Limitation on Assistance to the Palestinian Authority Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I have been occupied with the Ways and Means Committee all day and have not been able to participate in floor debate. I wish I had been able to participate in the discussion of S. Con. Res. 79 which was on the floor this morning because I have a question about the resolution.

My question is: How does this resolution further the cause of peace in the Middle East or make Israel more secure?

The resolution states that it is the sense of Congress that the U.S. should not directly aid the Palestinian Authority ``if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.''

Of course there is a party with that sentiment, Hamas, and--as we all know--that U.S. law prohibits aid to Hamas. As far as I know, neither President Bush nor Secretary Rice nor anyone else in our Government has proposed trying to find a loophole through which the U.S. can bankroll Hamas.

So we have a resolution opposing an action which is already prohibited in existing law. We are bravely opposing doing something illegal that no one at all in the administration or Congress has proposed to do.

Why? Why did we come to the floor and vote on this? Who does it help?

I am submitting two articles for the Record along with this statement. The first, ``The Right Way to Pressure Hamas,'' is an editorial from this morning's New York Times.

It discusses the rumors that the U.S. and Israel are trying to create conditions that would lead to new elections to oust Hamas, presumably in favor of Fatah.

The editorial notes that ``in the long, sorry history of the Israeli- Palestinian dispute, there is not a shred of evidence to support the notion that pushing the Palestinian population into more economic desperation would somehow cause them to moderate their political views. In fact, experience teaches the exact opposite.''

The Times goes on to say that a wise course ``would be to step back and desist from deliberately provoking the Palestinians, and give Hamas a chance to reconsider its own options.''

The second article, ``Talking with the Guys from Hamas,'' appeared last Saturday in the Daily Star, a well-respected, moderate Beirut daily. I urge every member to take time to read it.

Its author, Rami Khouri, notes that a ``Hamas-Ied Palestinian government and the new Israeli government to be elected next month face a historic opportunity.''

He predicts that Hamas ``will surely continue its 3-year slow shift toward more pragmatism and realism because it is now politically accountable to the entire Palestinian population, and to world public opinion.''

However, Khouri warns: ``It is not very helpful--as so may pro-Israel American apologists do--to focus mainly on Hamas' theology or its 1987 founding charter, any more than one should deal with Israeli parties that base their claim to all of Palestine--Eretz Israel on the book of Genesis account of God's land patrimony to the Jewish people.''

So, what was the point of today's vote? To spell out for Hamas that Congress is going to stand in the way if Secretary Rice suddenly decides to try to send them a big aid package? To tell the President that he'd better not be trying to exploit some loophole to subsidize Hamas?

To clarify for Israel that the position that Harry Truman took isn't being abandoned after 58 years?

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, my Republican colleagues have come to the floor with resolutions opining on various issues.

Regrettably, they often serve to worsen the problems under consideration and to boil complex issues down to radio talk show-sized sound bites. This is a sensitive, dynamic time in Arab-Israeli relations, and I hope members can restrain themselves from show- boating.

As Rami Khouri suggests: ``Political theologians and collectors of historical ideologies, please go home for a while.''

[From the Daily Star, Feb. 11, 2006]

Talking With the Guys From Hamas

(By Rami G. Khouri)

I had the opportunity Thursday to explore first-hand the

implications of the victory of Hamas in last month's

Palestinian parliamentary elections. I went to talk to Hamas

leaders at the Palestinian refugee camp of Burj al-Barajneh

in Beirut, where poor, disenfranchised Palestinian refugees

live in rather atrocious material conditions.

After two-and-a-half hours of discussions among Hamas,

other Palestinian parties and an Anglo-American visiting

delegation, I now know better why Hamas swept the Palestinian

elections. The human contact also reveals what the news does

not convey: this exiled, marginalized, downtrodden and

vulnerable refugee community walks today with its head held

higher than any other group of people in the entire Middle

East, because of its unique combination of self-confidence,

perseverance, success and legitimacy. Hamas is the only Arab

party that enjoys an authentic mandate from its people,

genuinely manifested through victory in two free elections at

the municipal and national levels.

