[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 14]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 20122-20123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 26, 2000

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House passed H.R. 5272, the 
inappropriately named ``Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000.'' This 
legislation is unnecessary, ill timed and not in the best interest of 
our country or the Middle East peace process. I believe, like the 
Administration, that the Palestinian Authority should not unilaterally 
declare statehood outside the framework of a negotiated peace 
settlement. Unilateral actions by either the Palestinians or Israelis 
can erode, disrupt, and possibly derail a peace process that we all 
support and want to see to conclusion in order for future generations 
to be able to live a normal and stable life.
  For starters, this legislation was wholly unnecessary given President 
Arafat's recent decision not to unilaterally declare a state because it 
would jeopardize the peace process. Instead of acknowledging the fact 
that the Palestinian Authority acted with considerable restraint in 
making this decision, which I will note was not popular among the 
Palestinian people, we have unfairly and unnecessarily condemned the 
Palestinian Authority at the very time discussion between Arafat and 
Prime Minister Barak were underway.
  I ask my colleagues, have you read this legislation known as the 
``Peace Through Negotiations Act?'' I have and that is why I am 
concerned, because while the message sent by H.R. 5272 was bad, its 
substance is worse.
  In particular, I am concerned that Section 4a(1) of the legislation 
supercedes a portion of the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act and 
reverses a presidential determination on the national security of the 
United States. Reversing a standing law that has successfully guided 
our policy in the Middle East peace process should only be done after 
serious deliberations. Reversing a Presidential action that he 
determines is in the national security of the United States is even 
more serious. Both these actions are done by this legislation without a 
single hearing or public request for the President's views. Members of 
the International Relations Committee were given less than twenty-four 
hours notice of the mark-up of this legislation. The bill passed the 
Committee on Tuesday with barely half the Members present and voting. 
The full House

[[Page 20123]]

passed it on Wednesday under restrictive procedures denying anyone the 
opportunity to amend it. This legislation is too important to be acted 
upon in such a rushed fashion. To have done so does not speak highly of 
the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives.
  Moreover, the legislation is flawed because it does not address 
unilateral actions of all parties. In my view, the unwillingness of the 
legislation to address unilateral actions of both sides puts our Middle 
East peace process negotiators in a terrible position. We in Congress 
should not take actions that make the efforts of American peacemakers 
more difficult.
  My hope is that our colleagues in the Senate do not follow the 
House's sad example and rush to action without sufficient consideration 
of all of the ramifications of this legislation.

                          ____________________