on a particular activity is a direct prohibition
against pursuing that activity. This provides a plausible
basis for distinguishing the statute involved in Dole from a
direct appropriations restriction on the President's
activities. As we discuss below, however, Dole provides
direct support, where, as here, there is no prohibition
against spending money on the President's desired activity.
\5\ California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal
Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97, 110 (1980) cited in Dole, 483 U.S. at
205.
\6\ The Supreme Court has recognized that at some point, a
financial inducement becomes so lucrative that ``pressure
turns into compulsion'' and such incentive becomes
unconstitutional coercion. Dole, 483 U.S. at 211. See also,
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937).
However, the Dole Court dismissed any claim of coercion
involved in the drinking age funding provision, stating that
the ``relatively small percentage'' of highway funds involved
in the cutoff were not coercive. 483 U.S. at 211. The Court
further asserted that the mere fact that a conditional grant
of money is successful in achieving compliance with
congressional restrictions will not establish coercion. Id.
seems clear that, given the minuscule amount of funding
involved in S. 770, especially relative to the substantial
highway fund allocations involved in Dole, the incentive
mechanism at issue could not be deemed coercive. Should the
President refuse to move the embassy, he would be barred from
obligating funds amounting to a mere one percent of the
budget authority reserved for international affairs in each
of the fiscal years involved and a mere one one-hundredth of
one percent of the aggregate budget in those same years.
Office of Management & Budget, ``Appendix to the Budget of
the United States for Fiscal Year 1996'' 692-93 (1995);
Office of Management & Budget, ``Historical Tables to
Supplement the Budget of the United States for Fiscal Year
1996'' 14, 69 (1995).
\7\ The Court had previously noted that the Board of Review
was ``an entity created at the initiative of Congress, the
powers of which Congress has delineated, the purpose of which
is to protect an acknowledged federal interest, and
membership in which is restricted to congressional officials.
Such an entity necessarily exercises sufficient federal power
as an agent of Congress to mandate separation-of-powers
scrutiny.'' Id. at 2308.
Jerusalem, Israel,
July 5, 1995.
The Editor,
New York Times.
To the Editor: The debate about the relocation of the U.S.
Embassy continues and I write to express my whole-hearted
support of the Dole/Inouye legislation, which calls for
moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem by 1999.
Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the founding
of the State in 1948. Throughout history, Jerusalem has been
the capital of the Jewish nation and must remain so. For the
Embassy of the United States--``Israel's closest friend''--
not to be in the functioning capital of Israel is an anomaly.
Israel is the only country in the world where the U.S.
Embassy is located in a city not regarded by the host nation
as its capital. The basis for the Embassy not being located
in Jerusalem was incorrect from the beginning, and this
policy should finally be corrected.
Jerusalem is sacred to all three monotheistic religions but
is meaning is not equal for them. In Christendom and Islam
there are many spiritual centers and many symbolic capitals.
In Judaism and for the Jewish people, there is only one
Jerusalem.
Public attention is focused on whether or not this is the
``right time'' for such a move. I believe it is. The
placement of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem has been a
consensus issue for the American Jewish community and for
successive Israeli governments for years. In the last decade,
both Houses of Congress have enacted four resolutions calling
on the U.S. government to acknowledge united Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel.
The Dole/Inouye legislation, which is cosponsored by a
majority of the U.S. Senate, will be put to a vote. It must
be enacted by an overwhelming majority. Failure to do so will
send a wrong message to the Arab States. It is imperative to
establish now the U.S. conviction that realistic negotiations
be premised on the principle that Jerusalem is the capital of
Israel, and must remain united, Israelis of all political
stripes are for the establishment of the U.S. Embassy in
Jerusalem. The site reserved for the new Embassy is in West
Jerusalem--on land which has been part of Israel since 1948.
Support for this legislation is, and has always been,
bipartisan. Now is the time to move forward with it.
Sincerely yours,
Teddy Kollek.
____
Yossi Beilin on Legislation to Move the United States Embassy to
Jerusalem
(Press conference with Israeli journalists, Oct. 12, 1995)
Question. Regarding the Jerusalem legislation to move the
embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, are you pleased with the
initiative and the timing of this?
Beilin. Any timing for transferring any embassy to
Jerusalem is good timing. The earlier the better, from my
perspective. I am happy that there is the intention to do
this. I'm only sorry that this has become part of election
strife in Congress between the Republicans and Democrats in a
bit of a cynical manner. To my disappointment, it has been
promised by the opposition but then it was not carried out.
