U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

69–975 DTP WASHINGTON : 2001

H.R. 5272, PEACE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS ACT

OF 2000

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

Serial No. 106–191

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

[VACANCY]

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

LAURA L. RUSH, Professional Staff Member

SHENNEL A. NAGIA, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H.R. 5272, ‘‘Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000.’’ A bill

to provide for a United States response in the event of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state ................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman, a Representative in Congress from the

State of New York, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations ... 15

Bills and Amendments:

Text of H.R. 5272 ..................................................................................................... 16

Amendment to H.R. 5272 offered by Mr. Gejdenson, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Connecticut, Mr. Berman, a Representative

in Congress from the State of California, and Mr. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York .................................................... 23

(1)

H.R. 5272, PEACE THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS

ACT OF 2000

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:22 p.m. in Room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

presiding.

Chairman GILMAN. The Committee on International Relations

now convenes a business meeting in open session to consider H.R.

5272, the Peace Through Negotiations Act. The chair lays the bill

before the committee. The clerk will report the title of the bill.

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 5272, a bill to provide for the United States

response in the event of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian

state.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the first reading of the bill

is dispensed with. The clerk will read the bill for amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1, Short Title. This Act may be——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the bill is considered as

having been read. It is open for amendment at any time. I will now

recognize myself to introduce a bill.

Because I, and along with many of my colleagues, remain very

much concerned about the possibility that Mr. Arafat and the PLO

will declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, the committee is today

marking up legislation that would underscore the need for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Our Peace

through Negotiations Act of 2000, which I introduced on behalf of

myself, Mr. Lazio, Mr. Nadler, Ms. Lowey, Mr. Reynolds, and Mr.

Bereuter, recognizes that resolving the political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority is one of the central

issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinian threat to declare an independent state unilaterally constitutes a fundamental violation of the underlying principles of the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process. That

threat continues unabated. Mr. Arafat has not rescinded his announced intention of making such a declaration.

The measure before us would establish that it is the policy of the

United States to oppose any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian

state, and that diplomatic recognition should be withheld if such a

state is unilaterally declared. And in that event this legislation

would prohibit all U.S. assistance to the Palestinians except for huVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:38 Feb 27, 2001 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\M092600\69975 HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
2

manitarian aid, and would downgrade the PLO office in Washington.

Additionally, this measure would encourage other countries and

international organizations to join with the United States in withholding diplomatic recognition of such an independent state and

would authorize the President of the United States to withhold

payment of U.S. contributions to international organizations that

recognize any unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Over 18 months ago, Congress spoke with one voice about the

prospects of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians. Nonbinding legislation adopted by both houses stated, and I

quote, ‘‘any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood outside the

negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition.’’

This Peace through Negotiations Act is a measured and binding

response to that possibility. Accordingly, I am urging our colleagues

to strongly support this measure, which we expect to take up on

the suspension calendar later today or tomorrow.

Mr. Gejdenson.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Gilman is available in the

appendix.]

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, first, I would request and urge

the chairman not to move this today. We are going to mark it up

today, but I would hope that you would hold this for the suspension

calendar for next week. We have the first serious high level meeting between the head of the Israeli government, Mr. Barak, and

Mr. Arafat at Mr. Barak’s residence.

We have worked on this an awfully long time, and I would hope

that the suspension calendar could be held for one more week to

give us time to make sure that we in no way unintentionally harm

the process. But I would say that I have an amendment at the desk

where I think there is general agreement among most of the members that I have spoken to which would simply—I will wait, and

at the appropriate time if you recognize me, offer the amendment.

I would just say that I would hope that we would not move this

on the suspension calendar today, and at the appropriate time I

have an amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. May I suggest that the gentleman offer his

amendment at this point, and——

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk.

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will read the amendment.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment offered by Mr. Gejdenson: Page 3,

strike line seven and all the follows through line 14 and insert the

following——

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection, the amendment is considered as having been read. Mr. Gejdenson is recognized.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment

on behalf of Mr. Berman and Mr. Ackerman and myself. The

amendment simply gives the President the ability, if he finds it in

the national interest, the security interest of the United States, to

waive some of these provisions, and to waive provisions if an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis is concluded.