What does one learn from such encounters? The two most

significant themes that emerge from discussions with Hamas

officials--and from their many statements--are a commitment

to national principles and a clear dose of political

pragmatism. Both dimensions are important, and cannot be

separated.

It is not very helpful--as so many pro-Israeli American

apologists do--to focus mainly on Hamas' theology or its 1987

founding charter, any more than one should deal with Israeli

parties that base their claim to all of Palestine-Eretz

Yisrael on the Book of Genesis account of God's land

patrimony to the Jewish people. Political theologians and

collectors' of historical ideologies, please go home for a

while.

Now that Hamas will share or hold power, they are likely to

persist in both their principled and pragmatic ways. They

will assert rather than drop their existing principles

related to domestic governance, resisting Israel and

liberating the Israeli-occupied territories, and potentially

coexisting with an Israeli state under certain conditions. It

is foolhardy to expect Hamas to reverse its principles at the

moment when it has achieved a historic victory precisely

because it has adhered to them. At the same time, it will

surely continue its three-year-old slow shift toward more

pragmatism and realism, because it is now politically

accountable to the entire Palestinian population, and to

world public opinion. Incumbency means responsibility and

accountability, which inevitably nurture practicality and

reasonable compromises.

Here is where Hamas' experience is instructive, and why it

is so important to speak with them to understand how they are

likely to behave. My sense from such discussions, along with

35 years of watching Islamists at work, is that they do make

compromises and practical concessions. But they only do so on

four conditions: they talk and compromise in a political

context of negotiations between two equal parties; they give

only when they get something of equal value in return; they

respond emphatically to the consensus position of their

national constituency; and they do not compromise on what

they identify as core national rights of equality, dignity,

liberty and sovereignty.

One more vital point to remember: Hamas and Hizbullah are

the only two Arab groups that have ever forced Israel's

fabled military to withdraw involuntarily from occupied Arab

land (South Lebanon and Gaza). American presidents and other

purveyors of fantasy are free to call this sort of

unilateralism a ``courageous initiative for peace,'' as

George W. Bush said of Ariel Sharon. The rest of the rational

world calls this what it is: a retreat, and a tacit admission

of defeat. Hamas will build on the policies that achieved

this, not repudiate them.

Hamas lives in the real world, not in fantasyland. It and

its supporters are not so impressed with having tea in the

White House. They are much more focused on bringing back a

degree of personal dignity, communal self-respect, and

national integrity to Palestinian life. They also know that

the majority of Palestinians, other Arabs and world nations

wish to coexist in negotiated peace with the state of Israel,

if Israel in turn reciprocates the sentiment to the

Palestinians and other Arabs whose lands it has occupied.

How to reconcile these realities is a priority issue for

them in the coming months.

I expect that Hamas will combine its legacy of both

principles and pragmatism in slowly making important

decisions on key issues in coming months. These will include

sharing power in Palestine, reforming corrupt and mediocre

national institutions, galvanizing an effective national

Palestinian leadership representing all Palestinians in the

world, negotiating peace with Israel while resisting its

occupation, and fostering the development of a society that

is not necessarily ruled by Islamic law.

A Hamas-led Palestinian government and the new Israeli

government to be elected next month face a historic

opportunity, if they are prepared to see each other as

representing peoples and nations with equal rights. Hamas has

reached this triumphant

moment precisely because it has insisted on such equality,

rather than pandering to Israeli-American promises as other

Palestinian leaders did without success.

Hamas can be pragmatic only because its resistance and

consistent principles have brought it success. Understanding

the dynamic relationship between these factors is the key to

movement forward to a win-win situation for all, including

Palestinians, Israelis and the slightly dazed denizens of

fantasylands far away.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 79) expressing the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79.

This resolution was sponsored in the other body by our former colleague Senator Thune of South Dakota and was cosponsored by Senators Brownback, Chambliss, Johnson, Lieberman, Talent and Voinovich. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent on February 1, 2006.

On January 25, 2006, Palestinians turned out in large numbers from all walks of life to forge a new government that can respond to their various needs. The Palestinian people voted for change and improvement in their livelihoods. They were largely frustrated by the growing occupation in the West Bank, the inability of the Fatah-backed Palestinian Liberation Organization to deliver on the expectations of the peace process, and internal strife and rampant corruption. The Palestinian citizens used the power of democracy to send a loud and a clear message to their leadership.

