[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 24037-24046]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   CONCERNING VIOLENCE IN MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 426) concerning the violence in the 
Middle East.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 426

       Whereas the Arab-Israeli conflict must be resolved by 
     peaceful negotiation;
       Whereas since 1993 Israel and the Palestinians have been 
     engaged in intensive negotiations over the future of the West 
     Bank and Gaza;
       Whereas the United States, through its consistent support 
     of Israel and the cause of peace, made the current peace 
     process possible;
       Whereas the underlying basis of those negotiations was 
     recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) by 
     Israel in exchange for the renunciation of violence by the 
     PLO and its Chairman Yasser Arafat, first expressed in a 
     letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin dated 
     September 9, 1993, in which Mr. Arafat stated: ``[T]he PLO 
     renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence, 
     and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and 
     personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent 
     violations and discipline violators.'';
       Whereas as a result of those negotiations, the Palestinians 
     now fully control over 40 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, 
     with over 95 percent of the Palestinian population under the 
     civil administration of the Palestinian Authority;
       Whereas as a result of peace negotiations, Israel turned 
     over control of these areas to the Palestinian Authority with 
     the clear understanding and expectation that the Palestinians 
     would maintain order and security there;
       Whereas the Palestinian Authority, with the assistance of 
     Israel and the international community, created a strong 
     police force, almost twice the number allowed under the Oslo 
     Accords, specifically to maintain public order;
       Whereas the Government of Israel made clear to the world 
     its commitment to peace at Camp David, where it expressed its 
     readiness to take wide-ranging and painful steps in order to 
     bring an end to the conflict, but these proposals were 
     rejected by Chairman Arafat;
       Whereas perceived provocations must only be addressed at 
     the negotiating table;
       Whereas it is only through negotiations, and not through 
     violence, that the Palestinians can hope to achieve their 
     political aspirations;
       Whereas even in the face of the desecration of Joseph's 
     Tomb, a Jewish holy site in the West Bank, the Government of 
     Israel has made it clear that it will withdraw forces from 
     Palestinian areas if the Palestinian Authority maintains 
     order in those areas; and
       Whereas the Palestinian leadership not only did too little 
     for far too long to control the violence, but in fact 
     encouraged it: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That the Congress--
       (1) expresses its solidarity with the state and people of 
     Israel at this time of crisis;
       (2) condemns the Palestinian leadership for encouraging the 
     violence and doing so little for so long to stop it, 
     resulting in the senseless loss of life;
       (3) calls upon the Palestinian leadership to refrain from 
     any exhortations to public incitement, urges the Palestinian 
     leadership to vigorously use its security forces to act 
     immediately to stop all violence, to show respect for all 
     holy sites, and to settle all grievances through 
     negotiations;
       (4) commends successive Administrations on their continuing 
     efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East;
       (5) urges the current Administration to use its veto power 
     at the United Nations Security Council to ensure that the 
     Security Council does not again adopt unbalanced resolutions 
     addressing the uncontrolled violence in the areas controlled 
     by the Palestinian Authority; and
       (6) calls on all parties involved in the Middle East 
     conflict to make all possible efforts to reinvigorate the 
     peace process in order to prevent further senseless loss of 
     life by all sides.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) each 
will control 20 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, would not somebody in opposition have time 
allotted to them in opposition to the resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. LANTOS. No, Mr. Speaker. I favor the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) oppose the resolution?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yes, I do, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) will control the time in opposition.
  Mr. RAHALL. How much time, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Twenty minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H. Con. Res. 426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 426. The past 
several weeks have seen the situation in the Middle East spiral almost 
out of control. The underlying cause is that PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat 
is attempting to dictate Israeli concessions at the negotiating table 
through the unbridled use of violence; but this Congress, together with 
our friends in Israel and elsewhere, must join in saying no to that 
sort of violence.

[[Page 24038]]

  As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak said today, at the moment the 
Palestinian Authority and Arafat have chosen the path of conflict. With 
violence they will not gain a thing. We will know how to operate and 
stand united against violence to win, closed quote.
  The current massive and fundamental violations of the Oslo Accords is 
apparently intentional, as underscored when the leaders of the 
Palestinian Tanzim paramilitary forces in the West Bank said last week 
that his organization would escalate the confrontations with Israel and 
not try to calm the situation. Marwan Barghuti said, and I quote, 
``This blessed Intifada is looking ahead and the mass activity is 
moving forward,'' closed quote.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been especially troubling to see the reaction to 
these troubles in the Arab world and the broader international 
community. An Arab summit fixed all the blame for the current violence 
on Israel.

                              {time}  1615

  It called for rollbacks and freezes in Arab relationships with Israel 
and made no reference to any of the concessions that Israel has made in 
the peace process. It implicitly endorses the use of force by the 
Palestinians.
  In the United Nations, things are little better. Countries whose 
leaders should know better, such as France and Spain, which have faced 
violence in their own streets, ganged up against Israel in endorsing an 
awful, one-sided resolution.
  I was gratified that Israel, the administration and its friends, 
including Members of Congress phoning ambassadors, succeeded in 
persuading 46 member states to abstain, even though only four joined 
the United States and Israel in voting ``no.''
  I want to commend those nations which could see their way to either 
abstaining or voting ``no.'' I am submitting a list of those nations 
voting on all sides of the issue for printing in the Record at the 
close of my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time that the Congress go on record on 
one side or the other on this issue. That is why I felt compelled to 
introduce this resolution on behalf of myself; the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking minority member on the 
Committee on International Relations; our distinguished majority 
leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); and our distinguished 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), condemning 
this Palestinian violence and expressing congressional support for the 
people of Israel in this time of crisis. On this measure we now have 
nearly 160 cosponsors.
  This measure is also sponsored by a lengthy bipartisan list of 
Members of this body, which is a significant indication to the 
Palestinians that you cannot have if both ways. The government of 
Israel has made it clear to the world with regard to its commitment to 
peace time and time again, and yet we see that the Palestinian response 
has been more violence.
  The facts on the ground also make it absolutely clear at this time 
that the Palestinians are in no position to be trusted as the custodian 
of another religion's holy sites.
  I believe it is patently clear that Israel today does not have a 
peace partner, and that Prime Minister Barak is right to call for a 
time out until the true intentions of the Palestinians can be 
understood.
  Accordingly, the resolution we are now considering finds that the 
Palestinian leadership not only did far too little for far too long to 
stop the violence, but in fact encouraged that violence. The resolution 
therefore condemns those actions, and urges the Palestinian leadership 
to vigorously use its security forces to stop all violence, to show 
respect for all holy sites, and to settle all grievances through 
negotiations, something our President has been attempting to do.
  I must register my great disappointment that the administration 
merely abstained during the latest Palestinian-inspired U.N. Security 
Council resolution, which blamed everything on Israel. Our 
congressional response urges the administration to use its veto power 
at the U.N. Security Council to make certain that such appeasement does 
not again pass unchallenged.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
pending resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he be 
permitted to yield time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and I want to 
thank him for introducing this resolution, which I strongly support.
  At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me express on behalf of all of us in 
this body our regret at the tragic deaths which have resulted from the 
violence that broke out in the Middle East. As a grandfather of 17, I 
particularly regret the death of children, although I recognize that 
there was a reckless and cynical exploitation of children by the 
Palestinian leadership. Children have no place in such violent 
demonstrations, and their reckless exploitation I think stands self-
condemned.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the situation in the Middle East has turned 
from efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully to a new wave of 
violence that undermines the basis for peace between Israelis and 
Palestinians.
  No one is more supportive of the Middle East peace process than I am, 
Mr. Speaker. I also support the efforts to assist the Palestinians in 
their attempt towards moving towards self-government, increasing their 
economic well-being, and facilitating their cooperation in all areas 
with the Israelis.
  The current wave of violence, however, Mr. Speaker, is simply 
unacceptable. It is undermining the very basis for peace, the notion 
that Palestinians and Israelis can live together.
  In 1993, at Oslo, the principle of reconciliation was that the 
Palestinian leadership renounce violence as a means of achieving their 
political aims. In the last few weeks it has become obvious that Arafat 
and his group are unwilling to live up to this commitment.
  At Camp David, the government of Israel made sweeping proposals that 
moved the two sides closer than they have ever been in reaching a 
historic agreement and reconciliation. Instead of making a 
counterproposal to this most important move, Arafat has encouraged, 
promoted, and abetted violence and refused to engage in further 
negotiations.
  Even after an international summit prescribed the way of winding down 
this violence, the Palestinians continued their violent actions. These 
actions now show dangers of spilling over into other countries and have 
the potential of becoming a regional crisis. I therefore believe, Mr. 
Speaker, it is important that our resolution move forward at this time.
  Under our resolution, Congress expresses its solidarity with the 
state and people of Israel, condemns the Arafat leadership for doing so 
little to stop the violence, calls upon that leadership to refrain from 
further encouragement of violence and to show respect for all holy 
sites, and to settle all grievances through negotiations. Our 
resolution commends past and present administrations in their effort to 
find balanced resolutions to this long-standing conflict.
  Now all the parties in the region need to step back and to try to 
find the way to end this violence and to return to the negotiating 
table. That will not come very fast. We need to pass this resolution 
today to ensure that the Congress of the United States sends a clear 
message in support of peace and the State of Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 426.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the results of the General 
Assembly vote on Israeli actions in occupied territory.