3

Chairman GILMAN. Is there any comment on the gentleman’s

amendment?

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about the gentleman’s amendment. I understand he has substantial support for it,

but it does go directly opposite the way the legislation is written

to make it clear that the President has very little flexibility in

issuing the waiver. I think this dramatically undercuts the impact

of the legislation.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. BEREUTER. I would be—— Mr. GEJDENSON. I think the gentleman may have seen earlier

versions. This does not waive the cut of funds directly to the Palestinian Authority. It simply gives the President the ability to waive

some of the people-to-people funds on the West Bank and Gaza,

some of the democracy-building things. Even if we have a situation

where the Palestinian Authority has taken an action we object to,

it seems to me it is our national interest, it is in the regional national interest, if the President deems it so, to continue to try to

build democratic institutions and some of those other issues.

Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, I may, in fact, have thought

it is broader than the gentleman’s new amendment has indicated.

My understanding of the original legislation is that there were

relatively few exceptions on what could continue to flow. One was

humanitarian assistance. There was one more that was something

of that nature; I have forgotten. But you are saying for

counterterrorism.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes. The other thing we would make sure is, for

instance, that the counterterrorism effort continues.

Chairman GILMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The amendment makes that happen. In the legislation—part of the art of the language we use in drafting legislation here is that many things that we would generally support and

assume in the original language would be permitted are not permitted, and so what we try to do is clarify that, including the question of whether we continue cooperating with them on

counterterrorism efforts without the amendment.

Mr. BEREUTER. I just hope we are not eviscerating the legislation

process here. Thank you.

Mr. BERMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Is the

amendment before us now?

Chairman GILMAN. Yes. The amendment is before us, but point

of inquiry, Mr. Gejdenson, would you elaborate on what is in your

amendment? Would you specify what the waiver would encompass?

Mr. GEJDENSON. It gives the President the authority to waive

several sections which are enumerated in the bill, three, four, and

five of Section 4(a) in the bill, if the President deems it in the national security interests of the country.

Chairman GILMAN. Well, what does that include, Mr. Gejdenson?

Mr. GEJDENSON. It allows people-to-people assistance on the

West Bank and Gaza and international organization and obviously

funding.

Chairman GILMAN. And does it waive any other provision?

4

Mr. GEJDENSON. No.

Chairman GILMAN. A point of inquiry was raised by—— Mr. BERMAN. [continuing]. Mr. Berman.

Chairman GILMAN. [continuing]. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. There are a number of important policy statements

in this. I think this is a very important bill. I think it is very important to move the bill and to try to get it to the President’s desk

before we leave here this year.

The bill does a number of things. It makes some policy statements, and then it has six, as I understand it, six specific obligations or prohibitions in some cases. The waiver amendment does

not apply to number one, which is downgrading the status of the

Palestinian office in the United States. If the whole premise of the

upgrading of the status was because of Oslo and the willingness to

settle conflicts through negotiating processes, the unilateral declaration of independence is directly contrary to that and directly

undermines those principles that were agreed to at Oslo, and I do

not think that should be waived under any circumstance. This

amendment does not waive that.

Number two is the prohibition of U.S. assistance to the government of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. This amendment

does not waive that.

Chairman GILMAN. You are saying the amendment does not

waive—— Mr. BERMAN. The amendment does not waive that prohibition, so

neither the downgrading nor the prohibition on aid directly to the

government.

On assistance to the West Bank and Gaza, a variety of kinds of

programs not done through a government of a unilaterally declared

state, but through NGOs and other kinds, as the ranking member

mentioned, people-to-people programs, infrastructure kinds of

issues, health care kinds of issues—things that would not generally

be thought of as humanitarian assistance but were still important

to the quality of lives of people, a limited waiver would be allowed

in that situation.

The fourth one is irrelevant, whether there is a waiver or not because it simply authorizes the United States to withhold contributions to international organizations that recognize a unilaterally

declared Palestinian state. Since it is not a mandate, whether you

waive it or not is not relevant.

Chairman GILMAN. Does this waive that provision?

Mr. BERMAN. It waives a discretionary authorization. It is not

worth the time we have already spent discussing it because since

the administration does not have to do that one under your bill,

waiving the provision that they do not have to do anyway. So that

one is just really of no legal or optical or any other kind of significance.

