[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 170 (Tuesday, November 29, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H6345-H6349]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 REAFFIRMING LONGSTANDING UNITED STATES POLICY IN SUPPORT OF A DIRECT 
 BILATERALLY NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 165) expressing the sense of 
Congress and reaffirming longstanding United States policy in support 
of a direct bilaterally negotiated settlement of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and opposition to United Nations Security Council 
resolutions imposing a solution to the conflict.
  The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
  The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 165

       Whereas the United States has long supported a negotiated 
     settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution with 
     the democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a democratic 
     Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security;

[[Page H6346]]

       Whereas it is the long-standing policy of the United States 
     Government that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict will only come through direct, bilateral 
     negotiations between the two parties;
       Whereas President Barack Obama reiterated this policy at 
     the United Nations General Assembly in 2011, stating, ``Peace 
     is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and 
     resolutions at the United Nations--if it were that easy, it 
     would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the 
     Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side. 
     Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians--not us--
     who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them . . 
     .'';
       Whereas the Palestinian Authority has failed to end 
     incitement to hatred and violence through Palestinian 
     Authority-directed institutions against Israel and Israelis, 
     and end payments to prisoners and the families of those who 
     have engaged in terrorism or acts of violence against 
     Israelis or the State of Israel;
       Whereas the Palestinian Authority has continued to provide 
     payments to prisoners and the families of those who have 
     engaged in terrorism or acts of violence against Israelis or 
     the State of Israel, including reports of approximately $300 
     million in 2016;
       Whereas efforts to impose a solution or parameters for a 
     solution can make negotiations more difficult and can set 
     back the cause of peace;
       Whereas it is long-standing practice of the United States 
     Government to oppose and, if necessary, veto United Nations 
     Security Council resolutions dictating additional binding 
     parameters on the peace process;
       Whereas it is also the historic position of the United 
     States Government to oppose and veto, if necessary, one-sided 
     or anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security 
     Council;
       Whereas and for this reason, the United States has vetoed 
     42 Israel-related resolutions in the United Nations Security 
     Council since 1972;
       Whereas the Palestinian Authority must engage in broad, 
     meaningful, and systemic reforms in order to ultimately 
     prepare its institutions and people for statehood and 
     peaceful coexistence with Israel; and
       Whereas unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would 
     bypass negotiations and undermine incentives for the 
     Palestinian Authority to make the changes necessary that are 
     prerequisites for peace: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), that it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) a durable and sustainable peace agreement between 
     Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct 
     bilateral negotiations between the parties;
       (2) any widespread international recognition of a 
     unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood outside of 
     the context of a peace agreement with Israel would cause 
     severe harm to the peace process, and would likely trigger 
     the implementation of penalties under sections 7036 and 
     7041(j) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public 
     Law 114-113);
       (3) efforts by outside bodies, including the United Nations 
     Security Council, to impose an agreement or parameters for an 
     agreement are likely to set back the cause of peace;
       (4) the United States Government should continue to oppose 
     and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that 
     seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-
     sided and anti-Israel; and
       (5) the United States Government should continue to support 
     and facilitate the resumption of negotiations without 
     preconditions between Israelis and Palestinians toward a 
     sustainable peace agreement.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).