Speaking in a press conference shortly after the elections, President Bush noted the power of democracy, saying, ``When you give people the vote, you give people the chance to express themselves at the polls, and if you're unhappy with the status quo, they will let you know. Obviously, the people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services.''

The Bush administration's pursuit of freedom and democracy in the Arab world has strengthened the weight and role of ``people power'' in the region's political development. Representative democracy may result in the coming to power of groups in the Middle East or, for that matter, in Spain, that are critical of the United States or our policies in the Middle East. Certainly the recent Palestinian parliamentary elections pose a unique challenge. Over 50 percent of the seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council will be filled from a list chosen by an armed group that believes in the destruction of Israel, a United Nations member state, and is recognized as a terrorist organization by the international community.

This result demonstrates the serious contradiction we see in Palestinian territories between the ideal of a democratic government characterized by the rule of law and the reality of a political process in which armed rejectionist groups participate. Should the United States at this point abandon all means to remain constructively engaged with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas? Tying the hands of the administration is not in the interest of United States national security. We need to react with some care. Hurting the Palestinian people will reward terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran which seek to exploit the suffering of the Palestinians for their own selfish reasons.

S. Con. Res. 79 is direct and to the point. It sends a strong message about the expectations of the United States and the international community toward Hamas when it comes to Hamas' attitude toward Israel. We declare that the United States will not provide direct assistance to a government that believes in the destruction of Israel.

The election of the Change and Reform Party, Hamas' alter ego, has raised questions about other forms of assistance to a future Palestinian government. The Quartet, in which the United States is a core member, concluded that ``it was inevitable that future assistance to any new government would be reviewed by donors against that government's commitment to the principles of nonviolence, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Roadmap.''

Many might be surprised to know that the United States does not provide ongoing, direct financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority. The majority of funds are channeled through the United States Agency for International Development to nongovernmental organizations under a strict vetting process. The United States has provided direct assistance only four times, three of which have been under this administration, with the funds being closely regulated and monitored.

United States and other assistance to the Palestinian people is vital to meeting basic needs and avoiding a humanitarian disaster. According to the World Bank, unemployment in the West Bank and Gaza is 23 percent. Forty-three percent of the population is living below the poverty line. United States assistance to nonprofit organizations is also critical to achieving our objective of a two-state solution. Closing the door on moderates in Palestinian civil society will contribute to the growth of warlordism and chaos.

The United States has a vital national security interest in a Middle East in which two states, Israel and Palestine, will live side by side in peace and security, based on the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. A viable, contiguous, and prosperous Palestinian state is necessary to achieve the security that Israel longs for.

I believe the administration is responding appropriately to the situation

at hand. Currently, the U.S. is reviewing all forms of assistance to the Palestinian people. However, neither the administration nor the Congress should make final decisions in advance of the formation of the new Palestinian cabinet, which is likely to occur in the coming weeks. If it is necessary to address this issue by legislation, we can do so at the appropriate time and will not prejudice their consideration by agreeing to this resolution at this time.

As disappointed as we are by the results, I congratulate the Palestinian people for conducting what were arguably the freest and fairest democratic elections in the Arab world. I hope their leaders will be wise and represent the true interests of the Palestinians as the process moves forward. As Secretary Rice stated in Davos this month, ``The Palestinian people have apparently voted for change, but we believe that their aspirations for peace and a peaceful life remain unchanged.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Very briefly in response, I would like to say that I am taken by the arguments of Mr. Ackerman. I think he has a message, a point of view, that is legitimate and worthy of attention.

I do not agree with him. I think that having Hamas, with all its flaws, participate in the democratic process, something alien to their spirit, is a sign of strength on our part, not weakness. And I think the effort, a legitimate effort, to help bring into the democratic process all of the dissident elements is worth it because, unless this situation gets solved, staring at each other with muscles flexed and weapons cocked gets us nowhere. But we shall see.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.

First, let me thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos for bringing this matter to the floor.