Question. Aren't you concerned that it will hurt the peace
process or the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the Arabs
if the legislation will pass?
Beilin. Israel is the only nation in the world that doesn't
have a recognized capital and I am not prepared to accept
that if Israel has a recognized capital this will affect the
negotiations.
Mr. KYL. The waiver provision in S. 1322 will be examined by many
people. I would like to join with the distinguished majority leader in
clarifying on the Record the meaning and purpose of the waiver
language.
Mr. DOLE. I agree with my friend from Arizona, that it is important
to address the scope and meaning of the waiver provision. It is
important that no one think that this provision would allow the
President to ignore the requirements of S. 1322 simply because he
disagrees with the policy this legislation is promulgating. The
President cannot lawfully invoke this waiver simply because he thinks
it would be better not to move our Embassy to Jerusalem or simply
because he thinks it would be better to move it at a later time. The
waiver is designed to be read and interpreted narrowly. It was included
to give the President limited flexibility--flexibility to ensure that
this legislation will not harm U.S. national security interests in the
event of an emergency or unforeseen change in circumstances.
Mr. KYL. What is the significance of the phrase ``national security
interests'' as opposed to ``national interest''?
Mr. DOLE. This is the way we are ensuring that the waiver will not
permit the President to negate the legislation simply on the grounds
that he disagrees with the policy. ``National security interests'' in
much narrower than the term ``national interest''--and it is a higher
standard than national interest. The key word is security. No President
should or could make a decision to exercise this waiver lightly.
Mr. KYL. Is it fair to say that the intention of the waiver is to
address constitutional concerns that have been raised about S. 1322?
Mr. DOLE. It is fair to say the waiver is intended to address unusual
or unforeseen circumstances. We believe S. 1322 is constitutional even
without the waiver, but the constitutional questions that have been
raise about it deal
[[Page S 15532]]
with issues so important that we think it is best to offer the
President the limited flexibility of the waiver. It is within the
constitutional appropriations power of Congress to withhold funds from
the executive branch if it does not act in accordance with
congressional mandates.
Mr. KYL. Although in drafting the legislation Senators did not limit
the number of times the President could invoke the waiver authority, is
it correct to say that the intent of the drafters is not to grant the
President the right to invoke the waiver in perpetuity?
Mr. DOLE. The waiver authority should not be interpreted to mean that
the President may infinitely push off the establishment of the American
Embassy in Jerusalem. Our intent is that the Embassy be established in
Jerusalem by May 1999. If a waiver were to be repeatedly and routinely
exercised by a President, I would expect Congress to act by removing
the waiver authority.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California.
I would ask how much time is left, because I want to be certain that
my colleague from Delaware has a chance to say a few words.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. After your 4 minutes, there will be 3\1/2\
minutes remaining on your side.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. And also for the Senator from California and the
Senator from Connecticut. I will try to wrap up in a couple minutes
because yesterday I think I expressed myself and my full support for
this substitute.
I want to commend the majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Kyl
for the hard work that they did to move this legislation along to
ensure that the capital of Israel, the capital chosen by that State, is
going to be home to our Embassy, as it ought to be.
Frankly, there was some difficulty in arriving at the consensus view
that we finally did. And that was largely, not because we disagreed on
the objective, that is, moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, but because
perhaps there might have been an involvement that would have interfered
with the orderly discussion of the peace process.
Madam President, the one thing that I want to be sure of is that as
much as possible we stop the killing in the Middle East, that as much
as possible we get these parties together on an open and honest basis.
And the process is in being at this moment. There has not been in the
history of the creation of the State of Israel a friendlier President
than President Clinton is to Israel.
We saw on the lawn of the White House the celebration of the end of
enormous hostilities that existed for decades where people just looking
at one another were almost ready at first sight to kill each other.
Yesterday's story in the Washington Post was a poignant recollection
of what happens to two families, one Arab, one Jew, who lost their
sons, one responsible in a way for the death of the other, but
nonetheless no one seeking revenge, no one looking for vengeance. What
they wanted to do was make sure that other families did not have to
mourn the loss of a son or a daughter, be they Palestinian or Jew.
That is the way we ought to be approaching this. And I think, Madam
President, that is what is going to happen. All of us want the Embassy
moved. The question is, we want it to happen as soon as possible, but
we want the peace discussions to continue, as I said, in an orderly
fashion.
