[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 64 (Monday, May 22, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2990-H3012]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 PALESTINIAN ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 2006

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 
the bill (H.R. 4681) to promote the development of democratic 
institutions in areas under the administrative control of the 
Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4681

       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 ``Palestinian Anti-Terrorism 
     Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the 
     United States--
       (1) to support a peaceful, two-state solution to end the 
     conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in accordance 
     with the Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State 
     Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Roadmap'');
       (2) to oppose those organizations, individuals, and 
     countries that support terrorism and violence;
       (3) to urge members of the international community to avoid 
     contact with and refrain from financially supporting the 
     terrorist organization Hamas or a Hamas-controlled 
     Palestinian Authority until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel, 
     renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, 
     including the Roadmap;
       (4) to promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian 
     governing authority that--
       (A) denounces and combats terrorism;
       (B) has agreed to and is taking action to disarm and 
     dismantle any terrorist agency, network, or facility;
       (C) has agreed to work to eliminate anti-Israel and anti-
     Semitic incitement and the commemoration of terrorists in 
     Palestinian society;
       (D) has agreed to respect the sovereignty of its neighbors;
       (E) acknowledges, respects, and upholds the human rights of 
     all people;
       (F) implements the rule of law, good governance, and 
     democratic practices, including conducting free, fair, and 
     transparent elections in compliance with international 
     standards;
       (G) ensures institutional and financial transparency and 
     accountability; and
       (H) has agreed to recognize the State of Israel as an 
     independent, sovereign, Jewish, democratic state; and
       (5) to continue to support assistance to the Palestinian 
     people.
       (b) Amendments.--Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2351 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second section 620G (as added by 
     section 149 of Public Law 104-164 (110 Stat. 1436)) as 
     section 620J; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 620K. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO THE PALESTINIAN 
                   AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (e), 
     assistance may be provided under this Act to the Palestinian 
     Authority only during a period for which a certification 
     described in subsection (b) is in effect.
       ``(b) Certification.--A certification described in this 
     subsection is a certification transmitted by the President to 
     Congress that contains a determination of the President 
     that--
       ``(1) no ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     Palestinian Authority is controlled by a foreign terrorist 
     organization and no member of a foreign terrorist 
     organization serves in a senior policy making position in a 
     ministry, agency, or instrumentality of the Palestinian 
     Authority;
       ``(2) the Palestinian Authority has--
       ``(A) publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist as a 
     Jewish state; and
       ``(B) recommitted itself and is adhering to all previous 
     agreements and understandings by the Palestine Liberation 
     Organization and the Palestinian Authority with the 
     Government of the United States, the Government of Israel, 
     and the international community, including agreements and 
     understandings pursuant to the Performance-Based Roadmap to a 
     Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
     Conflict (commonly referred to as the `Roadmap'); and
       ``(3) the Palestinian Authority has taken effective steps 
     and made demonstrable progress toward--
       ``(A) completing the process of purging from its security 
     services individuals with ties to terrorism;
       ``(B) dismantling all terrorist infrastructure, 
     confiscating unauthorized weapons, arresting and bringing 
     terrorists to justice, destroying unauthorized arms 
     factories, thwarting and preempting terrorist attacks, and 
     fully cooperating with Israel's security services;
       ``(C) halting all anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian 
     Authority-controlled electronic and print media and in 
     schools, mosques, and other institutions it controls, and 
     replacing these materials, including textbooks, with 
     materials that promote tolerance, peace, and coexistence with 
     Israel;
       ``(D) ensuring democracy, the rule of law, and an 
     independent judiciary, and adopting other reforms such as 
     ensuring transparent and accountable governance; and
       ``(E) ensuring the financial transparency and 
     accountability of all government ministries and operations.
       ``(c) Recertifications.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date on which the President transmits to Congress an initial 
     certification under subsection (b), and every six months 
     thereafter--
       ``(1) the President shall transmit to Congress a 
     recertification that the requirements contained in subsection 
     (b) are continuing to be met; or
       ``(2) if the President is unable to make such a 
     recertification, the President shall transmit to Congress a 
     report that contains the reasons therefor.
       ``(d) Congressional Notification.--Assistance made 
     available under this Act to the Palestinian Authority may not 
     be provided until 15 days after the date on which the 
     President has provided notice thereof to the Committee on 
     International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives and to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate in accordance with the procedures applicable to 
     reprogramming notifications under section 634A(a) of this 
     Act.
       ``(e) Exceptions.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to the following:
       ``(A) Assistance to independent elections commissions.--
     Assistance to any Palestinian independent election commission 
     if the President transmits to Congress a certification that 
     contains a determination of the President that--
       ``(i) no member of such commission is a member of, 
     affiliated with, or appointed by a foreign terrorist 
     organization; and
       ``(ii) each member of such commission is independent of the 
     influence of any political party or movement.
       ``(B) Assistance to support the middle east peace 
     process.--Assistance to the Office of the President of the 
     Palestinian Authority for non-security expenses directly 
     related to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict or for the personal security detail of 
     the President of the Palestinian Authority if the President 
     transmits to Congress a certification that contains a 
     determination of the President that--
       ``(i) such assistance is critical to facilitating a 
     peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict;
       ``(ii) the President of the Palestinian Authority is not a 
     member of or affiliated with a foreign terrorist organization 
     and has rejected the use of terrorism to resolve the Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict;
       ``(iii) such assistance will not be used to provide funds 
     to any individual who is a member of or affiliated with a 
     foreign terrorist organization or who has not rejected the 
     use of terrorism to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; 
     and
       ``(iv) such assistance will not be retransferred to any 
     other entity within or outside of the Palestinian Authority 
     except as payment for legal goods or services rendered.
       ``(2) Additional requirements.--Assistance described in 
     paragraph (1) may be provided only if the President--
       ``(A) determines that the provision of such assistance is 
     important to the national security interests of the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) not less than 30 days prior to the obligation of 
     amounts for the provision of such assistance--
       ``(i) consults with the appropriate congressional 
     committees regarding the specific programs, projects, and 
     activities to be carried out using such assistance; and
       ``(ii) submits to the appropriate congressional committees 
     a written memorandum that contains the determination of the 
     President under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `appropriate congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       ``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate.
       ``(f) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Foreign terrorist organization.--The term `foreign 
     terrorist organization' means an organization designated as a 
     foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State in 
     accordance with section 219(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)).
       ``(2) Palestinian authority.--The term `Palestinian 
     Authority' means the interim Palestinian administrative 
     organization that governs part of the West Bank and all of 
     the Gaza Strip (or any successor Palestinian governing 
     entity), including the Palestinian Legislative Council.''.
       (c) Applicability to Unexpended Funds.--Section 620K of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by subsection (b), 
     applies with respect to unexpended funds obligated

[[Page H2991]]

     for assistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to 
     the Palestinian Authority before the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (d) Report by Comptroller General.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall submit to the appropriate 
     congressional committees a report that contains a review of 
     the proposed procedures by which United States assistance to 
     the Palestinian Authority under the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 will be audited by the Department of State, the United 
     States Agency for International Development, and all other 
     relevant departments and agencies of the Government of the 
     United States and any recommendations for improvement of such 
     procedures.
       (e) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should be guided by the principles and 
     procedures described in section 620K of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as added by subsection (b), in 
     providing direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority 
     under any provision of law other than the Foreign Assistance 
     Act of 1961.

     SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE WEST BANK AND GAZA.

       (a) Amendment.--Chapter 1 of part III of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2351 et seq.), as amended 
     by section 2(b)(2) of this Act, is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 620L. LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE WEST BANK AND 
                   GAZA.

       ``(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (d), 
     assistance may be provided under this Act to nongovernmental 
     organizations for the West Bank and Gaza only during a period 
     for which a certification described in section 620K(b) of 
     this Act is in effect with respect to the Palestinian 
     Authority.
       ``(b) Marking Requirement.--Assistance provided under this 
     Act to nongovernmental organizations for the West Bank and 
     Gaza shall be marked as assistance from the Government of the 
     United States unless the Secretary of State or the 
     Administrator of the United States Agency for International 
     Development determines that such marking will endanger the 
     lives or safety of persons delivering or receiving such 
     assistance or would have a material adverse effect on the 
     implementation of such assistance.
       ``(c) Congressional Notification.--Assistance made 
     available under this Act to nongovernmental organizations for 
     the West Bank and Gaza may not be provided until 15 days 
     after the date on which the President has provided notice 
     thereof to the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and to the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate in accordance with the 
     procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications under 
     section 634A(a) of this Act.
       ``(d) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to the following:
       ``(1) Assistance to meet basic human health needs.--The 
     provision of food, water, medicine, sanitation services, or 
     other assistance to directly meet basic human health needs.
       ``(2) Other types of assistance.--The provision of any 
     other type of assistance if the President--
       ``(A) determines that the provision of such assistance will 
     further the national security interests of the United States; 
     and
       ``(B) not less than 25 days prior to the obligation of 
     amounts for the provision of such assistance--
       ``(i) consults with the appropriate congressional 
     committees regarding the specific programs, projects, and 
     activities to be carried out using such assistance; and
       ``(ii) submits to the appropriate congressional committees 
     a written memorandum that contains the determination of the 
     President under subparagraph (A) and an explanation of how 
     failure to provide the proposed assistance would be 
     inconsistent with furthering the national security interests 
     of the United States.
       ``(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term 
     `appropriate congressional committees' means--
       ``(A) the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       ``(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate.''.
       (b) Oversight and Related Requirements.--
       (1) Oversight.--For each of the fiscal years 2007 and 2008, 
     the Secretary of State shall certify to the appropriate 
     congressional committees not later than 30 days prior to the 
     initial obligation of amounts for assistance to 
     nongovernmental organizations for the West Bank or Gaza under 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that procedures have been 
     established to ensure that the Comptroller General of the 
     United States will have access to appropriate United States 
     financial information in order to review the use of such 
     assistance.
       (2) Vetting.--Prior to any obligation of amounts for 
     assistance to nongovernmental organizations for the West Bank 
     or Gaza under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the 
     Secretary of State shall take all appropriate steps to ensure 
     that such assistance is not provided to or through any 
     individual or entity that the Secretary knows, or has reason 
     to believe, advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has 
     engaged in, terrorist activity. The Secretary shall, as 
     appropriate, establish procedures specifying the steps to be 
     taken in carrying out this paragraph and shall terminate 
     assistance to any individual or entity that the Secretary has 
     determined advocates, plans, sponsors, or engages in 
     terrorist activity.
       (3) Prohibition.--No amounts made available for any fiscal 
     year for assistance to nongovernmental organizations for the 
     West Bank or Gaza under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 
     may be made available for the purpose of recognizing or 
     otherwise honoring individuals or the families of individuals 
     who commit, or have committed, acts of terrorism.
       (4) Audits.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator of the United States 
     Agency for International Development shall ensure that 
     independent audits of all contractors and grantees, and 
     significant subcontractors and subgrantees, that receive 
     amounts for assistance to nongovernmental organizations for 
     the West Bank or Gaza under the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 are conducted to ensure, among other things, compliance 
     with this subsection.
       (B) Audits by inspector general of usaid.--Of the amounts 
     available for any fiscal year for assistance to 
     nongovernmental organizations for the West Bank or Gaza under 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, up to $1,000,000 for each 
     such fiscal year may be used by the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the United States Agency for International 
     Development for audits, inspections, and other activities in 
     furtherance of the requirements of subparagraph (A). Such 
     amounts are in addition to amounts otherwise available for 
     such purposes.
       (c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the President should be guided by the principles and 
     procedures described in section 620L of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961, as added by subsection (a), in 
     providing assistance to nongovernmental organizations for the 
     West Bank and Gaza under any provision of law other than the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

     SEC. 4. UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES AND PROGRAMS.

       (a) Review and Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the President shall--
       (A) conduct an audit of the functions of the entities 
     specified in paragraph (2); and
       (B) transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report containing recommendations for the elimination of such 
     entities and efforts that are duplicative or fail to ensure 
     balance in the approach of the United Nations to Israeli-
     Palestinian issues.
       (2) Entities specified.--The entities referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are the following:
       (A) The United Nations Division for Palestinian Rights.
       (B) The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights 
     of the Palestinian People.
       (C) The United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle 
     East Peace Process and Personal Representative to the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian 
     Authority.
       (D) The NGO Network on the Question of Palestine.
       (E) The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices 
     Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and 
     Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories.
       (F) Any other entity the Secretary determines results in 
     duplicative efforts or funding or fails to ensure balance in 
     the approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues.
       (b) Implementation of Recommendations by Permanent 
     Representative.--
       (1) In general.--The United States Permanent Representative 
     to the United Nations shall use the voice, vote, and 
     influence of the United States at the United Nations to seek 
     the implementation of the recommendations contained in the 
     report required under subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (2) Withholding of funds.--Until the President certifies to 
     the Congress that such recommendations have been implemented, 
     the Secretary of State should withhold from United States 
     contributions to the regular assessed budget of the United 
     Nations for a biennial period amounts that are proportional 
     to the percentage of such budget that are expended for such 
     entities.
       (c) GAO Audit.--The Comptroller General shall conduct an 
     audit of the status of the implementation of the 
     recommendations contained in the report required under 
     subsection (a)(1)(B).
       (d) Withholding of Funds With Respect to the Palestinian 
     Authority.--
       (1) Assessed contributions.--The Secretary of State should 
     withhold from United States contributions to the regular 
     assessed budget of the United Nations for a biennial period 
     amounts that are equal to the amounts of such budget that are 
     expended by any United Nations affiliated or specialized 
     agency for assistance directly to the Palestinian Authority.
       (2) Voluntary contributions.--The Secretary of State shall 
     withhold from United States contributions to the voluntary 
     budget of the United Nations for a biennial period amounts 
     that are equal to the amounts of such budget that are 
     expended by any United Nations affiliated or specialized 
     agency for assistance directly to the Palestinian Authority.
       (3) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``amounts of such budget that are expended by any United 
     Nations affiliated or specialized agency for assistance

[[Page H2992]]

     directly to the Palestinian Authority'' does not include--
       (A) amounts expended during any period for which a 
     certification described in section 620K(b) of the Foreign 
     Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 2(b)(2) of this 
     Act) is in effect with respect to the Palestinian Authority; 
     or
       (B) amounts expended for assistance of the type of 
     assistance described in section 104(c), 104A, 104B, or 104C 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b, 
     2151b-2, 2151b-3, or 2151b-4) and which would, if provided by 
     the Government of the United States, be permitted under such 
     sections, or under chapter 4 of part II of such Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2346 et seq.) to carry out the purposes of such 
     sections, by reason of the application of section 104(c)(4) 
     of such Act.

     SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF TERRITORY CONTROLLED BY THE 
                   PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AS TERRORIST SANCTUARY.

       It is the sense of Congress that, during any period for 
     which a certification described in section 620K(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 2(b)(2) 
     of this Act) is not in effect with respect to the Palestinian 
     Authority, the territory controlled by the Palestinian 
     Authority should be deemed to be in use as a sanctuary for 
     terrorists or terrorist organizations for purposes of section 
     6(j)(5) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 
     App. 2405(j)(5)) and section 140 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 (22 U.S.C. 
     2656f).

     SEC. 6. DENIAL OF VISAS FOR OFFICIALS OF THE PALESTINIAN 
                   AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--A visa shall not be issued to any alien 
     who is an official of, affiliated with, or serving as a 
     representative of the Palestinian Authority during any period 
     for which a certification described in section 620K(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 2(b)(2) 
     of this Act) is not in effect with respect to the Palestinian 
     Authority.
       (b) Waiver.--Subsection (a) shall not apply--
       (1) if the President determines and certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, on a case-by-case 
     basis, that the issuance of a visa to an alien described in 
     such subsection is important to the national security 
     interests of the United States; or
       (2) with respect to visas issued in connection with United 
     States obligations under the Act of August 4, 1947 (61 Stat. 
     756) (commonly known as the ``United Nations Headquarters 
     Agreement Act'').

     SEC. 7. TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ON OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES 
                   OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND THE PALESTINE 
                   LIBERATION ORGANIZATION STATIONED AT THE UNITED 
                   NATIONS IN NEW YORK CITY.

       The President shall restrict the travel of officials and 
     representatives of the Palestinian Authority and of the 
     Palestine Liberation Organization who are stationed at the 
     United Nations in New York City to a 25-mile radius of the 
     United Nations headquarters building during any period for 
     which a certification described in section 620K(b) of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 2(b)(2) 
     of this Act) is not in effect with respect to the Palestinian 
     Authority.

     SEC. 8. PROHIBITION ON PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY REPRESENTATION 
                   IN THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, it shall be unlawful to establish or maintain an office, 
     headquarters, premises, or other facilities or establishments 
     within the jurisdiction of the United States at the behest or 
     direction of, or with funds provided by, the Palestinian 
     Authority or the Palestine Liberation Organization during any 
     period for which a certification described in section 620K(b) 
     of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 
     2(b)(2) of this Act) is not in effect with respect to the 
     Palestinian Authority.
       (b) Enforcement.--
       (1) Attorney general.--The Attorney General shall take the 
     necessary steps and institute the necessary legal action to 
     effectuate the policies and provisions of subsection (a), 
     including steps necessary to apply the policies and 
     provisions of subsection (a) to the Permanent Observer 
     Mission of Palestine to the United Nations.
       (2) Relief.--Any district court of the United States for a 
     district in which a violation of subsection (a) occurs shall 
     have authority, upon petition of relief by the Attorney 
     General, to grant injunctive and such other equitable relief 
     as it shall deem necessary to enforce the provisions of 
     subsection (a).
       (c) Waiver.--
       (1) Authority.--The President may waive the application of 
     subsection (a) for a period of 180 days if the President 
     determines and certifies to the appropriate congressional 
     committees that such waiver--
       (A) is vital to the national security interests of the 
     United States and provides an explanation of how the failure 
     to waive the application of subsection (a) would be 
     inconsistent with the vital national security interests of 
     the United States; and
       (B) would further the achievement of the requirements 
     outlined in the certification described in section 620K(b) of 
     the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by section 
     2(b)(2) of this Act).
       (2) Renewal.--The President may renew the waiver described 
     in paragraph (1) for successive 180-day periods if the 
     President makes the determination and certification described 
     in such paragraph for each such period.

