[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H1288-H1298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO DECLARATION OF PALESTINIAN STATE

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 24) expressing congressional 
opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and 
urging the President to assert clearly United States opposition to such 
a unilateral declaration of statehood.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 24

       Whereas at the heart of the Oslo peace process lies the 
     basic, irrevocable commitment made by Palestinian Chairman 
     Yasir Arafat that, in his words, ``all outstanding issues 
     relating to permanent status will be resolved through 
     negotiations'';
       Whereas resolving the political status of the territory 
     controlled by the Palestinian Authority while ensuring 
     Israel's security is one of the central issues of the 
     Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
       Whereas a declaration of statehood by the Palestinians 
     outside the framework of negotiations would, therefore, 
     constitute a most fundamental violation of the Oslo process;
       Whereas Yasir Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have 
     repeatedly threatened to declare unilaterally the 
     establishment of a Palestinian state;
       Whereas the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state 
     would introduce a dramatically destabilizing element into the 
     Middle East, risking Israeli countermeasures, a quick descent 
     into violence, and an end to the entire peace process; and
       Whereas, in light of continuing statements by Palestinian 
     leaders, United States opposition to any unilateral 
     Palestinian declaration of statehood should be made clear and 
     unambiguous: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That--
       (1) the final political status of the territory controlled 
     by the Palestinian Authority can only be determined through 
     negotiations and agreement between Israel and the Palestinian 
     Authority;
       (2) any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside 
     the negotiating process will invoke the strongest 
     congressional opposition; and
       (3) the President should unequivocally assert United States 
     opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian 
     state, making clear that such a declaration would be a 
     grievous violation of the Oslo accords and that a declared 
     state would not be recognized by the United States.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H. Con. 
Res. 24. It is a concurrent resolution expressing the sense of the 
Congress against a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and 
urging our President to assert clearly our Nation's opposition to such 
a unilateral declaration of statehood.
  Mr. Speaker, over 280 Members of the House have cosponsored this 
measure, introduced by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), our 
colleague on the Committee on International Relations. I am pleased to 
cosponsor this measure with the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank him 
for his support of this critical issue.
  Of concern to many of us, Mr. Speaker, since the signing of the Oslo 
Accords back in September of 1993 has been PLO Chairman Arafat's 
ongoing claim to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state 
on May 4, 1999. Despite recent contentions that he will not do so, 
regrettably Chairman Arafat has not yet categorically and publicly 
reversed that position.
  Support has been growing in both the House and Senate for this 
resolution, a resolution opposing a unilateral declaration of 
independence. The Senate sent a clear message just last week when its 
measure was adopted by a significant vote of 98-1.
  H. Con. Res. 24 expresses the opposition of the House to a unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state, simply because every issue in 
dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians must be negotiated in 
order to be resolved. A unilateral declaration of statehood by Chairman 
Arafat automatically falls outside the Oslo negotiating framework and 
would, therefore, constitute a fundamental and an extremely serious 
violation of the Oslo Accords.
  H. Con. Res. 24 goes on to note that President Clinton should make 
clear that our Nation is opposed to such a declaration and that if such 
a declaration were to be made, our Nation would consider it a gross 
violation of the agreements already signed between the PLO and Israel 
and, moreover, would not be recognized by our Nation.
  Chairman Arafat is expected to meet this coming week with President 
Clinton in Washington. Therefore, the consideration of H. Con. Res. 24 
by the

[[Page H1289]]

House sends a distinct message to both Chairman Arafat and to President 
Clinton that Congress is unalterably opposed to such a dangerous 
unilateral declaration.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a number of Members interested in speaking on 
this suspension, as the chorus of opposition to a unilateral 
declaration of statehood grows stronger each day. Accordingly, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support for H. Con. Res. 24.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished committee ranking 
member for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no illusions as to what the outcome of this vote 
will be, but I think it is necessary to rise in opposition to this 
resolution. It is well-intended, I am sure, and I certainly respect the 
sponsors of it and certainly respect the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations.
  The administration, Mr. Speaker, is unmistakably on record as 
opposing a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood. There is no 
real need for this resolution and particularly at this time, a very 
sensitive time in the Middle East itself.
  In a letter from the State Department to the gentleman from New York, 
our esteemed chairman of the Committee on International Relations, 
dated March 9, U.S. policy was clearly stated, that the administration 
opposes unilateral actions, but it goes further in stating, and I 
quote:
  ``We believe that any congressional resolution should make clear our 
opposition to all unilateral acts.'' I stress the word ``all,'' which 
the letter does in several different cases. ``Singling out one side 
would not be as effective as stressing what both parties have already 
committed themselves to do.''
  Simply put, it was not only the Palestinians who signed the Oslo 
Agreement and later the Wye Accords. Israeli commitments as well should 
be reiterated in any congressional resolution on this subject. H. Con. 
Res. 24 simply fails to mention the other half of the equation. Failure 
to mention both parties in this resolution is only rhetoric aimed at 
this particular sensitive point in Israeli political elections at 
tilting the side toward one side or the other.
  I reiterate that while I may be opposed to a unilateral declaration 
of Palestinian statehood at this time, although that does not make me 
in opposition to a Palestinian state, this particular resolution is 
one-sided and comes in an untimely manner and an untimely fashion for 
this Congress to be considering. I oppose the resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
resolution to the floor, and I particularly thank the gentleman from 
Arizona not only for bringing this resolution but for his courtesy.
  I rise to state that the United States position on the Middle East 
peace process must be made perfectly clear. Unilateral announcement of 
an independent Palestinian state cannot be accepted.
  Yasser Arafat's plan to announce Palestinian statehood when the Oslo 
Accords expire is nothing more than an attempt to shatter a fragile 
peace in the Middle East. Israel is an island of democracy surrounded 
by hostile enemies. Defending this lone democracy in the Middle East 
should be nothing short of a crusade for America.
  The Clinton administration tries to govern with words only, typically 
talking on both sides of every issue. A successful foreign policy 
cannot be built upon equivocation and confusion. It is no wonder that 
the Israelis are worried about U.S. support. Every time peace talks 
stall, it is Israel that is expected to surrender more territory and 
concede more diplomatic ground to come to the negotiating table.
  Mr. Speaker, peace depends on the willing participation and agreement 
of both parties. Any unilateral declaration of an independent 
Palestinian state must be clearly condemned for all time by the United 
States. American silence now will spell chaos in the Middle East in the 
future. I urge my colleagues to support the Salmon resolution and send 
a very clear message not only to Israel but the world that we stand 
beside Israel.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think that we are missing an opportunity here. It is frankly 
somewhat sad. We are at a stage in the peace process that is probably 
more tenuous than at any time since Oslo. It is clear by every 
assessment, from the Israelis and the Americans as well, that the 
Palestinians are fulfilling their obligations with every possible 
effort.
  We find ourselves here today with a resolution that does not even 
quote the President correctly. It says the President should. The 
President has already come out against a unilateral declaration of a 
Palestinian state. But the President rightly goes on to say there 
should not be unilateral actions by either party.
  We have elections in Israel, we have some politics here at home as 
well, but what is frightening to me is that some Members have not 
recognized the change that has occurred in the Middle East. In Israel, 
from Sharon to the far left, we now have unanimity that working with 
the Palestinians and coming to an agreement is the most important act 
for the security of their families and children. But here in the 
Congress, we have to find people that are harder line than even the 
Israeli government under Mr. Netanyahu. Everyone agrees that I know in 
this Chamber that there should not be a unilateral declaration of 
statehood. But I think not to recognize the change that has occurred in 
the Middle East, with the Palestinians at the PNC officially removing 
the language that offended the Netanyahu government even though the 
Labor government before argued that language had already been removed, 
that we continue to deal with the Palestinians not as if they were 
partners in the peace process but the same adversaries they were in the 
past I think is a mistake.
  For those of us who care about the children and the women who die in 
marketplace bombings, who worry about the poverty and starvation in 
camps, we need to move this peace process forward and we need to take 
opportunities like this one not simply to single out one side, 
especially at a point in history where there is hope for a 
comprehensive peace. I hope that we will find ourselves in the future 
recognizing the change that has occurred in the Middle East, that Mr. 
Netanyahu and Mr. Peres and Mr. Rabin have all been negotiating in good 
faith with Mr. Arafat, that we want no unilateral actions, and that 
this resolution, and I do not want to put judgments on the motivation 
of the sponsors, but in my opinion is not helpful coming at this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the sponsor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, this resolution we are considering today is 
clear-cut but critical. It expresses congressional opposition to the 
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urges the President 
to do the same. As far as the comments that were just made regarding 
the intentions of the sponsor or the cosponsors, I am glad that the 
gentleman did not question the motives of this cosponsor since it would 
implicate over 280 Members of the House and 98 Senators in the Senate 
who voted for this resolution who believe that this is an idea whose 
time has come, who believe that rather than spout rhetoric it is time 
to be ahead of the curve and make sure that the Palestinian authority 
understand that our intentions are clear so that we can avert 
bloodshed.
  The consensus on the need for this resolution is clear. As I 
mentioned, over 200 Members of the House have cosponsored H. Con. Res. 
24. I worked diligently with Democrats as well on this bill. I believe 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) and some of my other friends on the other side 
of