[[Page 24039]]



                     Annex to Mr. Gilman's Remarks


   [source: general assembly plenary press release GA/9793 emergency 
           special session 20 October 2000 14th meeting (pm)]

           ``Vote on Israeli Actions in Occupied Territory''

       ``The Assembly adopted the resolution on illegal Israeli 
     actions in occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the 
     occupied Palestinian territory (document A/ES-10/L.6) by a 
     recorded vote of 92 in favour to 6 against, with 46 
     abstentions, as follows:''
       ``In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, 
     Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, 
     Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Cote 
     d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of 
     Korea, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, France, 
     Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, India, Indonesia, 
     Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Lao People's 
     Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Luxembourg, Madagascar, 
     Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, 
     Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, 
     Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, 
     Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal 
     Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, 
     Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, 
     United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, 
     Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.''
       ``Against: Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Marshall 
     Islands, Nauru, Tuvalu, United States.''
       ``Abstain: Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, 
     Barbados, Benin, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Costa Rica, 
     Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El 
     Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, 
     Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, 
     Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Netherlands, 
     New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Romania, Saint 
     Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, 
     Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of 
     Macedonia, Tonga, United Kingdom.''
       ``Absent: Afghanistan, Angola, Bahamas, Belarus, Bhutan, 
     Cambodia, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
     Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Honduras, 
     Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Nigeria, Palau, Panama, Papua New 
     Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Solomon 
     Islands, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uganda, 
     Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.''

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Con. Res. 426 
concerning the violence in the Middle East. If this body wishes to pass 
a resolution of support for Israel, then let us do it honestly, 
straightforwardly; not this way. Not through a resolution that is rife 
with bias and prejudice against the Palestinian people.
  This resolution could have a lasting adverse impact upon our goal of 
peace in the Middle East. We are talking about peace between two 
peoples here, not between political factions in Israel and Palestine; 
factions that never want peace in the first place.
  Regrettably, the language of this resolution is not balanced. It is 
not a straightforward vote of solidarity in support for Israel. If it 
were, I would not be standing here today. In sum, by passing this 
resolution, we abandon our role as an honest broker and take a step 
that undermines negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
  Our words and our actions do bear consequences. In the past, we have 
passed resolutions in this body that do not reflect our greater 
interest and evenhandedness, and, as a result, people have suffered.
  We should be standing here today, Mr. Speaker, urging both parties 
instead to return to the negotiating table and help them find their way 
back on a path toward peace. Instead, we have a resolution before us 
that is an indictment of the Palestinian people's desire for peace; 
and, indeed, it is an indictment of the Israeli people's desire for 
peace as well. This resolution condemns one side, and it inflames 
passions to do the opposite of continuing the peace process.
  The true heirs to peace in the region, the peoples of Israel and 
Palestine, want the killing to stop. I know there is a deep despair, if 
you will, among Palestinians that they will never be able to live as a 
free and independent people. There is a feeling of frustration among 
the Palestinians that their lives mean less than Israeli lives. I know 
that the people of Israel have their legitimate concerns about the 
security of their borders.
  We as Americans know and Israelis and Palestinians know that there is 
no military solution to the terribly difficult solutions that have made 
the Middle East a region of tension and conflict for so long. In 
today's climate, when at this very moment sees our security forces in 
parts of the Middle East on the highest of security alerts, this body 
must act in a manner that is in the best interests of our country and 
the security interests of America, Mr. Speaker, instead of passing 
provocative resolutions of this nature.
  This resolution is about bashing the Palestinians as though they have 
not lost more than 130 lives in the conflict, as though innocent 
Palestinian fathers and sons have not been gunned down as they walked 
home, innocent of the conflict around them. We cannot ignore the fact 
that an American Red Cross worker was gunned down when he tried to 
intervene to save the child and his father.
  I condemn these excessive and brutal actions, just as I strongly 
condemn the mob-lynching mentality of Israeli soldiers by Palestinians. 
I would note that Chairman Arafat said that he would conduct an 
investigation, and those responsible for this grueling act are in 
custody.
  There is a line in this resolution that says perceived provocation 
should be subject only to negotiation, not violence. That line, of 
course, refers to the fact that Ariel Sharon deliberately timed his 
visit to the Nobel Sanctuary, accompanied by more than 1,000 Israeli 
security units. Sharon made his trip because he wanted to create strife 
among Palestinians, because creating strife among Palestinians would 
help him and those who follow him get rid of Prime Minister Barak's 
efforts toward peace, putting the Likud back in power in Israel.
  It is about politics, not about peace, and, after all, the Israeli 
Knesset does return to session this Sunday, and the usual blackmailers 
in that country are at work.
  This resolution only helps the extremes on both sides, those who 
never wanted the peace process to succeed in the first place. It plays 
directly in the hands of Prime Minister Barak's enemies, enemies of 
peace in the Middle East. He knows it, and I would even have my serious 
doubts whether Prime Minister Barak would want to see this resolution 
pass in its present form.
  For 7 long years, hard years, the U.S. has been the proud father of 
the peace process. We have worked as an honest broker in the Middle 
East. But we all know that to be an honest broker, you must be without 
bias. This resolution will do more to silence the proud U.S. role as an 
honest broker than all of the conflict of the region can do, for there 
is no honesty in the biased language of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and our 
ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), as well 
as the leadership of both Houses for introducing this resolution and 
bringing it up for a vote at this time.
  This is the time for this House to express its solidarity with the 
state and the people of Israel. Back in September of 1993, Chairman 
Arafat wrote in a letter to Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, the PLO 
renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence, and will 
assume responsibility over all the PLO elements and personnel in order 
to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline 
violators.