     SEC. 9. INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) United States Policy.--It shall be the policy of the 
     United States that the United States Executive Director at 
     each international financial institution shall use the voice, 
     vote, and influence of the United States to prohibit 
     assistance to the Palestinian Authority unless a 
     certification described in subsection (b) is in effect with 
     respect to the Palestinian Authority.
       (b) Certification.--A certification described in this 
     subsection is a certification transmitted by the President to 
     Congress that contains a determination of the President that 
     the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3)(A), (B), 
     (C), and (E) of section 620K(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (as added by section 2(b)(2) of this Act) are being 
     met by the Palestinian Authority.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``international 
     financial institution'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 1701(c)(2) of the International Financial 
     Institutions Act.

     SEC. 10. DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS WITH PALESTINIAN TERROR 
                   ORGANIZATIONS.

       It shall be the policy of the United States that no officer 
     or employee of the United States Government shall negotiate 
     or have substantive contacts with members or official 
     representatives of Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the 
     Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, al-Aqsa 
     Martyrs Brigade, or any other Palestinian terrorist 
     organization, unless and until such organization--
       (1) recognizes Israel's right to exist;
       (2) renounces the use of terrorism;
       (3) dismantles the infrastructure necessary to carry out 
     terrorist acts, including the disarming of militias and the 
     elimination of all instruments of terror; and
       (4) recognizes and accepts all previous agreements and 
     understandings between the State of Israel and the Palestine 
     Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority.

     SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on International Relations and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       (B) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate.
       (2) Palestinian authority.--The term ``Palestinian 
     Authority'' has the meaning given the term in section 
     620K(e)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (as added by 
     section 2(b)(2) of this Act).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition. 
I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) opposed to the motion?
  Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On that basis, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) will control the time in opposition to the motion.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this matter be extended by 80 minutes, equally divided.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, 
and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
resolution to the floor and to the gentleman from California for his 
support for this resolution. It is incredibly important that we bring 
this resolution to the floor today, and I rise in strong support

[[Page H2993]]

of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act which reaffirms America's support 
for our allies in Israel and protects American interests.
  It also brings an end to the dangerously infantilization of the 
Palestinian people, who through this legislation will finally be held 
responsible for their political decisions.
  In and of itself, January's Palestinian election was a victory for 
the civilized world in the war on terror. The elections were fair, 
nonviolent, and added further evidence in support of democracy's 
fundamental compatibility with Middle Eastern culture.
  The outcome of that election, the ascendancy of the unrepentant 
terrorist organization Hamas, was another story all together. The 
Palestinian people have made their choice; and while we must respect 
their God-given right to self-determination, the choice they made has 
consequences, chief among them the immediate end of foreign assistance 
to the Palestinian Authority.
  American aid to the Palestinian people must be predicated on their 
rejection of terrorism. And as long as Hamas seeks the destruction of 
Israel and the murder of innocent Israelis, the United States cannot 
financially support the Palestinian Authority.
  When the day comes that Palestinian leaders reject violence, break 
apart their terrorist infrastructure, embrace freedom, and seek 
membership in the civilized world, we will welcome them. Until that 
day, not a dime.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Everybody on this floor wants to send the same loud and clear 
message: that Congress is united in its opposition to terror and we are 
all deeply concerned about the future and security of our close friend 
and ally, Israel.
  This debate is not about our shared revulsion at those who would 
murder innocent citizens or sow terror for political purposes.

                              {time}  1915

  It is not about current law, which prohibits any assistance to Hamas 
or a Hamas-controlled government, which Congress unanimously reaffirmed 
earlier this year. For many people, we will find tonight that this is a 
very personal issue. For anyone who has visited Israel, you understand.
  When I first visited Jerusalem, I couldn't help but be struck by how 
close the holy sites of the three great religions are, less than the 
distance of a Tiger Woods 5-iron shot. I will always cherish the 
opportunity in a more optimistic time, to visit a security checkpoint 
outside Ramallah, jointly manned by Israelis and Palestinians. The 
possibility of that moment, its fragility and the ramifications of 
failure, have been brought home to me repeatedly in recent years.
  I was and am impressed by the diversity of opinions in Israel, by its 
vibrant tradition of democracy and heated debate. But I am also struck 
by how we are seeing elements of that vibrant debate within the 
American pro-Israeli community over the bill that is before us this 
evening.
  As someone committed to Israel's security and to the vision of the 
two states living side by side in peace, I reluctantly oppose the 
legislation this evening, despite my deep respect for my colleagues who 
are bringing it forward on both sides of the aisle.
  The bill before us is one that the administration does not need nor 
want. It sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States, 
whether or not Hamas is in power. It could potentially limit the United 
States' ability to help our friend Israel if Israel decides in the 
future that working with a non- Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority 
is in their best interests.
  Remember in 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin asked the 
United States to support a flawed Palestinian Authority because he felt 
it was important for Israel's security. Had the stringent conditions in 
this bill been in place, we would have had to have said no.
  In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked the United States 
to support the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Had the 
stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to 
say no.
  Should a future Israeli leader come and ask us to support the 
Palestinian Authority, after Hamas is forced from power, we shouldn't 
allow the conditions in this bill to force us to say no.
  Unfortunately, this bill defines the Palestinian Authority to include 
the Palestinian legislative counsel, as long as members of Hamas are in 
the Palestinian Parliament. We would have to say no to Israel's 
request.
  As has been pointed out with Libya, the debate over Libya, sometimes 
we allow diplomatic relations with imperfect regimes because progress 
can best be made through engagement instead of isolation. This bill 
goes far beyond the ramifications of January's election and Hamas' rise 
to power.
  It would restrict relations with and support for Palestinian groups 
and institutions that have nothing to do with terror or rejectionism. 
It places sanctions on the Palestinian leaders and parts of Palestinian 
civil society who support peace with Israel, oppose terrorism and who, 
if the two-state vision comes to pass, will form the backbone of a 
democratic society.
  There is, in this legislation, no recognition that Palestinian 
society is deeply divided, and that it makes no sense to put sanctions 
on President Abbas, reformers, even activists for democracy, peace and 
coexistence. The bill would prohibit the assistance we give to schools 
that teach peace, to democratic and peaceful political organizations, 
to groups promoting cooperation with Israel on shared environmental 
challenges.
  It would even punish the democratic opposition by prohibiting visas 
for moderate Palestinian legislators or government officials who oppose 
Hamas. It would prevent the PLO, of which Hamas isn't a member, and 
which was not impacted by the election of Hamas, from having 
representatives in Washington or at the United Nations. I am afraid 
that this legislation may well backfire by actually strengthening the 
hands of extremists.
  Remember, this past winter, the House, in our wisdom, voted to demand 
that the Palestinians prevent Hamas from running in the legislative 
elections, telling the Palestinian people to reject them. I don't think 
it was any accident that Hamas election banners had: ``Israel and 
America say `no' to Hamas. What do you say?''
  I can't help think that any objective appraisal would suggest that 
the United States Congress, telling them what they could do, may well 
have provided that extra boost for Hamas' prospects at the election.
  This bill provides no diplomatic horizon, no sunset. It is in 
perpetuity. It does little to prioritize on the basis of our strategic 
interest and provides no prospect for Palestinian reform coming through 
the process of negotiations. In so doing, it weakens the hands of those 
who advocate for peace negotiations and supports those extremists who 
believe in violence.
  Democracy is a complex process in the Middle East and all too rare in 
the Middle East. The election of Hamas shows that for the kinds of 
democracies we want to see, elections aren't enough. We need to promote 
the kinds of democratic institutions, free civil society, conducive to 
sustainable, liberal democracy in Palestinian territories.
  The President needs to be free to do just that, with congressional 
oversight, not congressional prohibitions and micromanagement. I 
understand the sincere concern that many people who support this 
legislation have, but it is too onerous and burdensome on an 
administration that needs to practice diplomacy.
  Democracy is a continuing process that helps transform those who 
practice it. I agree with the rabbi from my district who wrote that, 
``change is everything in politics, no matter how bleak the situation 
currently is,'' in expressing his opposition to this legislation. We 
cannot support Hamas or other terrorist groups, but neither should we 
close the door on change.
  Most of the Members of this body consider themselves to be strong 
friends and supporters of Israel. So do I. That is why I will urge a 
``no'' vote on this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation 
and yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  During the course of this debate, I will rebut point-by-point the 
items raised by my good friend from Oregon,

[[Page H2994]]

for whom I have great respect and great affection. But let me just say 
that while I am convinced that his position is motivated by the best of 
intentions, he totally misrepresents the nature of our legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, it was my great pleasure to join my friend and 
distinguished colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in introducing the 
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. It has also been an honor to work with 
the chairman of the committee, Henry Hyde, in bringing the bill to the 
floor in its present form. I would like to thank all 295 of my 
colleagues who are cosponsors of this bill, which was reported out of 
the International Relations Committee on a bipartisan vote of 36-2. I 
repeat, the legislation was reported out of the International Relations 
Committee representing the broadest spectrum of views and positions by 
a vote of 36-2. This is a bill that enjoys the broadest bipartisan 
support.
  Mr. Speaker, a little more than a month ago, a 16-year-old boy from 
Florida, Daniel Wultz, arrived in Israel with his family. They were 
celebrating Passover, which commemorates Jewish liberation from 
brutality long ago. On a pleasant evening in Tel Aviv, Daniel met his 
father for dinner at a popular falafel restaurant in a working-class 
neighborhood.
  Moments later, a Palestinian terrorist detonated 30 pounds of 
explosives just a few feet from the father and son. Daniel suffered 
severe internal injuries, and his leg had to be amputated.
  After a valiant struggle for survival, Daniel died last week. As for 
his father, he faces a long and painful recovery physically; the 
psychological repercussions one can only speculate on.
  This tragedy was compounded several times over, Mr. Speaker. In this 
one terrorist incident, perpetrated by Hamas, 10 people were murdered, 
more than 60 were injured, and hundreds of loved ones are suffering the 
atrocities, the effects of these atrocities for the rest of their 
lives.
  Mr. Speaker, during the murderous Intifada, orchestrated, planned and 
perpetrated by Hamas, more than 1,000 Israelis were killed in incidents 
like this recent one, barbarous, random, sneak attacks on men, women 
and children, just going about their lives. Given its comparatively 
small population, less than 6 million, the loss of 1,000 innocent lives 
in Israel is the equivalent of losing 50,000 here in the United States. 
I wonder how many of our colleagues would stand up for the terrorists 
if we had lost 50,000, not 3,000 on 9/11.
  What was the response of the Hamas government to the restaurant 
bombing? The spokesman for Hamas said that it was, and I quote, Mr. 
Speaker, ``legal.'' This monstrous act, the most recent terrorist 
attack, killed 10 people, and Hamas leadership says, it's legal. No 
condemnation, no promise of pursuing the perpetrators of this vicious 
crime; just a blanket endorsement of suicide attacks on both American 
and Israeli citizens.
  Now, despite the pathetically naive hopes of some that Hamas would 
change its stripes upon assuming power, if anything, the anti-Israel 
rhetoric has only been stepped up. The foreign minister of the 
terrorist government, Mahmoud al-Zahar, recently told the world that he 
dreams of, and I am quoting again, Mr. Speaker, ``hanging a huge map of 
the world on the wall at my Gaza home, which does not show Israel on 
it, because there is no place for the State of Israel on this land.''
  So much for moderation.
  Mr. Speaker, such statements by Hamas government officials make 
crystal clear the rationale for our legislation. We must isolate the 
new terrorist authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The situation in the 
Middle East is alarming. The Palestinian Authority is now governed by a 
group of killers, like Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who believes that 
Israel, quote, should be wiped off the map.
  It is therefore incumbent upon us, Mr. Speaker, as the ally and long-
time supporter of the democratic State of Israel, to do everything we 
can to demonstrate the bankruptcy of Hamas' vision and to ensure that 
Hamas receives no help from the United States in implementing its evil 
plans.
  Our bill does exactly that. We will end all assistance to the 
Palestinian Authority with exceptions for humanitarian aid. We will 
also end all contact between U.S. diplomats and the Hamas-controlled 
Palestinian Authority.

                              {time}  1930

  Our goal, Mr. Speaker, is not to punish the Palestinian people. Our 
goal is to demonstrate to them, and to their government, that hatred, 
murder, assassination and non-recognition of neighbors is unacceptable 
in a civilized world. Accordingly, we want to make sure that the U.S. 
taxpayer will not supply one penny of aid for which the Hamas 
government can claim any credit, and we want to make sure that Hamas 
and its government are accorded absolutely no legitimacy by the United 
States or our diplomatic representatives.
  Our bill, of course, recognizes that humanitarian emergencies will 
arise and that we should be supportive of appropriate NGO activities. 
Just to cite one example, Mr. Speaker, I wrote Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice recently asking that the United States provide funding 
to assist the Palestinians in dealing with the serious outbreak of 
avian flu in the Gaza Strip, and I am pleased that our government has 
been responsive to my request. I think we would all agree on continuing 
the U.S. tradition of dealing with the humanitarian needs of any 
people, including the Palestinian people.
  I am sure that all of my colleagues will join me in praising the 
government of Israel for the plan it announced just yesterday to 
release $11 million and let these funds be used for medicine and 
equipment for Palestinian hospitals, bypassing entirely the terrorist 
government of Hamas.
  Mr. Speaker, representatives of the United States have been meeting 
with their counterparts from Russia, the United Nations and the 
European Union to discuss the financial crisis that Palestinians have 
faced since Hamas came to power. Our bill is fully consistent with the 
positions and policies of the so-called quartet.
  Mr. Speaker, we in this Congress are sickened by the fact that the 
Palestinians chose Hamas as their leader, and we are sickened and 
appalled by everything that Hamas stands for. Our bill, H.R. 4681, 
demonstrates that America will stand firm in the fight against 
terrorism, while remaining true to the hope for a peaceful Middle East. 
Our legislation will serve as a model for the right policy to take 
against terrorists, however they take power, and on behalf of the 
democratic ally that is the target of suicide bombings by a 
governmentally-organized campaign.
  Allow me a personal word, Mr. Speaker. As all of my colleagues know, 
I am the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to the Congress of the 
United States. My family was wiped out by a government that 
systematically sought to eliminate an entire people.
  I am here today to tell you that what Hamas has in mind is a 
holocaust on the installment plan. I repeat, I am here today to tell 
you that what Hamas has in mind is a holocaust on the installment plan. 
It is being done one atrocity at a time. As long as support continues 
to flow to Hamas, this holocaust on the installment plan will continue, 
and ultimately, it might succeed. But our bill will stop it.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important, vital, bipartisan piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, tonight we should be working 
to ensure security and peace for Israel and for more hope, opportunity 
and peace for the Palestinian people.
  Among our colleagues in the U.S. House, there is unanimous 
intolerance and condemnation for the current Hamas-led government of 
the Palestinian Authority. The refusal of the political leadership of 
Hamas to recognize the State of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism 
and agree to previous agreements and obligations of the Palestinian 
Authority is unacceptable, and, therefore, they must continue to be 
isolated by the international community.
  Congress should be here tonight unanimously passing a bill that 
supports Secretary of State Rice as she leads the international 
community to keep firm pressure on Hamas until

[[Page H2995]]

they agree to internationally recognized and civilized standards of 
conduct. At the same time, Congress should be working to support the 
Bush administration and the international community to avoid a serious 
humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people.
  On May 9, 2006, Secretary Rice said as she announced $10 million of 
medical assistance to the Palestinian people, ``We will continue to 
work and look for ways to assist the Palestinian people and will 
encourage other countries to join us in this effort.'' She goes on to 
say, ``We will not, however, provide support to a Hamas-led government 
that refuses to accept the calls of the Quartet and the broader 
international community to renounce terror and to become a partner for 
peace.''
  I strongly support her efforts, and it is unfortunate that the bill 
tonight could not have been drafted to come to the floor that would be 
supported by the State Department. The State Department's comment 
regarding H.R. 4681 is, ``this bill is unnecessary.''
  Instead of advancing the U.S. interests, H.R. 4681 does not recognize 
the three criteria set forth by President Bush, demanded by President 
Bush and the international community, for Hamas to commence any form of 
engagement and to work with the U.S. and the international community.
  H.R. 4681 sets an elevated threshold which makes U.S. leadership for 
peace in the Middle East nearly impossible, even if Hamas does agree to 
recognize Israel, does renounce terrorism and does agree to abide by 
all previous agreements.
  The outcome of this bill, if it were to become law, would be to 
isolate Palestinian leaders who have been committed to advancing the 
peace process, isolate leaders who have denounced terrorism and isolate 
leaders who are working with Israel for peace and a permanent two-state 
solution. How does this advance the U.S. goals in the region? It does 
not.
  This bill's real result will be to isolate the U.S. among the members 
of the international community that are working for peaceful solutions 
between Israel and the Palestinians.
  One of our partners in isolating Hamas and delivering humanitarian 
assistance to the Palestinian people is the United Nations. A section 
in this bill calls for the withholding of a portion of the U.S. 
contribution to the United Nations, as if this valuable partner were an 
enemy. For this bill to target the United Nations, a member of the 
quartet, in such a fashion is a clear signal that this bill's intent is 
to undermine the Bush administration's multilateral leadership.
  This bill places extreme constraints on the delivery of humanitarian 
assistance by non-governmental organizations to the Palestinian people. 
This bill's unnecessary obstacles have the potential for very negative 
human consequences and would exacerbate a human crisis.
  Palestinian families and children must not be targeted. They must not 
be deprived of their basic human needs by this Congress. Instead, this 
House should assure that Palestinian families and children will be 
treated in a fashion that reflects our values and the belief that their 
lives are valuable.
  NGOs with significant experience in delivering humanitarian 
assistance have expressed serious concerns with the lack of flexibility 
in this bill. On April 6, 2006, a letter from the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops to Chairman Hyde expressing concerns 
regarding this bill states, ``The legislation provides for the urgent 
needs of the Palestinian people. A further deterioration of the 
humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people 
compromises human dignity and serves the long-term interests of neither 
the Palestinians nor of Israelis who long for peace.''
  In its present form, this bill will not allow NGOs to properly carry 
out the very assistance determined to be necessary by Secretary Rice, 
ensuring suffering and misery to the Palestinian people.
  Later this week in this Chamber, we will be honored by the presence 
of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In an interview last week, Prime 
Minister Olmert said the Palestinians ``are the victims of their own 
extremist, fundamentalist, religious, inflexible and unyielding 
leadership, and we will do everything in our power to help these 
innocent people.''
  I strongly associate myself with the honest and courageous comments 
of the prime minister and his desire for security and peace. I oppose 
this bill because it is a missed opportunity to keep pressure on Hamas.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy majority 
whip.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to salute the 
gentlelady from Florida on her unbelievable leadership in bringing this 
bill to the floor and her tireless efforts in the promotion of freedom 
and the rejection of terror around the world. I thank her for that.
  I also would like to salute and thank Chairman Hyde for his 
leadership in bringing this bill to the floor, and certainly the 
gentleman from California for his dedication to the rejection of terror 
and the promotion of freedom in such a tireless way and such an 
articulate manner here on the House floor. I thank the gentleman as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in strong support of H.R. 4681, the 
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. The policy behind this piece of 
legislation is identical to that which undergirds the Bush doctrine. It 
is simple: Terrorism is evil and will not be tolerated. Murderous acts 
carried out by the terrorists must be stopped, and those who perpetuate 
this evil deserve nothing less than condemnation and destruction. That 
is why this legislation must pass.
  Israel has been fighting a war on terror for more than 60 years. 
Presently, Israel finds itself in the unique position of facing a 
terrorist organization that is hiding behind the legitimacy of the 
Palestinian Authority. Some have chosen to recognize Hamas, a terrorist 
organization, as a legitimate governing body for the Palestinian 
Authority. We in the United States Congress find this unacceptable.
  Hamas believes that terrorism is a legitimate tool of political 
negotiation. Hamas does not hide from its endorsement of homicide 
bombings or its desire to use this tactic to achieve its goal of 
destroying Israel.
  Make no mistake about it: Hamas kills. It murders. It maims. It 
orphans, and it robs. It blunts the future of innocence. It takes away 
the happiness of children, and it tears apart families. Hamas believes 
that this behavior is somehow acceptable.
  Today, we must send a message to Hamas and President Abbas that the 
free nations of the world reject their desire to be recognized as 
legitimate leaders of their people. Both Hamas and Fatah's al-Aksa 
Martyrs Brigade have a record of terror and their leaders have a 
demonstrated lack of humanity by allowing these murderous activities.
  Mr. Speaker, today the United States House of Representatives sends a 
strong message that our government does not and will not deal with 
terrorists, nor in this Congress should we or will we allow American 
taxpayer dollars to fund the terrorist activities.
  Israel is engaged in a war on terror. It is a war that is part of 
that which is worldwide and in which we find ourselves engaged as well.

