[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4179-4186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF A PALESTINIAN 
                                 STATE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The clerk will report the 
pending business.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 5) expressing 
     congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a 
     Palestinian state and urging the President to assert clearly 
     United States opposition to such a unilateral declaration of 
     statehood.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. Under the previous order, I believe there are 45 minutes 
equally divided between myself and Mr. Wellstone on this debate.
  At the very start of the Oslo peace process between Israel and the 
Palestinians, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wrote a letter to then Israeli 
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in which he stated this: ``The PLO commits 
itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution 
of the conflict between the two sides, and declares that all 
outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved 
through negotiations.'' That letter was dated September 9, 1993, and it 
led to the ceremony on the White House lawn 4 days later that publicly 
launched the peace process.
  Indeed, it was on the basis of the words that Chairman Arafat wrote 
that Israel agreed to enter into the negotiations. It was on that basis 
that Israel agreed to cede land and political authority to the 
Palestinians. It is the most important and fundamental Palestinian 
commitment, and it undergirds the entire peace process.
  And yet it is this very principle that Chairman Arafat now threatens 
to abandon. Over the past several months he has repeatedly threatened 
to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state over the entire West Bank 
and the Gaza Strip, with the eastern part of Jerusalem as its capital.
  Mr. President, this issue touches the core of the Israel-Palestinian 
conflict as the question of the permanent status of the Palestinian 
entity. What will be its final borders? Will there be limits on its 
sovereignty? Will it be allowed to have a military, to possess jets and 
tanks and missiles, to enter into foreign alliances with the likes of 
Iraq or Iran or Libya? All these questions need to be bilaterally 
negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians so that Israel's 
security can be assured.
  You can just imagine what happens the day after a unilateral 
declaration. Palestinian security forces begin patrolling an area that 
they now consider part of an independent state but that is part of the 
area that Israel has had security control over. Israel would 
undoubtedly have to take steps to provide for the safety of its 
citizens. Tension will mount quickly, leading inevitably--and rapidly--
to a quick descent into violence and bloodshed.
  And consider for a moment what the Palestinians have already achieved 
in the peace process. Five years ago at this time, not one Palestinian 
living in the Gaza Strip or on the West Bank lived under Palestinian 
civilian authority. Today, 98 percent have their own executive branch, 
democratically-elected legislature, and courts. They have their own 
educational system, their own broadcasting authority, their own 
airport, their own travel documents, their own flag and anthem. They 
have full control over virtually the entire Gaza Strip and ten percent 
of the West Bank, including all major population centers, and civilian 
authority over another seventeen percent. And that is even before the 
start of final status negotiations. There has been much progress.
  So why does Arafat make such a threat? Why jeopardize the entire 
peace process? On May 4, the five-year period that began with the 
signing of the first agreement between Israel and the Palestinians 
ends. It had been hoped that by that point all final status 
negotiations would have been completed. But it should be noted that

[[Page 4180]]

none of the agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinians--Oslo 
I, Oslo II, the agreement on redeployment in the city of Hebron, and 
the Wye River Accord were negotiated by the hoped for date. Still, the 
negotiators stuck to it until agreements were hammered out. That is 
exactly what should occur now. The peace process is much too important 
to be held hostage to an arbitrary date.
  Some say that Arafat will back down and not carry out this threat, or 
that he will postpone the date. I certainly hope that is right. But 
listen to these words of his closest associate which were spoken as 
recently as February 22, less than 3 weeks ago. He said,

       We . . . assure the whole world that the establishment of 
     the independent state of Palestine, with holy Jerusalem as 
     its capital, is a sacred and legitimate right of the 
     Palestinian people. It is a goal that our people will not 
     accept to abdicate or to give up no matter what the 
     difficulties.