                              {time}  1630

  In July of 2000, Prime Minister Barak made a proposal to the 
Palestinian Authority, the successor to the PLO, providing for 
statehood for the Palestinians, for withdrawal and secession of 90 
percent of the land to the Palestinian state, for removal of 
jurisdiction of

[[Page 24040]]

Israel and sovereignty of Israel from a substantial number of 
settlements now occupied by Israelis and, where the Israelis are now 
living, for substantial control in the city of Jerusalem, including two 
of the four quarters of the old city of Jerusalem, as well as a number 
of Palestinian areas within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
  That offer was rejected. As the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), my friend, pointed out, no counterproposal was made. There is 
a mythology going on here. There are two myths, which I would like to 
deal with. One is that the violence that we are seeing now was 
triggered by the trip, by Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. There are 
quotes throughout July and throughout August from Palestinian leaders, 
from officials in the Palestinian authority, which indicate that now is 
the time as Yasser Arafat found that world opinion was against his 
rejection and failure to make a counter to the Israeli proposal at Camp 
David, that now is the time to resume the Intifada. Those quotes 
included references to the fact that this Intifada will not simply be 
an Intifada of stones, but that the substantial amount of weaponry now 
held in the hands of Palestinians and the Palestinian Fatah militia 
would be utilized in this Intifada.
  Sharon's trip was a pretext. It was not a reason for this violence. 
This violence had been planned. The quotations are out there, and the 
people of this Chamber, and the people of this country should 
understand that.
  The tragedy of this, the young people who have died, in some cases 
the innocent people have died. But another one of the myths is that 
this is caused by rock-throwing young people with an excessive Israeli 
response.
  Read yesterday's U.S. Today, ambulance drivers bringing rocks and 
ammunition to Palestinian militia, ambulance drivers claiming to be on 
a humanitarian mission, getting out of their ambulance and shooting 
assault weapons at Israeli troops. The fact is the general conventional 
belief about what is going on there is not accurate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge people to look more closely at what is happening 
and at this effort to try an armed uprising. This is the time for this 
resolution. I urge the body to adopt it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House 
Concurrent Resolution 426, and I do so reluctantly out of my deep 
respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the 
Committee on International Relations. I, in fact, originally 
cosponsored this bill at the request of the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Gilman), because of my deep admiration for how he has handled 
himself and he had done a fair, very fair job in being the chairman of 
our committee; and I was hoping that I would have the opportunity 
possibly to amend the bill to correct some of the unevenness parts of 
this legislation.
  Unfortunately, I will not have a chance to amend it, and so I have to 
oppose it. It is appropriate, as I am certain was the intent of the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman), for the United States to be 
a force for peace in the Middle East, but we cannot do this by just at 
this time declaring that we are totally in favor of one side, which is 
what this bill does.
  This bill unamended will not further the cause of peace. Instead of 
reaching out to those in Israel and Palestine who are committed to 
compromise and finding a just peace for all people in the region, this 
legislation simply and unequivocably backs up one side of the conflict. 
That is not how peace will be achieved.
  America should be an even-handed peacemaker. Our goal should be a 
secure Israel living at peace with its neighbors; but in achieving this 
noble, yet difficult goal, justice for the Palestinian people has to be 
part of the formula. And that is why this has been able to go on for so 
long, because no one has been willing to accept that the Palestinians 
and their rights have to be brought into consideration.
  All of these years, they have been ignored and treated as nonhuman 
beings; and they have legitimate claims that need to be addressed and 
honestly addressed. And, as I say, for so long, it was total 
intransigence even dealing with them.
  Mr. Speaker, passing a resolution that condemns the Palestinian 
authority for the current violence on the West Bank, yet ignores the 
fact that of the 110 people killed that only 2 have been Israeli and 
over 100 have been Palestinian. This will not help the cause of peace. 
Ignoring that Ariel Sharon, a former Israeli defense minister, incited 
the current violence, he knew what would happen if he went there. And 
he went there anyway.
  Any of the information that the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Berman), my good friend, said was available, to say there was a 
potential for violence, he knew. Yet, this defense minister arrogantly 
and irresponsibly went on this provocative trip to a Muslim Holy site.
  This will not help our country to end the cycle of violence by simply 
ignoring that this act took place and that was what sparked this 
violence. There are people of good will on both sides, and we should be 
siding with them, the people of good will on both sides, rather than 
unconditionally backing up one side.
  The policy of unquestioning support has undermined the willingness to 
compromise, which is what has kept this dispute festering for decades. 
Just as we should condemn the United Nations resolution, which was one 
sided, as this bill would do, let us not commit the same offense by 
passing one-sided resolutions that take us out of the role of being an 
even-handed peacemaker.
  Seeking a secure Israel and justice for the Palestinian people is an 
enormously difficult endeavor, but one that deserves our best effort. 
This resolution does not further that cause, and I will have to oppose 
it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I first want to associate myself with the remarks of all who 
have said that we ought to condemn violence wherever we find it.
  Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this House agrees with that 
premise. I think we ought to also agree with the premise that the 
United States really is the best hope for resolution of the peace 
process as an honest broker. I agree with that premise, but agreeing 
with that premise does not, in my opinion, adopt another premise, and, 
that is, that the United States ought not to call things as it sees it.
  That we do not adopt the facts as we find them. I find the facts to 
be as have been stated on this floor, that the two parties share a 
great enmity for one another, but I believe that one of those parties, 
Israel, has accepted the premise that they will exist in an area with 
Palestinians and with Arabs.
  Regrettably, however, I must say to my friends that I am not sure 
that the Palestinians have accepted the premise that they will live in 
a neighborhood with the Israelis. It is my view that that is the nub of 
the problem.
  Mr. Speaker, because that is the nub of the problem, it is 
appropriate for us to say so, and it is appropriate for us to urge both 
sides, but particularly, Mr. Arafat--and I say to my friend, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), who is a dear and good 
friend of mine--that I think Mr. Arafat does have a responsibility, and 
to exercise that responsibility, to articulate to his people whom he 
leads, that peace is the only avenue to bring resolution, and that the 
40,000 police force that he commands should, in fact, make a greater 
effort to maintain peace.
  We know they cannot do it perfectly, but we would urge them, and do 
so in this resolution, to accomplish peace in the Middle East through 
reconciliation and not violence.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), our dean of the House of Representatives, and 
my dear friend.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I do thank my good friend, the gentleman 
from West Virginia, for yielding me this time.