I worked very closely with some dear friends, with Senator Lieberman
from Connecticut, with whom I share a very deep interest in the State
of Israel, in Jerusalem, in the peace process, and with Senator Biden
who has had a long history of support for Israel. And I want to commend
Senator Feinstein for her diligence, for her insight into the problem,
and for getting us to this point where I believe that the supporting
vote will be almost unanimous, as I believe it should be.
And so, Madam President, it is a moment that not yet calls for
celebration, but does initiate a process of which I think we can all be
proud.
Madam President, I support this substitute amendment.
Unlike the original bill, this amendment includes a waiver for the
President. I believe the amendment will mandate the move of the
American Embassy to Jerusalem while providing the administration
flexibility in case it's necessary for national security reasons.
Madam President, I have long supported having the American Embassy in
Jerusalem. I wish the American Embassy had been opened in Jerusalem
long ago, when the State was established or when the city was reunified
in 1967. I believe Jerusalem--a city I have visited many times--will
always remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel.
The pace at which the Middle East peace process has yielded tangible
results has been breathtaking. Just 2 years ago, on September 13, 1993,
Prime Minister Rabin and Yasir Arafat agreed to end decades of
bloodshed when they signed the historic Declaration of Principles and
shook hands at the White House. Continuing their pursuit of peace, they
signed the Cairo Agreement on Gaza and Jericho on May 4, 1994. And just
weeks ago, on September 28, 1995, they again met at the White House to
sign an agreement on the West Bank.
Jordan, too, has been brought into the process and has signed a
formal peace agreement with Israel.
America should be proud of the role it has played in helping former
enemies agree to end hostilities. To be sure, the parties in the Middle
East needed to be ready to take the giant step toward peace. It was
their readiness and their political courage that made peace attainable.
The amendment we offer now would help protect the peace process
should national security interests warrant it. The amendment would
provide a national security waiver for periods of up to 6 months with
prior reporting to Congress. It was included to give the administration
a limited amount of flexibility.
It also includes a clear expression of the Congress' belief that
Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every
ethnic and religious group are protected. It expresses the Congress'
clear view that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the
State of Israel and that our Embassy there should be established by May
1999.
I am firmly convinced, Mr. President, that the peace process will
result in Israel retaining control over all of Jerusalem, and that
Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel.
I am encouraged by support for the peace process. Even those who have
lost their children to senseless acts of terrorism agree about the
imperative of achieving peace. Earlier this year, a young college
student from New Jersey, who was studying in Israel, was killed in a
suicide bombing in Gaza. Her name was Aliza Flatow, and her death
brought home to the people of New Jersey the urgent need to bring peace
to the Middle East.
I was in Israel at the time of this terrible tragedy, and from there,
I spoke to Aliza's parents in New Jersey. Despite the loss of their
daughter and in the midst of grieving her loss, Aliza's father urged me
to do whatever I could to support the peace process and to ensure that
it would move forward unimpeded. Only the peace process, he said, holds
the promise of bringing an end to these senseless deaths.
Our goal is to send a bill to President Clinton that will mandate the
opening of the Embassy in Jerusalem. The amendment we are offering is
consistent with that goal. It would represent a clear policy statement
that the Embassy will be moved and is intended to preserve the
President's constitutional authority. Absent a national security
interest, it requires the Embassy to be established in Jerusalem by May
1999.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham
from Florida be added as a cosponsor to the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. At this time I would yield time to the Senator from
Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. KYL. How much time remains?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I do not think I need more than 3 minutes.
Mr. KYL. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
[[Page S 15533]]
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, not only for yielding
time but for the extraordinary leadership and dedication he has shown
in his support of this measure.
Madam President, perhaps it is appropriate that I begin with some
words from the prophets.
Amos first.
In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is
fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise
up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old.
Then Jeremiah.
So says the Lord; Behold I will return the captives of the
tents of Jacob . . . and the city will be rebuilt on its
mound.
Madam President, tomorrow in this Capitol we will join in the
worldwide celebration of the 3,000th anniversary of the entering of
King David into the holy city of Jerusalem.
In our time, in 1948, thanks to the courage of the people of the
State of Israel, thanks to extraordinary support from people throughout
the world, including particularly the Government of the United States,
we witnessed the creation of the modern State of Israel and the
establishment of Jerusalem as its capital.
For the ensuing 47 years, for a lot of reasons that were not
adequate, we in the United States, administration after administration
of both parties, refused to locate our Embassy in Israel in the city of
Jerusalem designated as the capital by that country as we do in
virtually every other country in the world.