Number five deals with a limited waiver for the U.S. voting

against different kinds of international assistance. I can envision a

situation where some international financial institution wants to

give money, the World Bank, to deal with the sewage systems in

the refugee camps. And I am prepared, as much as I want this bill

to move and to pass, to allow a limited waiver for that kind of a

program. This amendment does that.

5

And then the sixth, which is very——

Chairman GILMAN. You are saying the amendment would waive

this provision.

Mr. BERMAN. It would not waive it. It would allow——

Chairman GILMAN. Would not waive it?

Mr. BERMAN. It would allow the President, in limited circumstances, to waive it.

Chairman GILMAN. Giving the President discretion, then, to

waive it. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. BERMAN. Under the standards of the amendment, that is

right, where he makes certain declarations, reports, and certifications.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Sure.

Mr. ROTHMAN. I have a question for the gentleman with regard

to number 5(b). This would allow a waiver of the extension by one

of the international lending organizations of financial assistance, a

waiver of an extension of a loan to ‘‘a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.’’ So that would seem to me not to be so limited. It

could be for any purpose. It would not have to be to help sick children or to put in sewage systems. It could be for any purpose that

the Palestinian Authority, or at that point the Palestinian state,

applied to this international body for a loan, which body receives

a significant amount of its financial resources from the United

States taxpayers.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Well put, but the absence of a waiver prohibits

the extension of any kind of a loan or other financial or technical

assistance without regard to the merits of the specific thing.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Will the gentleman yield for one more question?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Obviously, the gentleman wants to make, I think,

the same point that I do when we supported the underlying bill,

which is to make a clear and unambiguous statement to either

Israel or the Palestinian Authority that unilateral actions of the

nature that this bill discusses, of the magnitude of declaring a

state, would have the most severe consequences, unambiguous, and

rather hurtful. And this number five, in particular, might eliminate

some of the sting of the underlying bill, and it disturbs me greatly.

Mr. BERMAN. If I could just reclaim my time to add one element

to that. Most of all, I want a law. I want a law that says you do

this—we did not get to number six yet, for which there is no waiver

which prohibits any money spent on recognizing a unilaterally declared, independent state. I want a law that does that without

question, without chance for waiver. I want a law that mandates

the downgrading of the status of the office. I want a law that stops

and prohibits aid to the government, and I know that the administration and, I have it on very good information, the U.S. Senate

would like to waive everything and put a waiver in for everything.

So to me, this is an attempt to keep as much of the sting in the

bill and still leave some room for useful programs that improve the

quality of life of the people there without enhancing the government. And, in fact, to the contrary, because of the other things, indicating where we stand should they do this.

6

So on balance, given the practicalities of getting a law at a very

late stage in the session and all this, I think this is not perfect.

Maybe I would want to define a waiver for certain kinds of international assistance and no waiver for other kinds, but I do not

think time permits us to go case by case like that.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Well, would the gentleman support an effort to

amend this amendment by eliminating this number five?

Mr. BERMAN. I would support an amendment that tried to delineate between certain kinds of assistance programs going to this

area and others, but I would not support just flipping it around.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Would the gentleman further yield? I am sufficiently concerned that without that I am going to vote against the

amendment. I have not decided, even without number five, whether

I am going to vote against the amendment or not. I am concerned

about it, and, frankly, as a negotiator, if the sentence says they

want a broad waiver, the natural response would be a bill with no

waiver and let the conference committee hash it out.

Mr. BERMAN. If we go to conference on this——

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman, would you complete your presentation?

Mr. BERMAN. Well, again, the sixth of these; there is no waiver,

that is, no funds available under any law may be used to extend

U.S. recognition to a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, including, but not limited to, funds for the salary of an ambassador, consul, other diplomatic personnel, costs of embassy, et cetera, et

cetera. No waiver allowed for that.

On the key statements of where we stand on both aid to the government and on diplomatic status and status of the Palestinian office here, there are no waivers allowed on this.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Lantos.

Mr. LANTOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, since I

am a strong supporter of the peace process, and the unilateral declaration for statehood by the Palestinians would terminate the

peace process, I strongly support your legislation. Clearly, the message is simple. In the event Mr. Arafat and his group unilaterally

declare the independence of the Palestinian state, they have destroyed the possibility of pursuing the peace process. Therefore, it

is incumbent upon us to make clear what the consequences will be.