  Palestinian Authority Minister Nabil Shaath said on February 9, ``Our 
position concerning our right to declare a state on the fourth of May 
has not changed. Any opposition to this right is rejected.''
  Eleven days later, on February 20, he continued on the same line, 
stating, ``We are moving forward in our preparations for the day, May 
4, the date of the declaration of the Palestinian state.'' A few weeks 
earlier, in January of this year, he indicated that the declaration of 
independence would, in his words, ``delineate the borders of the 
Palestinian state as being the borders of June 4, 1967, including all 
of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the part of Jerusalem that was on the 
Jordanian side of the armistice.''
  So it is clear that the Palestinians are still considering their 
options. Chairman Arafat should know, therefore, that the Congress of 
the United States strongly urges him not to pursue this reckless 
course, but to live up to his own words and his own fundamental 
commitment to negotiate this most complicated and important issue 
bilaterally with Israel. That is the only true path to a final and 
lasting peace, which is what we all see.
  He should know that the Congress of the United States stands strongly 
in opposition to a unilateral declaration. This resolution expresses 
that opposition to a unilateral declaration, and it urges the President 
to make clear to Chairman Arafat that we will not recognize a 
unilaterally declared state.
  We should be very clear on this point. This is a matter of principle. 
We should not be relieved if Mr. Arafat arises on May 4 and says, ``We 
will postpone this decision until December 31.'' A unilateral 
declaration, whenever it would occur, would be wrong. The status of the 
territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority can only be 
determined through negotiations with Israel. Period.
  We should not pay Mr. Arafat for not doing something which he should 
not have threatened to do in the first place. We should have only one 
message: To make a unilateral declaration of statehood is wrong, we 
will not recognize it, and we urge you not to go forward with it, but 
instead to return to the process that has gotten us this far to date--
the peace process. That is the only course which holds a promise of 
meeting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people while 
providing the people of Israel what they have yearned for in the past 
50 years: peace with security.
  Mr. President, we have a number of speakers on our side, and I know 
Senator Wellstone does as well.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Kyl, Robb, Abraham and Moynihan as cosponsors of S. Con. Res. 5. Their 
names appear to have been inadvertently omitted in the printed Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I shall be relatively brief, and then I 
will ask Senator Wyden, who is a cosponsor of this resolution, to 
really manage the rest of the time for Democrats. He is really the 
person who has taken the lead in the Senate on this, and he certainly 
should have the most time to talk about the resolution and the 
importance of it.
  Mr. President, I will make a couple of points. One of them is very 
much in agreement with my colleague from Kansas, having to do with the 
importance of the peace process.
  First, let me say that I think this resolution, which calls on the 
Palestinians not to unilaterally declare an independent state, is an 
important resolution. It is one which I certainly support. I support 
this resolution because I think that whatever ultimately is decided 
about whether or not there is or is not an independent Palestinian 
state, that is to be decided by Israel and the Palestinians. That is a 
part of the negotiation, part of where this peace process has to go in 
terms of dealing with these kinds of difficult questions. It would be a 
tragic mistake for there to be a unilateral declaration of a 
Palestinian state now. It would be a tragic mistake. I think this 
resolution really says that in a fairly strong and firm way.
  Second of all, let me just say that I did have a chance, in December, 
to go to Israel with President Clinton. I have been a critic of the 
President on any number of different issues, especially when it comes 
to human rights questions. I think the administration's record is very 
weak. I think the President is trying to do the right thing in the 
Mideast. I went, in part, because I thought this was a commitment that 
the President was living up to, which he had made, regarding the Wye 
River agreement.
  It was a very moving trip. I thought it was especially significant. I 
am convinced that the historians will write about what happened in Gaza 
when the Palestinian National Council went on record voting to revoke 
that part of their charter that called for the destruction of Israel. 
That can only be a step forward. It was very moving to be there when 
that vote took place. I just think that it raised the benchmark in 
terms of where we are going in the peace process. I thought it was a 
terribly important step that was taken.
  Now we really wait to see what will happen in Israel. There are key 
elections. It is my hope that both Israel and the Palestinians will 
live up to a commitment that I think is so important to people all over 
the world. If there is not some political settlement, if there is not 
some resolution of this conflict, I fear that Israeli children and 
Palestinian children will be killing each other for generations to 
come.
  My final point is that I would like to make this a part of the Senate 
record, and that is why I wanted to speak briefly about this. I do not 
believe that our support for this resolution should be construed as the 
U.S. Senate taking a one-sided point of view. I think we should be 
evenhanded. I think the role of our Government is to encourage both 
parties to be committed to this peace process.
  I think the role of the U.S. Government is to have credibility with 
both parties and to simply say that this really is the only step that 
can be taken, and the only step that can be taken is a political 
settlement.
  So let me just make it clear, as ranking minority member of this 
committee, that this resolution is a terribly important resolution. I 
thank my colleagues for their leadership on this question, but I also 
want to make it clear that I believe it is important for the U.S. 
Senate to maintain an evenhanded approach and to do everything we can 
to encourage this peace process to go forward, to do everything we can 
to encourage both parties to be a part of this peace process. And I 
believe that is what this resolution does.
  I will reserve the remainder of the time on our side. I will ask my 
colleague, Senator Wyden from Oregon, to please manage this bill 
forthwith.
  I ask unanimous consent that John Bradshaw, a fellow in my office, be 
allowed to be on the floor of the Senate for the rest of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

[[Page 4181]]