[[Page 24041]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very sad opposition to this legislation out of 
respect for my dear friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), 
chairman of the Committee on International Relations, who is one of the 
great chairmen of the history of this institution, particularly of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  I am satisfied that those who have spoken for this resolution do so 
in the best of good faith, and I express my respect and my affection 
for each of them, Mr. Speaker. But this resolution is not in the 
interests of the United States. It is not in the interests of Israel. 
It is not in the interests of the Palestinians, and it is not in the 
interests of peace. I think that the United States has to look to see 
what its purposes in this area of the Middle East, which has had so 
much trouble for so long, are.
  The United States has one goal and one purpose here, peace, and, very 
frankly, the continued existence of the state of Israel. But without a 
recognition of the role which we must play in this area, there will be 
no peace. And unless the United States has the courage to recognize 
that we have to be an honest broker in the area, trusted by all parties 
there and visible working for peace in the most objective and fair 
fashion, there will probably be no peace and we will see to peace and 
there will be no success for the United States in carrying out this 
great purpose.
  The simple fact of the matter is, if we look at this legislation, the 
language of it makes it very plain, it condemns one side. I am not 
going to rise to say who is at fault here. I think that is something 
that needs a greater amount of time and debate. I want to rise to urge 
my colleagues to recognize the proper function of the United States, 
that of an honest, impartial respected, independent, honest broker. 
Unless we accept that responsibility, we will not be able to achieve 
the necessary trust in the area.
  As I speak and as we sit here and as this matter is debated, the 
Middle East, Israel and Palestine are slipping towards a war. That war 
is not in the interests of the world, in the interests of Israel or in 
the interests of the Palestinians, and it is assuredly not in the 
interests of the United States.
  I would urge my colleagues, reflect, first of all, as to whether it 
is in the interests of the United States to take sides in this matter, 
and very much so, whether it is in the interests of the United States 
to take sides in a matter on which we are the only Nation in the world 
who can speak as honest brokers, who can convene the parties to work 
together to eliminate a threatened war and a conflict. Hundreds of 
people have already died. More will die unless this country does 
something about it.
  But to take sides, to ship weapons, to engage in support or 
castigation of one side, is not the way that we serve our purpose, the 
purposes of the world, the purposes of peace or the purposes of the 
Palestinians or the purposes of the Israelis.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand really for peace, to 
recognize the responsibility of the ability and the interests of the 
United States require us to be an honest broker, not a partisan, not a 
participation in castigation of one side or another, but rather leader 
in an attempt to see to it that the parties convene and talk.
  Ask yourself if someone were to put out a resolution like this when 
we had a border difficulty with your neighbor, if that would engage you 
to accept them as the impartial mediator of the differences between you 
and that neighbor. I think the answer is very simple. It would not. If 
we have listened to the discussions today, the discussions have said 
one thing amongst those who support the legislation, and, that is, that 
the supporters of the legislation as well as the resolution castigate 
the Palestinians. Ask yourself if that works for peace, ask yourself if 
that enables us to function as honest brokers.

                              {time}  1645

  Ask yourself if that is going to enable us to speak with the respect 
and the trust of both sides to them about the need for peace, and ask 
yourself whether you could expect to function as an honest broker and 
to encourage the parties to work together.
  Mr. Speaker, there is little enough goodwill in the area now. There 
is hatred and ill will on both sides, and people are dying. I am not 
going to say who is at fault in this matter, because I do not believe 
that that is the function of this debate, nor is it in the interest of 
the United States to get ourselves in a position where we are obvious 
partisans of one side. But, if we read the language, if we listen to 
the remarks, ask ourselves, have these discussions talked about how we 
can, through this resolution, fulfill the great purposes and functions 
which can be those of the United States, by working for a meaningful, 
lasting peace; by achieving the trust of both sides; by holding the 
willingness of both sides to work together to resolve the differences.
  It is with a very heavy heart that I see the killings over there, and 
I observe the numbers of people who have died. It is also with a very 
heavy heart that I see how many people are going to die, and when I see 
how the United States is throwing away, with this kind of resolution, 
the opportunity to achieve lasting peace for Israel and for the 
Palestinians, for the Middle East, and for the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the legislation before 
us. I do not question the sincerity of the authors of this resolution. 
Like me, they watched the bloodshed in the Occupied Territories and 
Israel with heavy hearts. However, this legislation seems much more to 
do with the American electoral process than with the crisis in the 
Middle East. I do not want any of my colleagues to think that by 
opposing this legislation you oppose Israel. This is not a referendum 
on the American relationship with Israel.
  Viewed objectively, this legislation is simply not in the best 
interest of the United States, Israel, or the Palestinians, and is 
damaging to the prospects of peace in the Middle East. It focuses on 
assigning blame for violence rather than stopping it. It is unfair and 
biased, and in condemning only one side of this conflict, it 
jeopardizes the American ability to negotiate peace as a fair and 
honest broker. It also endangers American lives and economic interests, 
and places our Arab allies in a precarious position. It is precisely 
reactionary measures like the one before us that builds up so much ill-
will toward America, the only nation with the ability to negotiate 
peace between Israel and its neighbors. This places Israel in a much 
more dangerous, isolated position.
  Mr. Speaker, it is irresponsible to be debating and voting on this 
measure as President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat 
work to end the violence. It will already be difficult enough for Barak 
and Arafat to calm their people; this resolution throws rhetorical fuel 
on the fire that is dangerously close to burning out of control.
  When the violence abates, the Palestinian Authority, Israel and the 
world will rely on the United States to get the peace process back on 
track. We must not let our personal emotions cloud our judgment. It is 
our duty, and our government's duty, to work as a peace facilitator, 
not as a judge or partisan.
  The Palestinians and Israelis have much to resolve without fighting 
for the sympathy of the American government and public. The Israelis 
must realize that the Palestinians have a legitimate right to an 
independent state and to return to their homes, just as the 
Palestinians must realize Israel has a right to exist and desires 
safety and security. Both sides must recognize that the status of 
Jerusalem is profoundly important to Palestinians and Israelis alike, 
and that the holy sites are sacred to Jews, Muslims, and Christians. It 
must be known that the sanctity of life is a shared value. America can 
help the parties understand their differences and similarities only if 
all parties trust us.
  I do wonder why this legislation, in pinning blame solely on the 
Palestinians, fails to explain why Palestinians are angry, mention 
Ariel Sharon's provocation march through al-Haram as-Sharif, or note 
the tactics employed by Israeli soldiers, who have been criticized by 
the United Nations and the Israeli press for responding to rocks with 
bullets. We must not treat this as a black and white issue.
  The jobs of President Clinton, Ehud Barak, and Yasser Arafat are not 
easy. I do not envy them. As Yitzhak Rabin stated moments before he was 
assassinated, ``Without partners for peace, there can be no peace.'' 
President Clinton must, despite all that has been said and done, keep 
Barak and Arafat together as partners in peace. Barak and Arafat must 
convince highly skeptical publics that the other is