Yesterday, I read a news article quoting a Hamas representative who thanked the United States for providing Hamas with ``the weapon of democracy.'' The weapon of democracy. Like other Hamas spokesmen, this man was being completely frank. In my experience, people who think they are on a mission from God generally do not dissemble about their intentions. The decision by the Bush administration to press for elections that did not exclude Hamas, as the Oslo agreements required, is seen by Hamas, quite literally, as a gift from heaven. Indeed, it is a fact of surpassing strangeness that the same President who would not deal with Yasser Arafat because he was tainted by terrorism is in large measure responsible for insisting on the elections that brought Hamas to power.

Allowing Hamas to compete was substantially our grave mistake. Electing Hamas, however, was the Palestinian people's own free choice. No one questions the mechanics of the election itself, only the nature of the elected. Let us recall that Hitler's National Socialists, the Nazi party, also came to power in free elections. References of this type are usually inappropriate. The Holocaust was a unique, horrible event, and nothing should ever be done to diminish it or turn it into another rhetorical cheap shot. But in this case the comparison of how coming to power was the same is very apt.

What is Hamas? Hamas is declared to be, by our government and the European Union, a terrorist organization. It is an ally and an aid recipient of Iran. It is an organization of religious zealots who put bombs in stores and clubs and restaurants, hotels and discos and buses and proclaim their work to be the will of God. It is an organization that insistently proclaims its intention to exterminate the State of Israel and to replace it with an Islamic state under Sharia law. It is an organization that proudly declares its beliefs that Jews are the descendants of ``pigs and monkeys.'' Hamas is responsible not only for the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of Israeli citizens but also dozens of Americans.

And while they may be crazy, they are not stupid. They are watching us very closely, and they are looking for any sign of weakness, any departure from principle, any signal of grudging acceptance. It is absolutely vital that they see nothing of the sort. When Hamas looks at America, at the administration, at the Congress, they must see nothing but fierce, unrelenting, and implacable rejection.

There can be no political absolution for this pack of killers; and the very idea of giving our taxpayers' money to these bloody-handed fanatics, people who have slaughtered our own citizens, is offensive. Suggesting that we do it indirectly, that we merely subsidize rather than fund their rule, is no less unacceptable.

People in the executive branch trying to figure out how to square this circle should pay close attention to this debate. I would say to them: Before you urge the President to ask the Congress to provide assistance to the Palestinians, you had better start counting votes. This Congress is more likely to restore British sovereignty over the United States than it is to appropriate even $1 for the West Bank or Gaza.

Hamas is a terrorist organization, and the United States has clear policy for dealing with terrorists: We do not do it. We do not legitimize them, and we do not acknowledge phony distinctions between their political and their terrorist ``wings.'' We do not forgive them for the hundreds they have murdered in exchange for a handful of promises. And we certainly do not pay them. Not in cash, not in coupons, not in vouchers, not in green stamps, not in airline miles. Americans do not give money to terrorists, to terrorist governments, and to people who elect terrorists. We have better things to do with our money.

When President Abbas was first elected, I was among those who were strongly encouraging the administration to boost his prestige and help build him up with assistance and projects. But he never demanded that Hamas and other terrorist groups disarm and disband. Now we see that after a year of trying things the way Abu Mazen wanted and not feeling they got any real benefits, Palestinians have voted to go in a different direction. That is their right. But it is absolutely critical that our policies adjust to reflect their decisions.

Just as I believed that the Palestinian choice of Abu Mazen's vision of nonviolence and peace deserved our support and assistance, I think the election of Hamas, with its dogmatic adherence to terror and its insistence on Israel's extermination, deserves our strongest condemnation and is an unmistakable change in how we do business.

Elected terrorists are still terrorists. We should not give them legitimacy. We should not deal with them diplomatically. And, most obviously, we should not give them hundreds of millions of dollars from our taxpayers. U.S. foreign assistance is a gift, not a right. The Palestinian Authority, as long as it is led by Hamas, is a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of dozens of Americans and obviously disqualified from this kind of aid.

Not doing business as usual means, by definition, that things have to change across the board. Only a comprehensive rejection of Hamas's leadership can satisfy the requirements of continued U.S. leadership in the war on terror. The message and the methods of Hamas must not only fail but they must be seen to fail throughout the world and especially in the Middle East.