  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 
Con. Res. 5 expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state. Yasser Arafat and other senior 
Palestinian leaders repeatedly have threatened to declare a Palestinian 
state on May 4, the original deadline for completion of the Oslo peace 
process. Along with other difficult issues such as the status of 
Jerusalem, refugees, and water rights, the issue of a Palestinian state 
should be determined in ``final status'' negotiations between Israel 
and the Palestinians.
  Recognizing the security threat posed to Israel from a self-contained 
Palestinian entity, President Reagan wisely enunciated the U.S. policy 
of opposing the creation of a Palestinian state. Behind President 
Reagan's policy on Palestinian statehood was his correct understanding 
that Israel, to ensure its own security, must be able to determine how 
and in what form a Palestinian state comes to exist. The Reagan policy 
has endured since 1982 and has served the interests of the United 
States, Israel, and all other earnest supporters of peace in the Middle 
East.
  But the winds of change have been blowing in the past year. The First 
Lady was quoted in The New York Times in May 1998 as stating that ``it 
will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to 
be a state'' (May 7, 1988, New York Times). President Clinton's trip to 
Gaza last December added a great deal of momentum to Palestinian 
statehood.
  In other parts of the world, implicit policy shifts and diplomatic 
overtures may pass without much notice. But we have to remember that 
Israel is in one of the most dangerous and unstable regions of the 
world. In the Middle East, our actions as Israel's strongest ally have 
greater implications. That is all the more reason why our diplomacy in 
the peace process and the Near East generally must exercise foresight, 
discretion, and firmness.
  Since the beginning of the Oslo process in 1993, Israel has lost more 
than 280 of its citizens to terrorist violence (a portion of the 
Israeli population comparable to 15,000 Americans) in over 1,000 
terrorist attacks. That death toll is worse than in the 15 years prior 
to Oslo. Rather than eradicate terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian 
territory, the Palestinian Authority apparently has maintained its 
revolving door policy in detaining terrorists. Over 20 prominent 
terrorists have been released since President Clinton's visit to Gaza 
in December 1998. The Israeli Government reports that at least 12 
wanted fugitives, including several who have killed American and 
Israeli citizens, are known to be serving in the Palestinian police.
  At times, Mr. Arafat has threatened to cross out the peace accords 
and unleash a new uprising against Israel. He has described the peace 
accords as a temporary truce. The Palestinian Authority's official 
media arm, the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, consistently 
broadcasts incitement against Israel, including a children's program 
where martyrdom as ``suicide warriors'' is glorified. Mr. Arafat has 
not been helpful in resolving Israeli MIA cases, including the case of 
Zachary Baumel, missing since 1982.
  This is not the behavior of a responsible partner in the sear for 
peace. The United States should be demanding full accountability for 
these violations of the Oslo Accord.
  Too often, we have been seen as pressuring our friends and rewarding 
those who undermine the peace process, both in our dealings with the 
Palestinian Authority and our diplomacy throughout the Middle East.
  Palestinian Violations of the Wye Accord: In spite of Palestinian 
violations of the Wye Accord, the latest agreement in the peace 
process, State Department spokesman James Rubin said Palestinian 
leaders had ``worked hard'' to fulfill their commitments. Rubin then 
emphasized ``It is the Israelis who have not fulfilled any of their 
Phase Two obligations by failing to pull back the further redeployment 
as required by Phase Two'' (January 6, 1999).
  Iran poses a military and terrorist threat to Israel: Iran's 
ballistic missile and weapons of mass destruction programs are a direct 
threat to Israel. The Senate passed the Iran Missile Proliferation 
Sanctions Act (H.R. 2709) to sanction missile proliferation to Iran by 
a 90-4 vote last year, but the President vetoed the legislation. Iran 
supports terrorist groups which have killed Americans and Israelis, yet 
the Administration waived sanctions last year under the Iran-Libya 
Sanctions Act designed to restrict billions of dollars in foreign 
investment in Iran's oil and gas fields--dollars which will fund Iran's 
support of the enemies of peace in the Middle East.
  Lack of U.S. Leadership in Iraq: Saddam Hussein is the chief 
terrorist of a terrorist government committed to the destruction of 
Israel. The Iraqi president has provided nothing but provocation for 
over a year and international support for the sanctions regime is 
eroding. An inconsistent Administration policy on Iraq over the last 
five years has undermined our efforts to bring about a change of 
government in Baghdad.
  Syria continues to harbor Hezbollah terrorists: Syria provides safe 
haven to Hezbollah terrorists which wage an almost constant low-grade 
war with Israel. Hezbollah killed four Israelis in southern Lebanon on 
February 28, including a Brigadier General, the highest ranking Israeli 
officer to be killed in Lebanon in 17 years. I have sponsored 
legislation to sanction the Syrian Government for its support of 
terrorism, but the Asdministration has opposed the bill for the past 2 
years.
  As Israel faces each of these threats, it must determine finally what 
steps in the peace process preserve and enhance its security. American 
policy has been most successful in the region when it has respected 
this fact. A unilateral declaration of a Palestinan state undoubtedly 
would upset futures peace talks and introduce a destablizing element 
into Middle Eastern politics. The Administration has said it opposes 
unilateral acts by either side in the peace process, but neutral 
statements are not good enough when it comes to supporting a friend 
like Israel in a dangerous region. Our leadership must be more 
consistent and forthright in opposition to the unilateral declaration 
of a Palestinian state.
  Mr. WYDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seventeen minutes 33 seconds.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I am going to speak for a few minutes, and then I am 
going to yield some of our time to the Senator from New Jersey, the 
cosponsor of this resolution who has very strong feelings on this 
matter as well. We appreciate him coming over, as well, this morning.
  Mr. President, a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood is 
irresponsible political brinksmanship, a provocative act that literally 
dares the State of Israel to respond, and it directly contravenes the 
spirit of the historic Oslo accords.
  Six years ago, at those accords, the Israeli and Palestinian people 
took significant steps toward achieving peace and stability in the 
Middle East. Together there was a commitment to work and cooperate to 
produce a lasting peace through open and honest negotiations.
  Despite that very promising beginning, the peace process is now on 
dangerously thin ice. The greatest risk to stability in the Middle East 
today is a repeated threat by Palestinian leaders to unilaterally 
declare statehood once the historic Oslo accords expire on May 4. Not 
only would such a declaration run counter to the spirit of the accords, 
but it would truly send a chilling message to all those who want 
meaningful peace in the Middle East.
  That meaningful peace is why Senator Brownback and I in our 
bipartisan resolution today have garnered the support of 95 Members of 
the U.S. Senate to stand in strong opposition to a unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state. We believe that step would 
constitute an ill-conceived plan that would

[[Page 4182]]

