Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in opposition. I am opposed to the bill.

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

Everybody on this floor wants to send the same loud and clear message: that Congress is united in its opposition to terror and we are all deeply concerned about the future and security of our close friend and ally, Israel.

This debate is not about our shared revulsion at those who would murder innocent citizens or sow terror for political purposes.

It is not about current law, which prohibits any assistance to Hamas or a Hamas-controlled government, which Congress unanimously reaffirmed earlier this year. For many people, we will find tonight that this is a very personal issue. For anyone who has visited Israel, you understand.

When I first visited Jerusalem, I couldn't help but be struck by how close the holy sites of the three great religions are, less than the distance of a Tiger Woods 5-iron shot. I will always cherish the opportunity in a more optimistic time, to visit a security checkpoint outside Ramallah, jointly manned by Israelis and Palestinians. The possibility of that moment, its fragility and the ramifications of failure, have been brought home to me repeatedly in recent years.

I was and am impressed by the diversity of opinions in Israel, by its vibrant tradition of democracy and heated debate. But I am also struck by how we are seeing elements of that vibrant debate within the American pro-Israeli community over the bill that is before us this evening.

As someone committed to Israel's security and to the vision of the two states living side by side in peace, I reluctantly oppose the legislation this evening, despite my deep respect for my colleagues who are bringing it forward on both sides of the aisle.

The bill before us is one that the administration does not need nor want. It sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States, whether or not Hamas is in power. It could potentially limit the United States' ability to help our friend Israel if Israel decides in the future that working with a non- Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority is in their best interests.

Remember in 1995, Israeli Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin asked the United States to support a flawed Palestinian Authority because he felt it was important for Israel's security. Had the stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to have said no.

In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon asked the United States to support the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas. Had the stringent conditions in this bill been in place, we would have had to say no.

Should a future Israeli leader come and ask us to support the Palestinian Authority, after Hamas is forced from power, we shouldn't allow the conditions in this bill to force us to say no.

Unfortunately, this bill defines the Palestinian Authority to include the Palestinian legislative counsel, as long as members of Hamas are in the Palestinian Parliament. We would have to say no to Israel's request.

As has been pointed out with Libya, the debate over Libya, sometimes we allow diplomatic relations with imperfect regimes because progress can best be made through engagement instead of isolation. This bill goes far beyond the ramifications of January's election and Hamas' rise to power.

It would restrict relations with and support for Palestinian groups and institutions that have nothing to do with terror or rejectionism. It places sanctions on the Palestinian leaders and parts of Palestinian civil society who support peace with Israel, oppose terrorism and who, if the two-state vision comes to pass, will form the backbone of a democratic society.

There is, in this legislation, no recognition that Palestinian society is deeply divided, and that it makes no sense to put sanctions on President Abbas, reformers, even activists for democracy, peace and coexistence. The bill would prohibit the assistance we give to schools that teach peace, to democratic and peaceful political organizations, to groups promoting cooperation with Israel on shared environmental challenges.

It would even punish the democratic opposition by prohibiting visas for moderate Palestinian legislators or government officials who oppose Hamas. It would prevent the PLO, of which Hamas isn't a member, and which was not impacted by the election of Hamas, from having representatives in Washington or at the United Nations. I am afraid that this legislation may well backfire by actually strengthening the hands of extremists.

Remember, this past winter, the House, in our wisdom, voted to demand that the Palestinians prevent Hamas from running in the legislative elections, telling the Palestinian people to reject them. I don't think it was any accident that Hamas election banners had: ``Israel and America say `no' to Hamas. What do you say?''

I can't help think that any objective appraisal would suggest that the United States Congress, telling them what they could do, may well have provided that extra boost for Hamas' prospects at the election.

This bill provides no diplomatic horizon, no sunset. It is in perpetuity. It does little to prioritize on the basis of our strategic interest and provides no prospect for Palestinian reform coming through the process of negotiations. In so doing, it weakens the hands of those who advocate for peace negotiations and supports those extremists who believe in violence.

Democracy is a complex process in the Middle East and all too rare in the Middle East. The election of Hamas shows that for the kinds of democracies we want to see, elections aren't enough. We need to promote the kinds of democratic institutions, free civil society, conducive to sustainable, liberal democracy in Palestinian territories.