I strongly share the view of my friend and colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, who raised questions about waivers. I do not

think there is any waiver that is called for in this instance.

I am not one, Mr. Chairman, who is preoccupied by process, but

I have got to raise a question about the manner in which this legislation is being presented to us. I stood with a group of colleagues

from the Senate and the House on July 26. We presented a piece

of legislation which is virtually identical to this one. Nothing happened to that piece of legislation between July 26 and September

26. At 3:12 yesterday afternoon, we were sent an e-mail concerning

this piece of legislation, which I saw for the first time today.

Now, I think it is singularly inappropriate to proceed along these

lines, even though I strongly support the substance of the legislation. It is also singularly inappropriate to request cosponsorships

from members who are not members of this committee and totally

7

ignore members of this committee who would have wished to sponsor this legislation.

I think, Mr. Chairman, we are owed an apology. This was appallingly mishandled. And nevertheless I support the legislation and

oppose the concept of—— Chairman GILMAN. I thank you for your support, and I just want

to mention that the prior measure had some technical defects, and

that is why it lingered in the committee. And you should have been

advised in enough time to make some comment.

We will now—— Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. I will be very brief and reluctantly rise in opposition

to Mr. Berman’s waiver amendment.

You know, again and again when we have human rights or very

important legislation before this committee, the administration always wants the widest possible waiver. That is if they want the

legislation at all. When we were working the religious freedom legislation through the House and the Senate, we reluctantly agreed

to, almost as a condition of passage, the waiveability of what they

construed to be sanctions. The same thing is happening with the

trafficking legislation. We have a very broad waiver on that as

well. Okay? If that is the price of getting a consensus, so be it.

But I think here we are dealing with a dramatically different situation. The action has not yet been taken, although it has been

threatened by Yasir Arafat, and I think that is no time to show

anything but resolve that there will be a predictable penalty if, and

only if, the PLO goes ahead, and Yasir Arafat in particular, in declaring Palestinian statehood.

So I think perhaps at some point in the legislation—I hope it

does not—some well meaning waiver may be inserted. But coming

out of the blocks, as we are today, when we want to send the clearest, unambiguous message to the PLO, I respectfully submit to my

friend from California that this is not the time for this amendment

to be approved.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Any others? Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. We are discussing this, and I want to emphasize

that I do not think there is any difference here in Congress or in

this committee as to what our policy ought to be in the Middle

East, which is total and complete rejection of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians.

The question that is really before us, and one that is of great interest here in Washington but not of terribly great interest to those

in the Middle East, is to what extent should Congress set forth

what American foreign policy is or to what extent should the President have discretion. And this bill is Congress’s effort to put our

own stamp on foreign policy and, frankly, leave a lot of things to

the President that the bill does not even address. But these are

areas where I hope the President would be very strong.

First, the President should take all of the actions outlined in this

bill, if there is such a unilateral declaration of statehood; second,

we ought to immediately move our embassy to Jerusalem; and

third, we should support Israel in whatever tough actions it would

8

need to take in response to this complete cancellation of the peace

process.

The question then is, though, do we leave these decisions to the

President, or do we mandate them in a bill? And I think that this

bill, with the amendment, is the best we can do here in Congress

to put our stamp on foreign policy. It leaves a lot to the President.

It gives him a waiver authority if the amendment is adopted, but

we have got only 2 weeks to pass a bill. We ought to pass a bill

almost unanimously, and putting in this waiver will certainly provide some comfort to those who believe that our foreign policy

should be fine tuned by the State Department and by the President

even after Congress adjourns, because none of these actions will

occur while we are in session.

So I think that there is no division that America stands against

unilateral declaration of statehood, and we ought to reach a compromise as to what extent the White House determines our reaction and to what extent Congress determines our reaction. But I

would hope that the President would take the strongest possible action and beyond this bill. But beyond that, I hope he communicates

to the Palestinian side that he is willing to take these actions, and

so for that reason there is no declaration of statehood, and these

actions become unnecessary.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Any other members seeking recognition on either side? Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a strong supporter of

the peace process, and I think it is well known that I oppose any

unilateral action taken by either side. I believe that that forgoes

and forestalls the peace process.