truly short-circuit the peace process. It would be bad news to all 
those who value stability in the Middle East.
  The question of achieving Palestinian statehood while maintaining 
Israel's security lies at the heart of the conflict between Israel and 
the Palestinian people. It is not going to be resolved overnight with a 
press release. It is going to take careful face-to-face negotiations 
and real commitment from both sides.
  Both Israeli and Palestinian leaders made a commitment in the Oslo 
accords to go forward with the negotiated process. Chairman Arafat said 
so himself in a letter to Prime Minister Rabin in 1993. In his own 
words, he said, ``All outstanding issues relating to permanent status 
will be resolved through negotiations.'' He needs to be held to this 
promise. Israel has held up its end of the bargain. Mr. Arafat must do 
the same.
  A rash move such as unilateral declaration would derail these 
negotiations and risk a dangerous escalation of this conflict. This 
sheer defiance of both the Oslo accords and the peace process would be 
the diplomatic equivalent of drawing a line in the sand, which invites 
a response and a potential escalation of this conflict.
  On the playground, fights begin when the schoolyard bully balances a 
stick on his shoulder and dares someone to knock it off. A unilateral 
declaration of statehood employs the same kind of school-yard 
bullying--it dares the State of Israel to respond. And when Israel does 
respond by taking reasonable and necessary steps to ensure its 
security, these actions would be used as an excuse to further escalate 
this conflict.
  How long would it be before we have Israeli defense forces and 
Palestinian militiamen standing eyeball to eyeball across the disputed 
border waiting for the other to blink, if there is a unilateral 
declaration of statehood?
  How long before tensions rise so high that the smallest spark ignites 
more violence?
  How long before we are faced again with the disturbing images where 
both Palestinian and Israeli mothers are shown mourning their children 
slain in some senseless act of violence?
  The people of the Middle East have been down that road before. They 
have tried the old ways in resolving conflict through violence and 
bloodshed. Now they want the opportunity to use peaceful negotiation to 
resolve their differences. Let us not sabotage the prospect of peaceful 
resolution with a unilateral declaration. The Oslo peace process is a 
valuable opportunity to begin healing centuries-old wounds. A 
unilateral declaration of statehood would only reopen those old wounds 
and eventually lead to yet more bloodshed.
  No one wants to see diplomats being replaced by armed soldiers. No 
one wants to see open dialog give way to angry threats. The peace 
process will be far better served by an open hand extended in 
friendship than by a fist clenched in anger.
  Mr. President, the resolution that we will be voting on today is 
vitally important to keep the peace process moving forward. With 
overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate, we have the opportunity 
to send a clear, unequivocal message that we stand united in our 
opposition to a unilateral declaration of statehood. This resolution 
will hopefully make Palestinian leaders think twice about scrapping the 
peace process.
  I am pleased that the President of the United States indicated his 
opposition to a unilateral declaration of statehood. The reason so many 
Members of the Senate join us today in this bipartisan resolution is we 
wish to drive this message home even further.
  The President is going to be meeting with Chairman Arafat in several 
weeks to discuss this important issue. By the Senate making this 
unequivocal assertion this morning, we can strengthen his hand as he 
goes forward using the Oslo peace process to make sure that there are 
no end runs around the critically needed negotiations.
  I am optimistic that a peaceful resolution can be found in the Middle 
East. Last month, Israeli and Palestinian authorities committed 
themselves to try to change the images they have of each other and to 
break through the mistrust that has divided them for so long.
  They decided to exchange columns in each other's newspapers and to 
hold joint briefings for Israeli and Palestinian journalists. These are 
positive steps toward peace, and I'm hopeful to see more of this kind 
of cooperation in the Middle East.
  But even an incurable optimist like me knows that it would be 
difficult to take further positive steps after a bad-faith attempt to 
unilaterally declare independence.
  Palestinian statehood is a complex issue that must be dealt with 
carefully. It cannot be resolved through force or fiat. The prospect of 
peace in the Middle East is just too important to risk in a game of 
political chicken. If the Palestinian leadership is truly serious about 
peace, they will abandon the prospect of unilateral statehood.
  Mr. TORRICELLI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am very proud to join with Senator Brownback, 
Senator Wyden, and my other colleagues in offering this resolution. I 
strongly support S. Con. Res. 5 and urge all of my colleagues in the 
Senate to adopt it.
  S. Con. Res. 5 states not only our opposition to a unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state; it also urges the President of the 
United States to make very clear the opposition of this Government to 
such a unilateral action.
  It is fair to state that the peace process in the Middle East has 
reached a critical point. Since the signing of the Wye River agreement, 
there has in truth been little progress. Some predicted that with the 
passage of the January 29 implementation date, the agreement might 
fail. All parties have a common interest that the Wye Plantation 
agreement not fail because the consequences would be enormous. The 
arguments for success remain overwhelming.
  First, only implementation of the agreement will allow the parties to 
move to talks on final status, and only talks on final status hold the 
promise of ending this decades-old dispute.
  Second, only implementation of the agreement will allow the parties 
to build on the basic elements of trust and confidence that are 
required for any complete and final agreement.
  And finally, only a successful agreement will contribute to stability 
in the region, and bring an end to the use of the Palestinian dispute 
to fuel other conflicts.
  Fifty years of negotiating for greater peace in the Middle East has 
taught us one lesson, peace requires both words and deeds. Any deed 
that runs contrary to written agreements has enormous consequences.
  We have also learned through these 50 years that progress may be 
unsteady, but it is certain. It has been a very long road from Golan 
disengagement of the Syrians, to a Sinai agreement, to Egyptian peace, 
to the Wye Plantation, following Oslo. There were moments when it 
appeared it might come to an end, but it has been continuous. The 
process does work, and it yields results. Abandoning the peace process 
now by a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood runs contrary 
to everything we have learned. It is contrary not only to the interests 
of the peace process of Israel and the United States, but ironically, 
in the long term contrary to the interests of the Palestinians 
themselves.
  I believe the consequences would be enormous: The destabilization of 
the peace process would perhaps be irrevocable; second, the declaration 
is almost certain to lead to renewed bloodshed and frustration--people 
would believe the peace process would never be resumed. And, third, 
tragically, it may damage the interests of the U.S. Government in the 
supplemental aid package that is part of the Wye River agreement, and 
the hope of economic progress on the West Bank and Gaza so the 
Palestinian people themselves believe there is a dividend in the peace 
process and their quality of life. It would be extremely difficult to 
return to the Congress and argue for that supplemental aid package, 
including funds