Today, thanks to the leadership of Senator Dole who began this
effort, of Senator Moynihan who has fought for it for so many years, of
Senator Inouye, Senator Kyl, Senator Biden, who is on the floor, who
has been unyielding and persistent in his support of this principle
and, in the last few days, working together with Senators Feinstein and
Lautenberg, we have come to the point where I think we fashioned an
extraordinarily strong and honest bill that will receive overwhelming
bipartisan support in both Chambers and I hope will be signed by the
President.
Madam President, I want to say that there have been concerns raised
about the impact that passing this measure now would have on the peace
process. In this regard, I will make two brief points. First, the
location of the U.S. Embassy never was and never should be the subject
of negotiations among third parties. It is our decision, it is an
American decision, and we will make it here today.
Second, as a supporter of the peace process in the Middle East, I
feel particularly that this is the moment, as trust grows--and honesty
is at the core of our relations with the Israelis and the Palestinians
and the Arab world--that we do what is honest and say clearly our
Embassy belongs in Jerusalem, the city that has been denoted by the
Israelis as their capital.
I will say in closing, ending, it seems to me, appropriately with a
Psalm that we are realizing in this vote today the hopes expressed by
David in Psalm 122, when he wrote:
Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that
love thee.
Peace be within thy walls, calm within thy palaces.
If I may offer a modern-day interpretation of the word palaces, calm
be within thy embassies as they locate in the city of Jerusalem.
I thank the Chair and my friends and colleagues. I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to
the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 3
minutes, 32 seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, thank you very much. I would like to
thank my colleague from California for her leadership in bringing about
what I think is a workable piece of legislation.
I would like to thank Senator Moynihan, who is not here. In 1983, he
started this process. He argued we should be doing this, and we are
finally getting there.
With regard to the last point made by my colleague from Connecticut
about the peace process, I have had the view for the past 24 years that
the only way there will be peace in the Middle East is for the Arabs to
know there is no division between the United States and Israel--none,
zero, none.
I argue that is why we are where we are today, because we did not
relent under the leadership of this President and others. We made it
clear that no wedge would be put between us, thereby leaving no
alternative but the pursuit, in an equitable manner, for peace.
Those familiar, and all are on this floor, with the Jewish people
know the central meaning that the ancient city of Jerusalem has for
Jews everywhere. Time and again, empires have tried to sever the
umbilical cord that unites Jews with their capital.
They have destroyed the temple. They have banished the Jews from
living in Jerusalem. They have limited the number of Jews allowed to
immigrate to that city. And, finally, in this century, they tried
simply to eliminate Jews.
(Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)
Mr. BIDEN. They may have succeeded, Mr. President, in destroying
physical structures and lives. But they have never succeeded in wholly
eliminating Jewish presence in Jerusalem, or in cutting the spiritual
bond between Jews and their cherished capital.
After the horrific events of the Holocaust, the Jewish people
returned to claim what many rulers have tried to deny them for
centuries: The right to peaceful existence in their own country in
their own capital.
How many of us can forget that poignant photograph of an unnamed
Israeli soldier breaking down in tears and prayer as he reached the
Western Wall after his army liberated the eastern half of the city in
the Six Day War?
Those tears told a story. A story of a people long denied their
rightful place among nations. A people denied access to their most
hallowed religious sites. A people who had finally, after long
tribulation, come home.
Mr. President, it is unconscionable for us to refuse to recognize the
right of the Jewish people to choose their own capital. What gives us
the right to second-guess their decision?
For 47 years, we, and much of the rest of the international
community, have been living a lie. For 47 years, Israel has had its
government offices, its Parliament, and its national monuments in
Jerusalem, not in Tel Aviv. And yet, nearly all embassies are located
in Tel Aviv. I think this is a denial of fundamental reality.
Mr. President, are we, through the continued sham of maintaining our
Embassy in Tel Aviv, to refuse to acknowledge what the Jewish people
know in their hearts to be true? Regardless of what others may think,
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
And Israel is not just any old country. It is a vital strategic ally.
As the Israelis and Palestinians begin the final status negotiations
in May 1996--negotiations, I might add, that were made possible through
the leadership of President Clinton--it should be clear to all that the
United States stands squarely behind Israel, our close friend and ally.
Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will send the right signal, not
a destructive signal. To do less would be to play into the hands of
those who will try their hardest to deny Israel the full attributes of
statehood.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority
leader for bringing this to a head. It has not been easy. We have
talked about this for years. The people of Israel have fought
repeatedly to hold the State of Israel intact. They have designated
their capital. The capital is Jerusalem. This historic, important
religious city is their capital. I think it is most unusual for the
United States to go to another city to establish its Embassy when the
country where we are being hosted has established a different city for
its capital.