                              {time}  1945

  Make no mistake about it, the very freedoms that we hold dear are at 
stake, and we must never stop fighting this war until the last 
terrorist on Earth is in a cell or a cemetery.
  Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I stand before you as the violence and 
pain of Palestinian terror was felt by my family. As Mr. Lantos, the 
gentleman from California has said, last week, Daniel Wultz died of 
wounds he suffered in a homicide bombing in Tel Aviv in April. Daniel 
was my cousin. He and his family were visiting Israel celebrating the 
Jewish holiday of Passover.
  Daniel and his father were eating lunch at a cafe in Tel Aviv, when a 
homicide bomber blew himself up at the restaurant. For 27 days Daniel 
fought for his life, but last Sunday he died as a result of his wounds. 
Daniel was passionate about his family, friends and the community 
around him. He was an excellent student and a member of the varsity 
basketball team at the David Posnack Hebrew Day School in Plantation, 
Florida.
  He was active in the Chabad Lubavitch of Weston and hoped to pursue 
his religious studies further after

[[Page H2996]]

high school. He was a handsome, witty and compassionate young man, and 
did not hesitate to speak out against any injustice he encountered in 
his daily life.
  He was devoted to the laws and teachings of Judaism and Tikun Olam, 
the Jewish ideal that we must work to make the world a better place. 
Daniel was a young man with a bright future. Now he is gone, robbed of 
his bright and promising future.
  Daniel is survived by his parents, Sheryl and Tuly Wultz, and his 
sister, Amanda. I join my colleagues in sending our deepest sympathies.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to again salute the gentlewoman from Florida and 
her efforts on this bill and want to say that I wholeheartedly 
supported her bill in its original form as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would draw the House's attention to page 8 of the bill 
and section 2 in which we speak about the exceptions to the prohibition 
of assistance in the Palestinian Authority, especially to section 620K 
of the law in which the bill provides for an exception to fund the 
President of the Palestinian Authority for nonsecurity expenses.
  It is this provision, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that we will be able 
to limit and remove in the conference with the Senate. Hamas must 
renounce terrorism, destroy all terrorist organizations that are 
allowed to operate in the Palestinian Territory, and it must recognize 
Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Hamas and the Palestinian 
President, Mr. Abbas, must understand that we in the United States 
Congress are serious about this policy.
  We must make it clear to the world that the U.S. does not see 
terrorism as a viable tool for negotiations. This is a first step in 
the process. And I would like to bring to the attention of the House 
that I strongly disagree with one of the speakers from the opposition 
who stated that this bill does not provide for humanitarian efforts for 
emergency aid for the people in the Palestinian Authority. It does.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the gentlewoman, to 
working with Chairman Hyde and the gentleman from California to 
strengthen this bill. I urge passage of this bill, and note that we all 
must stand for the absolute rejection of terrorism and absolutely no 
U.S. taxpayer dollar being spent for terrorist activities.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, invoking the Bush doctrine, the previous speaker talks 
about humanitarian assistance. One of the concerns that the Bush 
administration has in not supporting this bill is that it is too 
narrowly drawn, talking about ``health,'' and not broader humanitarian 
assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that later in the course of the evening. 
Due to the mandatory nature of the bill, its lack of a general waiver, 
the executive branch thinks it is unnecessary. It already has ample 
authority to impose all its restrictions, and constrains the executive 
branch's flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate as tools to 
address rapidly changing circumstances.
  These are the words of the administration. And I think the Congress 
would do well to consider them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ 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, almost exactly a year ago, 
I joined a bipartisan group of Members in visiting the Hope Flowers 
School in the Palestinian village of al Khader, just outside of 
Bethlehem on the West Bank.
  Hope Flowers teaches its students a curriculum promoting tolerance, 
nonviolence, democracy and peaceful coexistence. Our bipartisanship 
delegation witnessed the signing of a USAID agreement to renovate 
several classrooms and other key facilities at the school.
  Projects like this are supported by the United States throughout the 
Palestinian territories. Other projects are paying for modern school 
books to ensure that fundamentalist propaganda has no place in 
Palestinian schools; potable water projects to prevent the spread of 
disease, economic development to improve job prospects for Palestinian 
youth, and construction of hospitals, schools, sewers, power grids and 
business centers.
  These types of projects are critical to our interests, to Israel, and 
to the prospects for peace. They help prevent humanitarian crises and 
diminish popular discontent, and they also inculcate values like those 
taught at Hope Flowers.
  They train peacemakers; they improve America's standing in the Middle 
East. Why would we want to eliminate programs like these? Are they not 
needed now more than ever? And yet that is exactly what H.R. 4681 would 
do. It would cut off U.S. assistance to the West Bank and Gaza.
  Mr. Speaker, I stress, despite the way some proponents are trying to 
frame this debate tonight, the issue is not aid to Hamas or to the 
Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. Nobody on this floor tonight 
has any tolerance for Hamas.
  The issue is rather the bill's ban on aid to all nongovernmental 
groups, private groups, and organizations, many of whom are 
diametrically opposed to Hamas's philosophy. Let me clarify some 
further misconceptions about this legislation. I am not speculating 
here, Mr. Speaker; I am referring to page 12 of the bill. I invite 
colleagues to read it.
  Mr. Speaker, some have suggested the bill contains sufficient 
exceptions to allow humanitarian assistance to pass through. Not so. 
The bill makes an exception for health-related humanitarian aid, such 
as food, water and medicine. But it makes no provision for other forms 
of humanitarian assistance, such as aid for the homeless or displaced 
families and orphans.
  Mr. Speaker, some have pointed to Presidential waiver authority in 
the bill and suggested that it would allow critical assistance to reach 
Palestinians. Not so. Unfortunately, all aid beyond health-related 
humanitarian assistance would be prohibited unless the President, on a 
case-by-case basis, were to certify that assistance is required by U.S. 
national security.
  And then he would have to consult with Congress 25 days in advance 
and submit a written memorandum explaining why such assistance benefits 
U.S. security. How many projects would survive such a gauntlet? Think 
about the kinds of aid programs that would be cut off, projects that 
focus on building democratic institutions and civil society, projects 
that promote economic development to stabilize the territories, 
projects that ensure that school curricula provide students with a 
progressive education rather than fundamentalist propaganda, curricula 
that teach tolerance and conflict resolution skills. Surely programs 
like this are in our interest.
  Mr. Speaker, they are exactly what we need to reduce violence, to 
build the capacity of Palestinian civil society, and make progress 
toward a peaceful resolution; and yet they are exactly the programs 
that would be eliminated in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, there are other problems with the bill as well. It would 
significantly handicap any effort to engage the moderate elements in 
the Palestinian Authority, such as Palestinian Authority President 
Abbas, by opposing restrictions on visas, travel, and official 
Palestinian Authority representation in the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, because of these fundamental flaws in the legislation, 
it is opposed by several leading voices for Israel and Middle East 
peace, including the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek, Americans for 
Peace Now, Churches for Middle East Peace, a broad Protestant 
coalition, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  The Bush administration also opposes this bill. In a paper delivered 
to the House International Relations Committee, the State Department 
calls the bill unnecessary and says it unduly constrains the 
Executive's flexibility.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that Hamas's election victory was a 
significant step backward in the quest for a peaceful resolution to 
this conflict. There is no disagreement here tonight that we should 
send Hamas a strong message that the world will not tolerate its 
violent and irresponsible behavior.
  But this bill goes far beyond sending that message. Instead, it sends 
the message that the U.S. wants to punish the Palestinian people for 
Hamas's action, a message that serves no good purpose.

[[Page H2997]]

  We can unanimously support, and that is what we should be doing 
tonight, my colleagues, we can unanimously support legislation blocking 
assistance to Hamas, and to a Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority.
  But if we adopt legislation that punishes the Palestinian people, 
instead of isolating the terrorists, we lose the moral high ground. Let 
us reclaim the moral high ground, signal our resolute opposition to 
terrorism and also our support for those Palestinian individuals and 
groups who are working for a peaceful and democratic future.
  Mr. Speaker, we should defeat this bill and ask the IR Committee to 
bring back a bill truly reflective of American interests and values.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my good friend and our 
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, first the criticism of the procedure. This is a 
difficult and complex bill. It has no business being before us under 
suspension of the rules. It ought to be subject to amendment and 
unrestricted debate. It's not like we didn't have enough time.
  And to show our commitment to democracy by muffling it here serves no 
good purpose. But we do have the bill before us. I plan to vote for it 
after some conversation in which I hope I can be joined by the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain my basic reason. We were told when Hamas 
won that election, tragically, when the majority of the people of 
Israel were ready to make significant concessions, had already begun to 
do that, an historic moment when Israel was ready to make significant 
concessions for peace, they were totally repudiated. We were told, 
well, don't overinterpret that election, because the victory of Hamas, 
which in percentage terms wasn't as great as in the Parliament for a 
variety of reasons, but we were told that victory for Hamas was not 
simply from people who agreed with their rejectionist, hateful 
philosophy; but it was probably because they were so much better than 
Fatah at delivering services.
  To some extent, we got the explanation, frankly, for congressional 
earmarks. Why do Members here like to earmark? Because they can go 
deliver the goods to people back home and then get votes from people 
who don't agree with them. That is, we all know, why we have earmarks.
  Well, I don't want Hamas getting any more earmarks. I don't want to 
contribute to a situation where Hamas can deliver the goods because 
they are well funded, and then can convert the good will they earned 
with that money into votes for rejection.
  That is why I fully support a strict refusal to fund Hamas. And 
people say, well, you will be punishing the Palestinian people. I have 
heard the argument before. There are a lot of differences, but there is 
one common thing.
  When this House helped override the veto of Ronald Reagan against 
sanctions against the hateful, racist regime of South Africa, we were 
told by many that we would be hurting the people of South Africa, and 
that was true. The average South African, the average black South 
African who was victimized by apartheid was, in the short term, 
victimized by sanctions. And we did not apply sanctions only against 
the racists who ran the government; we applied sanctions against the 
whole country.
  It is sometimes the case that appropriate public policy will have 
short-term negative effects. But here is our problem, as I say. We have 
been told that Hamas won that election in part because of its skill at 
delivering goods and services. That means if you support peace, it is 
very much in your interest not to aid Hamas's ability to deliver goods 
and services.
  So I fully support the part of the bill that says, no aid for Hamas. 
I have to say to some of my friends, I do also want to warn the 
President, as some of my liberal friends have come here to defend his 
right for flexibility in the foreign policy, please be warned that that 
is a very temporary alliance.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. President, please don't assume that your allies here arguing for 
your flexibility will last much longer than tonight. But I also am very 
skeptical of those who say, well, let's give the money so they can have 
better schools. Let's give the money so they can learn reconciliation, 
et cetera. No, I don't think a Hamas government is going to allow that. 
So I am very much in favor of this bill insofar as it says, no, we will 
not contribute to the further political growth of Hamas. I want that 
government to fail and fall. And that does mean, as it did with 
sanctions in South Africa, some short-term pain, although this bill, 
more than it has been described by its opponents, does allow for 
humanitarian aid.
  Let me say for those of my liberal friends who mourn for the 
President's flexibility: Don't you know that whenever we grant waivers, 
no matter how complicated the process, they are waived? There is 
nothing about a requirement of a Presidential waiver that ever stops 
the President from doing what he has done. The President can certify 
that Abbas was pregnant if he had to to get the bill through, and he 
would do it. The history of waivers is they have been no obstacle to 
what policy is.
  But here is my problem, and I would ask the gentleman from California 
to respond in this way, I agree that we shouldn't aid Hamas. But this 
bill says we should only aid any entity if it becomes democratic or has 
taken steps to become democratic and to become transparent. Now, I am 
all for democracy and transparency, although their immediate benefit is 
a little unclear in the Middle East right now. But I believe that if 
there were a strict interpretation of this criteria, we could not have 
helped the Camp David Peace Agreement with Egypt which was neither 
democratic nor transparent, nor is Jordan, nor was the PLO and the PLA 
before Hamas.
  Let me put it this way: If Abbas' team had won instead of Hamas, I 
believe there might have been an argument that they don't meet the 
criteria. So I would ask the gentleman from California, how strictly 
are we going to interpret these criteria? Can he give me some assurance 
that these criteria will not be so strictly interpreted that you would 
make it impossible to deal with the very imperfect regimes that we are 
going to have to deal with?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. If I may take the floor, I fully agree with the 
interpretation of my friend from Massachusetts. We are not looking for 
protection from Hamas. There is no perfection in any of the governments 
with which we have diplomatic relations and which we support with huge 
amounts like the government of Egypt. We are merely asking for minimal 
standards of civilized behavior, the termination of suicide bombings 
and the acceptance of their neighbor in peace.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my 
time, I hope as this process goes forward in the less restricted other 
body that we can clarify that and sharpen it. I will say that with 
regard to the international financial institutions over which the 
committee on which I serve has jurisdiction, we struck from the bill 
the requirement of democracy as a prerequisite for peace in the Middle 
East.
  Let me also note, by the way, I was struck, the gentleman from 
Virginia lamented the inclusion in the provision in this bill which 
some of the opponents have denied existed. It is kind of an odd thing. 
The poor provision is attacked by people who don't like it and denied 
by people who do. That is the provision allowing aid to the president 
of the Authority. The bill does provide that the aid can go to 
President Abbas to make peace, not just for his personal security.
  So I disagree with the gentleman from Virginia. It is that amendment 
and some of the other amendments that we have had in there. So I will 
be voting for the bill at this point in the spirit the gentleman from 
California has mentioned, namely that, yes, we say ``no'' to Hamas 
because we have no interest in funding Hamas so it becomes more 
politically popular in support of its rejectionism. But we do not 
interpret this bill as being an obstacle to negotiations of the sort 
that we have with Egypt, with Jordan, with

[[Page H2998]]