[[Page H1290]]

the aisle can attest to this. Language that criticized the 
administration was removed, even though we all know that the 
administration, had the administration reacted sooner against the 
possibility of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, Chairman 
Arafat would probably not be meeting with President Clinton this week 
to discuss the matter. There is also no reference in the resolution 
about the First Lady's damaging comments on the subject which may have 
encouraged a belief with many in the Palestinian Authority that the 
U.S. might support and recognize such a unilaterally declared state.
  We must act now. The Palestinian Authority plans to unilaterally 
declare parts of Israel, including Jerusalem, as their own state as 
early as May 4 of this year, the target date the Oslo Accords set for a 
permanent accord to be reached. Doing so would obliterate Oslo and 
would mark a repudiation of the commitment of Chairman Arafat to 
negotiate all permanent status issues. At the start of the Oslo 
process, 4 days before the famous September 13, 1993 White House lawn 
ceremony that publicly launched the peace process, Chairman Arafat 
wrote a letter to then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, in which 
he pledged that ``The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace 
process and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two 
states and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent 
status will be resolved through negotiations.''

                              {time}  1245

  Clearly, if Arafat plans to declare as his own land land that belongs 
to another country outside of the Oslo process, then he is inviting war 
upon the region. The President himself has suggested that such a move 
would be catastrophic, and Assistant Secretary of State for Near 
Eastern Affairs, Martin Indyk, warned in October of dire consequences 
of unilateral declaration of independence: In the process of the 
Palestinians seeking to assert the sovereignty of their so-called 
independent state and the Israelis seeking to deny it, a clash would 
seem inevitable. I can see a movement from a kind of declaration of 
independence to a war of independence that would be the absolute 
antithesis of the peace process.
  Arafat has been planning for many months now to declare unilaterally 
a Palestinian State and reject the Oslo process. In late February, 
Arafat said we assure the whole world that the establishment of the 
independent state of Palestine with holy Jerusalem as its capital is a 
sacred and legitimate right of the Palestinian people. It is a goal 
that our people will not accept to advocate or to give up no matter 
what the difficulties and the challenges.
  Other Palestinian leaders have been echoing Arafat's announcements. 
As recently as Sunday, this last Sunday, a senior adviser to Chairman 
Arafat said, quote, the Palestinian position is still that May 4 is the 
fixed date on declaring statehood, but he also added that the 
Palestinian leadership will study all proposals and ideas. Another key 
Palestinian official said in late February that we are moving forward 
in our preparations for the day, May 4, the date of declaration of 
Palestinian state. More specifically, on September 24 Chairman Arafat's 
cabinet announced that at the end of the interim period the Palestinian 
authorities shall declare the establishment of the Palestinian state on 
all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, which Jerusalem is the 
eternal capital of the Palestinian state.
  The provocative statements by Arafat and his ministers show that his 
intentions are real and imminent. However, Arafat knows that he cannot 
simply choose to declare another country's land as his own so he has 
been trying to gain the support of other countries. Arafat has already 
visited with leaders of several other countries including Muammar 
Kadafi, the terrorist leader of Libya, in his worldwide tour to gain 
acceptance. Arafat's courting of Kadafi should in itself make clear to 
the U.S. policymakers that a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state 
could result in the development of an alliance that is detrimental to 
the U.S. interests.
  Let us also remember that Arafat supported Saddam Hussein during the 
Gulf War, and many Palestinian citizens took to the streets a few 
months ago to burn American flags in protest of America's bombing 
campaign of Iraqi military targets.
  In any event, on March 23 Arafat will be visiting President Clinton 
to press the United States to support his move, and the United States 
must not succumb to his tactics. When President Clinton and the 
administration confront Arafat on this issue, they must be firm that 
the United States will never recognize a unilaterally-declared 
Palestinian state.
  This is timely. I hope that we can receive cooperation. The bulk of 
the people in this body, Republican and Democrat, support this measure. 
Let us move forth in a good faith effort of bipartisanship to get this 
done.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have to rise in opposition to 
this resolution. There are several reasons why I think this further 
complicates the peace process.
  For one, it does not condemn unilateral acts by both Israelis and 
Palestinians, but only the Palestinian authority. The House leadership 
brought it up under suspension of the rules, so there are no amendments 
that would make it a more balanced bill. The committee refused to 
consider an amendment that would have achieved that objective, and so 
the perception is going to be that we are acting in a biased, 
unbalanced manner even though our intelligence community, as the 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations has said, 
has reported that the Palestinian authority is doing everything it can 
right now to comply with the Oslo requirements.
  We are in a terribly delicate situation. I do not think that it is in 
anyone's interest to declare a Palestinian state on May 4. For one 
thing, it plays into the hands of the right wing elements in Israeli 
politics with elections occurring in 2 weeks. For another thing, it 
means that Mr. Arafat is going to find it much more difficult not to 
declare Palestinian statehood because it is going to look as though he 
is bowing to the pressures of the American political system. That is 
not in our interests.
  Mr. Arafat is our best hope right now, like it or not, for advancing 
the peace process. We all have a stake in advancing the peace process. 
If Mr. Arafat goes, who knows who will take control of the Palestinian 
community? The likelihood is that it will be someone far more radical 
and extreme. We have lost King Hussein, a leader of the peace process; 
we lost Mr. Rabin. We cannot afford to lose a Palestinian leader who is 
now fully invested in bringing about a successful conclusion to the 
Mideast peace process.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the sponsor of this resolution or 
the chairman of the committee who I know want the peace process to 
succeed, but I do disagree with their judgment that this is 
constructive. I do not think it is constructive. I do not think that 
the resolution that we passed in June of 1997, even though that also 
was nonbinding, was constructive. In fact, it led to riots, it led to 
people being killed. The actions that we take have real consequence, 
even though they may be nonbinding. The only hope for peace to succeed 
is that we be an unbiased, balanced broker for peace in the Middle 
East. It is particularly important right now that we sustain that 
principled effort and not bow to domestic political considerations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, over the past several months Chairman Yasser 
Arafat has repeatedly threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian 
state in the West Bank on the Gaza Strip with, of course, East 
Jerusalem as its capital. We cannot recognize any such declaration, and 
we urge Mr. Arafat not to pursue this reckless course. Such a 
declaration will have a destabilizing effect on the Middle East and 
will render the Oslo Accords and the Wye agreements meaningless.
  Recently, however, Mr. Arafat suggested a PA confederation with 
Jordan. Perhaps that could be subject to negotiation, but only after 
Mr. Arafat and the PA have concluded successfully the promises that 
they have already made.