The time has come long since for America to recognize the capital
city of Israel. It is Jerusalem. It is time for us to move in a
responsible way to
[[Page S 15534]]
have our Embassy also in the capital city of Jerusalem.
I commend the majority leader and the Senator from Arizona for their
leadership in this area. I appreciate the fact that all factions have
come together. Clearly, there must be some leeway for the President to
make this move in a timely way. I think that leeway has been granted.
This is quite a reasonable resolution. The time has come for us to have
our Embassy in the capital of Israel. The capital is Jerusalem.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to use my leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from
Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, finally, after 50 years, the Congress is
about to act to assure the movement of our Embassy to Israel's capital.
This has been a bipartisan effort. I have been proud to cosponsor
Senator Dole's legislation, and it is truly a historic day. This is a
meaningful day. It is a day where we finally acknowledge the reality,
which is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that at the end of
the peace process will be the capital of Israel.
It will not help the peace process for there to be any ambiguity
about where Israel's capital is. Our action today will help to
eliminate any such ambiguity and to make it clear to all concerned that
this country is finally going to do in Israel what we have done in
every single country in the world, which is to place our Embassy in the
capital city.
I want to thank the Democratic leader. I want to thank the majority
leader, also, for his leadership here. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The minority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me commend the distinguished
Senator from Michigan for his comments and associate myself with his
remarks. This has been a bipartisan effort over the last several weeks,
particularly the last several days.
There is little doubt that we all share the same goals. There has
been a good-faith effort to reach an agreement that allowed us the
confidence that those goals could be met.
I want to commend in particular the participants in those
negotiations over the last several days, Senators Feinstein, my good
friend, Senator Kyl, Senators Lautenberg and Lieberman, and certainly
the majority leader for all of the work that he put into ensuring that
we would reach this point today.
I think it is fair to say we all agree on three shared goals. The
first is the most obvious: moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. We
recognize that Jerusalem is the spiritual center and the capital of
Israel, as well as a special city for those all over the world. Each
country, as so many have already indicated, has the right to designate
its capital, and certainly our Embassy should be there.
Second, we want to ensure that Jerusalem remains an undivided city in
which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected.
That has been a goal articulated officially by this Senate since we
adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 in 1990.
Third, and perhaps most important in the context of this debate and
the negotiations that have taken place, we want to ensure that the
peace process moves forward.
Let me commend the administration for emphasizing as strongly as they
have their concern for that last goal. It is their concern and their
desire to ensure that we have the flexibility, that we have the
opportunities, that we have all of the tools necessary to ensure that
we can reach all three goals--that we move the Embassy, that we can
ensure that it remains an undivided city, and, most importantly, that
the peace process be allowed to continue.
I personally believe that the language that has now been agreed upon
will provide the President the flexibility to ensure that the peace
process can move forward. Definitely, the whole concept of a peace
process is in our national security interest. That peace process must
be contained. That peace process has to be nurtured throughout the next
several years, and certainly the administration needs to proceed very
carefully as we begin to articulate our goals as it relates to moving
the Embassy.
The administration has concerns about the constitutionality of this
legislation. I understand that. I hope that we can find this agreement
has adequately addressed those concerns, as well.
Clearly, this has to be an effort on which we continue to work with
the administration. I am very hopeful that, as a result of the
tremendous work that has been done in the last several days, we can
build upon our work with the State Department and with others in the
administration to ensure that our goals are realized.
Let me again commend all of those who were instrumental in reaching
this agreement, to ensure a U.S. commitment to an Embassy in Jerusalem,
and equally as important, Madam President, to ensure that the U.S.
commitment to the peace process maintains the kind of priority that we
all have recognized during these very difficult talks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 12 seconds
remaining.
Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I am pleased
and honored to close this debate on this important and historic
legislation which will finally cause the United States Embassy to be
relocated in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, by the year 1999.
We all know that diplomacy is filled with subtleties but that some
things are fundamental. One of those fundamental things is the
relationship between the United States and Israel.
Key to that relationship is an underlying principle. The principle is
that Jerusalem is the essence of the historical connection of the
Jewish people for Palestine. That is why Jerusalem is the capital of
Israel.
This legislation, which is a bipartisan presentation of congressional
intent that finally actions replace words, that deeds replace words,
and expressing that historical connection, as I said, is supported in a
bipartisan way by the overwhelming majority of both sides of the aisle.