The President needs to be free to do just that, with congressional oversight, not congressional prohibitions and micromanagement. I understand the sincere concern that many people who support this legislation have, but it is too onerous and burdensome on an administration that needs to practice diplomacy.

Democracy is a continuing process that helps transform those who practice it. I agree with the rabbi from my district who wrote that, ``change is everything in politics, no matter how bleak the situation currently is,'' in expressing his opposition to this legislation. We cannot support Hamas or other terrorist groups, but neither should we close the door on change.

Most of the Members of this body consider themselves to be strong friends and supporters of Israel. So do I. That is why I will urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, invoking the Bush doctrine, the previous speaker talks about humanitarian assistance. One of the concerns that the Bush administration has in not supporting this bill is that it is too narrowly drawn, talking about ``health,'' and not broader humanitarian assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that later in the course of the evening. Due to the mandatory nature of the bill, its lack of a general waiver, the executive branch thinks it is unnecessary. It already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions, and constrains the executive branch's flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate as tools to address rapidly changing circumstances.

These are the words of the administration. And I think the Congress would do well to consider them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

(Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, before I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, I would yield myself 5 minutes, because I have been sitting here reflecting on my good friend from California's comments about people who suddenly are the best friend of the administration who have been critical of them.

Well, I have only been here 10 years, not as long as my distinguished friend, but one of the things I have tried to do with Republican and Democratic administrations alike, when it comes to foreign policy, is to attempt to be supportive when I agree but to be clear that when I disagree, when I think they are wrong, to stand up.

I take a back seat to no one in terms of my opposition to this administration's reckless conduct in Iraq. I have been consistent on that from the beginning. One of the concerns I had about this administration was their disdain

for nation-building. You will recall the rhetoric of then Governor Bush.

But part of our obligation as Members of this chamber is to be supportive when we can. Because in the conduct of foreign policy, it would be nice if it did stop at the water's edge. I appreciate that the administration has changed its position on nation-building and has actually requested more assistance than it looks like this Congress is going to give them for foreign aid.

When they were willing to work with us in water and sanitation, I embraced that. I think we should reinforce positive things that we can agree on. That is what the American public wants. I do not think we should be reflexive and negative.

The administration has raised a legitimate concern about flexibility, about being able to implement it, and these are consistent with Republican and Democratic administrations in the past in terms of not wanting sanctions to go on forever and wanting to have the flexibility to respond, not after 25 days of consultation according to very, narrow little channels, but to be able to act responsibly to practice diplomacy.

The history of this House of Representatives is not very illustrious when it comes to many of these questions. Congress has sort of flitted around and has been subjected to the pressures of the moment and has not always been a constructive ally.

As we know, this House passed a draft by only one vote immediately before World War II. Lots of simple, commonsense straight-ahead solutions that we have been involved with have not always been the best and most carefully crafted.

I come forward not being a fan of this administration in many areas, in many areas, but in this one, as I listen to them, as I look at the requested flexibility, as I look at independent experts, as I hear from religious leaders back home and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, I see a wide range of people that support the concerns that the administration share with us.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, to respond to my distinguished colleague, nowhere here have I said I want the administration to have unrestrained flexibility. Not once. And I am not expressing delight that we are on the same side.

What I said was when I find I am in agreement, I look forward to ways to work with them. When I see them move in directions I wish they had done with Afghanistan and Iraq, for heaven's sake, I am going to move in this direction with the stakes so high. With all due respect, it is not a question of giving unlimited flexibility to the administration. I have never said that, am not interested in it.

There is a framework here in terms of the sanctions that we are talking about, things like extending beyond the narrow definition of health to deal with humanitarian assistance and environmental cleanup. There are a whole host of things that could have been dealt with here in the ambit of this legislation.

I share with my good friend an interest in having this administration be more accountable to Congress and come forward and answer our questions. I would like oversight about what is going on in Iraq and what is going on in Afghanistan. Heaven knows I would.

But that does not mean that we ought to have unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome activities that are going to work against what I think are the interests of the Israeli people, the Palestinians and citizens of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Madam Speaker, as I yield the gentleman from New York 4 minutes, I would give myself 30 seconds to make two observations.

One, there will be no aid to Hamas, whether this bill passes or not. It is against United States law to give assistance to a terrorist organization.