[[Page H1291]]

  For example, first, Mr. Arafat and the PA must reduce the size of the 
Palestinian authority to the agreed upon level so that it does not 
violate the Oslo Accords.
  Second, Mr. Arafat and the PA must end all PA-run incitement of 
violence, and anti-Semitism, and vilification of Jews and make 
meaningful reconciliation between Jews and Arabs a real possibility.
  Third, Mr. Arafat and the PA must renounce the validity of the right 
of return, a policy which by definition challenges the viability of the 
state of Israel even after Palestinian independence.
  Fourth, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arafat and the PA should renounce and cut 
off ongoing ties to terrorists. Their insistence on releasing 
terrorists who plan acts of terror and provide the wherewithal to 
commit such acts must come to an end.
  And fifth, Mr. Arafat and the PA must establish modes of economic 
transparency and accountability relative to foreign aid received by 
them, thus preventing endemic corruption and theft currently plaguing 
the very structure of the Palestinian authority.
  Among the many disturbing incidences noted in Point 2 is the PA-run 
anti-Semitic incitement mainly to children via textbooks, newspapers 
and television and radio programs. The PA through international anti-
Semitic rhetoric, even in school books, is attempting to raise 
Palestinian children with a deep rooted hatred toward Israel and Jews.
  Simply put, the PA and Yasser Arafat are subverting the peace 
agreements signed and perpetuating hostile feelings toward Israel and 
ultimately brainwashing Palestinian children. Therefore, I conclude by 
saying I support H. Con. Res. 24 and continue to oppose the creation of 
a Palestinian state on a unilateral basis.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  For 50 years and more my dad and I have supported two things: The 
rights and the freedoms of Israel and the cause of peace in the Middle 
East. I do not believe the action that we are taking today is 
furthering either of those goals. What we are doing is rejecting an 
evenhanded, honest broker approach to peace in the Middle East and 
substituting for that a participation in and invective directed at only 
one side. There is fault aplenty in the Middle East, but I do not 
believe that a honest broker should spend his or her time engaged in 
the finding or the charging of that fault. Clearly here we are 
breaching that rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. It 
is not in our interests, it is not in the interests of the 
Palestinians, and it is not in the interests of the Israelis. It is 
clearly not in the interests of peace. We best serve our own interests 
by working for peace and by seeing to it that all parties are aware of 
the fact that that is our sole and only goal in this matter. We are 
breaching that rule.
  I would urge my colleagues to keep in mind the fact that there is 
plenty that this country can do which will have much more beneficial 
effect on the cause of peace. We can work to see that both sides honor 
the Wye Accord and the Oslo commitments. That is not being done, nor is 
it being furthered here, and I would admit that there is fault again on 
both sides. But that fault is not to be judged by us, if we are to be 
honest brokers in the cause of peace. Rather, it should be the effort 
of this country to see to it that we bring the parties together to 
negotiate in an honest and an open and as friendly a fashion as we can 
arrange. Clearly that is not being accomplished here.
  I am not here to take sides with the Israelis, nor am I here to take 
sides with the Palestinians. I am here to say that what we are doing 
here is wrong, it is not in the interests of this country, nor is it in 
the interests of the cause of peace.
  I would observe that it is very easy to start a war in an area like 
the Middle East where tensions and passions are high. It is very, very 
hard to stop. This country has invested hundreds of billions of dollars 
in peace in the Middle East. Do we want to reject it by the adoption of 
a resolution which does nothing of good and which very probably is 
going to contribute much mischief and much evil to an already 
overheated area where tensions are high and where the peace process is 
not prospering.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject this resolution, to support 
measures which will put us in the position of being, as the United 
States, honestly concerned about peace in the area, in the position 
where we are leading both parties towards peace and towards an honest 
negotiation. This peace is not going to be resolved by invective. It 
will be resolved by all working together and by the leadership of the 
United States in the cause of peace.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, since there are a number of Members seeking 
recognition on this issue, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate be extended by 20 minutes on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman) for yielding this time to me particularly because he knows that 
I oppose this resolution, yet in his graciousness offers me the time to 
speak my mind. For that I am most grateful.
  This is the wrong time for this resolution. Why? Because there is an 
election pending in Israel. This resolution, although not necessarily 
so intended, will unavoidably have an effect on that election in 
Israel, and here is why.
  First of all, the resolution itself does not criticize any potential 
unilateral action on the Israeli side. Part of the debate in the 
Israeli political elections right now is the record of the Likud 
government, to bring about successful peace negotiations.

                              {time}  1300

  For this resolution, therefore, to have no criticism at all, no 
comment at all, about threatened unilateral actions which would 
jeopardize that peace process on the Likud side, plays into one side in 
that political battle. It supports Likud's characterizaton of the 
negotiations over that of Labor.
  Secondly, the mere fact that we are considering the resolution at 
this time influences the Israeli elections. I believe it is fair to say 
that the Likud government has argued that one of their advantages, 
which they present to the Israeli electorate, is that they are 
singularly able to have influence in the halls of Congress. The fact 
that we are taking this resolution up now, with the election pending, 
plays to that perception. It is a mistake; nevertheless, that would be 
the perception, and so the timing is wrong.
  Accordingly, I would urge my colleagues who cannot vote no to vote 
present as a way of saying that whether or not the matter is 
appropriate, it is not appropriate at this time.
  Lastly, I intend to vote no because I believe that the people of 
Palestine are entitled to their own country. That does not mean that 
they can threaten Israel. It does not mean that they will practically 
have a country until they reach an accommodation with Israel. I 
strongly strongly stand for the right of Israel to be free, secure and 
safe. All of that must be negotiated.
  But to the child born in a refugee camp who has never known a home 
except a refugee camp, to the child born in Gaza whose parents go up to 
work through a chute, as though a cattle chute, every day into Israel, 
to the resident of the West Bank who cannot carry on the trade with 
Jordan, I say you have a country; and you have the right to say you do. 
Everything else is subject to negotiation.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us hope and pray for a just and a lasting peace 
in the Middle East. The question that we face today is how can we best 
achieve that? What can the United States do to encourage both sides, 
the Israelis and the Palestinians alike, to overcome years of suspicion 
and sorrow and anger and disappointment? How can we hope to move the 
peace process forward?

[[Page H1292]]