I believe at this point we should be very careful in moving forward only because the discussions and negotiations are taking

place, and the timing right now for this seems to be a bit much.

It seems that his could encumber the peace process if we move this

out this week, and certainly if we do move it out, we should have

this amendment supporting the national security waiver included.

But I would also back up Mr. Gejdenson’s point with regard to

deferring this for another week because I think that in our commitment to the peace process we must let the peace process move forward, and we are at such a vulnerable and sensitive time in that

process that any message that could undermine either side, I think,

would be very detrimental. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Ms. Lee. Any other members

seeking recognition? Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first,

let me applaud your efforts and your intention in this legislation.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything that you are trying to do

here. I would also echo the sentiments of those who have previously stated that a unilateral declaration of independence would

be a total disaster for the peace process and would undermine any

pretense that the parties are willing to discuss amongst themselves

and come to compromises as to what the outcome might be. And

I think it would be disastrous for Mr. Arafat and his organization

as well.

That being said, to deny the President of the United States, either this President or whosoever the next President might be, the

9

ability to act in at least very limited circumstances in what are the

unforeseeable security interests of the United States would be an

extraordinary policy folly on the part of this committee.

Certainly, we all argue and work toward a stronger role for this

committee and the Congress in the formation of our policy matters,

but to deny the historic role of the President, and we have done

this whether the President be a Democrat or Republican, whether

the House was in one direction or another. It never mattered, but

to say that the President should not have, and here it only applies

to three sections of the bill, those sections not affecting policy, not

affecting the intent, not affecting the very structure and fiber and

reason for submitting the legislation, to deny that the President, in

our national security interests, should have his hand tied would be

a move that no thoughtful person on the committee should abide.

I will yield to my friend, Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just want

to make one point, a little bit sort of taking off on the comments

of the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lee. This is not just about

trying to punish the PLO or the Palestinian Authority for doing

something which is a very breach of the commitments that were

made at the time of the Oslo Agreements. It is an effort to deter

this conduct. It is an effort to say there are consequences if you do

this. This is not something that we will issue a few press releases

about and then forget about and things will go on as normal. That

is to say there are going to be costs, economic, political, diplomatic,

to this decision, and it is only fair to tell you beforehand what some

of those costs are.

Mr. Sherman, the gentleman from California, mentioned some

other costs in the hands of the President, which I think also should

be stated by the Executive Branch, but they are peculiarly within

his domain.

So I think the combination of moving this bill before we leave

here—we are only going to be here two or 3 weeks. We will not be

in session at the next scheduled time when apparently the Palestinian National Council or whomever it is is going to consider this

issue of the unilateral declaration of independence—before we

leave, letting them know maximizes our ability to deter that outcome, and, therefore, that is why the timing of this—I am not saying it is today or tomorrow; what I am saying is before we leave

here in early, mid-October is critical.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you.

Mr. BEREUTER. Will the gentleman from New York yield?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. I was just asking the gentleman to yield. I do not

need much time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would be delighted to yield.

Mr. BEREUTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think the

gentleman from California just weakened his own case. This is not

meant to be punitive, it is meant to be preventive, it is meant to

be deterring. That is a better deterrent than if, in fact, there is a

question about what the President will or will not waive. So I think

the gentleman has weakened his own case—— Mr. ACKERMAN. Believe it or not, that is actually what I understood the gentleman from California to have said.

10

Mr. BERMAN. Just to clarify, there is no deterrent in a bill that

gets mired down in the U.S. Senate and never gets to the President’s desk. There is no deterrent in a bill which is vetoed by the

President. A bill that takes significant action in many respects

unwaivable, that becomes law, that has the Congress and the

President speaking with one voice, that is how you maximize the

deterrent.

I believe the Gejdenson amendment is an effort to try and

achieve that balance to maximize the chances of getting that law

and still have a punch, and that is why I cosponsored his amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter? If there are no further questions, let me note that the principal purpose of the Gejdenson

amendment is to provide a limited waiver authority to the President with respect to two of the five mandatory provisions in the

bill.

I believe this is an important bill, and as the gentleman has indicated, it is a sound, preventative measure, and I am concerned that

we do not want to weaken the measure in any manner.