Compromising with Hamas and doing a little bit of business here, a little bit of business there, accepting phony commitments and using back-door intermediaries will prove to Islamic radicalists that there is no price they pay for terrorism as long as you succeed in taking the reins of power. We cannot afford to send that message to the Palestinians or to anybody else.

I strongly encourage the adoption of this resolution and prompt consideration by the House of additional legislation to respond to the challenge to America and our interests that are posed by Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just in brief response to my good friend, the chairman, Mr. Hyde, who always stands up and fights so well and eloquently for democracy, my concern about allowing Hamas to participate in the election is not just my opinion. This was part of the Oslo Accords, to which the Israelis and Palestinians both agreed and signed. It is a governing document that no group that participates in violence and commits themselves to the destruction of the other will be allowed to participate in the election. That is the law. That is the doctrine.

I just express my dismay that our President, with his great leadership against terror, would take a pass and lean on the Israelis to allow this election to take place with Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and yield myself as much time as I may consume.

A few weeks ago, the Palestinian people stunned the world by giving majority control of the Palestinian Legislative Council to Hamas, an entity determined to be a foreign terrorist organizations by both the United States and the Europe Union. Some may point out that the Fatah party's fragmentation combined with the nature of the electoral system chosen by the Palestinian Authority led to this strong Hamas majority.

We will be discussing these and other explanations for Hamas's victory over the coming weeks and months. But they do not change the reality that 74 out of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council were won by an organization that not only preaches the destruction of Israel, but has sent suicide bomber after suicide bomber to kill innocent civilians, including young children, and that has been implicated in the deaths of Americans. Mr. Speaker, the resolution we are considering today is simple and to the point: There should be no money for the Palestinian Authority as long as its legislature is controlled by a party that is both a terrorist organization and advocates the destruction of Israel.

This is not some plot to effect regime change--this is merely to send a message that the civilized world does not tolerate and will not support terrorists. This resolution means no American funding for the Palestinian Authority as long as Hamas controls the legislature, since there is absolutely no credible sign that Hamas intends to change its ugly charter or do anything else to demonstrate that it now accepts Israel's right to exist. Mr. Speaker, our action on this resolution today will not be the final word of the Congress on this issue. We will return to it again and again.

Last week, our colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I--with over 50 of our colleagues--introduced H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, and I am confident that it will soon be brought to the floor. H.R. 4681 puts legislative teeth into the resolution we are considering today. It would, among other things, prohibit by law the funding of a Palestinian Authority controlled by a terrorist organization.

Mr. Speaker, the basic thrust of American foreign policy is to fight terrorism globally, and it is self-evident that the United States will not fund an organization such as Hamas that continues to advocate and carry out terrorist acts in the Middle East. Nor will we fund a government which is controlled by a terrorist organization or in which major institutions, such as the legislature, are controlled by a terrorist organization. This should not come as a surprise to anyone. In December, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly adopted House Resolution 575 by a vote of 397-17 which warned that there would be serious consequences--including financial consequences--for U.S.- Palestinian relations if Hamas were to take over the Palestinian Authority.

Mr. Speaker, not one thin dime of American taxpayer money should be devoted to supporting a terrorist organization. Nor should one thin dime be devoted to making a terrorist organization look good. Our desire to support strictly humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people, of course, will continue unabated. But we should not fund major projects, whatever their purpose. Such projects would only make a Hamas government look like a success story. They would be taken as evidence that Hamas can defy the international community and continue to receive financial support, while supporting terrorism, rejecting Israel's right to exist, and spitting on pre-existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Ros-Lehtinen-Lantos legislation will put severe restrictions on all Palestinian assistance that is not strictly for humanitarian purposes. The notion that an organization hell-bent on destroying the sole democratic state in the Middle East should be receiving or exploiting U.S.-taxpayer funds is simply unacceptable. We will be relentless in isolating and fighting terrorists. Hamas officials and their representatives will not be given visas to visit the United States. American officials will not deal with Hamas representatives unless--and this is a major unless--unless they publicly and without reservation recognize the right of the democratic State of Israel to exist, renounce terrorism as a means of achieving their goals and objectives, and accept all previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. And we will fight direct assistance to a

terrorist-controlled Palestinian Authority through any international institution. Hamas must understand that their ability to deal with the United States and to be accepted in the community of civilized nations rests on a thorough repudiation of their hateful policies.