                             General Leave

  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous materials in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel), and thank Mr. Brad Sherman of California as well for 
working with me in a bipartisan manner to bring this important 
resolution to the floor today.
  There is a growing concern in Congress--it is a concern felt on both 
sides of the aisle--that despite established, bipartisan United States 
policy, the Obama administration may end the practice of vetoing 
resolutions in the Security Council that strayed from the principle 
that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be resolved through 
direct negotiations between the parties. This administration could also 
end the related practice of vetoing Security Council resolutions that 
are one-sided or anti-Israel. This is a real concern. Press reports--
including one today--suggest that such a one-sided resolution could be 
submitted in days.
  Worse, the Obama administration could support a resolution at the 
U.N. Security Council setting parameters for a final settlement between 
Israel and the Palestinians. U.S. policy has long and wisely been that 
only Israelis and Palestinians can work out a peace agreement between 
themselves and that efforts to impose one would be counterproductive. 
Whatever parameters the U.N. established would be unacceptable to any 
Israeli Government--a government to the left or a government to the 
right--making it impossible to see any future peace.
  What on Earth today, at this point in time, suggests that Israel has 
a willing partner in peace?
  Not at this moment. Our committee has held hearings to expose the 
current Palestinian Authority's complicity in inciting violence against 
the State of Israel as well as against Israelis.
  Mr. Speaker, Israel is contending with a deep-seated hatred. It is a 
deep-seated hatred nurtured, unfortunately, by Palestinian leaders over 
radio and also in direct communication with the population many, many 
years, whether it was in the mosques or the schools or the newspapers 
or on television. As one witness told the committee:

       ``Incitement'' is the term we usually use, but that is not 
     really what we mean. Hatred is what we mean, teaching 
     generations of Palestinians to hate Jews by demonizing and 
     dehumanizing them.

  That is the nature of the problem.
  Unfortunately, some Palestinians are lured to terrorism with more 
than just words. Since 2003, it has been Palestinian law to reward 
Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails with a monthly paycheck. The 
Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Liberation Organization use a 
so-called martyrs' fund to pay the families of Palestinian prisoners 
and to pay suicide bombers.

                              {time}  1745

  This pay-to-play scheme has got to stop, period. In the face of such 
hatred, the United States must stand firm. The Israel-Palestinian 
conflict can only be resolved through direct negotiations between the 
parties.
  I again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), as well, for their work on 
this resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 165. This is a bipartisan 
resolution put forward by the chair and ranking member of our 
committee, Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel, cosponsored by myself, with a host 
of other bipartisan cosponsors.
  This resolution comes at a precarious time for the two-state 
solution, with a new administration preparing to enter office and as 
turmoil continues in the Middle East. I, myself, have always been a 
supporter of a negotiated solution between the Israeli and Palestinian 
sides of this conflict which would result in a secure, democratic 
Jewish State of Israel alongside a stable and democratic state for the 
Palestinian people.
  This resolution reaffirms this commitment, which has been 
longstanding American policy. The United States has provided important 
leadership as the two parties have negotiated. We would hope to see 
bilateral negotiations in the future. Peace must be made by the parties 
themselves. A peace settlement will only come through direct bilateral 
negotiations. These negotiations are delicate and they are complicated.
  As President Barack Obama said in 2011: ``Peace is hard work. Peace 
will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations. 
If it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now.'' The 
President continued: ``Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the 
Palestinians who must live side by side. Ultimately, it is the Israelis 
and the Palestinians, not us, who must reach agreement on the issues 
that divide them . . . `'
  This resolution is consistent with administration policy and 
consistent with the policy of several prior administrations.

[[Page H6347]]

  We must heed this advice. Imposing a solution on the parties will not 
work. In fact, it will be counterproductive to peace. It would 
undermine incentives for the Palestinian authority to make the 
necessary changes that are prerequisites for peace. Statehood can be 
accomplished by ensuring security, eliminating incitement, and 
demonstrating that the Palestinian side can live peacefully with 
Israel.
  This resolution expresses a sense of Congress as follows:
  That the Israeli-Palestinian peace will come only through direct 
bilateral negotiations;
  That recognition of a Palestinian state without a peace deal would 
cause harm to the peace process;
  That efforts by outside bodies to impose an agreement or the 
parameters for an agreement are likely to set back the peace process;
  The United States should veto any one-sided United Nations Security 
Council resolutions, or those resolutions that would seek to impose 
solutions on final status issues--again, consistent with the 
administration policies;
  And finally, of course, that America will continue to support 
negotiations without preconditions between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians.
  The Palestinian people deserve a state of their own. The Israeli 
people deserve to live in peace as Jews in the State of Israel. In this 
spirit, I call upon my colleagues to join us in passing this 
resolution.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on 
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 
Organizations.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 165, in support of direct 
bilateral negotiations to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 
introduced by Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel. This resolution 
is much more than a restatement of longstanding U.S. policy. It is an 
urgent defense of our commitments to the State of Israel in the face of 
innumerable threats.
  The United States has long insisted that the only path to peace for 
the Israelis and Palestinians is through direct, bilateral 
negotiations. Any so-called resolution imposed from the outside is 
doomed to failure because it inherently lacks the political support of 
both parties to the conflict. Peacemaking is hard work, but that 
reality has not stopped others from looking for a shortcut.
  The U.N. Security Council is one such forum that has served as a 
platform for anti-Israel schemes for many, many years. Thankfully, the 
United States has always resolutely imposed such unilateralism and, 
when necessary, through both Democratic and Republican White Houses, 
has always resolutely used the veto. Since 1972, the United States has 
used its veto power 42 times to block anti-Israel measures in the 
Security Council. However, in the closing days of this administration, 
this longstanding policy is being called into question.