Arafat, certainly no winner of the civil liberties award from anybody.
  With that assurance of the gentleman and the hope that we can refine 
this as it goes forward, I will vote for this bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. We appreciate the gentleman's support.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kuhl of New York). The Chair would 
remind Members to direct their remarks to the Chair, not the President.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the International 
Relations Committee.
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and more to the 
point, I thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen for her extraordinary 
leadership of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia 
where it is my privilege to serve. My heartfelt appreciation to 
Chairman Henry Hyde to demonstrate that the lion still roars. His 
leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor is meaningful and 
of global significance. And to my mentor and friend, the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) I rise with 
gratitude for your moral leadership again demonstrated on this floor 
this evening with your eloquent and powerful words.
  I rise today in strong support of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. 
As an original co-sponsor of the act, I come to this floor tonight 
saddened. I am saddened at what seems to be a diminishing opportunity 
for peace. In the wake of a world hopeful with the election of 
President Abbas, we saw it followed with the election of a legislative 
majority within the Palestinian Authority of a terrorist organization 
known as Hamas. I am saddened tonight by the story of Daniel whose 
family's loss will be remembered, not just as it was poignantly this 
evening by Congressman Cantor on this floor as he spoke of his own 
flesh and blood, but will be remembered later this week as the Prime 
Minister of Israel comes with some of Daniel's family at his side.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) reminded us of the human 
cost about which we debate tonight, and the policies and the messages 
that we will send from this well to a waiting world will speak to real 
human loss, a loss of opportunity, a loss of promise, to the loss of 
Daniel. It has been said many times tonight, and I take my colleagues 
at their word, that the State Department has said that this legislation 
is ``unnecessary.''
  But let me say, as one of 435 Representatives in the United States 
House of Representatives, that the world waits for the leadership of 
this Congress and this Nation, and they wait for moral leadership that 
is clarion, and this serious debate tonight about which there are 
serious differences that I deeply respect, this debate tonight about 
the future of American financial assistance to the Palestinian 
Authority is such a debate.
  Let us say plainly, Hamas is a terrorist organization that advocates 
for its political ideology the murder of innocent civilians. This 
Congress, this President, his administration and the American people 
have been clear, the United States does not support, negotiate or fund 
terrorist organizations, even those that have won a majority of a 
legislature. Tonight we will say clearly in this Palestinian Anti-
Terrorism Act: Not one penny for Hamas.
  The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act promotes, however, a democratic 
Palestinian Authority that denounces and combats terrorism, de-arms and 
dismantles terrorist agencies, networks and facilities, and works to 
eliminate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incitement and the commemoration 
of terrorists; one that agrees to respect the sovereignty of its 
neighbors and acknowledges, respects and upholds the human rights; and 
one at its very core that has agreed to recognize our cherished ally, 
the State of Israel, as an independent, sovereign, Jewish, democratic 
state.
  Now, there are criticisms tonight well spoken and no doubt well 
intentioned that say that the administration and our country will lack 
the flexibility to meet the humanitarian needs on the ground. But I 
must say, Mr. Speaker, with the clear language of this legislation that 
I would argue otherwise; that this legislation excludes funding for 
``basic human health needs.'' There is also the allowance of security 
for President Abbas, and then perhaps the broadest exception that has 
even met with some criticism tonight, an exception for nonsecurity 
expenses that are ``related to the facilitation of a peaceful 
resolution of the conflict between the Palestinian people and Israel.''
  Back in southern Indiana, we call that a hole that you could drive a 
truck through, and it is precisely the kind of flexibility that we need 
in these uncertain days. In these days, even in the last 24 hours, 
where we have seen nascent evidence of even a civil war emerging within 
the Palestinian Authority, as much as I might like a much more narrowly 
construed bill, I am prepared to endorse this legislation, carefully 
crafted for the exigencies of our time. I pray for the peace of 
Jerusalem and for all the people that live there.
  Mr. Speaker, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act sends a clear signal 
once again that the United States will not tolerate terrorism, and we 
take a critical stand at this moment in history in advocating for 
meaningful reform to the very center of the Hamas charter. I salute my 
colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, for bringing this critical 
and moral legislation to the floor of this Congress, and I speak my 
heartfelt condolences to Daniel's family. May we act in such a way that 
Daniel and his loss will soon, some day soon, be simply a part of a 
history of a time gone by, a history that will be remembered as other 
violent pages of the history of mankind have been remembered, with 
respect, with grief but representative of a time that is past. And that 
will be my prayer.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be considered under 
an open rule with lengthy debate and full opportunity to discuss it, 
not at 8 o'clock at night with the corporal's guard here on the floor.
  I yield to no man in my support for Israel. I have voted for hundreds 
of billions of dollars for it over the years I have served here. And I 
yield to no man my position to terror and terrorism and terrorists. But 
that is not what is at issue here tonight.
  The administration says this bill is not necessary. It points out 
that this bill constrains the administration in delivering meaningful 
diplomatic effort to resolve the problems of the Middle East. The 
Middle East's problems and the problems of the Palestinians and the 
Israelis will not be resolved by starving the Palestinians or by 
creating additional hardship. They are desperate people, incarcerated 
in walls, afflicted with high unemployment, suffering from health and 
other problems. The non-governmental organizations point out that this 
will strip them in substantial part of contributing to this. It will in 
large part almost totally strip the United States from the ability to 
address the needs of the Palestinian people and to address the 
humanitarian concerns which we have about them.
  Peace in the Middle East is not going to be achieved at gunpoint. It 
is going to be achieved by negotiations, by people working together; 
and that process may be ugly, dirty and slow, but it is the only 
process that will work. To create additional hardship and suffering for 
the Palestinians is simply going to guarantee more desperate, angry men 
who are fully determined that they will go forth to kill Israelis or 
Americans or anybody else. Our purpose here tonight should be to look 
to the well-being of the United States, craft a policy which is good 
for this country. And that policy can only be one which is good for 
Israel and for the Palestinian people, one which is fair to all, one 
which puts the United States as a friend and an honest broker of peace 
to both parties where we can be so accepted.

                              {time}  2015

  To take some other course is simply to assure continuing hardship and 
a

[[Page H2999]]

continuing poisonous, hateful relationship amongst the parties in the 
area. When this Congress realizes that and when we, this Congress and 
the others here, will recognize that that is the way peace is achieved, 
then there will be a real prospect for peace. We can expect that the 
Palestinians will receive the justice that they seek. We can expect 
that the Israelis will achieve the security that they need and they 
want and they deserve and that we want them to have.
  This legislation will do none of that. This legislation promises 
further angry men, more bitterness, more hate, more ill-will; and it 
assures that the thing which we must use to bring this miserable 
situation to an end, honest, honorable, face-to-face negotiation, will 
either not occur or will be moved many years into the future.
  Think about it. The needs of Israel are not served by this 
resolution. The needs of the United States are not served by this 
resolution. The needs of the Palestinian people are not served by this 
resolution.
  Let us vote it down and get something which makes sense and which 
serves the interests of all concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution on the 
floor. I oppose Hamas. I oppose what they stand for. I oppose their use 
of violence, their targeting of civilians; their vision for the 
Palestinian people; their rejection of Israel; and most of all I 
deplore their rejection of peaceful reconciliation.
  For all these reasons, and many more, I do not think that Hamas is a 
true partner for peace. But while Hamas may not be, the Palestinian 
people are. The vast majority of Palestinians want peace. The vast 
majority value peace, follow the law, oppose violence--and legislation 
like this only hurts the vast majority we need for peace.
  I understand the House's desire to ostracize Hamas. But I do not 
understand how we keep making the same mistakes by punishing the very 
people we all say we want to help. The restrictions on aid in this bill 
will not hurt Hamas, they will receive plenty of money from Iran, but 
this will hurt the Palestinian people.
  Under this bill assistance will be limited only to ``basic health'', 
a restriction we reject for almost every other nation. This bill would 
stop economic development assistance, sanitation assistance, 
environmental assistance--and most ironically, at a time when we are 
criticizing their choice of government--democracy assistance.
  Make no mistake about it; their vote was to get back at our own 
repeatedly misguided attempts to punish rather than cajole, to batter 
rather than build trust, and to impoverish rather than to uplift. When 
we provided Mahmoud Abbas no deliverables and only hardships, it made 
Hamas's promises hard to ignore.
  Our actions emboldened the Hamas, and we are about to do it again. My 
friends, passage of this legislation will create yet another failed 
state and humanitarian catastrophe in the Middle East. However, this 
one, unlike Iraq, will be surrounded by our staunchest ally in that 
region. If we destabilize Palestine we will destabilize Israel. If we 
help create chaos we weaken the chance for finding peace between Israel 
and her neighbors--and even threaten the very viability of the Jewish 
state.
  If this legislation is signed into law we will lose once and for all 
the Palestinian people. Our rejection of them will create one clear 
victor--the government of Iran. If we pass this legislation, Iran will 
win by default. Instead of textbooks for Palestinian children being 
written by USAID they will be written by the Iranian Revolutionary 
Council. Schools will be built with Iranian oil money and our ability 
to influence peace will be weaker as a result.
  What I find so strange is that this legislation is being championed 
by people who believe themselves to be the staunchest supporters of 
Israel. Mr. Speaker, in order to strengthen Israel peace needs to 
prevail in the region. In order to guarantee Israel's survival the 
Palestinians need to find prosperity and view the United States as a 
friend. This bill will only stymie those efforts. I ask my colleagues 
to vote no.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member.
  I am going to support this resolution when it comes to a vote 
tomorrow. I want to take this opportunity, if I may, to speak about 
some of the issues that have been raised during this very important 
debate, very critical debate. We have lowered our voices, really, and 
raised our commitment on all sides of this issue.
  I represent one of the most diverse districts in the United States of 
America. When I was mayor of the city that was the center of my 
district, Paterson, where I have lived all my life, Jews and Arabs and 
Muslims and Palestinians, we worked together, we prayed together, and 
we still do.
  The conflict is very serious, we know that. Building bridges is part 
of my bone marrow. You learn that when you are a mayor.
  The conflict in Israel is the axis on which much of the Middle East 
and much of the Middle East politics spins, but let us not forget that 
what we do and say here has major implications across the globe. This 
is true in the Congress, as well as when the President speaks.
  The United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel as 
a Jewish state. There is no question that our friend and ally has every 
right to defend itself against those who oppose freedom and democracy.
  The record will show very clearly, Mr. Speaker, that I have not put 
my signature on every one of those pieces of legislation over the past 
10 years, but I think this is different. Many of those pieces of 
legislation I think exacerbated the situation in the Middle East. The 
ranking member and I have talked about that many times. Not this time. 
This is a clear denunciation of Hamas, an organization motivated by 
hate, not pride.
  The world community harbors deep trepidation regarding the rise of 
Hamas. Having taken over the government of the Palestinian Authority, 
Hamas has reiterated its commitment to violence and the destruction of 
Israel. The charter of Hamas is quite clear about this. I have read 
that charter time and time again. It is unacceptable, and it is the 
duty of all nations to keep pressure on Hamas to renounce terrorism and 
recognize the State of Israel.
  The resolution before us today is an effective and noteworthy vehicle 
for the Congress of the United States to send this message. The United 
States will not give assistance, financial or otherwise, to Hamas or 
any Hamas-controlled entity. Terrorism cannot be tolerated. We will not 
treat this government as legitimate as long as their current dangerous 
policies and rhetoric remain in place.
  Many of us in the House are in favor of a peaceful, two-state 
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but this will be 
unattainable while Hamas refuses to renounce terror.
  We do not want to punish the Palestinian people. We know that the 
overwhelming majority of Palestinians and the overwhelming majority of 
American Palestinians and Palestinian Americans do not adhere to the 
destructive philosophy of Hamas. Hamas must reject its charter which 
calls for the destruction of Israel. Nothing less is acceptable.
  The United States must encourage the meeting between Israeli Prime 
Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, 
planned for next week, a very critical time for this legislation, as an 
important way to keep a dialogue going between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians.
  I will vote for this legislation because I feel strongly that the 
loudest message practicable must be sent to Hamas.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by paying special tribute to Chairman Hyde. 
This may be his last year of service in this House, but his legacy of 
trying to bring peace to Israel and the Palestinians will live on for 
many years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this bill.
  Let there be no mistake, Hamas is a ruthless terrorist organization. 
Unless Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist and renounces terror, 
the Palestinian Authority should receive no direct U.S. assistance. 
Direct aid to the Hamas-controlled PA has been cut off. The basic goal 
of this bill has already been accomplished.
  But H.R. 4681 goes well beyond this objective. It is a punitive 
measure aimed at punishing the Palestinian people. It will undermine 
U.S. national

[[Page H3000]]

interests. It will do nothing to strengthen Israel security.
  I have two main objections with this bill. First, it places nearly 
insurmountable efforts to future U.S. efforts to engage Palestinians 
and Israel in peacemaking. It lacks the normal Presidential national 
security waiver; and unbelievably, it would limit United States 
diplomatic contact with moderate, non-Hamas Palestinian officials. Why 
is this? These are the very leaders who recognize Israel and who 
support peace, and it makes absolutely no sense for us to undercut them 
at this critical time.
  Second, except for very limited circumstances, this bill will cut off 
humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people at the very moment when a 
horrendous humanitarian disaster is looming.
  The United States, our Quartet partners, and Israel are all hard at 
work at present to avoid catastrophe and to deliver assistance around 
Hamas to credible and transparent NGOs. H.R. 4681 goes in the opposite 
direction.
  I simply cannot see how denying chemotherapy treatment for 
Palestinian children increases Israel's security or advances U.S. 
national interests.
  Mr. Speaker, there is significant opposition to this bill in the pro-
Israel community, and I highlight again, respected national groups like 
Americans for Peace Now, Israel Policy Forum, and Brit Tzedek strongly 
oppose this legislation. They tell us voting ``no'' on this bill is a 
pro-Israel vote.
  Groups like Churches for Middle East Peace and the Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, with decades of experience providing humanitarian 
relief, they oppose it as well.
  The State Department also opposes the bill, calling it unnecessary 
and criticizing its provisions as objectionable.
  On Wednesday, we will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to 
this Chamber. Yesterday, this is what he told his Cabinet: ``We have no 
intention of helping the Palestinian government, but I say we will 
render such assistance as may be necessary for humanitarian needs.'' He 
also dispatched his top two ministers for a substantive meeting with 
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
  If this policy of shutting the door on Hamas but opening it to 
Palestinian moderates and the Palestinian people themselves is good 
enough for the Prime Minister of Israel, it should be good enough for 
the U.S. House of Representatives.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4681.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before yielding time, I would like to just say a word about the 
avalanche of misrepresentations which we have heard on this floor.
  This legislation does not in any sense provide any punishment for the 
Palestinian people, just the opposite. It is carefully crafted and 
aimed at the terrorist organization called Hamas.
  I did not know, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about the 16-year-old young 
American citizen who was killed by Hamas that he is the cousin of one 
of our colleagues, and I would like to extend my condolences to my 
friend from Virginia who suffered this personal loss.
  The avalanche of misrepresentations can only be ascribed to a sloppy 
reading of this legislation. It is extremely carefully crafted, and if, 
in fact, the issue would not be as serious, I would find it ludicrous 
that some of the sharpest critics of the Bush administration have 
suddenly found great affection for the Bush administration because, 
like all other administrations, it wants total flexibility.
  It is ludicrous that the most virulent critics of the Bush 
administration suddenly find themselves in bed with the Bush 
administration. This is, to say the least, unseemly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Lantos and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for 
bringing this legislation to the floor.
  The premise of this bill is eminently reasonable, in my opinion, and 
one with which the American people, I think, strongly agree. In short, 
the United States of America should not, indeed it must not, provide 
assistance to a government run by terrorists whose very policy and 
purpose is the destruction of another nation.
  All of us are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people, 
who have suffered tragically for decades under the leadership of Arafat 
and now Hamas.
  I share those concerns. I have been to Gaza. I have been to the West 
Bank. I have met with President Abbas and other Palestinian officials, 
and I have seen the deprivation, the frustration, and the lack of 
opportunity in the Palestinian territories.
  I think there is not one of us on this floor who is not concerned 
about their plight, as we should be. However, our legitimate concerns 
for the Palestinian people must not obscure the fact that the 
Palestinian Authority is now controlled by Hamas, an organization 
designated as a terrorist entity by the United States and by the 
European Union. No one here, I understand, stands to defend Hamas; but 
it is a movement that is committed to the destruction of another 
nation, in this case our ally Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe this balanced legislation is warranted.

                              {time}  2030

  Among other provisions, it prohibits direct financial transfers to 
the Palestinian Authority. That is our policy: until the President 
certifies that Hamas recognizes Israel's rights to exist, renounces 
terrorism, agrees to abide by previous PLO and PA agreements with 
Israel and the United States, and does not have a member of a foreign 
terrorist organization in a senior policy-making position.
  And despite the prohibition of direct assistance, the bill includes 
exceptions, as it should. For example, the President still may provide 
assistance for nonsecurity expenses directly related to facilitating a 
peaceful resolution of the conflict. Furthermore, the bill restricts 
indirect assistance through nongovernmental organizations unless the 
certification described above is made by the President.
  However, let me add, this provision contains an unqualified exception 
for basic human health needs, such as food, water, medicine and 
sanitation services. I tell some of my friends, if that were not in 
here, I would have reservations, but those basic services are fully 
excepted in this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is, I think, measured and balanced and 
demonstrates the refusal of the United States to reward terrorists for 
terrorism. It should not be, and I think it is not, punitive as it 
relates to the Palestinian people. It provides, as I said, for health 
needs, food, water, medicine and sanitation services. They are in need 
of those services, and we ought to provide them.
  But what we ought not to do and what we ought never to do is to give 
aid and comfort to terrorists or to terrorist organizations or to 
terrorist governments. Because if we do so, that will encourage others 
to commit heinous acts of terrorism, as were done here, as are done in 
Israel, and have been done around the world.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. I think 
this is not a carefully crafted bill. I think this is, as much as I 
respect the chairman and the ranking member, and I do respect the 
chairman, I have known the chairman for the 20 years I have been in 
politics, and I respect the ranking member, but I think the approach 
that is offered in this bill is what I would characterize as a meat-axe 
approach.
  This does not help common ordinary citizens. What it does is it hurts 
common ordinary citizens. There is no other way around it. You can 
protest as much as you want about Mrs. Capps and what she said, but she 
is right. Common ordinary citizens, common ordinary Palestinians are 
going to be hurt by this, because the funding is going to be cut off 
for educational services, for health services, for the services that 
these people need very badly.
  And what we have now, it looks to me like at least a couple hundred 
Secretaries of State, as reflected in this

[[Page H3001]]