[[Page 24042]]

a partner. We must not undermine their efforts by passing this 
resolution. I would urge my colleagues to act responsibility for the 
sake of the United States, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the 
peace process. Vote down this resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach), a senior member of our Committee on International 
Relations.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the most difficult time for 
Israel since the 1967 war. It is the most difficult time for the United 
States in the Middle East since the Gulf War, and perhaps ever. In 
circumstances like these, one of the great questions is: What are the 
basics? I think the basics are threefold.
  One is that we are a bedrock ally of Israel and always will be. The 
second is that we have to be a committed facilitator for peace. The 
third is that we have to be respectful of differing views, 
philosophies, and religions.
  The problem at the moment and the reason fundamentally behind this 
resolution is that the third aspect, the respect for differing views, 
is harder in a circumstance where the most progressive proposal for 
change was placed on the table, turned back, and no counterproposal was 
put forth. This spring, we were all hopeful that we would see 
resolution of these extraordinary issues come in an early time frame, 
based on the fact that Mr. Barak was clearly placing his political life 
on the line for progressive change, given the fact that the 
Palestinians and Mr. Arafat seemed in a mood to compromise, and given 
the fact that an American President had committed himself to be a peace 
facilitator.
  Now the question is, is there any alternative to the peace process? 
Obviously, there is only one, and that is war. So, while this 
resolution, I believe, will receive the general support of this body, 
although with respectful opposition, it is clear that the Congress has 
to go on very strong record in the context of this resolution of saying 
that above all, we only want peace, that there is no desire for 
increased conflict between the Muslim world and the Judeo-Christian 
traditions, and above all, there is no desire for anything except a 
fair and reasoned compromise on all sides for the issues of the day, a 
compromise that can allow people in the region to live in harmony. That 
is what the Congress desires.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, so that the debate 
will not be stifled, that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each be granted 5 
additional minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Without objection, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will have an additional 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) 
will now have 7\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 10 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Does it help us move toward peace in the Middle East for the United 
States to deny the reality of what is happening today in the Middle 
East and to turn its back on our staunchest ally, the only democracy in 
the Middle East? I have to tell Members of this Chamber that we should 
not, in the earnest hope for peace, turn our backs on Israel. We ought 
to adopt this resolution and stand in solidarity with the people of 
Israel.
  Let us look at the events. A peace process brought, through our 
efforts, the head of the Palestinian Authority and the Prime Minister 
of Israel together to try to work out a settlement. Prime Minister 
Barak offered the most generous settlement that anyone ever imagined he 
would; and he was rejected by Arafat, the President of the Palestinian 
Authority. Chairman Arafat was unresponsive to this proposal and then 
went home and, either because he did not have the ability to stop it or 
the conviction to rein it in, permitted the paramilitary forces to 
engage in mob fury. Chairman Arafat's unresponsiveness to the 
tremendous proposals put forth indicates that he has very little 
credibility as a partner for peace.
  What else did he do? He opened up the prison doors and let 100 Hamas 
and Islamic Jihad prisoners out, which is a green light for them to 
strap bombs on their backs, go into civilian populations and blow up 
people, to engage in the worst kind of terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, the loss of life on both sides has been tragic, but the 
refusal of Chairman Arafat to do anything now except to run to 
international organizations that have always been biased against Israel 
and urge them to adopt resolutions to internationalize the conflict, to 
try to point fingers at Israel alone, makes it incumbent on us in the 
United States, the only superpower in the world, the only country that 
says to people around the world, follow us into democracy, stick with 
us and we will stick with you; it is incumbent upon us to stand with 
Israel and to urge the parties to go back to the table if they can, but 
only understanding that the United States supports Israel's right to 
exist and supports them in this terrible conflict.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
  Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I say to my colleagues, America's number one ally in the Middle East, 
our strategic partner and our dear friend for 52 years, the State of 
Israel, is today fighting for its very life. Our friend, the State of 
Israel, who helped us in the Persian Gulf War against Saddam Hussein 
and in so many other crises in the region and on a day-to-day basis 
when, as our military is described, America's aircraft carrier in a sea 
of trouble, is fighting for its very life.
  We remember who fought against us in the Persian Gulf War. Chairman 
Arafat and the Palestinian Authority supported Saddam Hussein against 
America and its allies. Chairman Arafat rejected an offer for an 
independent state for the Palestinian people just a few months ago, an 
offer made by Prime Minister Barak of Israel. He did not like the 
terms. What did he do? He was supposed to, under the Oslo Accords, 
continue negotiating. Instead, he walked out, made no counteroffer, 
left the negotiating table. Days later, violence ensued and lots of 
innocent people have been killed.
  The Palestinian people deserve a leader who will negotiate peace 
without resorting to violence. Until they get such a leader, the people 
of the United States need to stand with their friend, the only 
democracy in the region, America's strategic partner; the only 
democracy in the region who was traditionally called Satan by the 
people of the region, along with America, as the Great Satan. We wish 
peace for all of the peoples of the region. They are all good people; 
they deserve peace and democracy. Until the Palestinian Authority gets 
leaders who are committed to peace and can rein in their extremists, 
just as Israel needs to rein in their extremists, we will not have 
peace.
  Support America's friend until the other side is willing to come back 
to the negotiating table and negotiate a peace and not send their 
children into the street to be killed for CNN's purposes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, certainly I have no 
illusions as to the outcome, just as I believe nobody in this body or 
in the region or in the world has any illusions about the outcome if, 
truly, as the previous speaker has said, that Israel is fighting for 
its very life. That is certainly speaking from emotions, and this is an 
emotional moment in the region. But who

[[Page 24043]]

can deny the outcome of gun ships and helicopter gunfire and smart 
bombs, precision targeting, pinpoint targeting, one of the most well-
equipped armies in the world, against the Palestinian people? Who could 
deny that outcome? Who even thinks that this truly is a war of all 
wars?
  I understand a lot of the accusations that have been made and leveled 
by my friends and supporters of this resolution, and a lot of that 
cannot be completely denied. If there is one accurate statement that 
can be said about this part of the world and the way of life in this 
region, it is the fact that no side is without their share of the 
blame, no side is without their share of miscalculations, no side is 
without their share of inflammatory statements, pandering to their 
domestic opponents. All of these statements could describe all sides of 
the fighting in this region.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we in this body have a higher 
responsibility, not to get involved in internal divisions of any 
country in the region, not to point fingers, not to take so obvious a 
side at so obvious an emotional moment; not to speak and take actions 
that can be perceived in some parts of the world, although not reality, 
but can be perceived as the law of the Congress when we take actions. 
We have a responsibility not to take those provocative actions in this 
body. Granted, we have taken and passed a number of resolutions over 
the decades, some of which I have supported, that have jumped up at the 
moment to address what many of us feel is the best sense of peace in 
the Middle East.
  However, we are not secretaries of state in this body. I believe that 
we have a responsibility, while recognizing what is truly in our 
hearts, while recognizing our support, as I have today and in the past 
for our ally, Israel and the region, recognizing our legitimate 
concerns for the security of its borders; but we have a responsibility. 
We have a responsibility at this particular time to take action that 
reflects the thinking in our heads.
  As I noted earlier, today we see our armed forces in parts of the 
Middle East on the highest state of security alert than we have seen in 
several years. Now, for us to come through with an action of this 
nature could very well be misinterpreted by some in the region who do 
not understand that this is merely a resolution and does not carry the 
force of law, but it is still perceived as an expression of this body 
that can have devastating effects in the minds of those who in the 
region have only violence in their heads, who have only suicide 
missions on their agenda, and who truly have never been for the peace 
process to begin with.