Governments have made such changes in the past. Organizations and movements have made such changes in the past. And certainly, Hamas has that opportunity. But if Hamas does not clearly take full advantage of this opportunity, our legislation will soon come into effect and we will prohibit American funds. If Hamas does take advantage of this opportunity and definitively and unequivocally meets these requirements, then our government would be willing to deal with it, continue assistance, and work to see that the long-suffering Palestinian people have a better life in the future. Otherwise, I fear the Palestinians and prospects for Middle East peace will face a long, difficult winter that could be measured in years not months.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. Con. Res. 79 and am pleased that the House leadership has decided to pursue this thoughtful and constructive response to the success of Hamas in the recent Palestinian Legislative Council elections.

With passage of this resolution, the Congress will be on record in opposition of any direct U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority if the majority party in parliament maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.

This reflects longstanding U.S. policy. And it is clearly the right policy. Hamas is a ruthless terrorist organization with the blood of innocents on its hands. When Hamas assumes control of the Palestinian parliament, it must recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce terror. If not, the Palestinian Authority should receive no direct U.S. aid. It's as simple as that.

But I would like to use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to point out that the outcome of the Palestinian election does not lend itself to simple analysis. And the U.S. response to this development must not be knee-jerk and simplistic.

Let us first remember that the Palestinian people went to the polls and conducted an election that was remarkably democratic, free, fair, and devoid of violence. We may not like the results, but we should take note of what is among the most democratic elections the Arab world has ever seen.

And while Hamas attracted the most votes, there is little evidence that Palestinian voters were in fact endorsing Hamas's call for Israel's destruction. Exit polls show that three-quarters of all Palestinian voters support reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians based on a two-state solution. Armed with the ballot, Palestinians gave political voice to their anger and anguish over two related problems--the rampant corruption and cronyism within the Fatah establishment, and the lack of any tangible improvement of the quality of life under Israeli occupation.

So what should the United States do in response to this election? One thing we cannot do is simply throw up our hands and refuse to engage in efforts to help Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace. We cannot turn back the clock. Every week that goes by without any progress to achieve a solution to this conflict increases the threat to U.S. national interests. This was true before Hamas came to power and it is just as true today.

Yesterday, I received a letter from the Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs assuring me that the administration ``remain(s) committed to working toward the peaceful resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict . . .'' This is a positive statement, and Congress should play a positive role in partnership with the President to advance our interests in the region.

For this reason, I am concerned about some legislative proposals that have been introduced in the House which would, in my view, sharply curtail our ability to engage constructively in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Future legislation should include a mix of sticks and carrots--not just sticks. Clearly, direct aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority must be stopped right now, but we should keep the door open for future aid if the P.A. undertakes the changes and reforms we are demanding of them. Permanently restricting our assistance provides little incentive and dramatically limits the President's options. Similarly, we must distinguish between the Hamas elements of the Palestinian Government and members of the PLO with whom the U.S. and Israel have negotiated for many years. Terminating diplomatic contact with the entire Palestinian leadership will do nothing but undermine the very moderates who oppose violence and support dialogue with Israel.

In addition, I am concerned about legislative efforts that would restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people through credible and transparent non-governmental organizations. I am pleased that the recent report in the New York Times about a coordinated American-Israeli effort to ``starve'' the Palestinian people has been strongly denied by both countries. The average Palestinian on the West Bank and Gaza leads a very difficult life and the further deterioration of economic conditions will not only be devastating for the Palestinians, but will also weaken Israel's security.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking an important step by stating unequivocally that U.S. assistance will not flow to a government dominated by a terrorist group bent on Israel's destruction. I hope, in the weeks and months ahead, as the situation in Israel and Palestine evolves, we can come back to this floor and enact thoughtful legislation that helps the Palestinian people, secures the State of Israel, and advances our own important interests in the Middle East.