bill. Do you all know more than the Secretary of State? Do you know 
more than the President? Do you think your policy is better than the 
administration's policy? Yes, you do. Well, I don't happen to agree 
with that. I really don't.
  And I ask Members, I may be the only Republican to vote against this. 
I am obviously going to be the only Republican to speak against it, but 
I ask Members who representat large Arab populations in their districts 
to think about this. This hurts the Palestinian people. There is no 
other way to put it. And I do not know why you are doing this. In the 
name of protecting Israel? I just think this is a bad idea, and I don't 
understand why it is being done.
  I would say this: The new prime minister of Israel is in this 
country. In a day or two, he will be walking down this middle aisle. 
And if he were able to vote and have a card that would allow him to 
vote as he walks down, he would vote against this bill. He has 
recognized that it is a bad bill. And if he had the opportunity to put 
his voting card as he walks down, he would vote against it, as would a 
large part of this administration. Why? Because it hurts common 
ordinary people. That is why.
  If you are going after Hamas, go after them, but don't restrict the 
funding that helps people. The reason that Hamas won the election is 
the Palestinians didn't have the right people on the ballot and didn't 
work the ballot in order to do it. And Hamas has gone out into those 
communities and provided services, and they have endeared themselves to 
the Palestinian people while the leadership of Palestine has been 
pocketing a lot of money. That's the reason they won the elections. 
They ran better elections. But why fault the people for that? And why 
take this kind of funding away from common ordinary citizens?
  Now, for all of you that come out on this floor all the time and talk 
about what we should be doing and what we are cutting and what we are 
not cutting, this is an opportunity to say to common ordinary citizens 
in Palestine: We care about you. We care about your health care. We 
care about education. We care about your opportunity for jobs and to 
really be able to do the things you want to do.
  But if you vote for this, we say: The heck with you. We care more 
about sending a message to Hamas leadership than we do about the people 
of Palestine. I think that is what the message is. This will not hurt 
the leadership of Hamas. It will not. Because they are going to have 
the money and the resources that they need, and they will say what they 
want, but it will hurt common ordinary people.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on 
this matter be extended by 60 minutes, equally divided. Perhaps the 
opponents of the bill would have an opportunity to read the 
legislation. And I would like to yield half of my time to Mr. Lantos, 
and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the chairwoman of our 
committee, and I want to applaud her and Congressman Lantos, two 
Members who cut through the partisan rancor of this institution to act 
with clarity against murderous intolerance.
  Mr. Speaker, we sometimes may ask the question: If I was alive in 
1939, what would I have done? If I was alive in 1939, would I have 
recognized the coming danger to America? If I was alive in 1939, would 
I have seen the seeds of genocide? But we do not live in 1939. We live 
in 2006, and many of the dangers we see today have parallels in 
history.
  Across the sea now, there is an intolerant dictator rising who says 
that one Holocaust is not enough. The people in Israel rightly fear a 
new intolerant Islamic mullah who might say that another 6 million 
should be murdered.
  The Iranians have many allies in the world. None of their allies are 
better than Hamas, leaders trained by tyrants, funded by murderers and 
utterly clear in their political program. One of the lessons of history 
is that dictators say what they are going to do and then do what they 
said. And Hamas has told us that they are for killing innocent 
civilians, and they have done that. They tell us that they support 
international terrorist attacks, and they have done that, too. Hamas 
has told us that they wish to drive our democratic allies in Israel 
into the sea, and we cannot let them do that.
  Democracies are best when they defend each other, and the best way to 
defend our allies is to support moderate Arabs willing to join in 
peace. So we did that. The United States, the Congress, this House over 
the last many fiscal years, provided hundreds of millions of taxpayer 
dollars to support moderate Arabs.
  We in this House funded the rise of Yasir Arafat. We created the 
Palestinian Authority. We embraced the ineffective government of 
Mahmoud Abbas. And each of these efforts, at a cost of hundreds of 
millions of taxpayer dollars from the United States, have failed. And 
so now we see Hamas taking power, a Hamas that what it does not get 
politically is taking militarily. Yesterday, Hamas tried to assassinate 
a top key official who works for President Abbas. A civil war is 
breaking out on the West Bank because Hamas does not have enough power 
yet and is willing to kill anyone in their way.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not support this bill just because I support our 
allies in Israel. I support this bill because Hamas has claimed 
responsibility for the murder of 26 American citizens. Those American 
citizens include: David Applebaum of Ohio; Nava Applebaum, also of 
Ohio; Alan Beer of Ohio; Marla Bennet of California; Benjamin Blutstein 
of Pennsylvania; David Boim of New York; Yael Botwin of California; 
Dina Carter of North Carolina; Janis Ruth Coulter of Massachusetts; 
Sara Duker of New Jersey; Matthew Eisenfeld of Connecticut; Tzvi 
Goldstein of New York; Judith Greenbaum of New Jersey; David Gritz of 
Massachusetts; Dina Horowitz of Florida; Eli Horowitz of Illinois; 
Tehilla Nathanson of New York; Malka Roth of New York; Mordechai 
Reinitz of New York; Yitzhak Reinitz of New York; Malka Roth of New 
York; Leah Stern of New Jersey; Goldie Taubenfeld of New York; Shmuel 
Taubenfeld of New York; Nachshon Wachsman of New York; Ira Weinstein of 
New York; and Yitzhak Weinstock of California.
  My colleague from New York talked about the common people that this 
would hurt. Common Americans have been killed by Hamas, and their blood 
is on the fingers of Hamas leaders. It is time for us to call it as we 
see it: intolerant murderous leaders, people who in other uniforms at 
other times we have seen before; and for us to cut off their funding, 
to say that the only Hamas moderate is a Hamas radical out of money and 
bullets, and for us to say that we wish this government, this Hamas 
government to fail, that in its place a more moderate government will 
rise, and at that time, it will be the time for the United States to 
support it and not a minute before that.
  And I want to take one more personal privilege to say to the 
gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos: Thank you. Thank you for your 
leadership. Thank you for your history. And thank you for cutting 
through all of the rhetoric and giving us clear direction to use your 
eyes and your experience to teach us of how the past can inform the 
future so that it does not happen again.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from 
Ohio, I would yield myself 5 minutes, because I have been sitting here 
reflecting on my good friend from California's comments about people 
who suddenly are the best friend of the administration who have been 
critical of them.
  Well, I have only been here 10 years, not as long as my distinguished 
friend, but one of the things I have tried to do with Republican and 
Democratic administrations alike, when it comes to foreign policy, is 
to attempt to be supportive when I agree but to be clear that when I 
disagree, when I think they are wrong, to stand up.
  I take a back seat to no one in terms of my opposition to this 
administration's reckless conduct in Iraq. I have been consistent on 
that from the beginning. One of the concerns I had about this 
administration was their disdain

[[Page H3002]]

for nation-building. You will recall the rhetoric of then Governor 
Bush.
  But part of our obligation as Members of this chamber is to be 
supportive when we can. Because in the conduct of foreign policy, it 
would be nice if it did stop at the water's edge. I appreciate that the 
administration has changed its position on nation-building and has 
actually requested more assistance than it looks like this Congress is 
going to give them for foreign aid.

                              {time}  2045

  When they were willing to work with us in water and sanitation, I 
embraced that. I think we should reinforce positive things that we can 
agree on. That is what the American public wants. I do not think we 
should be reflexive and negative.
  The administration has raised a legitimate concern about flexibility, 
about being able to implement it, and these are consistent with 
Republican and Democratic administrations in the past in terms of not 
wanting sanctions to go on forever and wanting to have the flexibility 
to respond, not after 25 days of consultation according to very, narrow 
little channels, but to be able to act responsibly to practice 
diplomacy.
  The history of this House of Representatives is not very illustrious 
when it comes to many of these questions. Congress has sort of flitted 
around and has been subjected to the pressures of the moment and has 
not always been a constructive ally.
  As we know, this House passed a draft by only one vote immediately 
before World War II. Lots of simple, commonsense straight-ahead 
solutions that we have been involved with have not always been the best 
and most carefully crafted.
  I come forward not being a fan of this administration in many areas, 
in many areas, but in this one, as I listen to them, as I look at the 
requested flexibility, as I look at independent experts, as I hear from 
religious leaders back home and the National Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, I see a wide range of people that support the concerns that 
the administration share with us.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. I appreciate my good friend yielding, and allow me to 
point out the fatal flaw in your logic. We are not discussing the fact 
that some of us occasionally support the administration, and you just 
expressed great delight that on this issue you find yourself on the 
side of the administration.
  The issue logically is flexibility. The people who have criticized 
this administration most vigorously over the years have claimed that 
the administration is riding roughshod over the Congress, not asking 
for more flexibility. This is a spurious argument. This is a phony 
argument. This administration, as do all administrations, wants 
flexibility. They do not want congressional restraints.
  Our legislation provides for restraints because we are a co-equal 
branch of government, and we wish to express the policies that we want 
to see our government pursue.
  To claim that on this issue the administration should have total 
flexibility is contrary to the interests of the Congress as a body.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, to respond to my distinguished 
colleague, nowhere here have I said I want the administration to have 
unrestrained flexibility. Not once. And I am not expressing delight 
that we are on the same side.
  What I said was when I find I am in agreement, I look forward to ways 
to work with them. When I see them move in directions I wish they had 
done with Afghanistan and Iraq, for heaven's sake, I am going to move 
in this direction with the stakes so high. With all due respect, it is 
not a question of giving unlimited flexibility to the administration. I 
have never said that, am not interested in it.
  There is a framework here in terms of the sanctions that we are 
talking about, things like extending beyond the narrow definition of 
health to deal with humanitarian assistance and environmental cleanup. 
There are a whole host of things that could have been dealt with here 
in the ambit of this legislation.
  I share with my good friend an interest in having this administration 
be more accountable to Congress and come forward and answer our 
questions. I would like oversight about what is going on in Iraq and 
what is going on in Afghanistan. Heaven knows I would.
  But that does not mean that we ought to have unnecessarily 
restrictive and burdensome activities that are going to work against 
what I think are the interests of the Israeli people, the Palestinians 
and citizens of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Kucinich).
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I include for the Record a statement by Americans for Peace 
Now relative to H.R. 4681 and also a statement by Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, 
the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace.

                     [From Americans for Peace Now]

H.R. 4681: Grandstanding About Palestinians, at the Expense of U.S. and 
                           Israeli Interests.

       Tomorrow the House is expected to suspend the rules and 
     take up H.R. 4681, the ``Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 
     2006.'' This legislation would impose sweeping sanctions 
     against the Palestinians in response to the victory of Hamas 
     In the January Palestinian legislative elections.
       Hamas' victory in the elections for the Palestinian 
     Legislative Council (PLC) was regrettable. It is imperative 
     that the international community (including the U.S.) make a 
     concerted and coordinated effort to pressure Hamas. However, 
     H.R. 4681 represents a case of Congress using a blunt 
     instrument where a surgical tool is needed. In doing so, the 
     bill risks undercutting such efforts, harming U.S. national 
     security, and undermining those Palestinian officials and 
     activists who recognize Israel, reject terror, and support a 
     two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
       This legislation is fundamentally flawed and deserves to be 
     rejected by the House. APN urges Members--including those who 
     have cosponsored and/or plan to vote for the measure--to 
     speak out on the House floor and submit statements for the 
     record drawing attention to the many serious problems with 
     H.R. 4681.
       APN talking points on H.R. 4681:
       H.R. 4681 unnecessarily risks U.S. national security. The 
     U.S. can maintain a tough line against Hamas without 
     compromising our own national security or unreasonably tying 
     the President's hand in the conduct of foreign policy. 
     Rejecting terrorism is not incompatible with ensuring that 
     U.S. national security interests remain the primary concern 
     of U.S. foreign policy.
       H.R. 4681, however, irresponsibly and unnecessarily 
     subjugates U.S. national security interests to political 
     grandstanding. It does so by eliminating the President's 
     authority to waive sanctions in the interests of U.S. 
     national security--a waiver that is a standard component of 
     virtually all U.S. sanctions legislation. This waiver, which 
     has only rarely been invoked, represents minimal flexibility 
     for the President to waive sanctions on assistance when U.S. 
     national security interests are at stake. It is unfathomable 
     that Congress would decide that, in the wake of the Hamas 
     election, the President no longer needs or can be trusted 
     with such authority. Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine 
     scenarios under which U.S. national security might clearly 
     call for direct, quick assistance--for instance, following 
     new Palestinian elections or in the wake of a natural 
     disaster. Moreover, the Bush Administration has already put 
     in place tough new restrictions on aid to the Palestinians, 
     clearly indicating the uncompromising stance this 
     Administration is taking in response to the Hamas victory. 
     APN urges Congress to demand that a real national security 
     waiver be added to this bill, enabling the President to waive 
     the various sanctions if he deems it to be in the national 
     security interests of the U.S. to do so.
       H.R. 4681 risks undermining Palestinian moderates and 
     strengthening extremists. In response to the Hamas victory, 
     we should seek to strengthen those Palestinians who reject 
     violence, recognize Israel, and support a two-state solution. 
     In doing so, we put pressure on Hamas to reform, and we 
     strengthen those Palestinians who, we hope, will replace 
     Hamas if it fails to reform.
       H.R. 4681, however, undermines these positions and the 
     Palestinians who hold them, by providing no political horizon 
     for an alternative leadership to strive to reach. Under this 
     bill, the PA--even if replaced by more welcome leadership--
     will likely be unable to meet the reform requirements in the 
     short- or medium-term, especially outside the context of 
     progress towards a peace agreement. Thus, even if new 
     elections were held and won by a different party, all 
     sanctions would remain in place until the other reform 
     requirements had been met. APN urges Congress to demand that 
     a ``sunset clause'' be added to H.R. 4681, providing a 
     political horizon for moderate, reasonable Palestinian 
     political leaders and activists, and sending a

[[Page H3003]]

     signal of real support and hope to the Palestinian people. [A 
     sunset clause is like an ``expiration date'' for legislation, 
     stipulating a date or event after which Congress will either 
     let the legislation lapse, renew the legislation, or amend it 
     in some way.]
       H.R. 4681 loses sight of the real priorities. H.R. 4681 
     seeks to precondition U.S. relations with the PA--and impose 
     sweeping sanctions--based on the demand that the PA meet a 
     list of requirements that include wide-ranging reforms 
     unrelated to the election of Hamas. Important as these 
     reforms may be, neither the U.S. nor Israel has ever 
     considered them a prerequisite for engaging with the PA (or, 
     for that matter, the PLO, Jordan, or Egypt, in the context of 
     their agreements with Israel). Adding these reforms as 
     preconditions for engagement loses sight of real priorities--
     like saving lives--and undermines the incentive for the most 
     critical demands to be taken seriously. For example, under 
     this bill, if Hamas renounced terror, changed its charter, 
     acted decisively against other terrorist organizations, 
     disarmed its own militants, and recognized Israel, but had 
     not yet made substantial progress toward replacing all 
     textbooks with ``materials to promote tolerance, peace, 
     and coexistence with Israel,'' all sanctions would remain 
     in place. APN urges Congress to reject preconditioning 
     U.S. relations with the Palestinians on requirements that 
     are unrelated to the specific issues raised by the Hamas 
     election; rather, Congress should set focused, meaningful 
     performance benchmarks.
       H.R. 4681 loses sight of U.S. strategic interests. A 
     serious response to the Palestinian elections should clearly 
     target Hamas and its control of the Palestinian Authority. 
     Effective sanctions should clearly differentiate such targets 
     from, for example, elected members of the Palestinian 
     Legislative Council (PLC) who are not affiliated with Hamas 
     or any other terrorist organization--political leaders and 
     activists who, running on platforms that included rejection 
     of terror, recognition of Israel, and support for a two-state 
     solution, beat Hamas candidates in the January election.
       However, H.R. 4681 not only fails to distinguish between 
     Hamas and the PA, and the non-Hamas members of the PLC, it 
     explicitly defines the PA as including the entire PLC--
     extending sanctions to longtime supporters of peace with 
     Israel (like PLC member Salam Fayyad). Moreover, the bill 
     includes extraneous sanctions that, while ostensibly aimed at 
     Hamas, will in fact have zero impact on Hamas, but only serve 
     to punish Palestinians who recognize Israel and reject 
     terror, and make it difficult or impossible for the U.S. to 
     talk to them. These include restrictions on visas (Hamas 
     members are already barred by law from obtaining visas), 
     limits on freedom of movement for officials of the PLO in the 
     U.S. and sanctions on PLO representation in the United States 
     (Hamas is not a member of the PLO a group that recognizes and 
     has signed agreements with Israel), and an entirely 
     superfluous attack on the United Nations that does not even 
     make the pretense of having anything to do with Hamas. In the 
     interests of U.S. national security, including our concern 
     for Israeli security, it is vital to open the door for 
     dialogue and engagement with alternative leaders and 
     representatives of the Palestinians. APN urges Congress to 
     reject provisions of this bill that will have no real impact 
     on Hamas--except, perversely, to strengthen them while 
     undermining moderate Palestinian political leaders and 
     activists, and making it more difficult for the U.S. to 
     engage with alternatives to a Hamas-led government, like 
     President Mahmoud Abbas or the PLO.
       APN urges Congress to reject this bill's misguided effort 
     to attack the UN, especially at a time when Israel is asking 
     the UN to play a greater role in providing services to the 
     Palestinians. This attack has nothing to do with the Hamas 
     election or UN activities in the West Bank and Gaza, and 
     instead risks sending the message that the real goal of this 
     bill is to assail Palestinians in every possible forum. APN 
     is the premier Jewish, Zionist organization working to 
     enhance Israel's security through peace. APN believes that 
     strong U.S. leadership is the best hope for reducing Israeli-
     Palestinian violence and bringing about a political process 
     that can eventually pave the way for security and peace for 
     Israelis and Palestinians.
                                  ____


      Brit Tzedek v'Shalom--Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace

       Brit Tzedek v'Shalom urges representatives to vote no on 
     H.R. 4681. Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for 
     Justice and Peace, is the nation's largest Jewish grassroots 
     peace organization with a network of over 34,000 supporters 
     who are committed to Israel's well-being through a negotiated 
     two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
       H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, 
     fails to serve the long-term interests of either the United 
     States or Israel. Despite improvements over the original 
     version, H.R. 4681 weakens moderate pro-peace Palestinians 
     and emboldens extremists, ties the President's hands in 
     dealing with emergency security crises, and drastically cuts 
     critical US assistance to the Palestinian people. While there 
     is international consensus that Ramas must renounce 
     terrorism, recognize Israel, and abide by all previous 
     agreements, this legislation goes well beyond those demands 
     and undermines the U.S. role in bringing Israelis and 
     Palestinians back to the negotiating table towards the end of 
     achieving a two-state resolution of the conflict.
       Specifically, H.R. 4681: Obstructs a return to 
     negotiations. H.R. 4681 requires an impossible-to-achieve 
     Presidential certification, composed of an overly extensive 
     number of requirements, in order to bypass the bill's many 
     sanctions. This standard of certification goes well beyond 
     the Quartet's demands, setting unprecedented preconditions 
     for U.S. engagement with the Palestinians. Because these 
     demands are unachievable in the near term or outside the 
     context of a peace process, they prevent a return to 
     negotiations and provide little incentive for Hamas to 
     moderate its stance towards Israel.
       Without the Presidential certification, whose requirements 
     as noted above are nearly impossible to meet, this bill 
     prohibits all direct aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA), 
     with the small exception of a very limited Presidential 
     waiver for funds to support independent elections and the 
     peace process. Current law already forbids direct U.S. 
     funding to the PA but allows the President much broader 
     discretion in waiving this prohibition in the interests of 
     national security. Limiting this waiver undercuts the 
     Administration's ability to offer the PA incentives in 
     addition to sanctions or to respond to unexpected security or 
     humanitarian crises.
       At a time when the UN is reporting an impending 
     humanitarian disaster in the West Bank and Gaza, H.R. 4681 
     restricts U.S. assistance to the Palestinian people delivered 
     through non-governmental organizations (NGOs). While the bill 
     makes a small exemption for ``basic human health needs,'' it 
     still creates onerous pre-notification requirements for all 
     other NGO assistance to the Palestinian people. These NGOs 
     address pressing humanitarian needs and help develop 
     Palestinian civil society. A humanitarian crisis in the 
     Palestinian territories will only increase support for 
     extremism, thereby endangering Israel and further 
     destabilizing the region.
       H.R. 4681 restricts US diplomatic relations by prohibiting 
     visas and travel (with limited waivers) for all members of 
     the PA and the PLO regardless of whether or not they have 
     connections to Hamas. In this respect, the bill prevents the 
     US from fully engaging and bolstering moderate Palestinian 
     leaders, such as President Mahmoud Abbas, who recognize and 
     support peace with Israel. Existing US law already forbids 
     members of Hamas and other foreign terrorist organizations 
     from obtaining visas or having diplomatic relations with the 
     United States.
       As American Jews, we share profound dismay at the election 
     of Hamas to the Palestinian Authority. Yet in this 
     challenging hour, we urge you to maintain a cautious approach 
     to the new Palestinian government, so as to preserve the 
     future possibility of bringing Israelis and Palestinians back 
     to the negotiating table--which is the only path to achieve 
     true peace and security for both peoples.
       Vote No on H.R. 4681.