  I regret to say that I come to the conclusion that this resolution 
takes us in the wrong direction. I join my previous two colleagues, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in that view. It is, I believe, a one-sided 
resolution that will only set things back. If it passes, I think it 
risks undermining our credibility. It risks frustrating our progress 
and, indeed, I think it risks postponing peace.
  If this House is to take a position on the peace process, I think 
what we ought to do is tell both sides that they ought to live by the 
agreement that they have made, to abide by the agreement that they have 
made.
  Choosing sides now, and that is what the resolution does, I believe, 
is shortsighted. There is, as we know, an election going on in Israel 
and there is a great deal of anxiety and a great deal of tension in the 
Palestinian community. Lives are literally hanging in the balance. What 
we do today could have enormous implications for that peace process, 
and I think the United States should do everything it can to remain a 
firm, neutral arbiter in this ongoing process.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to a couple of the things 
that have been said on the other side. First of all, I think as the 
debate goes forward we will see clearly that this is a bipartisan 
measure. It looks as though it is becoming a polarization between the 
Republicans and the Democrats with the Republicans favoring this 
measure and the Democrats not. Nothing could be further from this 
truth. In fact, we have well over 280 cosponsors, 100 of those Democrat 
Members, courageous Members, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), many, many, congressmen on the other side, who believe that 
this is an idea that will strengthen the peace process and not harm it.
  I also might suggest there have been those who have said suggest that 
this might be irresponsible, not well timed, would harm the peace 
process. I might remind Members that just a few short days ago, 98 
members of the Senate and one against voted for this exact same measure 
word for word, and I really think that it is getting kind of a 
misrepresentation today as something that is kind of out there on the 
limb when really it is not. It is a very responsible measure.
  I might also say that it is intended to protect the peace process 
because if the Palestinian Authority did declare unilateral statehood 
it is tantamount to war, and the consequences would be extremely dire.
  To my knowledge, the Israelis have not proposed any unilateral 
measure outside of the negotiations, and so if they had proposed and if 
anybody on the other side can come up with just one unilateral action 
that the Israelis have proposed that is outside of the Oslo Accord, 
please bring it forward and we will add it to a resolution and bring it 
up next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Forbes).
  (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) 
for his leadership on this question.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we are here today contemplating passage 
of this most necessary resolution because of the public pronouncements 
of Yasser Arafat. He has necessitated this action because in direct 
contravention of the Wye and Oslo agreements, he has put out there the 
notion that he may, in fact, declare unilaterally a Palestinian state. 
If there is ever an act that would sabotage the hopes for peace and 
security in the region, it would be that unilateral declaration.
  Yasser Arafat unquestionably remains, in fact, a professional 
terrorist. He has American, Israeli, European and Arab blood on his 
hands. There are many of his allies, the Hezbollah and the Hamas, who 
consider themselves close allies, who would like nothing better than a 
declaration of independence by Yasser Arafat sometime in May. It would 
give them the opportunity to have a state that is fully sovereign and 
inviolable; able to import and manufacture any weapon; turn a police 
force that in all reality is actually an army into what we know it to 
be; free to support terrorism and poised to attack Israel and possibly 
Jordan.
  From his past actions, we can only infer that a unilateral 
declaration by Yasser Arafat would be absolutely the matter that would 
destroy the process for peace and security in the region. Therefore, we 
are obligated, as a nation who has been an honest broker in this 
process, to bring this resolution forward and to state for all the 
world that we will not stand for a unilateral declaration of a 
Palestinian state that would really lead, frankly, to the compromising 
of the security and the safety and the peaceful coexistence of Israel.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that this 
resolution is going to pass overwhelmingly today. No one has argued, 
after all, that a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is a 
helpful idea, especially in light of the precarious state of the peace 
process and the impending Israeli elections.
  The resolution, moreover, has been redrawn since the last Congress, 
to clarify that it opposes the unilateral declaration of Palestinian 
statehood, not Palestinian statehood as such.
  The most promising path to peace, most of us agree, and the most 
promising path to the satisfaction of both Palestinian and Israeli 
aspirations, is to have no provocative unilateral actions taken by 
either side but, rather, to continue the process of negotiation and 
cooperation mapped out in Oslo.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I must add that both the timing and 
the content of this resolution give cause for great concern.
  The resolution is one-sided in focusing its attention on what the 
Palestinians need to do to promote the peace process with no attention 
to Israeli obligations stemming from the Oslo and the Wye Accords.
  The Oslo agreement signified that the Israelis and Palestinians have 
become partners on the road to peace and both sides must live up to 
their obligations and avoid provocations that undermine the peace 
process.
  The ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), proposed language in 
committee that would have made this a more balanced resolution, 
asserting United States opposition to ``a unilateral declaration of 
statehood or unilateral actions by either party outside the negotiating 
process that prejudge or predetermine those negotiations.''
  Israel has been and remains our strongest and most reliable ally in 
the Middle East. Declaring as part of this resolution that they too 
must be responsible for carrying out their obligations would not 
undermine our relationship or threaten its future. In fact, it might 
make it stronger.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope and believe that Chairman Arafat has no intention 
of declaring statehood unilaterally, despite the arrival of the 
deadline date anticipated at Oslo. Our administration has already made 
it abundantly clear that it is opposed to a unilateral declaration of 
statehood. No one doubts that.
  So why are we considering this resolution now? And will this 
resolution make it harder or easier, politically, for Chairman Arafat 
to do the right thing?
  I think I know the answers to these questions, and I wish the 
sponsors of this resolution had conscientiously thought them through 
before bringing this resolution to the floor today.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution of 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and I want to underscore once 
again the United States Senate, in a vote of 98-to-1, passed the exact 
same resolution, the exact same resolution word for word.
  We oppose the PLO's unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, 
despite the First Lady's claim that there should be one. Many in the 
PLO leadership seem to think that the final word

[[Page H1293]]

on a Palestinian state will come from the PLO and no one else. Well 
that assumption cannot be more wrong.
  I will remind Mr. Arafat that unilateral action violates the basic 
provisions of the Oslo peace process. I will also remind Mr. Arafat 
that since the Oslo peace agreement was signed in 1993, the U.S. has 
provided hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to the Palestinian 
Authority for maintaining its commitment to bring peace to the Middle 
East.
  I have always been skeptical of that commitment, and if the PLO moves 
toward unilateral declaration of statehood it will prove to the world 
what I have always suspected, the PLO is committed to rhetoric, not 
peace.
  Mr. Arafat, the U.S. Congress is putting you on notice, declare 
statehood on May 4 and we will declare your financial support from the 
U.S. null and void.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon) for his bill.
  Mr. Speaker, which country is America's greatest ally in the Middle 
East? Which country votes with the United States 95 percent of the time 
at the United Nations, more so than any other American ally? Which 
country allows U.S. planes to fly over her air space? Which country 
cares for America's soldiers and her hospitals and is our partner in 
developing a missile defense system? Who is the Middle East's only 
democracy and the longest and best ally of the United States?
  Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, the resolution pending before this body right now is 
very simple. It simply reaffirms America's commitments to both her 
number one ally in the Middle East, Israel, and to the peace process 
that began with the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.
  Palestinian threats to unilaterally declare statehood is a violation 
of the Oslo Accords that they signed. A unilaterally declared 
Palestinian state, without borders agreed upon by the state of Israel, 
would take Israeli land, would threaten Israel's people and would, yes, 
threaten Israel's very existence.
  America, and the United States Congress, must be very clear to the 
Palestinian Authority. When you wrongfully threaten America's best and 
most strategic ally in the Middle East and one of America's greatest 
allies in the world, there will be immediate, lasting and severe 
consequences.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, the United States must not recognize a unilaterally 
declared Palestinian state, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
resolution.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House concurrent 
resolution 24 expressing this Congress's opposition to a unilateral 
declaration of an independent Palestinian state.
  Mr. Speaker, peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved through 
unilateral declarations. A lasting peace can and will only be achieved 
at the bargaining table, through the give and take of diplomacy and 
negotiation.
  PLO leader Yasser Arafat's repeated assertions that he would declare 
a Palestinian state on or after May 4, 1999, are both an affront to and 
a violation of the spirit of the Oslo Accords, threatening not only a 
delicate peace process, but an escalation of violence and bloodshed.
  Palestinian statehood is a fundamental issue in the Arab-Israeli 
negotiations and one that needs to be addressed through deliberation 
and consensus, not posturing and proclamation. America's response to 
these declarations must be certain and unambiguous: That we oppose any 
and all arbitrary declarations of statehood, and would not under any 
circumstances recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.
  When President Clinton meets next week with Yasser Arafat, he must 
repeat this Congress's and this Nation's resolve that any Palestinian 
state must be created at the bargaining table.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman).
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to give my prepared remarks; I would 
rather at this point take a little time to respond to some of the 
comments that have been raised on this issue, because I think that the 
resolution of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) has received a 
bit of an unfair rap.
  This is not a resolution to catalog all of the violations that have 
occurred by one party or another and to make an accurate statement of 
who has been wronged and who has not been wronged. It is not about the 
past, it is about the future. I say most respectfully, when I hear the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) say, I want to see a 
Palestinian state, my guess is, if asked, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Forbes), would say, I never want to see a Palestinian state. I 
think what the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) wants and what 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) wants or what I want is 
irrelevant.
  The parties agreed at Oslo to decide this most fundamental of issues: 
the negotiations over what kind of entity will be there in the final 
status talks and negotiations between the parties. It is not a U.S. 
decision, and it is not a Members of Congress decision.
  Mr. Speaker, all this resolution does is say, Congress opposes in 
every way it can such a fundamental and material breach of the Oslo 
process as the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. If the 
Israeli cabinet and the Israeli Knesset announced tomorrow that they 
were going to annex every portion of the West Bank now under Israeli 
military occupation, which is the vast, vast majority of the West Bank, 
people would say, wait a second, you are fundamentally breaching the 
commitments you made under Oslo, and they would be accurate in saying 
so. This is the exact equivalent. However, no one in responsible 
positions in Israel has suggested annexation, a unilateral annexation, 
except in retaliation for the declaration of statehood; but on the 
Palestinian side, a number of leaders under the Palestinian Authority 
have threatened the unilateral declaration.
  So I can sit here and talk about whether enough guns have been 
confiscated by the Palestinian Authority or whether terrorists have 
been released or what is the state of Israel's settlements, and I have 
opinions on all of those different issues. This is not a resolution to 
catalog all of those questions; this is a resolution that goes to the 
heart of the breach that will destroy the peace process, and that is 
unilateral declaration of statehood.
  One final point. There is a lot of talk here about U.S. as honest 
broker, U.S. as evenhanded. Let me tell my colleagues, the 
Palestinians, Chairman Arafat, the leadership of the Palestinian 
Authority, wants the U.S. involved in the peace process because of the 
U.S.'s relationship with the State of Israel, because the U.S. has been 
Israel's strongest ally, because Israel has come to the U.S.
  The U.S. role, yes, is to be an honest broker and to play a 
facilitating role and to bring the parties together and to push the 
peace process forward. But make no mistake about it. If parties wanted 
evenhanded, neutral people who have demonstrated equal distance from 
all of the parties, they could have gone to the Swedes or Norway or to 
the European Union to play this role. No. The Palestinian Authority 
recognizes that it is the U.S. and its relationship with Israel, close 
as it is, that makes it a useful party to help facilitate these talks. 
It is not for the U.S. to be evenhanded; it is for the U.S. to 
recognize its relationship with Israel and to play that kind of a role, 
and that is the way this process will succeed, with the United States 
playing that role.
  So I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon). I think this is 
a good resolution. This recognizes that a fundamental breach might very 
well occur and we should right now let everyone know that this destroys 
the peace process and we think it is a big mistake, and on the other 
issues, let us work to resolve them and move that process forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 24, expressing 
congressional opposition