  Mr. Speaker, there are many reports that President Obama is 
considering moving the needle on the peace process before he leaves 
office by supporting a U.N. Security Council resolution enshrining 
certain conditions for peace. Just last month, The New York Times 
editorial board came out forcefully in favor of this scheme. The 
editorial board wrote: ``The best idea under discussion now would be to 
have the United Nations Security Council, in an official resolution, 
lay down guidelines for a peace agreement covering such issues as 
Israel's security, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian 
refugees and borders for both states.''
  On the contrary, this is just about the worst idea. It would have the 
effect of dangerously undercutting the peace process. Israel's 
security, the future of Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, and borders--
anyone familiar with this issue knows--are the four most sensitive 
matters at stake in this conflict and should not be imposed from 
without. The United States ought to be very clear when faced with such 
proposals. Any attempt to determine the fate of these issues outside of 
direct, bilateral talks undermines the sovereignty of our strong ally 
Israel, destroys goodwill, and threatens to prolong the conflict 
further.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Sadly, the drumbeat for unilateral United 
Nations action on this issue continues. On October 14, the U.N. 
Security Council held a special debate, titled, ``Illegal Israeli 
Settlements: Obstacles to Peace and the Two-State Solution.'' The 
session was held at the request of Security Council members Egypt, 
Venezuela, Malaysia, Senegal, and Angola, with the backing of the 
Palestinians. Such one-sided initiatives only damage prospects for 
peace.
  Last April, 390 Members of the House on both sides of the aisle 
signed a letter to the President. It was signed by so many of us, 
including some in this room, including Nita Lowey, Kay Granger, Karen 
Bass, Ted Deutch, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Ed Royce, Eliot Engel, Kevin 
McCarthy, Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, and myself--390 in all--that laid 
out the simple principles that have guided our policy. These principles 
include:
  A refusal to support counterproductive efforts aimed at imposing a 
solution on the parties;
  Opposition to Palestinian efforts to seek recognition of statehood 
status in international bodies; and
  A willingness to oppose, if need be, a one-sided U.N. resolution by 
way of a veto.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman), my friend, for yielding.
  I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 165, reaffirming longstanding 
U.S. policy in support of a direct, bilaterally negotiated settlement 
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  For several decades, the United States has maintained a consistent, 
bipartisan policy toward the conflict that supports a two-state 
solution and opposes settlement expansion. Explicit congressional 
support for the two-state solution is critically important, especially 
in light of President-elect Donald Trump's previous statements on this 
very subject.
  My friends on the other side have indicated an abiding fear that 
something bad might happen at the U.N. in the waning 52 days of the 
Obama administration. I don't share that concern. What I am concerned 
about is the next 4 years and what Donald Trump will do to the 
longstanding, bipartisan support for a two-state solution that has been 
the cornerstone of American policy. If he pulls out of that commitment, 
then you are right, Middle East peace is at risk, but it is not because 
of what Obama is going to do over the next 52 days.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, which reiterates 
that longstanding, bipartisan support for a two-state solution, and 
help combat the unpredictability of U.S. foreign policy in these 
difficult days of transition.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee 
on the Middle East and North Africa.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, as always, I want to thank our 
esteemed chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), as well 
as our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who is 
so wonderfully represented by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman). I thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel for authoring this very 
important resolution, which I am proud to cosponsor. And while I fully 
support this measure and I urge all of my colleagues to back it as 
well, I wish that this resolution was not needed; but, sadly, we know 
better.
  The fact that we need to bring this up for debate and pass a 
resolution urging a United States administration to uphold longstanding 
U.S. policy as it relates to the peace process is telling and also 
disappointing, Mr. Speaker.