  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to extend my condolences to the family of our 
colleague Mr. Cantor and also thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for her leadership 
and her commitment to attempting to create peace, as well as to speak 
directly to my dear friend, Mr. Lantos.
  I think it is fair to say Israel has no greater champion in the 
Congress, and the American people have no greater champion for human 
rights than Mr. Lantos. His escape from the Holocaust is a story worthy 
of being taught in all of our schools.
  I am here to ask: Is the past prologue? Is war and violence 
inevitable, or do we have the ability to create a new future where 
nonviolence, peace and reconciliation are possible through the work of 
our own hearts and hands?
  I would not take issue with my friend Mr. Lantos' informed 
experience, and I join him in defense of Israel's right to survive. Mr. 
Lantos is my brother. The Israelis are our brothers and sisters. The 
Palestinians are our brothers and sisters. When our brothers and 
sisters are in conflict, when violence engulfs them, it is our 
responsibility to help our brothers and sisters end the violence, 
reconcile and fulfill the biblical injunction to turn hate to love, to 
beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning hooks.
  These are universal principles that speak to the triumph of hope over 
fear. We must call upon Hamas to renounce terror. We must call upon 
Hamas to disavow any intention for the destruction of Israel.
  This ought to be a principle of negotiation with Hamas, not 
separation from the aspirations of the Palestinian people to survive.
  I think we can speed the cause of peace by calling upon Israel to 
accept the Palestinians' right to self-determination and economical 
survival and humanitarian relief, for food, medical care, for jobs.
  I ask, how can we arrive at a two-stage solution if we attempt to 
destroy

[[Page H3004]]

one people's government's ability to provide? A two-state solution, I 
believe, can be achieved with our mutual, thoughtful patience and 
support.
  At a time when the U.N. is reporting a pending humanitarian disaster 
in the West Bank and Gaza, I believe this legislation would restrict 
U.S. assistance to the Palestinian people delivered through 
nongovernmental organizations. We know that, today, up to 80 percent of 
all Palestinians, particularly in parts of the Gaza strip, live at or 
below the poverty line. Unemployment stands at 53 percent of the total 
workforce.
  Just as I join my good friends on both sides of the aisle in speaking 
out against violence against Israel, I object in the strongest terms 
to any measure that will increase the humanitarian crisis of the 
Palestinian people. It is true that the recent Palestinian legislative 
elections have created a tense situation in the international 
community. It is a situation that demands thoughtful and deliberate 
action in pursuit of peace. Despite the best intentions of those who 
wrote this legislation, I do not believe this legislation will advance 
peace between the Palestinian and the Israeli people.
  There are people in this Congress of goodwill and good intention who 
want to see both the Palestinian people and the Israeli people survive. 
Let us continue to work towards that end.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my good friend and a 
distinguished senior member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and the 
chairman of the subcommittee for bringing this measure to the floor.
  As for Mr. Lantos, the distinguished ranking member, I have to say I 
absolutely marvel at his eloquence in the opening statement that he 
made.
  The very fact that he is, is important. The very fact that he is and 
is here is proof positive that if people of goodwill are determined to 
stand up to the forces of evil, that the forces of good can win out, 
and not unless that happens.
  And those forces of evil, whether they be called the Nazi Party or 
the Hamas Party, each of which came to power in uncontested democratic 
elections, each of which have in common the destruction of an entire 
people and were uncompromising in their attitude, in their philosophy, 
in their belief; how do we compromise with the notion of 
administrations and evil forces whose goal is the destruction of 
another people? Where do you begin to compromise unless they denounce 
those goals, which has not happened in either case?
  Mr. Speaker, with 295 cosponsors of this bill, there is not really 
much of a question about how the House is going to act. The bill will 
pass overwhelmingly. The only question is how many Members will be 
lured into opposition to this measure by good intentions, false claims 
and by shrill prophecies of doom.
  A ``no'' vote on this bill will not benefit the Palestinian people. 
Read the bill. The bill already allows humanitarian aid to flow under 
congressional scrutiny. And with the President's judgment, it can 
continue to go to nongovernmental groups.
  A ``no'' vote will not benefit Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. 
The bill already creates a clear opening to keep him relevant and 
involved to becoming a channel for pursuing peace.
  A ``no'' vote will not support the peace camp in Israel. Israelis 
just went to the polls and put Prime Minister Olmert into power with a 
government that strongly supports congressional efforts to sanction and 
block assistance to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

                              {time}  2100

  I sat here in amazement as my good friend from Illinois (Mr. LaHood) 
said things that were absolutely unbelievable. The politician people, 
what do they have to do with Hamas? Duh. They elected them.
  Elections have consequences. People have to live with that. They 
can't elect a terrorist government whose purpose is to destroy another 
people and then say they have nothing to do with it.
  That makes no sense at all. A ``no'' vote will not impress our allies 
in the Quartet either. The United States and other members of the 
Quartet remain in lock-step in rejecting any funding for the Hamas-led 
PA and are working, as this bill does, to find alternative approaches 
to assist the Palestinian people, and that is who we intend to help.
  For someone to say that the Prime Minister of Israel is going to walk 
down this aisle, and if he had a voting card would vote for Hamas is an 
absurdity. It defies the imagination.
  It is one of the many things that opponents of this legislation 
carefully, carefully constructed, have been saying mischaracterizing 
this bill. If you think that the Prime Minister of Israel would vote to 
give aid to Hamas, then you must be on another planet, and you should 
vote ``no.''
  A ``no'' vote will do only one thing. It will give hope to the 
terrorist Hamas. It will give them hope that the wall of opposition in 
the West is cracking. It will give them hope that their embrace of 
terrorism will not have to be abandoned in order to govern. It will 
give them hope that support for Israel is not as strong as it seems. It 
will give them hope that with tenacity and will their terrorist 
objectives will succeed.
  No Member of this House wants to send that message. No Member of this 
House supports Hamas. But make no mistake. A ``no'' vote will be used 
again and again to show that the path of Hamas is correct and that 
compromise will come only from the West, and there is no price to be 
paid by those who espouse terrorism. We cannot afford to send that 
message, even in the smallest, most unintentional way.
  Let us recall for a moment just what the international community has 
demanded of Hamas, three words. All Hamas has to do is to say three 
words: Israel, peace and agreement. Israel, Hamas has to accept the 
existence, just the existence, of a U.N. member state.
  Peace, that there has to be two states for two people and that they 
will live side by side in peace and agreement. Hamas has to accept the 
resolution of the conflict, which will only be achieved by peaceful 
means and that agreement will be honored.
  This is not a difficult list, three words. Hamas could win the 
international community over. Hundreds of millions of dollars would 
begin to flow to the Palestinian people. Salaries could be made, 
projects could be started, roads could be built, schools could be 
constructed. Before you say no, those few people in the House who will, 
ask yourself why they will not say those three words. Why won't they?
  The answer is that Hamas thinks that their religion forbids it. They 
believe that they are engaged in a holy war that can only be resolved 
with the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people and to put their 
population in exile or subjugation.
  There can be no compromise, according to them, of their view. Cease-
fires, temporary borders, negotiations for Hamas or just way stations 
on their path to the ultimate destruction of Israel and the Jewish 
people. They will not waiver, and we must not waiver.
  Hamas has made clear again and again that they will not be held 
answerable for the hundreds of innocent civilians they slaughtered with 
bombs. They will not be held accountable for their overt racism and 
vile anti-Semitic bigotry. They will not be punished for all the times 
they shatter the fragile peace or destroy a nascent trust.
  All they have to do is say those three words. A ``no'' vote tells 
them they don't have to. A ``no'' vote says hold fast. A ``no'' vote 
reassures them that they will not have to say Israel, peace and 
agreement.
  Until they do, we must assure that they bear the full brunt of 
responsibility forever the condition of the Palestinian people. Not a 
humanitarian crisis, but a firm sanction of the United States against 
the government born of terror, bred on violence, and bound for ruin. 
Contrary to this leading report, this bill absolutely cannot and will 
not be used to deny humanitarian aid.
  The bill will not allow, with proper oversight, the Presidential 
confirmation that it serves our national security interest, continued 
assistance through properly screened and audited nongovernmental 
organizations. The

[[Page H3005]]

bill provides a clear channel for President Mahmoud Abbas to show our 
continued appreciation for his vocal support for the peaceful two-state 
solution. This bill constitutes a carefully crafted balance.
  Some wanted it stronger; others wanted it more flexible. But the bill 
is strong enough to prevent American money from subsidizing a 
government run by terrorists and flexible enough to allow the 
administration to engage with Palestinians who are willing to seek 
peace.
  Members will have a choice. Let the perfect be the enemy of the good, 
and in doing so undermine the peace they seek, or stand firm against 
doing business as usual with a governing entity controlled by a 
terrorist organization.
  I know some Members are conflicted. There have been mixed signals, 
even misleading information about this legislation. I want to be 
perfectly clear. The pro-Israel vote is ``yes.'' The pro-Palestinian 
vote is ``yes.'' The pro-peace vote is ``yes.'' The pro-engagement vote 
is ``yes.'' I thank the House for their attention.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as I yield the gentleman from New York 
4 minutes, I would give myself 30 seconds to make two observations.
  One, there will be no aid to Hamas, whether this bill passes or not. 
It is against United States law to give assistance to a terrorist 
organization.
  Second, I would reference the exact language of the word where the 
exemption is assistance to meet basic human health needs, not broad 
humanitarian. The language of the bill is actually quite clear.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Hinchey, for 4 minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Oregon for yielding me this time.
  I also want to express my admiration, respect and affection for the 
gentleman from California, who is the sponsor of this legislation. But 
I do disagree with him on the effects that this legislation would have.
  I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel. As such, I believe it 
is important to maintain independent and principled positions on Middle 
East issues. I believe that that requires a ``no'' vote on resolution 
4681.
  Hamas' victory in the elections for the Palestinian legislative 
council was indeed regrettable, and Hamas government's failure to 
condemn, much less take steps to prevent acts of terrorism is 
abhorrent. It is appropriate that the international community, 
including, of course, the United States, make a concerted and 
coordinated effort to pressure Hamas.
  However, H.R. 4681 risks undermining such efforts, harming United 
States national security and undermining those Palestinian officials 
and activists who do recognize Israel, who do reject terror, and who do 
support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  H.R. 4681 subjugates U.S. national security interests to political 
grandstanding. It does so by eliminating the President's authority to 
waive sanctions in the interests of United States national security, a 
waiver that is a standard component of virtually all U.S. sanctions 
legislation.
  H.R. 4681 risks undermining Palestinian moderates and strengthening 
extremists by providing no political horizon that an alternate 
Palestinian leadership can strive to reach.
  H.R. 4681 preconditions U.S. relations with the Palestinian Authority 
and imposes sanctions based on criteria that are unrelated to the 
issues raised by the Hamas elections, and 4681 makes it more difficult 
for the United States to engage with alternatives to a Hamas-led 
government like President Mahmoud Abbas or the PLO. This proposal, 
unfortunately, is itself extreme, and as such, I believe, would do no 
good.
  Rather, it will strengthen the position of extremists and increase 
the violence and destruction which has become more prevalent as the 
result of the expression and implementation of policies such as those 
contained in H.R. 4681.
  I believe that we should defeat this proposed legislation and instead 
focus on something that would be more productive to achieve the kinds 
of solutions that we need to the problems that exist in the Middle 
East.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, Hamas' political victory in the January election 
presented an opportunity for this Islamic jihadist group to lay down 
its arms, to renounce terrorism, to recognize the State of Israel, and 
to dismantle its militant infrastructure, to become an entity that 
could lead the Palestinian people to peace, to prosperity, to security 
with the Jewish nation.
  But, unfortunately, much like its predecessor, who never missed an 
opportunity to miss an opportunity, Hamas has instead continued its 
violence, has aligned itself with pariah states and with state sponsors 
of terrorism that seek to extend their extremist, hateful ideology 
throughout the region and, indeed, throughout the world. Hamas has 
chosen to dedicate its resources and its energy to supporting continued 
terrorist attacks against Israel rather than to helping the Palestinian 
people.
  It is its choice, so Hamas can spend its money on suicide and 
homicide attacks; but it is up to the United States to support and 
provide for the needs of the Palestinian people. It is our 
responsibility, instead of Hamas'.
  Previous speakers in opposition to the bill have said, Madam Speaker, 
that this bill will deny chemotherapy to cancer victims. It is 
preposterous; it does not. That it would hurt the common Palestinian 
citizen. No, it does not. That it would undermine the Palestinian 
reformers by denying democracy. No, quite the opposite. That it has 
unbearable roadblocks to nongovernment organizations to provide 
assistance to the Palestinian people. Absolutely not.
  The bill requirements are to ensure that humanitarian aid goes to the 
intended recipients for the intended purposes, oversight. The United 
States must make it unambiguously clear that we will not support such a 
terrorist regime, that we will not directly or indirectly allow 
American taxpayer funds to be used to perpetuate the leadership of an 
Islamic jihadist group that is responsible for the murder of hundreds 
and the wounding of scores of innocent Israeli civilians, of U.S. 
citizens and other foreigners throughout the years.
  It has been almost 4 months, Madam Speaker, since this Islamic 
jihadist extremist won a majority of seats in the Palestinian 
parliamentary elections. We have made our conditions clear, but Hamas' 
commitment to bloodshed has remained unabated.

                              {time}  2115

  Hamas' leaders have expressed their support for rockets being 
launched from Gaza into Israel, and stated that the recent attack, a 
bombing that killed nine innocent people and wounded 60 at a Tel Aviv 
restaurant, was ``justified.'' Their words, not mine.
  Since the elections, the leaders of Hamas have officially expressed 
their refusal to change a single word in its charter. Their hate-filled 
covenant is Hamas' most valued document. It focuses on killing Jews and 
destroying Israel.
  I would like to read some of the words that are included in the 
charter of Hamas and that accurately depict the group's violent views: 
``The time of Muslim unity will not come until Muslims will fight the 
Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which 
will cry, `O Muslims, there is a Jew behind me. Come on and kill 
him.'''
  The Islamic extremists running the Palestinian Authority have made it 
very clear, crystal clear, that they do not intend to moderate their 
vicious views nor seek a peace agreement with Israel. They may speak of 
a long-term cease-fire, but this is only a temporary means to regroup 
and rearm for yet more terrorism.
  A two-state solution envisioned and proposed by the Quartet is not 
part of Hamas' agenda, because it runs contrary to the core principles 
of this terror group that says, ``The land of Palestine from the river 
to the sea is considered an Islamic endowment, and no Muslim has the 
right to cede any part of it.''
  So our actions here tonight and the vote tomorrow must be clear and 
it must be firm. We must work toward eradicating such Islamist jihadist 
hatred and the extremist ideology that feeds it, or we will compromise 
our own

[[Page H3006]]

immediate as well as long-term security interests and the stability and 
the security of our allies in the region.
  In an effort to promote U.S. national security and foreign policy 
priorities and to help ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not reach 
the hands of Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, I introduced, 
with my good friend the ranking member of the House International 
Relations Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, this bill that is before us 
tonight, Madam Speaker. It has 295 cosponsors, and it opposes the 
provision of assistance or political recognition to any entity under 
the tutelage of a terrorist organization such as Hamas.
  This bill does prohibit direct assistance to the Palestinian 
Authority, but it has exceptions, and we have talked about them. Many 
of the people who have spoken here tonight want to overlook those 
exceptions. It does seek to prohibit travel to the United States by 
members or associates of terrorist entities, it provides for the United 
States to withhold contributions to the United Nations proportional to 
the amounts the United Nations provides to these duplicative 
Palestinian-related entities that are directly tied to the Palestinian 
Authority, and it calls for the Palestinian Authority to be designated 
as a terrorist sanctuary under the 9/11 bill.
  But it is not just about what is right for the U.S. in terms of our 
priorities and our allies, Madam Speaker. It also is about honoring the 
memory of all who have died at the hands of Hamas and other Palestinian 
jihadist groups.
  That is why tonight we have spoken about and we have given our 
condolences to our good friend from Virginia, Mr. Cantor, whose 16-
year-old cousin, Daniel Wultz from South Florida, close to my 
congressional district, died 2 weeks ago after suffering these fatal 
injuries caused by an April 17 suicide bombing in Tel Aviv while he was 
having lunch with his father. Daniel fought courageously for 27 days 
for his life, but the injuries were far too severe.
  Our thoughts and our prayers go not just to Daniel, but also to all 
who have lost family members and friends to Hamas and other jihadist 
groups, and the list is, unfortunately, too long for us to mention all 
of their names. We want to pass this legislation to help ensure that we 
in Congress have done everything possible to prevent another Daniel 
Wultz from dying at the hands of these extremists.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to render their full support to 
this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to 
control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer, for yielding me this time, and to thank Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen, a staunch supporter of human rights, for coauthoring this 
legislation with our dear, dear and respected colleague from the State 
of California, Congressman Tom Lantos, who is the once and future chair 
of this committee, I am sure, some day, and to say, as many others have 
stated this evening, we respect your life. Many of us love you and love 
your family.
  Perhaps some of us have a deeper understanding of some of the 
tribulation that you have faced in your own life because our families 
have faced the same. We had relatives in what is now the nation of 
Ukraine, but in the Soviet Union, our uncles, who were sent to the 
gulag for over 20 years by Joseph Stalin. One died and one survived, 
miraculously, after 20 bitter years. So I think our family shares a 
deep personal understanding of what despotism and terror is.
  I rise this evening because I have to say that this act, the 
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, I fear will result not in less 
terrorism, but in more. I do not really believe it is in the interest 
of the United States, of Israel or the world to further radicalize 
elements in the Palestinian population, and I do believe this bill will 
do exactly that.
  It is not in the interest of the government of the United States nor 
Israel nor the world to make it impossible for Palestinians to become 
more educated and to learn how to govern an emerging nation. Indeed, if 
our current policies as a world were so intelligent, they would not 
have yielded a Hamas to the point where it actually won an election and 
other elements of Palestinian society were so crippled and so inept and 
so disorganized that they were not able to govern in a way that an 
emerging nation state would.
  I have asked myself during the gruesome Soviet period, what glimmers 
did we have, what connections did we have, what elements were we able 
to nurture that even provided a road forward?
  I think of our family's East European heritage in Poland and enduring 
the most repressive times in Poland. This country found a way to 
support a non-governmental organization in the form of Solidarity, and 
there were church groups working and there were other groups that 
provided just small glimmers of light.
  I remember a dear, dear friend, Reverend Martin Hernati born in the 
homeland of Congressman Lantos, who said to me, ``Marcy, I am walking 
through a tunnel. It is very dark in the tunnel and I see no light at 
the end of the tunnel, but I must keep walking.''
  I remember Cardinal Mindszenty in the nation of Hungary, locked up in 
the U.S. embassy for many years, as a single man, a single individual, 
as a symbol to the West.
  I thought about the ``Refuseniks'' in the Soviet Union, how we 
connected with them, helping them to publish their works, helping to 
hear a voice from inside a closed society, and I asked myself, in this 
situation, what are the parallels? What are the parallels?
  In this bill, no one wants to support Hamas. All we are asking for is 
the right to amend this bill to find other non-governmental groups that 
we can help to support, to help educate, to help inform, to help teach, 
in the hope, even though we are all walking through the tunnel and we 
see no light at the end of the tunnel, that we give the ordinary 
person, the moderate, and there are some moderates, some hope, some 
ability to connect.
  I read from the statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
who say in opposition to the current form of this bill, ``A further 
deterioration of the humanitarian and economic situation of the 
Palestinian people compromises human dignity and serves the long-term 
interests neither of Palestinians nor of Israelis who long for a just 
peace.
  ``Non-governmental organizations have a long history of helping the 
world's most vulnerable people. Their humanitarian role should be 
respected. While this work is not easy,'' and surely the gentleman from 
California knows it is not easy, surely the gentlelady from Florida 
knows it is not easy, ``it is essential. It deserves Congress' 
continued support.''
  I would hope that with the Prime Minister of Israel coming here this 
week, that we would have a proposal that would take the Quartet and 
actually somehow have discussions, even a resolution, to try to restart 
the failed peace process between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. 
Wouldn't that be a great moment? Wouldn't it be worth being here and 
serving here? We need resolutions that will not radicalize, that will 
not divide, that will make peace possible.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, before yielding, I want to thank my good 
friend from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, for her thoughtful and very serious 
comments, as I want to express my appreciation to all of my colleagues 
who have spoken against this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished senior 
member of the International Relations Committee.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me, 
and I would say that all the compliments that have been heaped upon him 
and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen during this debate are certainly well-deserved.
  Madam Speaker, some of our colleagues here who say they are voting 
``no'' also tell us that they are good friends of Israel. Well, to 
Israel, I would say that with friends like that, she certainly doesn't 
need any enemies.