Second, I would reference the exact language of the word where the exemption is assistance to meet basic human health needs, not broad humanitarian. The language of the bill is actually quite clear.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, Mr. Hinchey, for 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

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

Madam Speaker, as I prepare to conclude my presentation and yield back my time this evening, I truly have enjoyed the give and take that we have had this evening under the leadership of our subcommittee chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, the work that has been done by staff members on both sides of the aisle, the passion, the emotion, the concern, and the professionalism that we have witnessed.

I personally have appreciated it. I think it is a healthy give-and- take that we have had. I think it is an important debate. It is not the last word that we are going to enjoy. I would simply make a couple of points in closing. I continue to be concerned that we not talk past one another. There is going to be, under existing United States law, no aid for Hamas. It is illegal to give assistance to a terrorist organization. Hamas certainly is.

And they are not going to be entitled to aid regardless of what happens with this bill. I continue to be concerned that the language of the bill is not, as some of my friends who have spoken on the other side of the aisle refer to, talking about how humanitarian aid can go through. That is not what the bill says. It is health that is the automatic pass-through.

Education, as has been referenced, is not a part of the automatic exemption. This lack of flexibility is one of the reasons why this bill is opposed by Americans for Peace Now, the Israel Policy Forum, Brit Tzedek, Shalom, Churches for Middle East Peace, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The bill sets permanent and inflexible limits on the United States's ability to be involved with Israel and Palestine, whether or not Hamas is in power. And that is a mistake. It goes far beyond dealing with the ramifications of January's elections, and Hamas's rise to power, essentially Palestinian moderates and institutions that have nothing to do with Hamas.

Most independent observers feel that that is counterproductive and it may well end up backfiring and actually providing further strength to the extremists. I listened to the delightful exchange between Mr. Lantos and Mr. Frank on the floor earlier. I always marvel watching two parliamentary masters go back and forth. I listened to Mr. Frank's argument tying it back to earmarking. And it was a thoughtful and amazing argument.

But one of the concerns I have, given the nature of Hamas, and listening very carefully to Mr. Frank's words, is they are going to claim credit any way they can for anything that happens, much as we see political processes generally do that.

It is important that in our desire to stop Hamas from either assistance or a foothold for claiming credit, that we are very surgical about what we do for the Palestinian people, and the ability to move forward with peace.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to review the administration's concerns. They have stated that they feel it is unnecessary, as the executive branch already has ample authority to impose all its restrictions. It does constrain the executive's ability in the flexibility to use sanctions as appropriate to address rapidly changing circumstances, which we all sincerely hope happen for the positive in this troubled area of the world.

Their concerns about the mandatory nature of the bill's sanctions, the relative absence that relates to activities absent an unachievable certification, a lack of a general waiver authority on its key ban on assistance, and that these limitations should be time limited.

The administration has also raised the concern that the exemption for ``basic human health needs'' is too narrow and should be broadened to ``basic human needs''. Indeed both sides on the floor this evening often used those two terms interchangeably, but they are very different under the bill.

But I do think we have reached the point where both my leg and my store of information here has been exhausted. I wanted to make one last point, because there has been reference this evening to the joy of serving with Mr. Lantos.

I never cease to marvel, when we are in the midst of this, that he adds a dimension to the debate that I think is very important. I never cease to learn something in the course of what happens in the committee or here on the floor. Reference has been made to him as the only Holocaust survivor who has walked these halls.

And it adds a dimension, not just to this debate, but one that carries through in activities in Asia, in Africa, in the bigger picture across the world.

But there is one other accolade because Mr. Lantos is a professor, and I appreciate the scholarly approach he brings that tempers his experience and his emotion that makes this a learning experience. And I truly believe that as a result of his input this evening that this has been a valuable learning experience for me, and I think it has enriched the record. Whatever happens with this legislation as it goes through the course of the legislature, as I do not doubt that it will pass tomorrow, that we will all be a little more knowledgeable as a result of this, and I think, in the long run, we will be able to do our jobs better, and for that, I thank him.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the motion.