There are approximately 50 Republicans which have cosponsored this
legislation, and it is strongly supported as well by the many Democrats
who have spoken on it.
I think the key here is for the American people to finally express,
as I said, in deeds rather than words, their support for Israel through
the acknowledgment that Jerusalem is the capital by the relocation of
the United States Embassy in the capital city of Jerusalem.
As Senator Lieberman from Connecticut so ably pointed out, and
Senator Dole did as well, this is not about the peace process, which we
all support. Rather, it is an expression on the part of the United
States that no longer will there be any doubt about our position
relative to Jerusalem. It is an honest position, as Senator Lieberman
said.
That is why, Madam President, it is so important for this body, in an
overwhelming way, to express its support for the United States-Israel
relationship by supporting this legislation to relocate the Embassy of
the United States to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was
read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley]
is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:
[[Page S 15535]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 496 Leg.]
YEAS--93
Akaka
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brown
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Exon
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Heflin
Helms
Hollings
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Johnston
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Pryor
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Shelby
Simon
Simpson
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
Wellstone
NAYS--5
Abraham
Byrd
Chafee
Hatfield
Jeffords
NOT VOTING--1
Bradley
So the bill (S. 1322), as amended, was passed as follows:
S. 1322
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Jerusalem Embassy Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and
custom, may designate its own capital.
(2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital
of the State of Israel.
(3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's
President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of
numerous government ministries and social and cultural
institutions.
(4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of
Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of
other religious faiths.
(5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and
Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of
all states were denied access to holy sites in the area
controlled by Jordan.
(6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the
conflict known as the Six Day War.
(7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city
administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths
have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the
city.
(8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that
Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which
the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.
(9) In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate
Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress
``strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided
city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group
are protected''.
(10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of
Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent
Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to
commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of
Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that
Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
(11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on
Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for
the resolution of ``final status'' issues, including
Jerusalem.
(12) The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area
was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional
period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.
(13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States
Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren
Christopher encouraging ``planning to begin now'' for
relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of
Jerusalem.
(14) In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States
House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of
State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the
United States Embassy to Jerusalem ``should take place no
later than . . . 1999''.
(15) The United States maintains its embassy in the
functioning capital of every country except in the case of
our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of
Israel.
(16) The United States conducts official meetings and other
business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of
its status as the capital of Israel.
(17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the
3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since
King David's entry.
SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.
(a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.--
(1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the
rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;
(2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the
State of Israel; and
(3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be
established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
(b) Opening Determination.--Not more than 50 percent of the
funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year
1999 for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad''
may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and
reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in
Jerusalem has officially opened.
SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.
(a) Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings
Abroad'' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not
less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended
only for construction and other costs associated with the
establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the
capital of Jerusalem.
(b) Fiscal Year 1997.--Of the funds authorized to be
appropriated for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings
Abroad'' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not
less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended
only for construction and other costs associated with the
establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the
capital of Jerusalem.
SEC. 5. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.
Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate detailing the Department of
State's plan to implement this Act. Such report shall
include--
(1) estimated dates of completion for each phase of the
establishment of the United States Embassy, including site
identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering
and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction;
and
(2) an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this
Act, including all costs associated with establishing the
United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.
SEC. 6. SEMIANNUAL REPORTS.
At the time of the submission of the President's fiscal
year 1997 budget request, and every six months thereafter,
the Secretary of State shall report to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate on the progress made toward opening
the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.
SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.
(a) Waiver Authority.--(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998,
the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section
3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports
to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to
protect the national security interests of the United States.
(2) The President may suspend such limitation for an
additional six month period at the end of any period during
which the suspension is in effect under this subsection if
the President determines and reports to Congress in advance
of the additional suspension that the additional suspension
is necessary to protect the national security interests of
the United States.
(3) A report under paragraph (1) or (2) shall include--
(A) a statement of the interests affected by the limitation
that the President seeks to suspend; and
(B) a discussion of the manner in which the limitation
affects the interests.
(b) Applicability of Waiver to Availability of Funds.--If
the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection
(a) in a fiscal year, the limitation set forth in section
3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following
fiscal year for the purpose set forth in such section 3(b)
except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such
following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the
authority in subsection (a).
SEC. 8. DEFINITION.
As used in this Act, the term ``United States Embassy''
means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and
the residence of the United States chief of mission.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona for a unanimous-consent request without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pell be
listed as a cosponsor of the bill just passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for
not to exceed 30 minutes--I will not require that much time--out of
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
____________________