  These next 2 months are going to be crucial for our friend and ally, 
the democratic Jewish State of Israel, and the U.S.-Israel alliance, 
which must remain ever strong. Israel is facing a constant barrage by 
the Palestinians and

[[Page H6348]]

their supporters at the United Nations, and there are indications that 
Abu Mazen will once again attempt to further his plan for unilateral 
statehood through the Security Council.
  Ordinarily, any attempt to dictate a two-state solution or impose 
parameters on negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians 
would be summarily dismissed by the United States. However, sadly, it 
has become clear over the past year that this administration may be 
looking to take unprecedented action; and, in fact, we have heard that 
the administration has been actively seeking ways in which it could 
force the Israelis into making dangerous concessions.
  I have asked Secretary Kerry, I have asked Ambassador Power, our 
Ambassador to the U.N., I have asked Ambassador Patterson and nearly 
every administration official who has come before our Foreign Affairs 
Committee headed by Mr. Royce and Mr. Engel if President Obama will 
uphold longstanding U.S. policy and will veto any Security Council 
resolution related to Israel. Each one has evaded the question, 
refusing to reaffirm this longstanding, unambiguous, noncontroversial 
policy.
  We hear speak of one-sided resolutions, but that is slick 
administration talk. Who defines the one-sidedness? It should have been 
a resounding blanket statement--it is easy--that the President believes 
that the only way to a real and lasting peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians must come through direct bilateral negotiations between 
the two, and lacking that, yes, we will urge the President to veto it. 
It is not hard.
  Peace cannot be forced. Any short-term achievement an imposed 
solution will bring will be far outweighed by the long-term damage that 
it will cause.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a lameduck administration; and it should go 
without saying that any action, whether it be at the U.N. or undertaken 
unilaterally, aimed at forcing solutions to final status issues will be 
detrimental to the prospects of peace and would harm both Israelis and 
Palestinians.
  I support this measure, strongly, brought forth by Chairman Royce and 
Ranking Member Engel. I urge my colleagues to support it to reaffirm 
longstanding U.S. policy that true peace between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians can only come between direct bilateral negotiations 
between them, and to urge the administration to not allow the 
Palestinian scheme of unilateral statehood to gain any legitimacy at 
the U.N.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Dold), a member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. DOLD. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce), for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, stand in strong support of H. Con. Res. 165.
  What I find so fascinating is that we need here in the United States 
to respect Israel's democratically elected leadership. They are a 
nation, and they are our one true ally; and any efforts by the United 
Nations or by any other body to try to impose a two-state solution, 
frankly, I think, is detrimental and reckless. We should never try to 
force their hand. Frankly, what we find now is it is not the time to 
try to establish a legacy for an administration that has just a very 
few short days left by attempting a reckless Hail Mary pass. We here do 
want a two-state solution, which I think is important to note, but it 
must be done by direct negotiations by the two parties; and when the 
United States pressures Israel, all we do is weaken the chances for 
long-term, durable peace.
  My good friend from Virginia talked about his actually being fearful 
of the next administration. Let me simply say that I hope this body 
will stand in bipartisan support to ensure that any administration does 
not pressure Israel. We understand that a long-lasting peace, which is 
what we are hoping for, comes through direct, bilateral negotiations.
  I, for one, am hopeful that this body will stand united to make sure 
that the world knows that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our one 
true ally--Israel--and with the hope that the administration and the 
United Nations Security Council will veto any efforts by the United 
Nations to try to unilaterally put a statehood in there for the 
Palestinians. We know that true peace can only happen through direct, 
bilateral negotiations.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I stand in strong support of Mr. Royce's and Mr. 