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

During the course of this debate, I will rebut point-by-point the items raised by my good friend from Oregon,

for whom I have great respect and great affection. But let me just say that while I am convinced that his position is motivated by the best of intentions, he totally misrepresents the nature of our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was my great pleasure to join my friend and distinguished colleague, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in introducing the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act. It has also been an honor to work with the chairman of the committee, Henry Hyde, in bringing the bill to the floor in its present form. I would like to thank all 295 of my colleagues who are cosponsors of this bill, which was reported out of the International Relations Committee on a bipartisan vote of 36-2. I repeat, the legislation was reported out of the International Relations Committee representing the broadest spectrum of views and positions by a vote of 36-2. This is a bill that enjoys the broadest bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, a little more than a month ago, a 16-year-old boy from Florida, Daniel Wultz, arrived in Israel with his family. They were celebrating Passover, which commemorates Jewish liberation from brutality long ago. On a pleasant evening in Tel Aviv, Daniel met his father for dinner at a popular falafel restaurant in a working-class neighborhood.

Moments later, a Palestinian terrorist detonated 30 pounds of explosives just a few feet from the father and son. Daniel suffered severe internal injuries, and his leg had to be amputated.

After a valiant struggle for survival, Daniel died last week. As for his father, he faces a long and painful recovery physically; the psychological repercussions one can only speculate on.

This tragedy was compounded several times over, Mr. Speaker. In this one terrorist incident, perpetrated by Hamas, 10 people were murdered, more than 60 were injured, and hundreds of loved ones are suffering the atrocities, the effects of these atrocities for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Speaker, during the murderous Intifada, orchestrated, planned and perpetrated by Hamas, more than 1,000 Israelis were killed in incidents like this recent one, barbarous, random, sneak attacks on men, women and children, just going about their lives. Given its comparatively small population, less than 6 million, the loss of 1,000 innocent lives in Israel is the equivalent of losing 50,000 here in the United States. I wonder how many of our colleagues would stand up for the terrorists if we had lost 50,000, not 3,000 on 9/11.

What was the response of the Hamas government to the restaurant bombing? The spokesman for Hamas said that it was, and I quote, Mr. Speaker, ``legal.'' This monstrous act, the most recent terrorist attack, killed 10 people, and Hamas leadership says, it's legal. No condemnation, no promise of pursuing the perpetrators of this vicious crime; just a blanket endorsement of suicide attacks on both American and Israeli citizens.

Now, despite the pathetically naive hopes of some that Hamas would change its stripes upon assuming power, if anything, the anti-Israel rhetoric has only been stepped up. The foreign minister of the terrorist government, Mahmoud al-Zahar, recently told the world that he dreams of, and I am quoting again, Mr. Speaker, ``hanging a huge map of the world on the wall at my Gaza home, which does not show Israel on it, because there is no place for the State of Israel on this land.''

So much for moderation.

Mr. Speaker, such statements by Hamas government officials make crystal clear the rationale for our legislation. We must isolate the new terrorist authority in the West Bank and Gaza. The situation in the Middle East is alarming. The Palestinian Authority is now governed by a group of killers, like Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who believes that Israel, quote, should be wiped off the map.

It is therefore incumbent upon us, Mr. Speaker, as the ally and long- time supporter of the democratic State of Israel, to do everything we can to demonstrate the bankruptcy of Hamas' vision and to ensure that Hamas receives no help from the United States in implementing its evil plans.

Our bill does exactly that. We will end all assistance to the Palestinian Authority with exceptions for humanitarian aid. We will also end all contact between U.S. diplomats and the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority.

Our goal, Mr. Speaker, is not to punish the Palestinian people. Our goal is to demonstrate to them, and to their government, that hatred, murder, assassination and non-recognition of neighbors is unacceptable in a civilized world. Accordingly, we want to make sure that the U.S. taxpayer will not supply one penny of aid for which the Hamas government can claim any credit, and we want to make sure that Hamas and its government are accorded absolutely no legitimacy by the United States or our diplomatic representatives.

Our bill, of course, recognizes that humanitarian emergencies will arise and that we should be supportive of appropriate NGO activities. Just to cite one example, Mr. Speaker, I wrote Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently asking that the United States provide funding to assist the Palestinians in dealing with the serious outbreak of avian flu in the Gaza Strip, and I am pleased that our government has been responsive to my request. I think we would all agree on continuing the U.S. tradition of dealing with the humanitarian needs of any people, including the Palestinian people.

I am sure that all of my colleagues will join me in praising the government of Israel for the plan it announced just yesterday to release $11 million and let these funds be used for medicine and equipment for Palestinian hospitals, bypassing entirely the terrorist government of Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, representatives of the United States have been meeting with their counterparts from Russia, the United Nations and the European Union to discuss the financial crisis that Palestinians have faced since Hamas came to power. Our bill is fully consistent with the positions and policies of the so-called quartet.