[[Page H1294]]

to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
  The most basic and fundamental principle of the Middle East peace 
process is that all issues related to the permanent status of a 
Palestinian entity must be addressed through negotiations.
  A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would, by definition, 
constitute a blatant violation of that principle and fly in the face of 
Palestinian commitments under the Oslo accords.
  Palestinian statehood--more than any other issue--goes right to the 
core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. One side cannot act alone in 
determining this status and in answering the numerous questions that it 
raises: Where should its borders be? What should be the limitations on 
its sovereignty? How will Israel's security be guaranteed?
  A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state would destroy the 
peace process. Years of hard work, sacrifice and efforts to build trust 
would go down the drain in the blink of an eye. There would be no 
winners, only losers.
  As Prime Minister Netanyahu recently stated, Israel would respond 
``very forcefully'' if such a declaration were made. This response 
would probably include an Israeli decision to annex portions of the 
West Bank currently under their control.
  Although you wouldn't know it from reading the text of this 
resolution, President Clinton has repeatedly declared strong opposition 
to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and made it 
abundantly clear that it would not be recognized by the United States.
  Nevertheless, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassar Arafat has 
refused to rule out the possibility.
  As recently as February 20, a high level Palestinian Authority 
official said, and I quote, ``We are moving forward in our preparations 
for the day, May 4, the date of the declaration of a Palestinian 
state.''
  So, as much as I'd like to believe the conventional wisdom that 
Chairman Arafat will not make a unilateral declaration of statehood, it 
is clear that we as a body must go on record to express our complete 
and total opposition to such an act.
  I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 24.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding to me. I stand in support of his resolution.
  I also want to associate myself with the comments just made by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). I think that was an excellent 
analysis of the delicacy of the decisions that are going to be made in 
the next few weeks.
  The repeated threats to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state are 
as unstablizing, as destabilizing, as unsettling as anything could be 
in this process. That action is in violation of the agreement as I see 
it. Article XXXI of the Oslo II Accords clearly states, ``Neither side 
shall initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West 
Bank and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of permanent status 
negotiations.''
  Obviously, this is at the heart of the outcome of those negotiations. 
Obviously, this is a core issue that more than any other can provide 
great imbalance at a time when the Middle East has at least within 
sight the opportunity for peace, the opportunity for balance there.
  Mr. Speaker, our response to what the Palestinians might do would be 
crucial. Chairman Arafat's understanding of our response is crucial. We 
need to make it clear that we will not recognize a unilaterally 
declared State; that the peace process would be in jeopardy; that the 
United States will do its best to help mediate this conflict, to help 
ensure permanent peace, but that the timing could not be worse than the 
timing that is projected to declare this state, a timing only days 
before an election in Israel. Elections are volatile times anywhere. 
They are most volatile in the Middle East; they are most volatile in 
Israel. The debate is a difficult debate to achieve. It is particularly 
difficult to achieve in the middle of an election campaign.
  Mr. Speaker, our message to Chairman Arafat should be, do not take 
this step, do not jeopardize the process. Do everything you can to 
stabilize the situation with Israel. Our message to Israel should be to 
work hard for peace.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight and to argue 
that support for this resolution is the single-most helpful thing we 
can do for Yassir Arafat to continue the peace process.
  In recent months, I had occasion 3 times to discuss with Mr. Arafat 
and his associates this issue. Last summer, then Speaker Gingrich and 
Democratic Leader Gephardt led a small group of us to the area for 
discussions. Last December, the President went with a few of us to talk 
to both sides and we spent considerable time with Mr. Arafat discussing 
this issue.
  Earlier this year, I had the privilege of addressing the Palestinian 
National Council, along with Former Prime Minister Peres and the former 
head of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. My message on all three 
occasions was very simple: A unilateral declaration of statehood by 
Arafat would permanently destroy the peace process. Let me repeat that. 
If Arafat goes ahead with a unilateral declaration of statehood, 
whether it is on May 4 or May 25, or July 11, the peace process is 
over.
  Let me say to some of my colleagues, some on my side of the aisle who 
are straining for equivalence, the equivalence would be to call on 
Israel, not to unilaterally declare statehood. Israel has been a State 
for over 50 years, an ally of the United States, a member of the United 
Nations with diplomatic representation all over the world. There is no 
equivalence here, because the two sides are not equivalent. We are 
talking about a unique historic situation whereby a sovereign and 
independent state is in the process of voluntarily negotiating the 
surrender of territories it occupies, and possibly negotiating the 
creation by mutual consent of another state.
  Now, some have belittled this resolution as being not binding. Well, 
it may not be binding, but it surely has consequences. Let me state 
here and now so that there will not be any question or doubt about it, 
that if Arafat does declare unilaterally a Palestinian state, I intend 
to introduce legislation in this body which will cut off all aid to the 
Palestinian Authority instantaneously. So this is not an academic 
debate. Should it be necessary to introduce such legislation, it will 
pass overwhelmingly.
  Mr. Speaker, some think that since there have been technical 
violations on both sides of the Oslo Accords, we should discuss all of 
those. I think it is extremely important to realize that obviously 
there will be charges of technical violations of an incredibly complex, 
life and death agreement that might eventually solve this long-
simmering crisis. But we are not talking about little technical 
violations. A unilateral declaration of state by Arafat terminates the 
peace process.
  Since I am passionately committed to the peace process for the sake 
of the Palestinian people, for the sake of the Israeli people, for the 
whole region and indeed, for global stability, I urge my colleagues to 
support this resolution. It is a carefully crafted, balanced, 
reasonable resolution, the purpose of which is to save Arafat from the 
hotheads in his own camp. There are people within Arafat's group who 
are pushing him for a unilateral declaration of state. If he follows 
their advice, the peace process is doomed.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this resolution. I 
commend my friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for 
introducing it.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for this 
legislation which expresses congressional opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state and urges the President to assert 
clearly United States opposition to such unilateral declaration of 
statehood.
  Mr. Speaker, Yasser Arafat's repeated threats that he would 
unilaterally declare a Palestinian state on May 4, 1999 are a grievous 
violation of the spirit of the Oslo Accords. At the heart of the peace 
process lies the fundamental commitment that all outstanding issues 
relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
  In breach of this central obligation, Mr. Arafat is asserting that he 
can preempt the negotiations and act unilaterally on the critical and 
crucial issue of