[[Page 4183]]

for the Palestinians, if the peace process has been abandoned and a 
Palestinian state unilaterally declared.
  Mr. President, both parties committed themselves to a continuous 
bilateral process of negotiation. In September 1993, Yasser Arafat said 
to then-Prime Minister Rabin, ``All outstanding issues relating to 
permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.'' That was not 
a simple statement of fact. It was a promise. It is on that promise 
that Israel entered into the Wye agreement. It is on that promise that 
the United States has lent its good offices. It is on that basis that 
Israel recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization and began 
these negotiations.
  A unilateral act by the Palestinians on statehood would undermine 
this process perhaps irrevocably. I urge my colleagues' support of this 
resolution.
  Just as importantly, I urge Chairman Arafat to consider these 
consequences. Whatever frustration he may feel, whatever disappointment 
they all feel that the deadline of January 29 has passed, I urge 
Chairman Arafat to remember that while progress has been unsteady, it 
has continued. This process will go forward. Do not abandon it. The 
Israeli elections may have caused a delay, but a new Israeli Government 
will remain committed to the peace process no matter who is elected. 
Reject the advice of abandoning peace. Reject the temptation of a 
unilateral declaration of statehood. Await the outcome of the Israeli 
elections and then let us return to the only peace process that 
guarantees the Israeli and the Palestinian people final determination 
through permanent status talks.
  That is the process that is now before us. I thank my colleagues for 
offering this resolution. I thank Senator Wyden for yielding me time.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, could I inquire how much time is remaining 
on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 7 minutes 6 seconds.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this 
concurrent resolution, S. Con. Res. 5. This resolution expresses the 
strong disapproval of the U.S. Senate to any proposed or contemplated 
Palestinian state that is created, not through negotiation, but rather 
through unilateral declaration on the part of the Palestinian 
Authority.
  I strongly support and have cosponsored this resolution because I 
believe in the Middle East process. Brave Israeli leaders have taken 
great risks for peace. So have Arab leaders. And so, importantly, have 
the people of the Middle East. I believe this process still offers the 
most promising approach for an enduring peace in the region.
  Palestinian Chairman Arafat made a fundamental commitment at Oslo 
that, in his words, ``all outstanding issues relating to permanent 
status will be resolved through negotiations.'' I am here on the Senate 
floor today to call for a reassertion of that very policy. To move away 
from the Oslo process and take refuge in unilateralism would put the 
whole region at risk of destabilization. That is simply the wrong 
direction. I do not believe that a lasting peace can be built on the 
basis of unilateral declarations. Negotiations remain the single best 
way to secure the two pillars of a secure peace--addressing Israel's 
security concerns and creating a sustainable framework for preserving 
the human rights and political self-determination of the Palestinians.
  The American people want security for Israel in the context of human 
rights for Palestinians. A unilateral declaration of independence by 
the Palestinian Authority would only delay the fulfillment of these 
goals. So I am proud to join my colleagues today in supporting this 
very important resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 5 and announce my opposition to the unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state.
  Palestinian statehood is an issue that has been left to be resolved 
between Israel and the Palestinians during permanent status 
negotiations. Nevertheless, Chairman Yasser Arafat has stated on a 
number of occasions his intention to declare a Palestinian state on May 
4, 1999. This action would seriously undermine the continuation of the 
Oslo peace process. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has stated 
publicly that he would respond to such a unilateral declaration by 
annexing parts of the West Bank. Such a chain of events would surely 
mark a major setback and probably the end of the peace process.
  In his September 9, 1993 letter to the late Prime Minister Yitzhak 
Rabin, Chairman Arafat writes that ``all outstanding issues will be 
resolved through negotiations.'' The unilateral declaration of a 
Palestinian state would clearly violate this commitment as well as the 
Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza 
Strip which was signed in Washington, D.C. on September 28, 1995. The 
agreement states that it is the understanding of the parties involved 
that permanent status negotiations ``shall cover remaining issues, 
including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, 
borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other 
issues of common interest'' and further that ``neither side shall 
initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank 
and the Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status 
negotiations.''
  Mr. President, this resolution puts the U.S. Senate on record as 
opposing the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. It is a 
statement, in my mind, in support of the peace process and the 
continuation of negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 
Negotiation and mutual agreement are the only way a true and lasting 
peace can be reached in the Middle East. While a Palestinian state may 
indeed become a reality at some point in the future, it is my hope that 
any such entity would be born from the direct negotiations of the 
Israeli and Palestinian people and not a unilateral declaration.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, a unilateral statehood declaration by 
chairman Arafat would constitute a gross violation of the Oslo accords, 
in effect ending the peace process. And any state that he might 
declare, outside of the peace process, would be illegitimate, 
irresponsible, and wrong.
  I am pleased to see this initiative has been cosponsored by 90 
Senators as of this morning. But we must realize that this show of 
support grows from a very deep and heartfelt concern. We want peace to 
succeed, but Chairman Arafat's threat to unilaterally declare a state 
clearly threatens peace.
  Mr. President, last week in a statement on the Senate floor, I asked 
how can peace be reached while the Palestinian leadership teaches 
children to hate. Today I ask, how can peace be reached when the 
Palestinian leadership threatens to unilaterally impose a final status.
  I rise today to oppose this threat to the peace process. I hope the 
President will join us in making this statement to Chairman Arafat.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, S. Con. Res. 5 expresses congressional 
opposition to a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and urges 
President Clinton to unequivocally assert United States opposition to 
such a declaration. I agree with the sponsors of this resolution that 
it would be extremely unwise for the Palestinian Authority to take such 
a provocative and destabilizing step.
  In open forums and behind closed doors the administration has 
expressed repeatedly its opposition to any unilateral action by either 
Palestinians or Israelis which would predetermine issues reserved for 
final status negotiations. There is no doubt that the United States 
firmly opposes a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
  Such a declaration would be a violation of the principles contained 
in the Oslo Accords, and it could imperil the hard won but fragile 
agreement reached at Wye River. At the signing of the Wye River 
Memorandum, the late King Hussein said, ``we are not marking time, we 
are moving in the right direction.'' A unilateral declaration of a