Mr. Speaker, we in this Congress are sickened by the fact that the Palestinians chose Hamas as their leader, and we are sickened and appalled by everything that Hamas stands for. Our bill, H.R. 4681, demonstrates that America will stand firm in the fight against terrorism, while remaining true to the hope for a peaceful Middle East. Our legislation will serve as a model for the right policy to take against terrorists, however they take power, and on behalf of the democratic ally that is the target of suicide bombings by a governmentally-organized campaign.

Allow me a personal word, Mr. Speaker. As all of my colleagues know, I am the only Holocaust survivor ever elected to the Congress of the United States. My family was wiped out by a government that systematically sought to eliminate an entire people.

I am here today to tell you that what Hamas has in mind is a holocaust on the installment plan. I repeat, I am here today to tell you that what Hamas has in mind is a holocaust on the installment plan. It is being done one atrocity at a time. As long as support continues to flow to Hamas, this holocaust on the installment plan will continue, and ultimately, it might succeed. But our bill will stop it.

I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important, vital, bipartisan piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to my good friend and our distinguished colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

If I may take the floor, I fully agree with the interpretation of my friend from Massachusetts. We are not looking for protection from Hamas. There is no perfection in any of the governments with which we have diplomatic relations and which we support with huge amounts like the government of Egypt. We are merely asking for minimal standards of civilized behavior, the termination of suicide bombings and the acceptance of their neighbor in peace.

We appreciate the gentleman's support.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), my good friend.

(Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Before yielding time, I would like to just say a word about the avalanche of misrepresentations which we have heard on this floor.

This legislation does not in any sense provide any punishment for the Palestinian people, just the opposite. It is carefully crafted and aimed at the terrorist organization called Hamas.

I did not know, Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about the 16-year-old young American citizen who was killed by Hamas that he is the cousin of one of our colleagues, and I would like to extend my condolences to my friend from Virginia who suffered this personal loss.

The avalanche of misrepresentations can only be ascribed to a sloppy reading of this legislation. It is extremely carefully crafted, and if, in fact, the issue would not be as serious, I would find it ludicrous that some of the sharpest critics of the Bush administration have suddenly found great affection for the Bush administration because, like all other administrations, it wants total flexibility.

It is ludicrous that the most virulent critics of the Bush administration suddenly find themselves in bed with the Bush administration. This is, to say the least, unseemly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, my good friend.

I appreciate my good friend yielding, and allow me to point out the fatal flaw in your logic. We are not discussing the fact that some of us occasionally support the administration, and you just expressed great delight that on this issue you find yourself on the side of the administration.

The issue logically is flexibility. The people who have criticized this administration most vigorously over the years have claimed that the administration is riding roughshod over the Congress, not asking for more flexibility. This is a spurious argument. This is a phony argument. This administration, as do all administrations, wants flexibility. They do not want congressional restraints.

Our legislation provides for restraints because we are a co-equal branch of government, and we wish to express the policies that we want to see our government pursue.

To claim that on this issue the administration should have total flexibility is contrary to the interests of the Congress as a body.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), my good friend and a distinguished senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I want to thank my good friend from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, for her thoughtful and very serious comments, as I want to express my appreciation to all of my colleagues who have spoken against this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the distinguished senior member of the International Relations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) 5\3/4\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, before yielding the balance of our time to my good friend from Texas, let me express my deepest appreciation to my friend from Florida, who has done her usual extraordinary job, for her principled statement and impeccable logic. We are all in her debt.

I want to express my deep appreciation to my very good friend from Oregon for his unduly gracious comments which I deeply appreciate. And I want to thank all of my colleagues who have spoken on all sides of this issue. This has been an excellent debate, and it is appropriate that it should be wound up by one of our best debaters, my friend from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee. I yield her the balance of our time.

Madam Speaker, in conclusion I reject the claim that our bill does not allow our government to support worthwhile projects for the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, it makes every possible allowance for such projects, consistent with U.S. national interests.

First of all, our legislation makes an explicit exception for supporting the basic human health needs of the Palestinian people.