Engel's resolution, and I sincerely hope that my colleagues will stand 
together, in bipartisan support, to make sure that this administration 
does not take steps that will weaken Israel's hand in going forward. I 
hope, in going forward, in administration after administration, that 
this body will stand as we do today--in bipartisan support.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution reaffirms longstanding 
American policy that can be summarized in five points: talks must be 
direct and bilateral; a solution cannot be imposed on the parties; both 
sides must be willing to make important compromises; disagreements 
should be resolved privately; and the United States should work closely 
with the State of Israel. This resolution deserves the support of those 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the past, both Republican and Democratic administrations have 
recognized that efforts to internationalize the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict are not a substitute for direct negotiations between the 
parties. In fact, such an approach can undermine these negotiations. 
Direct negotiations between the parties, not a U.N. dictate, are the 
only way, in our view, to bring about a peaceful coexistence. After 
all, direct negotiations mean legitimatizing the other party, which, 
unfortunately, is why Palestinian leaders routinely shun them.
  Other past Presidents have pushed peace initiatives in the final 
hours of their administrations. Indeed, the Obama administration has 
pointedly not ruled out allowing the U.N. Security Council to dictate 
the terms of peace negotiations. That, in fact, is what has given rise 
to our bipartisan concerns about this process. In the absence of a 
clear answer from the administration as to whether it will continue to 
use that veto power at the United Nations, this bipartisan approach 
here, with this resolution, takes a stand.
  I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
the resolution so that the bipartisan policy of encouraging direct 
negotiations continues and is endorsed loud and clear.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, the House's consideration 
of H. Con. Res. 165 is given special relevance by the presidential 
transition now underway.
  The resolution sends an important message to the incoming 
Administration:
  that the United States Congress reaffirms our nation's commitment to 
supporting negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in pursuit 
of a just and lasting two-state solution, and
  that the United States Congress reaffirms a supportive and 
constructive role, for our country in facilitating resolution of the 
conflict.
  Unfortunately, the resolution also contains overly broad and negative 
language concerning third-party efforts to facilitate an agreement. 
Still, it does not preclude the United States from putting forward 
ideas for bridging differences between the parties, for articulating 
suggestions that fill in gaps, for offering a nonbinding comprehensive 
framework to help bring the Israelis and Palestinians to the 
negotiating table--just as Republican and Democrat Administrations have 
done in the past.
  It is my hope, in fact, that the Obama administration might in the 
coming weeks ``help provide a political horizon for ending the 
conflict''--I'm quoting now from House Resolution 686, introduced by 
Representative Yarmuth and myself and cosponsored by 64 members--``by 
articulating a non-binding vision of what a comprehensive final status 
agreement might entail that could help foster and guide revived 
negotiations between the parties.''
  The resolution also encourages the U.S. government to ``firmly 
articulate 49 years of consistent, bipartisan United States opposition 
to settlement expansion.''
  We must be vigilant in protecting 50 years of bipartisan policy to 
help the Israelis and Palestinians reach as viable two-state solution 
in order to protect Israel as a secure, democratic, and Jewish state, 
and to end the cycle of violence that has plagued the region.

[[Page H6349]]

  As a longstanding supporter of the special relationship between the 
United States and Israel, I believe the United States must remain 
steadfast in its commitment to help Israel defend itself, to ensure 
that Israelis and Palestinians feel that a viable political horizon to 
ending this conflict continues to exist despite the current absence of 
ongoing, productive negotiations, and to stand ready to help create 
better conditions for peace--so that real and achievable progress may 
prove viable in the months and years ahead.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 165.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________