[[Page 4184]]

Palestinian state would throw the entire process into reverse. It would 
be a serious mistake.
  So I support S. Con. Res. 5 as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it does 
not reflect the inescapable fact that there are two sides to the Middle 
East Conflict. Just as the Palestinian Authority has fallen short in 
its implementation of its Oslo commitments, so have some Israeli 
Government actions exacerbated the condition which have caused some 
Palestinians to demand that the issue of statehood be resolved outside 
the scope of the Oslo process. Many have lost the hope that was kindled 
by the handshake between Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat on 
the White House lawn in 1995. Had the resolution been better written or 
balanced I could have co-sponsored it.
  Despite these setbacks, the administration has played a key role in 
keeping the peace process alive. Congress has been asked to provide 
over a billion dollars in new funding to support implementation of the 
Wye River Memorandum. This is funding that we are very hard-pressed to 
find, but lasting peace in the Middle East is in the strong interest of 
the United States. Just as we are doing our utmost to bring the parties 
together, they need to demonstrate that they are fulfilling their 
commitments. They must both refrain from taking provocative, unilateral 
actions that would jeopardize the prospects for peace and they must 
both be willing to take the necessary risks to ensure a safe and 
prosperous future for their people.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor 
of S. Con. Res. 5, a resolution expressing opposition to a unilateral 
declaration of a Palestinian state. I am proud to join my colleagues in 
supporting this resolution
  We cannot allow the work of the past several years to be swept away 
by unilateral acts such as that threatened by Yasser Arafat. President 
Arafat has threatened to declare a Palestinian state by May 4, 1999 if 
there is no further progress in the Peace Process.
  Mr. President, this act, in defiance of the Oslo Peace agreements 
signed by the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Mr. Arafat, can 
only destabilize the region. It would no doubt precipitate further acts 
and the entire Peace Process, as precarious as it is, could be 
shattered.
  The only true path to peace is through negotiation with Israel. There 
is no other way to achieve a satisfactory conclusion to this 100-year 
conflict. With the passage of this resolution Congress sends the 
message that if Yasser Arafat declares a Palestinian state on May 4, 
the United States should not recognize the validity of the declaration 
and Congress will strongly oppose it.
  Mr. President, if there is to be peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians, it will be accomplished through peaceful negotiations 
between the two parties, not through unilateral acts.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to offer my strong support to the 
resolution. For a long time now, the Palestinians and the Israelis have 
been negotiating a peace, based on compromise and a vision of peaceful 
coexistence.
  These negotiations have been difficult, for both sides. But, they 
have progressed steadily toward an extraordinary agreement. One which 
could be a model for all the world to marvel.
  A unilateral declaration by Chairman Arafat would destroy the 
advances he has made for his people in their quest for peaceful 
political and geographic autonomy. It is provocative, and it goes 
against every tenet of every accord to which he has affixed his 
signature. It would destroy any goodwill he has developed in this body 
because of his good faith negotiation with the Israeli Government.
  I am proud that this body has the courage to stand up and voice its 
opposition to any unilateral moves by Mr. Arafat. I hope that he can 
see through the political fog he has created by floating this 
situation, which was made obviously in an effort to pander to radical 
elements.
  As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I call upon all my 
colleagues to send a clear message that we could not accept such a 
declaration.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no doubt that S. Con. Res. 5 is a 
well-intentioned effort by the members of this body to express their 
opposition to any unilateral declaration of statehood by the 
Palestinians. I support that position--such a reckless action on the 
part of the Palestinians would be disastrous to the Middle East peace 
process--but I cannot support this resolution. It is, in my opinion, 
ill-timed and unnecessary.
  The Administration has made clear its opposition to any unilateral 
action that would preempt the negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinian Authority. But the Palestinians are not the only players in 
this drama. The Israelis are also partners in the peace process, and 
have an equal stake in refraining from provocative and destabilizing 
actions. This resolution, however, does not address the 
responsibilities of the Israelis.
  If Yasser Arafat has not yet gotten the message that the United 
States is opposed to a unilateral declaration of statehood, this non-
binding resolution is not sufficient to drive the point home. But it 
contains the kind of rhetoric that could be used by those who wish to 
further disrupt the peace process. Given the tensions inherent in the 
efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians, the Congress should not take up what amounts to little 
more than a self-serving resolution that may do more harm than good.
  If the United States Congress wishes to make a meaningful 
contribution to the Middle East peace process, we should, first, keep 
pressure on both sides to negotiate in good faith and to avoid 
provocative words or actions, and second, we should act promptly when 
the Administration sends to Congress its request for supplemental 
appropriations to implement the Wye River peace agreement. In this way, 
we can demonstrate our commitment to peace in the Middle East without 
adding fuel to an already incendiary situation.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for Senator 
Brownback's legislation, Senate Concurrent Resolution 5, regarding the 
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. As an original cosponsor 
of this legislation, I believe it is important for the Senate to 
indicate its opposition to any unilateral declaration of statehood by 
the Palestinian Authority before Chairman Yasser Arafat's visit to the 
United States to meet with President Clinton.
  The legislation underscores three important points:
  First, the final political status of the territory controlled by the 
Palestinian Authority can only be determined through negotiations and 
agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
  Second, any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the 
negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition.
  Third, the President should unequivocally assert United States 
opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state making 
clear that a declaration would be a grievous violation of the Oslo 
accords and that a declared state would not be recognized by the United 
States.
  As we all know from reading the newspapers, this legislation is 
directed toward those Palestinians, including Chairman Yasser Arafat, 
who have made statements about the possibility of issuing a unilateral 
declaration on or about May 4 of this year. Last month a top 
Palestinian official said, ``We are moving forward in our preparation 
for the day, May 4th, the date of the declaration of the Palestinian 
state that would encompass a portion of Jerusalem. The cabinet 
announced that ``At the end of the interim period [the Palestinian 
Authority] shall declare the establishment of a Palestinian state on 
all Palestinian land occupied since 1967, with Jerusalem as the eternal 
capital of the Palestinian state.''
  On several occasions over the past year, the Clinton administration 
has refused to express U.S. opposition to the unilateral declaration of 
an independent Palestinian state, and has left it an open question as 
to whether the United States will recognize a unilaterally declared 
Palestinian state. As an