Second, it includes a waiver that requires the President only to certify that such assistance furthers our national security interests. That is not an unreasonably high standard to meet, Madam Speaker, given our need to ensure that such projects do not in any way benefit Hamas, either politically or economically.

Nor, Madam Speaker, is it too much to ask that the consultation period be a bit longer than usual--25 days instead of 15--given this unprecedented situation, in which we would provide aid to a people whose government is controlled by terrorists. This is new territory, and we owe it to the taxpayers to proceed cautiously. Indeed, we cannot be sure that the new Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority will not exert control over schools and other institutions currently run by non- governmental organizations.

In this unusual and potentially explosive situation, it seems to me the very least we should ask is that our assistance to the Palestinian people clearly further our national security interests. This is our minimal obligation to our constituents.

We will insist on this basic standard, Madam Speaker, and we will give assistance for appropriate purposes--and I am quite sure the level of our assistance will continue to be greater than that of any Arab nation, including those who have been wallowing in ever-increasing windfall profits over the past three years.

Also, Madam Speaker, H.R. 4681 cuts off U.S. contact with those who represent terrorism, not those who represent democracy.

H.R. 4681 establishes a policy that the U.S. should not negotiate or have substantive contacts with terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

H.R. 4681 explicitly recognizes that working with Palestinian moderates is in U.S. interest by allowing assistance to be provided to President Abbas to facilitate a peaceful resolution of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

H.R. 4681 allows travel to the UN and gives the President an authority to waive this restriction to allow Palestinian moderates who are in the Palestinian Legislative Council to come to the United States to visit.

I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 4681.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4681) to promote the development of democratic institutions in areas under the administrative control of the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this matter be extended by 80 minutes, equally divided.

Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

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 bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the chief deputy majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the International Relations Committee.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this matter be extended by 60 minutes, equally divided. Perhaps the opponents of the bill would have an opportunity to read the legislation. And I would like to yield half of my time to Mr. Lantos, and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

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

Madam Speaker, Hamas' political victory in the January election presented an opportunity for this Islamic jihadist group to lay down its arms, to renounce terrorism, to recognize the State of Israel, and to dismantle its militant infrastructure, to become an entity that could lead the Palestinian people to peace, to prosperity, to security with the Jewish nation.

But, unfortunately, much like its predecessor, who never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, Hamas has instead continued its violence, has aligned itself with pariah states and with state sponsors of terrorism that seek to extend their extremist, hateful ideology throughout the region and, indeed, throughout the world. Hamas has chosen to dedicate its resources and its energy to supporting continued terrorist attacks against Israel rather than to helping the Palestinian people.

It is its choice, so Hamas can spend its money on suicide and homicide attacks; but it is up to the United States to support and provide for the needs of the Palestinian people. It is our responsibility, instead of Hamas'.

Previous speakers in opposition to the bill have said, Madam Speaker, that this bill will deny chemotherapy to cancer victims. It is preposterous; it does not. That it would hurt the common Palestinian citizen. No, it does not. That it would undermine the Palestinian reformers by denying democracy. No, quite the opposite. That it has unbearable roadblocks to nongovernment organizations to provide assistance to the Palestinian people. Absolutely not.

The bill requirements are to ensure that humanitarian aid goes to the intended recipients for the intended purposes, oversight. The United States must make it unambiguously clear that we will not support such a terrorist regime, that we will not directly or indirectly allow American taxpayer funds to be used to perpetuate the leadership of an Islamic jihadist group that is responsible for the murder of hundreds and the wounding of scores of innocent Israeli civilians, of U.S. citizens and other foreigners throughout the years.

It has been almost 4 months, Madam Speaker, since this Islamic jihadist extremist won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. We have made our conditions clear, but Hamas' commitment to bloodshed has remained unabated.

Hamas' leaders have expressed their support for rockets being launched from Gaza into Israel, and stated that the recent attack, a bombing that killed nine innocent people and wounded 60 at a Tel Aviv restaurant, was ``justified.'' Their words, not mine.

Since the elections, the leaders of Hamas have officially expressed their refusal to change a single word in its charter. Their hate-filled covenant is Hamas' most valued document. It focuses on killing Jews and destroying Israel.

I would like to read some of the words that are included in the charter of Hamas and that accurately depict the group's violent views: ``The time of Muslim unity will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry, `O Muslims, there is a Jew behind me. Come on and kill him.'''

