[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Page 2437]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, there is a lot of information swirling 
about concerning the Middle East Peace Process, specifically the so 
called ``Syrian track.'' Facts and figures are being bandied about 
freely and there is little to indicate which are fact and which are 
fiction. Therefore I rise today to lay down a marker for the coming 
year and to express the hope that the administration will consult with 
Congress on a continual basis as this process picks up again.
  Last year, Congress and the American people were presented with a 
bill for the Middle East peace process that was in excess of $1 
billion--that is $1 billion more than the $5 billion plus we already 
spend in the Middle East. And this extra bill was compiled without any 
congressional input. It was approved, but this is no way to do 
business.
  The peace process is ongoing, but the President and the Department of 
State should consider themselves on notice from this moment on: This 
Congress will not rubber stamp another Wye Plantation Accord, we will 
not cough up another check without consultation and due consideration; 
we will not be left out of our Constitutionally assigned role.
  I am a strong believer in the Middle East peace process. The 
Governments of Egypt, Jordan and Israel have shown enormous character 
and courage in making peace, and they deserve our support. The nations 
of Egypt and Jordan, like Israel, need economic and military security 
in a bad neighborhood. They have made real sacrifices to do the right 
thing, and they have the backing of the United States.
  However, ultimately, peace is not something that can be bought. Both 
Israel and its Arab partners, be they the Palestinians, the Lebanese or 
the Syrians, must make peace on their own terms without regard to 
sweeteners or inducements from the United States. The US has always 
played a historical role in promoting peace, but ultimately, peace only 
works when it is in the interests of the parties directly involved. 
Should we help? I believe we can. Should that help be the sole basis of 
an agreement? Unreservedly, no.
  All of us who follow foreign policy issues are well aware that in 
this, the last year of the Clinton Administration, the President would 
like to preside over an historic peace between Israel and its remaining 
enemies in the Arab world. Perhaps we shouldn't blame President Clinton 
too much for yearning for a place in the history books. But President 
Clinton and his entire foreign policy team need to remember a few 
important points: 1: Congress has the power of the purse; 2: We are not 
the Syrian parliament: We will not rubber stamp any agreement with any 
price tag; 3: Notwithstanding rumors to the contrary, we are interested 
and wish to be kept apprised of important developments in American 
diplomacy. In other words, Mr. President, come and talk to us. Keep us 
in the loop.
  I have read in the newspapers that Israel is looking at the security 
implications of returning the Golan Heights and is also considering 
requesting a security package from the United States which will be very 
costly. There are ongoing discussions between Israel and the Defense 
Department on this matter. But Congress has not been briefed. Syria 
too, has visions of sugar plum fairies dancing into Damascus with 
billions in aid; and I am sure the Lebanese will not be too far behind.
  There will be many reasons to support a peace in the Middle East, but 
much will depend upon exactly what commitments will be expected of the 
United States. The President must not again make the mistake of signing 
IOUs which, this time, the Congress may have no intention of covering. 
We are willing partners in peace, but we will not accept the 
presentation of another fait accompli. Mr. President, we look forward 
to hearing from you--often.

                          ____________________