[[Page H1295]]

statehood. While Israel has committed itself to continuous negotiations 
to resolve all issues, Mr. Arafat's threat is imperiling the peace 
process.
  Clearly a unilateral declaration of statehood would violate the very 
principles on which the Oslo Peace Accords are based, and such an 
action would without question trigger a cycle of retaliation and 
escalation, possibly leading to violence and perhaps a collapse of the 
peace process itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I 
strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the lead Democrat on this resolution, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) for his 
leadership in sponsoring this resolution.
  As the gentleman from Arizona said before, this is a bipartisan 
resolution. It has 280 cosponsors, which is a majority of this House. 
What this does is simply bring Congress in line with what has been said 
many, many times before by President Clinton, by the administration, 
and by anyone who is in the know about the Middle East, that a 
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state destroys the peace 
process. Clear and simple.
  So if we want the peace process to continue, then there ought to be 
no unilateral declarations of any kind. If we want to destroy the peace 
process, then Mr. Arafat can go right ahead and issue his unilateral 
declaration.
  Some of my colleagues have said this will influence the Israeli 
elections. That is nonsense, because every mainstream party in Israel, 
every candidate for prime minister in Israel who is in the mainstream 
is opposed to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. So this 
will not affect the Israeli elections. It simply holds Mr. Arafat's 
feet to the fire.
  Now we know Mr. Arafat has a way of talking out of 32 sides of his 
mouth. We want him to keep his commitments. This is a very, very 
balanced resolution, and I want to read some of it. Simple. It says, 
``Whereas at the heart of the Oslo peace process lies the basic, 
irrevocable commitment made by Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat that, 
in his words, `all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will 
be resolved through negotiations.' '' That is from Yasser Arafat's own 
mouth. Why would anyone be opposed to holding his feet to the fire on 
that?
  The resolution further states, ``Resolved by the House of 
Representatives * * * That (1) the final political status of the 
territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be 
determined through negotiations and agreement between Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority.'' Who could oppose that?
  ``(2) any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the 
negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional 
opposition,'' as it will. Finally, ``(3) the President should 
unequivocally assert United States opposition,'' which the President 
has, ``to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, making 
clear that such a declaration would be a grievous violation of the Oslo 
accords and that a declared state would not be recognized by the United 
States.''
  If you ask me, this is again certainly a mainstream resolution. It 
has broad bipartisan support. It is only asking the parties to keep the 
commitments to which they made.
  Mr. Arafat has to understand that there will be severe consequences 
if he does not fulfill his commitment, blowing up the peace process and 
a cut off of American aid. So, again, this is bipartisan. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Salmon) for his leadership.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking Democrat and soon to be chairman again of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution because I am 
against all unilateral agencies in the Middle East. But do not kid 
ourselves by saying this is a balanced resolution. It is not. If it 
were, it would take note of all unilateral actions taken by all parties 
in the Middle East, including some unilateral actions taken by this 
very Congress.
  I believe that there will be a Palestinian State someday, but I think 
it should be established through direct negotiations with Israel. I 
believe the United States will have an embassy in Jerusalem, but I 
believe it should be, again, at the end of the process because to 
attack precipitously will simply inflame the situation and make the 
peace process more difficult.
  I also believe, however, if this Congress is going to be fair-minded 
in urging people like Mr. Arafat not to unilaterally declare a 
Palestinian State, and I agree he should not, then this Congress should 
also be fair-minded in noting the actions on the part of the Israeli 
government in taking unilateral actions with respect to some settlement 
activities in the West Bank and in the Jerusalem neighborhoods.
  It just seems to me that if Congress wants to be constructive rather 
than simply political, that when it brings resolutions to the floor 
such as this, they ought to be more balanced than this is.
  I say that as a friend of Israel. I say that as the person who, for 
10 years, chaired the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export 
Financing and Related Programs. During that time, that committee 
provided immense amounts of aid to Israel with my support.
  But I think that, if Congress wants to help move the peace process 
forward, it needs to be more balanced and more constructive than it 
usually is. This resolution I think, while it is correct in asking Mr. 
Arafat not to proceed, it is most certainly not correct to call it a 
balanced resolution because most definitely it is not.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the sponsor of the resolution.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time. I might also congratulate the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I had no idea he was reregistering as a 
Republican, obviously, if he is going to be the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I think that is a great move.
  I would also like to thank the people who have tirelessly worked on 
behalf of this resolution. I would like to thank on our side most of 
all the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) for his tireless 
efforts. He introduced the legislation last year and has been working 
on it for a long, long time.
  I also owe a great debt of gratitude to the majority whip, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for making H. Con. Res. 24 a foreign 
policy priority in the 106th Congress.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the lead Democratic sponsor, 
has been an enormous help in moving the resolution forward. The 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) have also contributed both in front and behind 
the scenes.
  Moreover, the help of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes) and 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) in gathering cosponsors is 
greatly appreciated. Last, I would really like to thank the gentleman 
from New York (Chairman Gilman) for making this a priority of the 
Committee on International Relations and bringing it to the floor.
  I think many have spoken about this resolution in ways that I think 
really do not grasp the essence of what we are trying to accomplish. 
But there have been a few that I think have very cogently delineated 
what exactly this bill does.
  I think of the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) 
and I think of the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Rothman). They understand what this is all about.
  What this is about is to strengthen the peace process. Many times 
here in the Congress we have tried to be ahead of the curve, not to 
cause problems, but to make sure that it is clear in the minds of those 
that we are negotiating with, that we deal with in good faith, that 
they are clear of our intentions.
  I recall when we were dealing with China, and they started lobbying 
missiles in the Taiwan Strait, that Congress was very forceful in 
communicating to China what our intentions were

[[Page H1296]]