[[Page H3007]]

  Israel and the civilized world and the United States do have enemies. 
The enemy is called terrorism. And in the Middle East, terrorism has 
another name. It is called Hamas.
  We have to deal with things, Madam Speaker, as they are, not as what 
we wish them to be. The Palestinians elected a terrorist organization, 
Hamas, to run their government and be their leaders. We are told by 
people who oppose this bill, oh, the poor Palestinian people. This 
legislation hurts the poor Palestinian people.
  Well, let me tell you what hurts the poor Palestinian people: The 
government they elected, Hamas. That is what hurts the Palestinian 
people.
  This bill has been called inflexible and stringent and other such 
nonsense. Not true at all. And I am proud to be an original cosponsor 
of this bill. This bill is flexible. Humanitarian aid is allowed. Some 
of us have some questions about that, quite frankly, because money is 
fungible and can be moved around, and we don't want money that is being 
given under the guise of humanitarian aid to be transferred and used 
for other things, and we know Hamas is capable of doing that.
  We are told by some of the opponents that the bill has consequences. 
Sure it does. Elections have consequences. Nobody denies that the 
Palestinian people went to the polls and voted for Hamas. But when you 
vote for someone, there are consequences, and this is the consequence 
of electing a terrorist organization as your leadership.

                              {time}  2130

  Now we are asking Hamas to do three things, it has been said many 
times here before. I want to repeat them. Three things. They have to 
say that they are opposed to terror, that they are ending their support 
for terror.
  They have to recognize Israel's right to exist. They have to 
recognize previous agreements that were signed by previous Palestinian 
governments. What is so difficult about that? How can we ask Israel to 
sit and negotiate with a group that does not recognize their right to 
exist, with a group that wants to destroy them and kill them, and have 
another Holocaust? This is nonsense.
  All this bill does is simply say that we will be cutting off aid to 
Hamas. And for my colleagues who say that the administration does not 
want it now, we should not do it because the administration does not 
want it, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and I were sponsors of the Syria 
Accountability Act.
  The administration at first opposed it. Do you know why? 
Administrations always oppose bills like that because administrations 
do not think that Congress should play any role in the conducting of 
foreign policy.
  Well, we do. We are here. We have a right to pass laws that express 
the desires of this Congress and the desires of the American people. So 
it is nonsense to say that the administration opposes it and therefore 
we should go along. The administration opposed the Syria Accountability 
Act, and ultimately we persuaded it to go along and support the bill.
  This bill passed, as was pointed out, in the International Relations 
Committee 36-2. I was proud to be one of those 36 people. And I think 
that tomorrow this bill will pass overwhelmingly. This Congress has got 
to send a strong message that it opposes terror. It opposes terror 
whether it is Hamas, it opposes terror whether it is al-Qaeda, it 
opposes terror whether it is Hezbollah. All terrorist groups must be 
opposed. That is what this legislation does. That is what this 
legislation says.
  The United States and Israel are strong allies in the fight against 
terror, and this legislation will go a long way in saying to Hamas, we 
will not do anything with you or help you in any way as long as you do 
not renounce terror.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Berkley) 5\3/4\ minutes.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I want to also express my gratitude to 
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, my very dear friend on the other side of the aisle, 
and of course my very special friend and mentor, Mr. Lantos. His 
eloquence was almost matched today by Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Engel. They 
did a remarkable job. And I do not believe I can equal theirs, but I 
would like to speak on behalf of this piece of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and I am hoping 
for its immediate passage. Like some of my colleagues, I also want to 
express my sincerest sympathy to my colleague and good friend on the 
other side of the aisle, Mr. Cantor, for the unnecessary loss of his 
16-year-old cousin, Daniel. I am heartsick about that, and did not know 
until this evening that he had died.
  This bill, Madam Speaker, is not about punishing the Palestinian 
people. This bill is about reasonable demands for United States 
assistance. There are three requirements on the Hamas-led PA to receive 
and to continue to receive financial aid from the United States.
  You must recognize Israel's right to exist. They must denounce and 
combat terrorism, and they must accept the roadmap and other past 
agreements. These are the three simple requirements that must be met in 
order to receive continued financial aid from the United States.
  The problem the Palestinians have, as I have said so many times 
before is not money, the problem has been and continues to be a 
complete failure of leadership.
  If one was tuning in tonight and listened to some of my colleagues, 
they would think that the United States has been rather stingy with the 
Palestinians. But I would like to enlighten those that do not know, 
that since the 1993 Oslo Accord, the United States has given more than 
$1.8 billion to the Palestinians. In that same time we have given over 
$130 million directly to the Palestinian Authority.
  After decades of aid and billions of dollars, it boggles my mind that 
there is no economic self-sufficiency and no improvement to the quality 
of life for the Palestinian people. Why is this? Because the 
desperation of the Palestinian people is not about money, it is about 
the Palestinian Authority failing to do what any responsible government 
would have done with several billion dollars, provide security for its 
people, build infrastructure, improve health care, provide economic 
opportunities, improve education and move their people into the 21st 
century.
  The money is not going to housing. Palestinians continue to live in 
wretched conditions in refugee camps with corrugated roofs in 
dilapidated ramshackle huts. The money is not going to schools. If it 
was, the Palestinian children would be sitting in classrooms being 
trained as the next generation of doctors and engineers who would lead 
their people in the 21st century.
  The money is not going to security. Rather than imposing security, 
the Palestinian Authority forces first attacked the Israelis, now they 
are attacking each other as Gaza is close to civil war.
  The Palestinian Authority under Fattah was corrupt and morally 
bankrupt. Is there any wonder that the Palestinian people turned to 
Hamas, the most dangerous terrorist organization operating today, to 
have their basic needs met?
  Year after year, we have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the 
Palestinians despite no accountability, no modern financial controls, 
no transparency, and no actual knowledge of where our tax dollars are 
going, and the continued attacks on innocent Israeli women and 
children.
  I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. However, it is 
substantially weaker than the one that I originally authored. In my 
opinion, we should be eliminating all aid to the Palestinian Authority, 
not granting the administration broad-based exemptions to continue to 
fund this regime.
  The legislation grants direct aid to Abu Mazen for nonsecurity 
expenses. It also grants direct aid for his personal security detail. 
Abu Mazen is a powerless and ineffective leader. Since being elected 
president, he has had every opportunity to create peace with the 
Israelis and establish a Palestinian State.
  When he had the power he would not or could not take the first step 
to disarm the terrorists and end the violence against Israel. Now he is 
the President of nothing. Why is the United States continuing to prop 
him up? Why are our tax dollars being used to support this guy in the 
first place?
  This bill also grants a broad-based exemption for indirect aid 
through the

[[Page H3008]]

NGOs within the West Bank and the Gaza. Why should Americans be forced 
to foot the bill when the PA is unable to provide us an accounting for 
literally billions of dollars that we have spent?
  Madam Speaker, it is time for the Palestinian leadership and the 
Palestinian people to stop blaming Israel and the United States for 
their utter failure to provide for their own needs. Yassar Arafat stole 
millions of dollars from his own people.
  If Hamas needs money to provide basic services for the Palestinian 
people, let them hunt down Yassar Arafat's widow and get the millions 
of dollars that her husband stole from his own people. The problem is a 
lack of leadership, a lack of vision, a lack of hope for the future, 
lack of civilized behavior, not a lack of money.
  Until Hamas agrees to recognize Israel's right to exist, denouncing 
and combating terrorism and accepts the roadmap and other past 
agreements, not only should we not be giving one more dime, we should 
be asking for a refund from the Palestinian Authority.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, as I prepare to conclude my presentation and yield 
back my time this evening, I truly have enjoyed the give and take that 
we have had this evening under the leadership of our subcommittee 
chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the work that has been done by staff members 
on both sides of the aisle, the passion, the emotion, the concern, and 
the professionalism that we have witnessed.
  I personally have appreciated it. I think it is a healthy give-and-
take that we have had. I think it is an important debate. It is not the 
last word that we are going to enjoy. I would simply make a couple of 
points in closing. I continue to be concerned that we not talk past one 
another. There is going to be, under existing United States law, no aid 
for Hamas. It is illegal to give assistance to a terrorist 
organization. Hamas certainly is.
  And they are not going to be entitled to aid regardless of what 
happens with this bill. I continue to be concerned that the language of 
the bill is not, as some of my friends who have spoken on the other 
side of the aisle refer to, talking about how humanitarian aid can go 
through. That is not what the bill says. It is health that is the 
automatic pass-through.
  Education, as has been referenced, is not a part of the automatic 
exemption. This lack of flexibility is one of the reasons why this bill 
is opposed by Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit 
Tzedek, Shalom, Churches for Middle East Peace, and the United States 
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
  The bill sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States's 
ability to be involved with Israel and Palestine, whether or not Hamas 
is in power. And that is a mistake. It goes far beyond dealing with the 
ramifications of January's elections, and Hamas's rise to power, 
essentially Palestinian moderates and institutions that have nothing to 
do with Hamas.
  Most independent observers feel that that is counterproductive and it 
may well end up backfiring and actually providing further strength to 
the extremists. I listened to the delightful exchange between Mr. 
Lantos and Mr. Frank on the floor earlier. I always marvel watching two 
parliamentary masters go back and forth. I listened to Mr. Frank's 
argument tying it back to earmarking. And it was a thoughtful and 
amazing argument.
  But one of the concerns I have, given the nature of Hamas, and 
listening very carefully to Mr. Frank's words, is they are going to 
claim credit any way they can for anything that happens, much as we see 
political processes generally do that.
  It is important that in our desire to stop Hamas from either 
assistance or a foothold for claiming credit, that we are very surgical 
about what we do for the Palestinian people, and the ability to move 
forward with peace.
  Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to review the 
administration's concerns. They have stated that they feel it is 
unnecessary, as the executive branch already has ample authority to 
impose all its restrictions. It does constrain the executive's ability 
in the flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate to address rapidly 
changing circumstances, which we all sincerely hope happen for the 
positive in this troubled area of the world.
  Their concerns about the mandatory nature of the bill's sanctions, 
the relative absence that relates to activities absent an unachievable 
certification, a lack of a general waiver authority on its key ban on 
assistance, and that these limitations should be time limited.
  The administration has also raised the concern that the exemption for 
``basic human health needs'' is too narrow and should be broadened to 
``basic human needs''. Indeed both sides on the floor this evening 
often used those two terms interchangeably, but they are very different 
under the bill.
  But I do think we have reached the point where both my leg and my 
store of information here has been exhausted. I wanted to make one last 
point, because there has been reference this evening to the joy of 
serving with Mr. Lantos.
  I never cease to marvel, when we are in the midst of this, that he 
adds a dimension to the debate that I think is very important. I never 
cease to learn something in the course of what happens in the committee 
or here on the floor. Reference has been made to him as the only 
Holocaust survivor who has walked these halls.
  And it adds a dimension, not just to this debate, but one that 
carries through in activities in Asia, in Africa, in the bigger picture 
across the world.

                              {time}  2145

  But there is one other accolade because Mr. Lantos is a professor, 
and I appreciate the scholarly approach he brings that tempers his 
experience and his emotion that makes this a learning experience. And I 
truly believe that as a result of his input this evening that this has 
been a valuable learning experience for me, and I think it has enriched 
the record. Whatever happens with this legislation as it goes through 
the course of the legislature, as I do not doubt that it will pass 
tomorrow, that we will all be a little more knowledgeable as a result 
of this, and I think, in the long run, we will be able to do our jobs 
better, and for that, I thank him.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, before yielding the balance of our time to 
my good friend from Texas, let me express my deepest appreciation to my 
friend from Florida, who has done her usual extraordinary job, for her 
principled statement and impeccable logic. We are all in her debt.
  I want to express my deep appreciation to my very good friend from 
Oregon for his unduly gracious comments which I deeply appreciate. And 
I want to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on all sides of 
this issue. This has been an excellent debate, and it is appropriate 
that it should be wound up by one of our best debaters, my friend from 
Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee. I yield her the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 3\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman is very kind. Before I start, 
may I ask for additional time from the distinguished gentlelady from 
Florida, 1\1/2\ minutes. I thank the distinguished gentlelady very 
much.
  Madam Speaker, let me thank Mr. Lantos for his extreme kindness to 
yield to, in essence, a non-member of this great committee this time. 
Let me acknowledge my good friend from Florida for her leadership, and 
also I might add my appreciation to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon for bringing his vast perspective to this debate. I believe this 
is what democracy is all about.
  Certainly I could not stand here tonight and not add my appreciation 
for Chairman Hyde who I believe has worked over the years to seek a 
level and a plateau and a place of, if you will, harmony and 
bipartisanship.
  Tonight is a very difficult time for many of us. And, in fact, I 
think we have had an enormously thoughtful debate. We find ourselves 
this evening, as I offer my sympathy to the family of Congressman 
Cantor for his loss, we find ourselves on the piercing horns of 
dilemma, and they are piercing outside. That is that we find ourselves 
fighting for peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, and we 
find ourselves fighting for the existence and recognition of the State 
of

[[Page H3009]]

Israel and the acceptance by the world of a two-state position that has 
been authored and supported by so many, including the now ailing former 
Prime Minister Sharon.
  I was in Israel just a few months ago visiting Prime Minister Sharon 
at the Hadassah Hospital, listening to a variety of individuals 
pontificate about the pending election and having some small iota of 
hope that Hamas, if elected, would assume the realm of leadership and 
stand up and acknowledge we want two states, we reject terrorism, and 
we reject any idea that Israel should not exist. Unfortunately, this 
did not happen.
  This reminds me of the time that Dr. King led as he moved into the 
time when more groups began to circle and intervene in ``the movement'' 
as we called it; and he welcomed the youngsters and those who had 
provocative and different thoughts. He knew that the ultimate end was 
what they all cherished, and that is the elimination of the shackles of 
segregation and racism and the divide of this country that was then 
black and white. But Dr. King had to make a very important decision, 
whether or not this movement required his standing firm on denouncing 
violence. So he had to reject some of the groups who came to the circle 
of the movement. He had to stand for nonviolence. He had to stand for 
the movement being one that we could seek the plateau of freedom 
without violence. And so I stand here today because I want to at least 
express the fact that those of us who argue for the opportunities 
around the world, for the peace around the world, for the elimination 
of the shackles of the Sudanese people and who claim that we want that 
kind of fierce and absolute pressure on government, have to be able to 
understand this legislation. I want divestiture and sanctions in Sudan. 
And so, clearly, I have to understand that there are times when we must 
intervene in order to make the point so that freedom might live.
  I hope President Abbas will meet with the prime minister, the new 
prime minister of Israel. I hope that they will find a common ground 
and a way to promote peace. But at the same time, I think it is 
important that we make a firm stand to find in our hearts and our minds 
the ability to stand up to Hamas and ask them to reject violence but 
also to say these three words: Israel can exist. That is what we are 
asking for tonight.
  I guess I speak as one who has a great kinship and friendship with 
many Muslims around this Nation and this world. Particularly, I speak 
tonight to those Palestinian Americans who are frustrated and confused 
by legislation such as this. I beg of them to link arms with all of us 
and demand of the Hamas that they rid themselves of this violence so 
their children can learn, so the sick and the feeble can be taken care 
of. But I do thank the authors of this legislation for putting these 
exceptions in, and they can be read clearly that health and 
humanitarian needs can be taken care of and educational needs can be 
taken care of with the consultation of this Congress. This is a very 
difficult time. There are hard choices to make and I would argue that 
the Arab League has been, if you will, absent from the team. The Arab 
League has been absent from this process.
  So as I close, let me say that there is fault everywhere. We can 
blame anyone and everyone. But it is clear what has to be done. That is 
the denouncing of violence. I want to say to our friends here in 
America, Palestinian friends and others, you can be part of this 
solution. We are not here to undermine the children of Palestine or the 
women or the families or those who are sick, but we are here to heal 
the land and to cause an opportunity for peace so that two states can 
live along with each other.
  I cannot be a hypocrite tonight, and as I cry out for Sudan, I must 
cry out for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I hope this 
legislation will begin the debate, and I hope the Arab League and 
others will join us in this fight for freedom.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to support, and express my views, on H.R. 
4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.
  For the last few months, we have watched the Middle East transform 
once again, and every day, we have witnessed history in the making.
  Israel experienced the end of an era when the Honorable Ariel Sharon 
was disabled by a powerful stroke. Israel also resurrected its 
government into an entity focused on stability and the necessity of 
safety. The Palestinian Authority successfully elected a new government 
in the spirit of democracy.
  I had the opportunity this past January to visit Israel, to once 
again tread the soil of the Holy Land, and meet with state officials to 
discuss the ramifications of Mr. Sharon's illness, and prospects of 
peace in the Middle East. At the time, apprehension toward the upcoming 
Palestinian elections was tangible, and the Israeli elections were not 
too far in the future. All of Israel and the Middle East knew that this 
was a turning point.
  Now, however, we have a conundrum. Where we want to encourage and 
celebrate a democratic election, we are dismayed that the party elected 
has a history that disappoints hopes of peace and a mutually beneficial 
resolution in the near future.
  Until we can achieve a two-state solution with lasting peace, we must 
address the fact that the government now in power has not met the 
baseline requirements for returning to the discussion table.
  Over the last few months, we have seen the Palestinian people elect a 
government that promised more organization and resilient public 
administration, as well as less corruption and abuse of its citizens. 
However, the charter of Hamas remains committed to the destruction of 
the nation of Israel, and the supremacy of the Islamic faith around the 
world. The Palestinian Authority is struggling to deliver the stability 
it promised on the campaign trail.
  H.R. 4681 states that it shall be U.S. policy to promote the 
emergence of a democratic Palestinian governing authority that 
denounces and combats terrorism, upholds human rights for all people, 
and has agreed to recognize Israel as an independent Jewish state.