[[Page 4185]]

example, his intention to establish a Palestinian state with its 
capital in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the President may have only 
encouraged this course when he said: ``[T]he Palestinian people and 
their elected representatives now have a chance to determine their own 
destiny on their own land.''
  This legislation is intended to set the record straight. Despite the 
President's ambiguous statements, there should be no confusion among 
the Palestinian leadership about where the United States Congress 
stands on the issue of a unilateral declaration of statehood.
  Mr. President, this matter brings to the fore another issue in which 
the administration's mixed signals and inconsistent policy in the 
Middle East has enabled false hopes and fantasy to flourish. I am 
referring to the policy of the United States regarding the status of 
Jerusalem.
  With support from 90 percent of the members in both Houses, in 1995, 
Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, the principle 
feature of which was the requirement to establish an American embassy 
in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. Another key element of the 
legislation, which the administration has repeatedly refused to 
acknowledge, is the statement of U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem. The 
legislation states: ``It is the policy of the United States that 
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.'' Despite that the legislation is 
now law, the Clinton State Department has repeatedly refused to 
acknowledge this policy.
  So, with the acquiescence of the Clinton administration, the 
Palestinian Authority has chosen to ignore American law and continues 
to hold out hope that the United States will recognize Jerusalem as the 
capital of a Palestinian state, perhaps even the capital of a state 
established unilaterally.
  This will not happen.
  The United States Congress has a clear policy regarding Jerusalem. 
Today, we are stating our position regarding the unilateral 
establishment of a Palestinian state. While the administration's 
policies are confusing, ambiguous statements of general support for 
everything on the table, the Congress is clear and direct. No 
unilateral declaration. No Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem.
  I commend Senator Brownback and my colleague from Arizona, Matt 
Salmon, who is the principal sponsor of this legislation in the House 
of Representatives.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support this resolution, and I 
urge the Senate to approve it. I oppose the unilateral declaration of 
an independent Palestinian state. Such a provocative action would 
violate the letter and the spirit of the peace process in the Middle 
East, and could well be an irreparable blow to that process.
  The issue of an independent state is clearly one of the most critical 
issues in the peace process, and just as clearly, it is an issue that 
must be negotiated by the parties themselves.
  I hope very much that Chairman Arafat will be successful in resisting 
the pressure he is under to take this irresponsible action. The peace 
process is too important, and the parties have come too far, to allow 
this to happen.
  It is very important for all of us in the United States who care 
about peace in the Middle East to make our views clear on this 
fundamental issue. I commend the Senate leadership of both parties for 
enabling the Senate to go on record today in strong opposition to any 
such unilateral declaration.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when the Prime Minister of Israel, the late 
Yitzhak Rabin, and the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation 
Organization, Yasser Arafat, signed the Declaration of Principles on 
September 13, 1993, they each made a commitment to put nearly a century 
of conflict behind them and agreed to settle their differences through 
negotiation.
  Since then, the process they set into motion has had its ups and 
downs. Many innocent lives have been lost at the hands of those opposed 
to peace and reconciliation. But progress has been sustained because 
both sides have ultimately demonstrated a willingness to resolve their 
disputes at the bargaining table.
  Were Chairman Arafat now to take the unilateral step of declaring a 
Palestinian state, I fear that it would threaten the progress that has 
been made over the past 6 years.
  The Declaration of Principles stipulates that the toughest issues--
Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders--are to be resolved by 
permanent status negotiations. It is dangerous to argue that the end of 
the interim period on May 4 gives either side the right to decide an 
issue that both sides agreed to negotiate.
  Any action or proclamation by either side that prejudges the outcome 
of negotiations can only hurt the cause of peace. it invites the other 
side to respond in-kind, and it serves only to delay a lasting peace 
settlement.
  Mr. President, last August, I had the opportunity to meet with the 
Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu. At the request of 
President Clinton, I discussed with them some of the key issues in 
dispute.
  Contrary to what many were saying at the time, I found both leaders 
to be committed to the peace process. Not many believed that these two 
individuals would overcome the profound differences over territory and 
security that were holding up an agreement on the second redeployment. 
With the Wye River Memorandum, both leaders proved that negotiations 
can resolve disputes, if both sides share the same goal.
  It is in that spirit that I trust that the Palestinian leadership 
will not proceed with a unilateral declaration of statehood.
  I am confident that they will realize that their aspirations can best 
be realized through a commitment to the principles of negotiation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my expectation--and really 
prediction--that this resolution will pass the U.S. Senate by 
overwhelming numbers and that it should be heeded by any of those who 
wish to have a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. My 
colleagues have already articulated the point that Chairman Arafat has 
made a commitment to determine issues such as the Palestinian state by 
negotiations, and we would expect that commitment to be preserved. 
There are very delicate matters involving Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority with respect to withdrawals, and there are major risks in 
ceding as much real estate, as much ground, as much territory as Israel 
has ceded to the Palestinians.
  There is an element of great emotionalism, over and above the issue 
of security. I recall the famous handshake on the White House lawn on 
September 13, 1993, with the expectation of working out a permanent 
peace in the Middle East.
  In December of 1993 I had occasion to travel with a congressional 
delegation and visited Egypt. President Mubarak arranged a meeting with 
Chairman Arafat at that time, where he renewed his pledges to live by 
the Oslo accord.
  A few weeks later I was in Israel, in Jericho, and found for sale at 
the roadside stands, flags of the Palestinian state. The ink was barely 
dry on the Oslo accords and the handshakes were barely unclasped on the 
White House lawn before people were talking about a Palestinian state 
and there was, in fact, the Palestinian flag.
  I recall visiting in Amman, Jordan, in the mid-1980s, awaiting a 
meeting with King Hussein and looking at a map of the Mideast. Where I 
expected to see the designation of ``Israel,'' there was the 
designation of ``Palestine.'' I mentioned that to King Hussein, the 
leader of Jordan, and had the comment that ``it was an old map.'' Well, 
maps can be redrawn. But for years the State of Israel was not 
recognized in the Arab world. Instead of having ``Israel,'' which had 
control of the land and was the sovereign controlling that land, 
``Palestine'' was still noted on the maps.
  There is also the issue of a very substantial appropriation which is 
being sought from the Congress of the United