                              {time}  1700

  There are those extremists on all sides in the region who have never 
been for the peace process. If we are to support this administration 
and their role as an honest broker and President Clinton's Herculean 
efforts day in and day out, continuous without fatigue, as he works 
nonstop to bring the sides to the negotiating table, our role today 
should be to call for a cessation of violence in a nonpartisan, in a 
truly objective manner, and urge the parties to come back to the peace 
process.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, as the senior Member of this body 
said earlier, the United States and we, as Members of Congress, must 
not abandon our role as an honest broker and take a step that this 
resolution would do that undermines negotiations between Israel and the 
Palestinians. We must heed the advice of the executive branch that has 
urged opposition to this resolution, both the National Security Council 
and the Department of State.
  Because although our words may seem removed from the violence that 
has engulfed the region, they do matter, and people listen. Instead of 
passing resolutions that condemn one side and further inflame passions, 
we should urge both parties to return to the negotiating table and to 
help them find their way back on a path toward peace. This resolution 
does not do that.
  We should offer words of consolation for all the loss of life and 
injuries. We should call for acts of violence to be halted on all sides 
in the conflict and call upon all parties to find ways back to the 
negotiating table no matter how difficult that task may be. We should 
not be engaging in taking sides and thereby further inflaming the rage 
and the despair.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues of the United Nations 
Security Council resolution that was adopted on October 7, dealing with 
the violence in the Middle East. The United States did not veto that. 
It chose to abstain because it felt that preserving the greater U.S. 
interests of remaining neutral in the conflict would, in fact, bring us 
further toward the peace that we all desire.
  We also need to keep a number of things in mind. There have been over 
130 deaths in this region of the world, almost all of them 
Palestinians, more than a quarter of them under the age of 18, and 
almost all of them in an area that was supposed to be under the control 
of the Palestinian Authority.
  The reason for this conflict, Mr. Speaker, is because the Oslo 
Accords were not implemented. The Israeli Army still controls over 60 
percent of the West Bank, a considerable amount of the Gaza Strip. It 
was clear that, unless we fully implemented the Oslo Accords, there was 
going to be conflict.
  In fact, we ought to recognize as well, if we were to do an 
evenhanded resolution, that the deliberately provocative act of Ariel 
Sharon in going to al-Haram al-Sahrif, or otherwise known as the Temple 
Mount, was a deliberate, conscious act. He was warned against doing 
that, yet, he took an entourage of more than 1,000 soldiers.
  The Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, criticized that visit as 
extremely provocative. But to many Palestinians, that visit was a show 
of military might, a blatant reminder of military solutions sought in 
the past. It was a humiliating message of disrespect to Palestinians 
and the Arab world. That is not how we bring about peace in the world 
and particularly in the Middle East.
  We as Americans, the rest of the international community, the 
Israelis, and the Palestinians should know that there is no military 
solution to these terribly difficult issues that have made the Middle 
East a region of tension and violence for far too long.
  In fact, the presence of Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships in 
Palestinian territories has only reinforced the despair among 
Palestinians that they will never be able to live free and 
independently. That is the source of the violence. That must be 
addressed.
  The Oslo Accords should have been implemented. In fact, since the 
Oslo Accords 7 years ago, the roads that have been built that have not 
been opened to Palestinians has further constrained their lives. 
Parameters are set upon their lives, around their lives that show that 
there is no hope for the future. It is out of that desperation that we 
see people sacrificing their lives, that we see people exhibiting real 
hatred for the situation that they have been put under.
  We have a responsibility to address that hatred, to try to find a 
common goal for the Middle East, one of peace and reconciliation, 
economic independence. We could only do that if we try to serve, as the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) said, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has said, if we try to serve as an honest broker, 
representing the views of both sides in this conflict.
  This resolution accomplishes nothing except to make Members of the 
Congress look good. That is not our objective. What we should be trying 
to do is creating a better life for all people around the world in a 
fair and honest manner so that we can have a sustainable and just 
peace.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, there have been many calls for the United

[[Page 24044]]