and what our relationship with Taiwan is and will be in the future.
  Those statements were not harmful to our relationship with China. 
They were clear statements of a purpose, of what we stand for, of what 
we are about. As was mentioned, there is nothing in this resolution 
that denounces anything that the Palestinian Authority has done.
  All it does is denounce what they might possibly do and let them 
know, with due process and clear intention, that if they declare 
unilaterally a Palestinian state, that the United States will not 
recognize that, end of story. There is no beating up on them. There is 
no beating our chests. It is simply a clear delineation of what we 
stand for and what we believe.
  As far as the peace process is concerned, we are all committed. Those 
who have suggested that this might somehow thwart the peace process, I 
think they know better. I think that sometimes their rhetoric gets a 
little reckless and out of control, but, frankly, I think they know 
better.
  They know what the intentions of this resolution are, and that is why 
it passed the Senate 98 to 1. That is why there are 280 cosponsors, 
because it is very plain, straightforward, and to the point.
  It reiterates what the American people and the Congress have believed 
for a long, long time, and that is that the peace process cannot 
proceed if reckless action such as declaring unilaterally a Palestinian 
state goes forward.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) aptly pointed out, it 
would completely obliterate, explode the peace process. That is not 
what we are about.
  For those who have suggested the intentions are somewhat different, I 
ask them to please don their reading glasses and take another look at 
it, try a little harder to understand it. It is not that difficult.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution that we are 
considering today, which underscores three important and timely points: 
(1) The final political status of the territory controlled by the 
Palestinian Authority can only be determined through negotiations and 
agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority; (2) any attempt 
to establish Palestinian statehood outside the negotiating process will 
invoke the strongest congressional opposition; and (3) the President 
should unequivocally assert United States opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state, making clear that such a 
declaration would be a grievous violation of the Oslo Accords and that 
a declared state would not be recognized by the United States.
  The resolution is forward thinking. Its intention is to prevent 
bloodshed. The Palestinian Authority must understand that it cannot 
break away from peaceful negotiations and receive support and 
recognition from the United States.
  Before I close, I would like to thank Representative Saxton for all 
of his work on this effort. And I owe a debt of gratitude to the 
Majority Whip, Tom DeLay, for making H. Con. Res. 24 a foreign policy 
priority in the 106th Congress. The lead Democratic cosponsor, 
Representative Eliot Engel, has been an enormous help in moving the 
resolution forward. Representatives Rothman and Sherman have also 
contributed both in front and behind the scenes. Moreover, the help of 
Representatives Forbes and Berkley in gathering cosponsors is greatly 
appreciated. And lastly, I thank Chairman Gilman for his commitment to 
bring this resolution to the floor.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. 
Res. 24.
  This resolution was introduced barely six weeks ago to make clear the 
United States' position on the Middle East peace process.
  Today, this resolution will send a clear signal to Palestinian and 
other Middle East leaders that this government remains unified on two 
things.
  First, we unconditionally support the Middle East peace process and 
the agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians, 
Israelis and other nations.
  Second, we stand firmly and unconditionally opposed to actions that 
either undermine the peace process or contradict the Olso or Wye 
agreements.
  A unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state will only lead to 
turmoil and destabilize the peace process.
  The recent passing of King Hussein of Jordan combined with the 
upcoming election in Israel places the already fragile peace agreement 
on even shakier ground.
  That is why it is imperative for all parties, including the United 
States, to redouble their commitment to a fair and lasting peace.
  Again, I am pleased to support this resolution because I believe it 
clearly and fairly reinforces our support for peace in the Middle East.
  Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H. Con. 
Res. 24 expressing the House's opposition to the unilateral declaration 
of a Palestinian state, and urging the President to clearly state that 
the United States government is united in its opposition to such a 
move--one that would certainly destabilize the Middle East peace 
process.
  Several critical points must be understood. First, it is Palestinian 
Authority chairman Yasir Arafat who has suggested that he might 
unilaterally declare a free and independent Palestinian state on May 
4th of this year. This unilateral step would contravene the entire 
process that was set in motion by the Oslo Accords and confirmed in the 
Wye River Memorandum. The fundamental premise of this process is one 
that Yasir Arafat himself recognized in a letter to Prime Minister 
Yitzhak Rabin years ago where he wrote that: ``all outstanding issues 
relating to the permanent status will be resolved through 
negotiations.'' The threatened unilateral declaration of statehood 
flies in the face of this understanding and resorts to one side taking 
matters into its own hands. It is thus a violation of commitments made 
at Oslo and Wye.
  Second, such a step would certainly destabilize the peace process and 
serve as a catalyst for violence in Israel and in those areas already 
governed by the Palestinian Authority. Effectively, therefore, a 
unilateral declaration by the Palestinian Authority could be 
interpreted as a threat of violence. This too flies in the face of the 
tenets of the peace process and calls into question Mr. Arafat's 
trustworthiness as a negotiating partner.
  Third, while some have suggested that this resolution should also 
call upon Israel as well to avoid unilateral actions that might be 
questioned under the Oslo framework, such an inclusion would lack any 
balance and proportionality. Israel has not threatened to abdicate its 
commitments and unilaterally determine a final status issue of the 
magnitude of Palestinian statehood.
  Fourth, the United States Congress has supported the Oslo process and 
the position that the parties themselves must resolve such thorny 
issues through negotiation. The United States Senate has remained true 
to this position by passing its resolution on this matter last week by 
a vote of 98 to 1. The House must do the same today. And the entire 
Congress must thereby insist that the Administration support resolving 
any permanent status issues through negotiations and agreement, not by 
unilateral action. The Administration must clearly state that any 
unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority will 
not receive the recognition of the United States and that the 
Administration will encourage its allies not to afford it any 
recognition either.
  Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Israel last December with the President as 
the designee of the Speaker of this House. On that trip and others, I 
have seen up-close the challenges that this tiny island of democracy in 
the Middle East confronts and the risks she has taken for peace. Today, 
Yasir Arafat suggests the Palestinians may abandon the peace process 
and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state; tomorrow, he will 
threaten to declare Jerusalem as its capital.
  Mr. Speaker, we must stand with our friends when they are challenged, 
and today that means standing with Israel.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern over 
language utilized in H. Con. Res. 24. Although I supported the 
resolution, I feel that Congress did not have an adequate opportunity 
to more fully discuss all unilateral declarations by any party to the 
Middle East peace process, including those by the United States. I 
believe that final status issues should be subject to good faith 
negotiations by both sides.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 
24, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge its adoption.
  This resolution not only opposes a unilateral declaration of a 
Palestinian state, but also urges the President to make very clear the 
opposition of the United States to such unilateral action. A unilateral 
declaration would be brinkmanship of the most irresponsible kind, a 
provocative act that would force the State of Israel to respond and a 
direct affront to the spirit of the Oslo accords.
  Only six years ago, at the Oslo accords, Israeli and Palestinian 
negotiators took significant steps towards achieving peace and 
stability in the Middle East. Oslo forged a commitment to cooperate and 
strive for a lasting peace through open and honest negotiations.
  Unfortunately, the peace process is now seriously threatened by a 
repeated threat by Palestinian leaders to unilaterally declare 
statehood once the Oslo accords expire on May 4. Such a declaration 
would short circuit the peace process, roll back the progress that has 
been made and undermine the hard work of all those who want meaningful 
peace in the Middle East.

[[Page H1297]]

  Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders made a commitment at Oslo to 
resolve differences through negotiation. As Chairman Arafat said 
himself in a letter to Prime Minister Rabin in 1993, ``All outstanding 
issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through 
negotiations.'' Chairman Arafat must be held accountable to this 
promise. A unilateral declaration would terminate the negotiations and 
risk a needless, perilous escalation of this conflict. Such defiance 
would compel the State of Israel to respond to protect its security, 
likely leading to escalating conflict.
  The people of the Middle East have lived with conflict, violence and 
bloodshed for too long. Now they have the opportunity to negotiate a 
permanent peace. This opportunity must not be sabotaged by a unilateral 
declaration. The Oslo peace process has presented a valuable 
opportunity for the people of the Middle East to begin healing the 
wounds of centuries of conflict and distrust. A unilateral declaration 
of statehood would reopen those old wounds and inevitably lead to more 
violence and bloodshed.
  It is my hope that both Israel and the Palestinians will live up to 
their commitments in the Oslo accords. This resolution puts the 
Congress on record in support of negotiation, not brinkmanship and 
unilateral action. That is the right road to peace.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution 
expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a 
Palestinian state. My support, however, is given with a degree of 
reluctance. I believe that the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian 
state is in direct conflict with the spirit of the Oslo Accords and 
would be a fatal blow to the ongoing peace process. I hope that our 
Palestinian and Israeli friends will continue to work together through 
the negotiating process to come to resolution on the final status of 
Palestine.
  Mr. Speaker, I am, however, disappointed with the one-sidedness of 
this resolution. I am disappointed that my colleagues on the 
International Relations Committee did not see fit to amend the 
resolution as my colleague Mr. Gejdenson proposed. He asked that the 
resolution reflect the positive efforts made thus far by both parties 
to the negotiations and acknowledged that unilateral actions of any 
kind by either party are contrary to the spirit of negotiation. I 
wholeheartedly agree. Though I will vote in favor of this resolution, 
it is my hope that in the future this body keep in mind the necessity 
of fairmindedness in language and treatment for all parties in the 
Middle East working to find resolution to these extremely sensitive, 
contentious issues.
  In a recent editorial to the Washington Post, Dr. Henry Kissinger 
noted that the role of the United States in the peace process is to 
help each party find terms that meet their own needs and yet are 
compatible with the necessities of the other. ``As keepers of the 
diplomatic process, we should be steering the parties to a realistic 
dialogue on those subjects on which the survival of both sides truly 
depends.'' Today, we are sending a strong message to the Palestinian 
Authority not to take irrevocable action for which serious consequences 
will result. However, by condemning unilateral action by only one party 
to the negotiation, I believe we fail to meet our obligation to help 
the parties raise the dialogue to a higher level.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. A 
unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians would be a 
provocative act that would threaten the peace process. The President 
opposes such a declaration, and Congress should put its opposition on 
the record.
  Both the Oslo Accord and the Wye Memorandum prohibit unilateral 
actions by either side. For years, it has been mutually understood that 
critical final status issues--prime among them the question of a 
Palestinian state--must be resolved in the context of direct 
negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, not through unilateral 
actions.
  My only problem with this resolution is that it is not strong enough. 
Congress should be on record opposing all unilateral acts, including, 
but not limited to, a declaration of Palestinian statehood. This 
resolution would be immeasurably strengthened if it opposed any and all 
unilateral actions by either party. In my view, Congress can do its 
part to advance the peace process by urging both parties to resist 
political temptations and refrain from unilateral actions.
  Mr. Speaker, attaining peace in the Middle East is of paramount 
importance to U.S. national interests. The alternatives to a successful 
peace process are economic disruption, terrorism, and even war. The 
ability of future generations of Israelis and Palestinians to live in 
peace and enjoy economic prosperity depends on the peace process. The 
two main ingredients to continuing the peace process are active U.S. 
involvement and strict adherence to the historic agreements hammered 
out in Olso and at Wye. This resolution urges one party to fulfill its 
commitment. In order to achieve peace, all parties must do their part.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the passage of H. Con. Res. 24 expressing the opposition of this 
Congress to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State.
  As you might remember, Mr. Speaker, five years ago Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority joined together in Oslo, Norway and signed the 
Oslo Accords as the first step towards a negotiated permanent peace 
accord. The Oslo Accords agreed to by both sides stated that any 
declaration of Palestinian Statehood must be the result of bilateral 
negotiation and mutually agreed security.
  That being said, Chairman Arafat has announced on several occasions 
since Oslo his intentions to unilaterally declare an independent 
Palestinian state this May. Adding fuel to the fire have been the 
remarks last year of First Lady Hillary Clinton suggesting that a 
Palestinian State is in the best long term interest of the region, 
statements by officials at the State Department suggesting that the 
Palestinians should move forward and even President Clinton himself 
whose visit late last year to Gaza had all the pomp and circumstance of 
an official ``state'' visit.
  While the Administration has expressed their opposition in recent 
weeks to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State, it is clear 
that Congress must now send Chairman Arafat a strong message in the 
absence once again of a clear and consistent Clinton Administration 
policy. Additionally, I am concerned that the Administration may be 
attempting to hold hostage U.S. assistance in the region due to 
Israel's reluctance to fully implement the Wye Agreement in response to 
Chairman Arafat's intentions to unilaterally declare statehood. 
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this once again shows the Administration's 
willingness to send the Palestinians the wrong message. it is my fear 
that if the Clinton Administration continues on this course, we risk 
blowing a hole in the peace process and permanently injuring the 
relationship we have with America's strongest ally in the region, 
Israel.
  Throughout my first two terms in Congress I have invested a great 
deal of time helping to ensure that we can reach a negotiated peace in 
the Middle East. I have served as an international observer of the 
Palestinian Elections, Chairman of the House Republican Israel Caucus 
and have made several trips to the region. I know from my first hand 
experiences and meetings with leaders on both sides, that a lasting 
peace in this region can only be achieved through negotiation and 
agreement by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
  Mr. Speaker, the Senate has already acted on an identical resolution 
which passed by an overwhelming vote of 98 to 1. I urge my colleagues 
in the House to follow suit and send Chairman Arafat and the Clinton 
Administration a message that any declaration of a Palestinian State 
must be along the guidelines of the bilateral negotiations contained in 
the Oslo Accords.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution because we, as a nation, must make it unmistakably clear 
that a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state by the Palestinian 
Authority is totally unacceptable.
  The United States must never recognize a unilaterally declared 
Palestinian state. Such an act does nothing to further the peace 
process. It does, however, present a direct affront and challenge to 
Israel, one of our strongest allies.
  A unilaterally declared Palestinian state would violate the most 
basic principles upon which the Middle East peace process has rested 
since the Oslo accords. Most importantly, it would dramatically 
destabilize the Middle East and increase the risk of renewed violence 
that could spell an end to the Middle East peace process.
  A unilateral action by one party would allow this situation to 
snowball out of control. Too many people of good will have worked for 
too long trying to address these issues. We must make it clear that the 
Palestinian Authority must not abandon its commitments.
  The interests of the United States require political, economic and 
social stability in the Middle East; the long-suffering people of the 
region deserve true peace. Yet clearly, we cannot impose a solution on 
the parties. Only Israel and the Palestinians--together--can forge a 
mutually acceptable solution to these difficult issues. The United 
States must continue to do everything in its power to assure that the 
parties to the negotiations stay the course.
  As the resolution properly notes, Palestinian Authority Chairman 
Arafat, at Oslo, made a basic irrevocable commitment that ``all 
outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved 
through negotiations.'' The final political status of the territory 
controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be determined through 
negotiations and agreement between Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority.
  Chairman Arafat and the Palestinian Authority made an agreement with 
Israel that these issues would be resolved through negotiations, not 
through unilateral declarations. Just

[[Page H1298]]

as Israel agreed to a process for resolving these issues, so did the 
Palestinians. Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must honor 
their agreements.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my views on H. Con. Res. 
24, a resolution expressing Congressional opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose any unilateral action, by any of the parties to 
the Oslo Agreement and the Wye River Agreement that would endanger 
further progress in the Middle East peace process. I agree with the 
many observers who believe that for the Palestinian authority to 
declare a Palestinian state, at this time, would be disruptive and 
dangerous for the Middle East peace process. Such a unilateral 
declaration could also have a negative impact on the upcoming elections 
in Israel. While the Palestinian people do have the right of self 
determination, the declaration and establishment of a Palestinian state 
is an issue best dealt with in the context of a negotiated, 
comprehensive peace agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I also agree with the remarks of Mr. Dennis Ross, 
President Clinton's chief Middle East peace negotiator, regarding the 
negative impact on the peace process of the current Israeli 
government's continued push to build and expand Israeli settlements on 
the West Bank. Such settlement activity not only creates ``new facts on 
the ground'' but they create real obstacles to the completion of a fair 
and enduring peace between the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
  Mr. Speaker, I will support this resolution today. However, I 
continue to urge both sides, the Palestinians and the Israelis, to 
avoid any unilateral actions which could endanger the Middle East peace 
process. We need to build more progress towards a peaceful solution, 
not more obstacles thrown in the path of peace.
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 24, I urge 
my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Since the United States officially recognized the state of Israel on 
May 15, 1948, we have enjoyed a close diplomatic relationship. As the 
only democracy in the Middle East, Israel has been a strong ally in 
this often tumultuous region and, in turn, the United States has 
provided necessary foreign aid. Without the strong support of our 
allies, including Israel, it is certain that long lasting peace would 
be far more difficult to achieve in the Middle East.
  In the summer of 1997, I accompanied a congressional delegation to 
Israel to obtain a better understanding of the many important and 
delicate issues in the Middle East and to discuss the latest 
developments in the peace process. It is my belief that in order to 
secure U.S. interests in the Middle East, we must help ensure economic 
and political stability in Israel as well.
  This past fall, President Clinton, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and 
Chairman Arafat met at the Wye River Plantation and reaffirmed the 
importance of maintaining a peace in the Middle East. The agreement 
struck at the Wye Plantation in October underscored the fact that both 
Israel and Palestine have to work together to form an enduring peace.
  If Palestine unilaterally were to declare itself an independent state 
it could jeopardize the foundation upon which the Oslo Accords, the 
Hebron Agreement, and the Wye Agreement were built. Mr. Speaker, it is 
imperative that any changes regarding ``statehood'' are done through 
the negotiating process, as stated in H. Con. Res. 24.
  It is my hope that a lasting peace will soon be attained in the 
Middle East. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests of time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stearns). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House 
suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 
24.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________