[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.
____________________