States to be an honest broker. I share those calls. We have been an 
honest broker since President Carter brought the parties together at 
Camp David, but there were two willing parties. We can be an honest 
broker when both sides are eager to move towards peace, as President 
Sadat and Prime Minister Begin did.
  Arafat's latest contribution to this dialogue was to tell the Prime 
Minister of Israel to go to hell. It is difficult to be an honest 
broker under those circumstances. Under those circumstances, our job is 
to stand up with the only political democracy in the entire Middle East 
that has gone way beyond anything that anybody in this body thought 
would be offered the Palestinians and, as a reward, had a walkout by 
Arafat and the fermenting of an uprising. This resolution must be 
passed as the overwhelming voice of the conscience.
  We all grieve for every single person who lost his life. All lives 
are of equal value. But the cynical exploitation of little children who 
are sent into harm's way with financial rewards is not very impressive. 
It is the most cynical exploitation of the young who do not know any 
better.
  Peace has to come, but in order for peace to come, both parties must 
be willing to return to the negotiating table with good intentions and 
the determination that was present at Camp David.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me again say that there is enough 
blame to go around on all sides in this part of the world. There is a 
lot of finger pointing today. But it is incumbent upon this body at 
this crucial time in the region to step back to urge the party to stop 
the inflammatory statements on both sides, on all sides, and there have 
been those statements as I referred to earlier, in order to show the 
bravo, in order to play to the factions within one's own side in that 
region.
  But this body has a higher responsibility not to get involved in 
that, but, rather, to urge the parties to get back to the negotiating 
table, as President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have so 
excellently tried to do in Egypt and continue to do this very hour. Let 
us support this administration and their efforts.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, permit me to remind my colleagues that our resolution, 
H. Con. Res. 426, begins with the statement that the Arab-Israeli 
conflict must be settled peacefully and through negotiations. But the 
question is how do we bring about this kind of peaceful negotiations in 
the Middle East in the current situation?
  We have observed in the past few weeks shocking violence in the 
Middle East. Shall we not take a stand with regard to that violence?
  We have a situation where the General Assembly is passing resolutions 
that our ambassador, the UN Ambassador Holbrooke called, and I quote, 
unbalanced and unhelpful. That is not the way to bring about peaceful 
negotiations. We need to focus on the violence, on the parties 
responsible for the violence. We need to send a firm message to them 
and send a strong message for peace and of the solidarity of our 
closest friends in the Middle East, the State of Israel.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Con. 
Res. 426. Today, when the U.N. issues resolutions faulting Israel, when 
the Arab world convenes a summit in order to condemn Israel, is the 
appropriate time for this House to speak with one voice on the side of 
our ally. Israel did not start the current violence, the Palestinian 
Authority did. And while each and every one of us hopes for a peaceful 
resolution to a conflict that has been ongoing for tens, if not 
thousands, of years, we must also use this opportunities to express our 
solidarity with the state and people of Israel. The Resolution before 
us states unequivocally that the Congress condemns the Palestinian 
leadership for encouraging the violence and doing nothing to stop it. 
It urges the Administration to use its veto power to stop biased U.N. 
resolutions from going into effect, and it encourages the parties to 
settle their grievances through negotiations.
  The time has come to stand with our friend Israel and to stand up 
against those who would lay the blame for the recent unfortunate events 
at her feet. Indeed, in many respects the Resolution does not go far 
enough. The American people continue to contribute to the Palestinian 
Authority in the form of foreign aid, and I would suggest that that aid 
be suspended pending a Presidential determination that the Palestinian 
Authority is doing all it can to stop the violence. But until that more 
significant step is taken, I welcome the House's passage today of H. 
Con. Res. 426. It sends an important message from the members of this 
body that while we stand on the side of peace, more importantly we 
stand on the side of Israel. I urge my colleagues to support the 
Resolution.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for 
House Concurrent Resolution 426. I commend the distinguished Chairman 
of the International Relations committee, Mr. Gilman, along with 152 
cosponsors, for bringing this important and timely resolution to the 
floor. I watched the events unfold during the past several weeks with 
extreme concern. I watched as Chairman Arafat remained silent while 
Palestinians and Israelis alike, were being killed in Ramallah and 
Nablus. It was not simply the silence that was so troubling. Mr. Arafat 
took active steps to fuel the fire by meeting with representatives of 
Hamas and Hizbollah. These groups have made it their mission to 
undermine the peace process and destroy the state of Israel. Dealing 
with such groups calls into question the goals of Chairman Arafat.
  I was encouraged by the Palestinian and Israeli commitment to meet at 
Sharm-El-Sheikh to work out the terms of a cease fire agreement. 
Unfortunately, Chairman Arafat, once again, failed to fulfill his 
obligations to the peace process. The agreement called for an immediate 
and public denunciation of the violence. The statement made by Mr. 
Arafat to the Palestinian public to that effect was ambiguous and 
unenthusiastic. It fell far short of what was agreed to in Egypt.
  As a result, the violence has persisted and has cast serious doubt 
over achieving peace in the region. In addition the United Nations 
General Assembly recently passed a one-sided resolution condemning the 
use of force by the Israeli security forces. At this crucial time, it 
is essential that the State of Israel knows that we will stand 
alongside her in her quest for peace. To that end, I am a proud co-
sponsor of this resolution.
  House Concurrent Resolution 426 expresses Congressional solidarity 
with the state and people of Israel. In addition, it condemns the 
Palestinian leadership not only for inciting further violence, but for 
failing to take the necessary steps to prevent it.
  Mr. Arafat, the United States, Israel and the Palestinian people have 
all recognized you as the leader of the Palestinian Authority. It is 
time for you to step up and lead. Tell your people, there will be no 
intifada, only salaam. If you cannot wholeheartedly support the peace 
process, the United States can no longer support you. Therefore, I urge 
my colleagues to join me in supporting this process. Let there be no 
ambiguity as to position the United States will take in this process.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for H. 
Con. Res. 426 to express support for the resolution of Arab-Israeli 
differences by peaceful negotiation and to condemn the violence that 
has engulfed the region. In doing so, I am mindful of the special 
relationship our country has and must maintain with our ally, Israel, 
and of the heroic efforts of our President to bring about a cease-fire 
and to restart negotiations. I also commend Prime Minister Barak for 
the pathbreaking proposals he put forward during the negotiations at 
Camp David. It is now even clearer than it was then how unfortunate, 
indeed tragic, it is that the parties were not able to refine and build 
upon those proposals to achieve final agreement.
  The resolution before us, however, falls considerably short of the 
kind of expression that might best contribute to stopping the violence 
and resuming negotiations. I therefore support it with great 
ambivalence. Some have suggested that the tone and content of this 
resolution is justified by the one-sidedness of the anti-Israeli 
resolutions adopted at the United Nations. I disagree. This House 
should not be primarily reactive, nor should we see our main purpose as 
the affixing of blame. We should not second-guess the difficult 
decision the administration took, to abstain from using its veto in the 
Security Council in order to maintain its leverage in bringing the 
conflicting parties together. I am aware of the particular 
responsibility Chairman Arafat has to condemn and contain the violence 
and can only hope that he has the ability as well as the will to do so. 
But it is critically important that our government be absolutely clear 
and absolutely fair in

[[Page 24045]]