  The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 would freeze aid to the 
Palestinian Authority (PA) and nongovernmental agencies (NGOs) unless 
for educational needs and overridden by the President, operating in the 
West Bank and Gaza so long as Hamas, or any other terrorist group, is a 
part of the Palestinian government. The Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act 
puts in place a stringent benchmark that must be met by the PA before 
America resumes aid. The aid will not be resumed until the President 
certifies that the PA is not controlled by and does not include 
terrorist groups and that the PA has demonstrated substantial progress 
towards a number of specified goals. I know we can have peace if people 
of good will--no matter what their faith help denounce violence and 
begin to work for two peaceful states.
  I hope that this bill will not be misinterpreted as stifling the 
Palestinian Authority or harming the Palestinian people. This bill has 
been carefully written to make a compelling statement against any 
government that would challenge the sovereignty of another nation, and 
yet preserve the international aid and support to a people in need of 
stability.
  We welcome Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this week to address a Joint 
Meeting of Congress. I hope that, while he is here, we may discuss 
actions that will serve to dissuade stakeholders from violence, and 
actions that will be a catalyst toward peace and stability in the 
Middle East.
  One event occurred this week that fills me with hope: Deputy Prime 
Minister Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with 
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the World 
Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, achieving the highest-level 
public talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in months. 
While the discussion focused on ideas for alleviating Palestinian 
humanitarian problems, both sides said it could lead to a first Olmert-
Abbas summit. I am pleased that conversations between the governments 
continue, and I hope that we do, indeed, see such a summit in the 
coming months.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have participated in 
this debate and most especially my dear friend from California (Mr. 
Lantos). He is always on the right side of all of these issues. Thank 
you, Mr. Lantos, for your friendship and your leadership.
  Madam Speaker, Hamas has a choice to make. It can be part of our 
broader post-9/11 policy of being with peace-loving, freedom-loving, 
democratic nations, or it can be with the Islamic terrorists. Yet, this 
is what Hamas' choice has been.
  On its commitment to terrorism, the security forces head says, ``We 
have only one enemy, they are Jews. I will continue to carry the rifle 
and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.''
  On refusing to recognize Israel, the Hamas spokesman says, ``I 
believe that

[[Page H3010]]

the question of recognizing Israel will never be at any time on the 
agenda of the Hamas movement, the PLC or the Palestinian government.''
  The foreign minister has said, ``Even if the U.S. gave us all its 
money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of 
Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives. Our 
right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation 
continues over our lands and our holy sites.''
  This is the leadership of Hamas. So we have a choice, Madam Speaker. 
Allow American taxpayer dollars to help support Hamas and other Islamic 
extremists or prevent such a manipulation of U.S. funds and ensure that 
they help promote our U.S. interests. I hope that our colleagues make 
the right decision tomorrow, and I hope that they will help us pass 
this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
exercise restraint and perspective in our consideration of H.R. 4681.
  President Bush's Administration has already stated the bill is 
``unnecessary as the Executive branch already has ample authority to 
impose all its restrictions and it constrains the Executive branch's 
flexibility to use sanctions, if appropriate, as tools to address 
rapidly changing circumstances.'' With that kind of endorsement, we 
must ask ourselves what this legislation seeks to accomplish.
  Additionally, the so-called Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 limits 
diplomatic visas to members of the Palestinian Authority and would tie 
the hands of the foreign policy community when it comes time to 
negotiate peace between the PA and Israel. How many times has peace 
been brokered on American soil? Eliminating dialogue does not help to 
advance peace in the region. Peace only comes through mutual 
understanding.
  Reasonable, even intelligent people can, and frequently do, disagree 
on how best to achieve peace in the Middle East, but, peace must be the 
goal of our foreign policy tools, whether they be by the stick or by 
the carrot.
  Peace cannot come from punishing the Palestinian people. Even 
Israel's Foreign Minister knows that. He states in Reuters, that, 
``Israel is prepared to release Palestinian tax revenues into a 
proposed aid mechanism being set up by Middle East mediators to avert 
the collapse of the Palestinian health sector . . .''
  Instead, this legislation seeks to accomplish exactly what President 
Bush's Administration and the Israeli Foreign Minister realize is 
counterproductive. I can tell you that after 30 years in Congress, I 
have seen legislation succeed and fail. This legislation is rigid, and 
unnecessary.
  To put it plainly, when you take from people who already have 
nothing, you breed trouble, you don't combat it. How easy will it be 
for Al-Qaeda to tell a man whose child is dying that the doctors are no 
longer there because the Americans took them away? How easy will it be 
to recruit a whole new generation of listless, impoverished youths?
  Madam Speaker, I reject the idea that this legislation will combat 
terrorism. I reject it because we have history as our teacher.
  The best nation-building, goodwill act that the United States has 
ever produced was the Marshall Plan after World War II. By rebuilding 
Europe, America continues to be stronger. Yes, there were communist 
factions that the United States deplored, but we knew the need was 
real, and punishing the whole for the acts of the few was wrongheaded 
in the extreme.
  Today, our actions must be motivated only by our intense desire to 
achieve a just and lasting peace. The compassion and charity of the 
American people should be reflected in this legislation, though sadly, 
they are silenced.
  Madam Speaker, make no mistake, a vote cast in favor of H.R. 4681 is 
not a vote for peace, it is not a vote for America and it is not a vote 
that I will cast.
  I urge my colleagues to cast their votes against this unwise and 
unproductive resolution.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this legislation.
  Earlier this year we watched as the Palestinian people went to the 
polls and voted into power a group that has employed car bombings, 
suicide bombings, mortar attacks, Qassam rocket attacks, and 
assassinations to achieve its stated goal of destroying Israel.
  Last January, Hamas--the radical Islamic Palestinian organization 
that has sought to expel Jews and destroy the state of Israel to 
establish an Islamic Palestinian state based on Islamic law--won a 
majority of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council.
  This group has been recognized by the United States and the European 
Union as a terrorist organization, and has committed hundreds of acts 
of terrorism against Israeli citizens since its creation in 1987.
  I fully support the democratic process, but the views of Hamas are at 
odds with that process and its principles, and I do not believe we 
should continue providing funding to a group that's stated purpose is 
the destruction of another democratic country.
  This legislation sends a message to Hamas, but protects humanitarian 
assistance for the Palestinian people by continuing U.S. assistance 
through NGOs and USAID.
  H.R. 4681 also gives the President authority to waive many of the 
provisions of the bill if Hamas changes its stance or a new Palestinian 
Authority government emerges.
  We cannot allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to get in the hands of a Hamas-
controlled government to be used against Israel, and this bill will 
prevent that from happening while protecting humanitarian aid to the 
Palestinian people.
  Madam Speaker, we need to send Hamas a message that we will not stand 
by while it continues to endorse terrorism and violence.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4681.
  Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, in conclusion I reject the claim that our 
bill does not allow our government to support worthwhile projects for 
the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, it makes every 
possible allowance for such projects, consistent with U.S. national 
interests.
  First of all, our legislation makes an explicit exception for 
supporting the basic human health needs of the Palestinian people.
  Second, it includes a waiver that requires the President only to 
certify that such assistance furthers our national security interests. 
That is not an unreasonably high standard to meet, Madam Speaker, given 
our need to ensure that such projects do not in any way benefit Hamas, 
either politically or economically.
  Nor, Madam Speaker, is it too much to ask that the consultation 
period be a bit longer than usual--25 days instead of 15--given this 
unprecedented situation, in which we would provide aid to a people 
whose government is controlled by terrorists. This is new territory, 
and we owe it to the taxpayers to proceed cautiously. Indeed, we cannot 
be sure that the new Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority will not 
exert control over schools and other institutions currently run by non-
governmental organizations.
  In this unusual and potentially explosive situation, it seems to me 
the very least we should ask is that our assistance to the Palestinian 
people clearly further our national security interests. This is our 
minimal obligation to our constituents.
  We will insist on this basic standard, Madam Speaker, and we will 
give assistance for appropriate purposes--and I am quite sure the level 
of our assistance will continue to be greater than that of any Arab 
nation, including those who have been wallowing in ever-increasing 
windfall profits over the past three years.
  Also, Madam Speaker, H.R. 4681 cuts off U.S. contact with those who 
represent terrorism, not those who represent democracy.
  H.R. 4681 establishes a policy that the U.S. should not negotiate or 
have substantive contacts with terrorist organizations such as Hamas or 
Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
  H.R. 4681 explicitly recognizes that working with Palestinian 
moderates is in U.S. interest by allowing assistance to be provided to 
President Abbas to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
  H.R. 4681 allows travel to the UN and gives the President an 
authority to waive this restriction to allow Palestinian moderates who 
are in the Palestinian Legislative Council to come to the United States 
to visit.
  I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4681.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I attach an exchange of letters 
between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Oxley concerning the bill H.R. 4681 
``Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.''

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Committee on Financial Services,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2006.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 4681, 
     the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. This bill was 
     introduced on February 1, 2006, and referred to the 
     Committees on International Relations, Judiciary and 
     Financial Services. I understand that committee action has 
     already taken place on the bill.
       Section 9 of the bill as introduced falls within the 
     jurisdiction of this Committee and could be the subject of a 
     markup. However, in response to a request from this 
     Committee, I thank you for your agreement to support in 
     moving this legislation forward the modification of section 9 
     to remove from the certification requirement for 
     international financial institutions a determination of the 
     President that the Palestinian Authority has taken effective 
     steps and

[[Page H3011]]

     made demonstrable progress toward ``ensuring democracy, the 
     rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and adopting other 
     reforms such as ensuring transparency and accountable 
     governance.'' Given the importance and timeliness of the 
     Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, and your willingness to work 
     with us regarding these issues, further proceedings on this 
     bill in this Committee will no longer be necessary. However, 
     I do so only with the understanding that this procedural 
     route should not be construed to prejudice the jurisdictional 
     interest of the Committee on Financial Services on these 
     provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be 
     considered as precedent for consideration of matters of 
     jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future. 
     Furthermore, should these or similar provisions be considered 
     in a conference with the Senate, I would expect members of 
     the Committee on Financial Services be appointed to the 
     conference committee on these provisions.
       Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our 
     exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during the 
     consideration of this bill. If you have any questions 
     regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. I 
     thank you for your consideration.
           Yours truly,
                                                 Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         Committee on International Relations, House of 
           Representatives,
                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2006.
     Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman, House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter concerning 
     H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-terrorism Act of 2006. As you 
     noted, this bill has been referred to both of our committees 
     as well as the Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on 
     International Relations has filed its report on the bill 
     (109-462, Part I). I concur that provisions within Section 9 
     of the bill, as introduced, fall within the jurisdiction of 
     this Committee and could be the subject of a markup in your 
     committee. In order to expedite consideration of the bill by 
     the House, I am willing to modify language in Section 9 
     relating to international financial institutions.
       Based on the agreement to modify the manager's amendment to 
     reflect our understanding, I appreciate your willingness to 
     forgo a committee markup of the bill. I understand that this 
     waiver should not be construed to prejudice the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Financial 
     Services on these provisions or any other similar legislation 
     and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of 
     matters of jurisdictional interest to your committee in the 
     future. I also agree that, should these or similar provisions 
     be considered in a conference with the Senate, I will request 
     the Speaker to name members of the Committee on Financial 
     Services to the conference committee on these provisions.
       As requested, I am inserting a copy of our exchange of 
     letters in the Congressional Record during the deliberation 
     on this bill. I thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, the election of Hamas to a majority within 
the Palestinian Legislative Council and to the formation of a terrorist 
organization-led government in the Palestinian Authority poses a 
serious challenge to the United States and its allies. The Committee on 
International Relations has crafted an excellent response to that 
challenge. The bill which is before the House today is based on a 
proposal by our colleagues, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Tom Lantos.
  The fact that the Palestinians voted, albeit by a plurality and not a 
majority, to put Hamas in power in the Palestinian Authority does not 
mean that the United States has to support that government. The 
Palestinian people must live with their own decisions; the United 
States need not, and should not, deal with, let alone support, 
terrorists--whether elected or not.
  The legislation we have before us today provides a series of 
firewalls to prevent funding under the Foreign Assistance Act from 
flowing to the Palestinian Authority, from which it could support, or 
be seen to be supporting, the Hamas' terrorist leadership of the 
Palestinian Authority. It also provides for ways, subject to 
appropriate findings and consultation with the Congress, to get funding 
to the Palestinian people through the funding of non-governmental 
organizations.
  We have provided exceptions, subject to certain certification and 
consultation requirements, for--among other things--assistance to the 
President of the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas, the current 
Palestine President, is clearly not a terrorist, and having worked with 
him, we must make it possible for him to be protected, if required, and 
to be an effective negotiator. He still has a lot of institutional 
power under the Palestinian constitution, and he should be encouraged 
and enabled in exercising that power responsibly.
  Under the Foreign Assistance Act, it will be possible to provide 
assistance, even to a terrorist-dominated Palestinian Authority, to 
deal with health emergencies such as avian flu. That sort of assistance 
should flow, and indeed flows today.
  Finally, we establish, by statute, a policy that officials of the 
United States should not negotiate with members of terrorist 
organizations such as Hamas and that our government should oppose 
funding the Palestinian Authority, under the current circumstances, 
through International Financial Institutions.
  With that brief outline of the bill's key points, Madam Speaker, I 
would like to express my thanks to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Lantos for 
their efforts.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of this bill and in support of peace and prosperity for all the 
people of the Middle East.
  For years, the international community has tried to work with 
Israelis and Palestinians to forge a lasting peace in the Middle East. 
But the election of Hamas to control the Palestinian Parliament was a 
shock to all of us, and the announcement that their party would rule 
alone disheartening.
  It remains to be seen whether participation in the democratic process 
can truly have a moderating effect on organizations that have supported 
terror. But until we see evidence to that effect, we are forced to deal 
with the world as it is--and in that world, Hamas is a terrorist 
organization.
  Hamas uses violence against the innocent to further its political 
objectives. It does not accept the Roadmap, and it does not recognize 
the right of Israel to exist. Clearly, we cannot support--with our 
words or with our deeds--such an organization.
  At the same time, we must recognize that most Palestinian people 
voted for Hamas not because they support terror, but because they were 
desperate for a better quality of life. Hamas was providing basic 
services that their existing government was, for whatever reason, 
unable to provide.
  I would like to take this opportunity to say that supporting this 
bill is not a rejection of the Palestinian people. America's position 
is clear: we support a two-state solution in accordance with the 
Roadmap.
  And although we cannot and should not support Hamas, we must not 
abandon the Palestinian people. We must continue to support 
humanitarian aid--including health, education, and civil society 
initiatives--to ensure that the next generation of Palestinian children 
can know something other than violence, desperation, and hatred. Only 
then will we have any hope of achieving true peace.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4681, 
the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I was deeply concerned when 
I learned that the Hamas party was elected to take control of the 
Palestinian Authority. In FY 2005, the United States appropriated $275 
million to the West Bank and Gaza, with $50 million of that funding 
going directly to the Palestinian Authority. But now, with Hamas in 
control of the Palestinian Authority, not one dollar of taxpayer money 
should go to this terrorist organization. The Palestinian people have 
every right to elect a terrorist organization to control their 
government--and the United States has every right to eliminate any 
financial assistance for it.
  Under H.R. 4681, the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority would become 
eligible for United States foreign assistance only when Hamas renounces 
violence, dismantles the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and 
Gaza, recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state and accepts 
all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.
  Hamas is responsible for countless homicide bombings that have killed 
hundreds of Israeli citizens. They have waged a terror war with the 
sole intent of murdering innocent people. Hamas is responsible for some 
of the most horrific terrorist attacks in recent years, including the 
March 2002 Passover Massacre that killed 30 people; the June 2002 Patt 
Junction Massacre which killed 19 people; and the 2003 Jerusalem Bus 
attack which killed 23 people. And recently, Hamas backed the Apri1 
2006 bombing of a Tel-Aviv restaurant that killed 9 people.
  The Hamas Charter reads: ``Israel will exist and will continue to 
exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others 
before it.''
  Hamas' victory further jeopardizes the peace process and creates 
greater instability in the region. I have no confidence in Hamas as a 
responsible leader of the Palestinian Authority nor do I believe the 
terrorist group wants peace with Israel. I urge the new government to 
proceed with caution and exercise restraint as it assumes power. Any 
provocation on their part will rightly be met with fierce resistance by 
the Israeli people.
  H.R. 4681 does allow for humanitarian assistance, including providing 
funds to Fattah party member Mahmoud Abbas, President of the 
Palestinian Authority. Under this bill, the Palestinian People may be 
eligible for additional aid on a case-by-case basis. While strong 
against Hamas, this bill is not need-blind to the people of Palestine. 
Just recently,

[[Page H3012]]

the United States sent $10 million worth of pharmaceuticals to local 
clinics in the Gaza Strip on May 10.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, the founding charter of Hamas reads, 
``Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as 
it had eliminated its predecessors.'' Madam Speaker, when your enemy 
says he is going to kill you, you better pay attention.
  The Hamas victory in Palestinian parliamentary elections is of great 
concern to me and many others and presents a major challenge to the 
peace process. Hamas ran a campaign primarily based on cleaning out the 
corruption of the Fatah party. The Palestinian people responded to this 
pledge, but sadly in the process elected a terrorist government.
  Unless Hamas recognizes the State of Israel's right to exist, ceases 
incitement and permanently disarms and dismantles their terrorist 
infrastructure, there is no hope for peace. The bottom line is neither 
our government nor Israel can meet with or provide assistance to a 
government led by this terrorist organization.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4681, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. 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 question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________