I do want to note in particular that I agree with Mr. Rothman’s

concern about allowing the President to waive the prohibition on

U.S. support for international lending to a unilaterally declared

Palestinian state. The fact is that only sovereign states are eligible

for international loans, so allowing such lending to go forward for

a Palestinian entity would imply a de facto recognition of Palestine

as a state.

For that reason, I do not believe that that prohibition should be

available. Accordingly, I will oppose the Gejdenson amendment.

We will now move on the Gejdenson amendment. All in favor of

the Gejdenson amendment, signify in the usual manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?

[A chorus of nos.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Gejdenson amendment is adopted.

Mr. LANTOS. I ask for a rollcall, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. A rollcall is requested. The clerk will call the

roll.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman?

Chairman GILMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no. Mr. Goodling?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter?

Mr. BEREUTER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no. Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no. Mr. Burton?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?

11

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger?

Mr. BALLENGER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no. Mr. Rohrabacher?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes yes. Mr. Manzullo?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo?

Mr. TANCREDO. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no. Mr. Gejdenson?

Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes. Mr. Lantos?

Mr. LANTOS. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos votes no. Mr. Berman?

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes. Mr. Ackerman?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes. Mr. Faleomavaega?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne?

Mr. PAYNE. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes. Mr. Menendez?

Mr. MENENDEZ. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes no. Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes. Ms. McKinney?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings?

12

Mr. HASTINGS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes. Ms. Danner?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman?

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes. Mr. Wexler?

Mr. WEXLER. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes. Mr. Rothman?

Mr. ROTHMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes no. Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes. Mr. Pomeroy?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes. Mr. Delahunt?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks?

Mr. MEEKS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes. Ms. Lee?

Ms. LEE. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes. Mr. Crowley?

Mr. CROWLEY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley votes yes. Mr. Hoeffel?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burton?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sanford?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell?

[No response.]

13

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Burr?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt?

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel?

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any further members who have not

indicated their vote? If not, the clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote there were 14 ayes and eight nos.

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman

from Nebraska. Are there any other amendments? If not, the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter, is recognized to offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. I move that the Chairman be requested to seek

consideration of the pending bill as amended on the suspension calendar.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. As many who are in favor, signify in the

usual manner.

[A chorus of ayes.]

Chairman GILMAN. Opposed?

[A chorus of nos.]

Chairman GILMAN. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.

Without objection, the chairman is authorized to make motions

under Rule 22, with reference to a conference on the bill or a counterpart bill passed by the Senate. Further proceedings on the measure are postponed. The committee stands adjourned. Thank you for

participating.

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee meeting was adjourned.]

(15)

A P P E N D I X

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

Because I and many of my colleagues remain very concerned about the possibility

that Yasser Arafat and the PLO will declare a Palestinian state unilaterally, the

Committee is today marking up legislation today that would underscore the need

for a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

The ‘‘Peace Through Negotiations Act of 2000’’, which I introduced on behalf of

myself, Mr. Gejdenson, ADD IN OTHER ORIGINAL COSPONSORS, recognizes that

resolving the political status of the territory controlled by the Palestinian Authority

is one of the central issues of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinian threat to declare an independent state unilaterally constitutes a

fundamental violation of the underlying principles of the Oslo Accords and the Middle East peace process. That threat continues unabated.

Our measure would establish that it is the policy of the United States to oppose

the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, and that diplomatic recognition

should be withheld if one is unilaterally declared. The bill would also prohibit all

US assistance to the Palestinians except for humanitarian aid, and would downgrade the PLO office in Washington, D.C.

Additionally, the measure would encourage other countries and international organizations to join the United States in withholding diplomatic recognition, and

would authorize the President of the United States to withhold payment of US contributions to international organizations that recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state.

Over eighteen months ago, Congress spoke with one voice about the prospects of

a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians. Non-binding legislation

adopted by both houses stated that ‘‘any attempt to establish Palestinian statehood

outside the negotiating process will invoke the strongest congressional opposition.’’

The Peace Through Negotiations Act is a measured, but legislatively binding response to that possibility. I urge our colleagues’ strong support for this bill, which

we expect to take up on the suspension calendar later today.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Æ