demanding that both sides refrain from reckless provocation, end the 
cycle of violence, reject extremist elements who stoke the violence and 
block the path to accommodation, and earnestly attempt to restart the 
negotiations that alone can resolve this conflict.
  I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution before us falls so far 
short. But in its last sentence it captures a sentiment which I believe 
all of us share, calling on ``all parties involved in the Middle East 
conflict to make all possible efforts to reinvigorate the peace process 
in order to prevent further senseless loss of life by all sides.'' May 
we as a body and as a government find ways to tirelessly advance this 
goal in the critical days and weeks ahead.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
resolution and urge my colleagues to vote for this important statement 
on the ongoing events in the Middle East. The events in the Middle East 
have revealed to all Americans the asymmetrical relationship that has 
existed in the peace process. I have been a strong supporter of that 
process, and was willing to lend it my full support so long as it was 
clear that both sides were equally committed to fair and compromise 
peace. We see now that the peace process was not mutual.
  Israel, a staunch and loyal friend that shares our democratic values 
was seeking honest compromise. At Camp David, Prime Minister Barak made 
compromises far bolder and more sweeping than any Israeli prime 
minister had dared to go. Under his proposal, 90% of the West Bank and 
92% of the Palestinian population would have been ruled by a 
Palestinian government. Jerusalem's Holy Places would have been placed 
under joint administration and a part of the city made the capital of 
an independent Palestine. Mr. Speaker, to these sweeping proposals, 
Chairman Arafat offered not even counter-proposals.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a balanced and appropriate response 
to the events in the Middle East. It calls for a restoration of the 
peace. It does not relinquish hope that compromise might yet be 
achieved. Yet it strongly and rightly condemns the Palestine Authority 
and Mr. Arafat for their incitement of the current round of violence 
and for their failure to put a stop to it. It properly calls upon Mr. 
Arafat to renounce violence, and it recognizes that Israel remains a 
friend of the United States. In a similar vein, it calls for the United 
States ``to insure that the Security Council does not again adopt 
unbalanced resolutions addressing the uncontrolled violence in the 
areas controlled by the Palestine Authority.''
  Mr. Speaker, we should adopt this resolution and we should make clear 
that as between a democratic Israel and an autocratic Palestine 
Authority there is no choice. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote 
for this bill.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned by the outbreak of 
violence and the abdication of responsibility by Palestinian 
authorities for restoring the peace. We must make clear that peace may 
be achieved only through peaceful and negotiated means.
  I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 426, which 
expresses solidarity with the state and the people of Israel, condemns 
Palestinian authorities for encouraging violence and urges them to act 
to restore calm, states that peace in the region may be achieved only 
through negotiations, and calls for a U.S. Veto of biased U.N. Security 
Council resolutions.
  Should Arafat continue to pursue violence instead of negotiations, or 
should he declare a Palestinian state absent an agreement, we should 
cut off all assistance to the Palestinian Authority.
  I hope that there will be a return to the peace process. However, if 
Arafat rejects a negotiated solution and continues supporting an armed 
uprising, we must be clear. We will stand with Israel.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 426. 
This important resolution expresses the solidarity of the Congress with 
the sate and people of Israel at this time of crisis. As a cosponsor of 
the resolution, I urge its passage by the House. Only a few short 
months ago at Camp David, the Israeli Government demonstrated the 
willingness to make sweeping concessions. The world would not have 
dreamed of how far Israel was willing to go. Not 10 years ago, 1 year 
ago, or even 6 months ago. It was the Palestinian leadership that 
rejected compromise and showed that it was not interested in peace. Not 
only did they reject Barak's offer, but they did not even counter-offer 
in response.
  The violent Palestinian riots we are witnessing result directly from 
the fact that Yasir Arafat did not prepare his people for peace. As 
Barak was restraining the expectations--preparing the Israeli people 
for compromise--Arafat was pumping up the Palestinian demands--
preparing them for conflict. We must today say that Arafat is not a 
partner for peace.
  Although Israel has today taken a time out from the peace process, it 
remains as willing as ever to make peace with its neighbors. However, 
Israel must have a real partner. One that does not engage in incitement 
to violence; one that does not look the other way when their people are 
destroying ancient shrines, such as Joseph's tomb in Nablus; one that 
does not allow their people to beat innocent Israelis to death, as 
happened recently in Ramallah; and one that does everything in its 
power to set the conditions for peace.
  The underlying basis of negotiations was the recognition of the PLO 
by Israel in exchange for the renunciation of violence by the PLO and 
Chairman Arafat. In his September 9, 1993 letter to the late Prime 
Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Chairman Arafat ``renounced the use of 
terrorism and other acts of violence'' and pledged to ``prevent 
violence and discipline violators.''
  Unless the Palestinian leader calls on his people to halt their 
fanatical, hostile public violence and directs his security services to 
maintain order--as he promised--the Palestinians will be in violation 
of not only the text of the peace agreements, but the basic 
understanding which underlay the process. Furthermore, as the 
Palestinian rock and molotov cocktail throwers, and gun-men continue to 
rage, Israel will be within its rights as a sovereign nation to take 
whatever actions it needs to protect its people and frontiers.
  Now, there is a moral imperative to stand our ground. Israel is not 
only our closest friend and ally in the Middle East, they are in the 
right. Israel has demonstrated its willingness to make peace and is now 
under attack by thousands of violent rioters. It is time for Congress 
to express its solidarity with the people of Israel and, stand with 
them in the days to come. The resolution on the floor of the House 
today does just that.
  Furthermore, we must condemn the Palestinian leadership for its 
cowardly encouragement of mass riots and for doing so little to halt 
the hysterical rampagers. We must also demand that Arafat and his 
lieutenants use their security services to restrain unnecessary acts of 
violence, show respect for all holy sites, and settle grievances only 
through negotiations.
  In the days to come, I expect new challenges to U.S. policy. In 
particular, we must be prepared to firmly and without hesitation reject 
a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Such a question can 
only be settled at the peace table. We must pass the bill which would 
deny any assistance to the Palestinians if they unilaterally declare 
statehood.
  We must also consider other actions, including, once again, putting 
the PLO on the list of groups responsible for acts of terrorism. For 
the Palestinians to engage in violent riots today after they rejected 
what all reasonable observers thought was a far-reaching and statesman-
like offer from Prime Minister Barak, is only leading the world to see 
that Yassir Arafat and his PLO cohorts prefer conflict to negotiation, 
and taking land through violence and coercion rather than agreeing on 
exchanges at the bargaining table.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the House International Relations Committee who 
wrote this excellent resolution. I urge my colleagues to give it their 
strong support.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, once again the situation in the Middle 
East has turned from efforts to resolve the conflict peacefully to a 
new wave of violence that undermines the basis for peace between 
Israelis and Palestinians.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no one more supportive of the Middle East Peace 
Process than I am. I also support efforts to assist the Palestinian 
peoples, and to facilitate exchanges and other programs to promote 
reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
  The current wave of violence, however, is simply unacceptable. It is 
undermining the very basis for peace, the notion that Palestinians and 
Israelis can trust each other and live together. In 1993, a key 
principle of reconciliation was that the Palestinian leadership 
renounced violence as a means of achieving their political aims. The 
last few weeks have proven that the Palestinians have not lived up to 
this commitment.
  At Camp David, the Government of Israel and Prime Minister Barak made 
sweeping proposals that moved the two sides closer than they have ever 
been in reaching a historic agreement ending the Israeli Palestinian 
violence. Instead of making a counterproposal to this important move, 
the Palestinian side has allowed and even promoted, violence on a huge 
scale.
  I can only conclude that the Palestinians have decided that they need 
to resort to violence in order to create more pressure on

[[Page 24046]]

Israel to make further concessions. Even after an international summit 
prescribed a way of winding this violence down, the Palestinians 
continue their violent actions. These actions are spilling over to 
other countries both inside and outside the region, and have the 
potential to become increasingly widespread.
  I therefore believe that it is important that this resolution move 
forward at this time. Under this resolution, Congress expresses its 
solidarity with the state and people of Israel, condemns the 
Palestinian leadership for doing so little to stop the violence, and 
calls upon the leadership to refrain from exhortations to violence, to 
stop all violence, to show respect for all holy sites and to settle all 
grievances through negotiations.
  It also commends the current and past administrations for their 
efforts to find Middle East peace, urges the Clinton administration to 
stop future unbalanced resolutions, and calls on all parties involved 
in the Middle East conflict to make all possible efforts to 
reinvigorate the peace process to prevent further senseless loss of 
life by all sides.
  Mr. Speaker, despite my disappointment and outrage at this developing 
violence, I remain convinced that there is no alternative to a peaceful 
settlement between Israel, the Palestinians and its Arab neighbors. The 
sooner that all parties in the region not only recognize that Israel is 
here to stay, but also truly internalize that reality and negotiate on 
that basis, real peace cannot be achieved.
  Now, all the parties in the region need to step back and to try to 
find a way to end this violence and return to the negotiating table. We 
need to pass this resolution today to ensure that the U.S. Congress 
sends a clear message of its support for Israel during this crisis.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 426.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________