[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15532-15533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  DON'T FORCE A BAD DEAL AT CAMP DAVID

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DeLAY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 18, 2000

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, securing a just and enduring peace in the 
Middle East is a

[[Page 15533]]

paramount goal of the United States and vital to our national 
interests. I sincerely hope that the day will come when the region is a 
stable, peaceful home of emerging democracies and U.S. allies.
  The ongoing dialogue about the future relationship between Israel and 
its neighbors in this volatile region is essential if a true peace is 
ever to be realized. The current talks may be a meaningful step toward 
achieving our common goal.
  However, I am concerned that the pressure to reach a deal--any deal--
will outweigh that of securing a good one. A deal for deal's sake is 
not in the interest of Israel or the United States, nor is it in the 
interest of long-term peace and stability in the Middle East. In this 
volatile region, a flawed agreement that produces greater instability 
would be worse than the status quo.
  Accordingly, American leaders must not abuse our unique relationship 
with Israel to force acceptance of destabilizing strategic concessions. 
True peace can only be obtained if both sides are confident that they 
are negotiating freely and in the interest of their people--free from 
outside pressures. I was quite alarmed to hear the Administration's 
spokesman stating that there is tension between the two sides due to 
the President's pressure on negotiators to come up with an agreement. 
Clearly, Israel should not be forced to negotiate away what's in its 
best interests to accommodate the political interest of any group.
  Israel has been a longtime ally of the United States. The struggle of 
the Israeli people to maintain their sovereignty and security from 
hostile neighbors has been long and valiant. As Americans, we recognize 
their struggle is also our own--that beyond our strong ties of kinship, 
a strong and secure Israel is undoubtedly in America's best interest. 
An Israel with secure boundaries, free from threats or acts of war, is 
essential to long-term peace and stability in the region.
  Over the last 50 years, Israel has shown its willingness to work with 
its neighbors to find peace, sometimes successfully--sometimes not--but 
in all cases the outcome was contingent on the determination of both 
sides to truly secure peace.
  At this time, it is unclear to me that this is the case in these 
negotiations. In fact, the threat of the Palestinians to unilaterally 
declare statehood on September 13, regardless of the status of 
negotiations, call to question their commitment to peace and respect of 
Israel's autonomy and security. Any attempt by the Palestinians to 
unilaterally declare an independent state would have severe 
consequences to the relationship between the U.S. and the Palestinians. 
Make no mistake, this Congressman will not support such a unilateral 
declaration, particularly outside the confines of an agreement with 
Israel.
  The U.S. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that any agreement 
the American people may be asked to embrace will truly protect Israeli 
and American interests, enjoys the support of the Israeli and 
Palestinian people alike, and brings a lasting and durable peace to the 
region. Accordingly, any final agreement must carry a real chance for 
meaningful peace before committing U.S. support.
  No one should assume that the Congress will simply sign off on 
committing enormous American resources to a deal that contains 
compromises which would seriously undermine Israeli or U.S. security. 
Before a financial commitment is made by the U.S., the Israeli people 
must have their referendum, and we must have had an opportunity to 
examine the proposed agreement on its merits from an American 
perspective--both for the security of Israel and the security of the 
United States.
  Finally, I remain gravely concerned that the Administration has yet 
to adequately consult the Congress on the status of the negotiations. 
The prospect that an agreement will contain an ongoing American 
commitment requires that the Administration work closely with Members 
of Congress on both sides of the aisle to build a broad consensus in 
support of the deal.
  We must be certain that the final agreement carries a legitimate 
chance for an enduring peace before we commit the vast American 
resources routinely mentioned as part of a settlement. Any meaningful 
peace agreement must be attractive to both parties independent of 
financial incentives. Further the U.S. must not force an untenable deal 
that delivers today's headlines at the expense of lasting peace.

                          ____________________