[[Page 4186]]

States. I am not saying that appropriation would be conditioned on the 
Palestinian Authority abiding by the terms of the Oslo accord with 
respect to settling the declaration of a Palestinian state by 
negotiations, but certainly it would be in mind, it would be a factor 
to be considered, with many, many others.
  So, in sum total, there is much to recommend restraint by the 
Palestinian Authority and to leave this issue, as to whether there will 
be a declaration or not, to final status negotiations in accordance 
with the terms of the Oslo accord.
  I thank the Chair and thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding the 
time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, Senator Lautenberg, the Senator from New 
Jersey, is interested in speaking on this as well. He is not here at 
this time.
  I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of our time be allowed to 
go to Senator Lautenberg. I believe it is just under 5 minutes. It is 
my understanding there will be a vote on this measure at 2 o'clock or 
sometime in that time vicinity, so he would have to get here, 
obviously, fairly soon. But I ask unanimous consent the remainder of 
our time be allocated to Senator Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I understand there is a unanimous 
consent agreement that says I should be permitted to use the remainder 
of the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of this resolution, 
of which I am an original cosponsor, opposing Palestinian statehood as 
a unilateral declaration. We need to send an unequivocal signal of the 
Senate's opposition to any unilateral declaration of Palestinian 
statehood.
  I know the players here very well. I knew Israeli Prime Minister 
Rabin. I considered him a close friend. I had a lot of contact with him 
over a period of more than 20 years. I got to know Chairman Arafat when 
he came to Washington, and I have seen him in Jericho. I have seen him 
here several times; I have seen him in New York. When they got 
together, shook hands, and signed the Declaration of Principles that 
was negotiated in Oslo, it was a tremendous historical moment.
  The Oslo accords set in motion a process to end violence and bring 
peace to this troubled region. Despite obstacles and delays, Israel and 
the Palestinians have come a long way down the road to a better future. 
Last year, with the peace process stalled, President Clinton brought 
together Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat for intensive 
discussion on a plan that would achieve further progress in 
implementing the Oslo accord. With the help of a good friend to the 
United States, to Israel, and to the Palestinians--King Hussein of 
Jordan--President Clinton convinced the parties to sign the Wye River 
agreement.
  Both Israel and the Palestinians implemented their commitments in the 
first phase of the Wye memorandum. Unfortunately, the process remains 
stalled there, though important cooperation between Israeli and 
Palestinian representatives continues.
  President Clinton has rightly urged the parties to respect and 
implement the Wye memorandum, despite the pending election in Israel. 
Prospects for further implementation are good, in my view, even if this 
is not happening right now.
  The point is that, on the whole, the Oslo framework is still intact. 
Final status negotiations to resolve the most challenging issues should 
begin within a matter of months. In that context, the resolution we are 
considering today makes a vital point. The Palestinians must not 
jeopardize the peace process by unilaterally declaring statehood, as 
Chairman Arafat and other Palestinian leaders have suggested. By 
adopting this resolution, we send an unequivocal message that, 
certainly as far as the Congress is concerned, the United States would 
not recognize a unilateral statehood declaration and would instead 
condemn it as a violation of the Oslo accords.
  Mr. President, this resolution represents our strong commitment to a 
negotiated peace in the Middle East. I, on a personal basis, look 
forward to the fact that one day they will put aside violence there and 
they will get along. It is a necessity; this is not a matter of choice. 
I welcome the overwhelming support that is indicated for this message 
on the part of my colleagues, that no unilateral declaration of 
statehood will receive the support or the encouragement of the United 
States.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I think this is a terribly important issue 
in that we understand that the bottom line is that threats undermine 
the peace process. It is that simple. Autonomy has to be determined 
through the process of negotiations. We are not talking about 
statehood. I applaud all of the Members who have joined in cosponsoring 
this resolution. I hope it will be passed unanimously by the U.S. 
Senate.

                          ____________________