The Islamic extremists running the Palestinian Authority have made it very clear, crystal clear, that they do not intend to moderate their vicious views nor seek a peace agreement with Israel. They may speak of a long-term cease-fire, but this is only a temporary means to regroup and rearm for yet more terrorism.

A two-state solution envisioned and proposed by the Quartet is not part of Hamas' agenda, because it runs contrary to the core principles of this terror group that says, ``The land of Palestine from the river to the sea is considered an Islamic endowment, and no Muslim has the right to cede any part of it.''

So our actions here tonight and the vote tomorrow must be clear and it must be firm. We must work toward eradicating such Islamist jihadist hatred and the extremist ideology that feeds it, or we will compromise our own

immediate as well as long-term security interests and the stability and the security of our allies in the region.

In an effort to promote U.S. national security and foreign policy priorities and to help ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not reach the hands of Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups, I introduced, with my good friend the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Tom Lantos, this bill that is before us tonight, Madam Speaker. It has 295 cosponsors, and it opposes the provision of assistance or political recognition to any entity under the tutelage of a terrorist organization such as Hamas.

This bill does prohibit direct assistance to the Palestinian Authority, but it has exceptions, and we have talked about them. Many of the people who have spoken here tonight want to overlook those exceptions. It does seek to prohibit travel to the United States by members or associates of terrorist entities, it provides for the United States to withhold contributions to the United Nations proportional to the amounts the United Nations provides to these duplicative Palestinian-related entities that are directly tied to the Palestinian Authority, and it calls for the Palestinian Authority to be designated as a terrorist sanctuary under the 9/11 bill.

But it is not just about what is right for the U.S. in terms of our priorities and our allies, Madam Speaker. It also is about honoring the memory of all who have died at the hands of Hamas and other Palestinian jihadist groups.

That is why tonight we have spoken about and we have given our condolences to our good friend from Virginia, Mr. Cantor, whose 16- year-old cousin, Daniel Wultz from South Florida, close to my congressional district, died 2 weeks ago after suffering these fatal injuries caused by an April 17 suicide bombing in Tel Aviv while he was having lunch with his father. Daniel fought courageously for 27 days for his life, but the injuries were far too severe.

Our thoughts and our prayers go not just to Daniel, but also to all who have lost family members and friends to Hamas and other jihadist groups, and the list is, unfortunately, too long for us to mention all of their names. We want to pass this legislation to help ensure that we in Congress have done everything possible to prevent another Daniel Wultz from dying at the hands of these extremists.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to render their full support to this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who have participated in this debate and most especially my dear friend from California (Mr. Lantos). He is always on the right side of all of these issues. Thank you, Mr. Lantos, for your friendship and your leadership.

Madam Speaker, Hamas has a choice to make. It can be part of our broader post-9/11 policy of being with peace-loving, freedom-loving, democratic nations, or it can be with the Islamic terrorists. Yet, this is what Hamas' choice has been.

On its commitment to terrorism, the security forces head says, ``We have only one enemy, they are Jews. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people.''

On refusing to recognize Israel, the Hamas spokesman says, ``I believe that

the question of recognizing Israel will never be at any time on the agenda of the Hamas movement, the PLC or the Palestinian government.''

The foreign minister has said, ``Even if the U.S. gave us all its money in return for recognizing Israel and giving up one inch of Palestine, we would never do so even if this costs us our lives. Our right to pursue the resistance will remain as long as the occupation continues over our lands and our holy sites.''

This is the leadership of Hamas. So we have a choice, Madam Speaker. Allow American taxpayer dollars to help support Hamas and other Islamic extremists or prevent such a manipulation of U.S. funds and ensure that they help promote our U.S. interests. I hope that our colleagues make the right decision tomorrow, and I hope that they will help us pass this bill.

Madam Speaker, I attach an exchange of letters between Chairman Hyde and Chairman Oxley concerning the bill H.R. 4681 ``Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006.''

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2006.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 4681,

the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. This bill was

introduced on February 1, 2006, and referred to the

Committees on International Relations, Judiciary and

Financial Services. I understand that committee action has

already taken place on the bill.

Section 9 of the bill as introduced falls within the

jurisdiction of this Committee and could be the subject of a

markup. However, in response to a request from this

Committee, I thank you for your agreement to support in

moving this legislation forward the modification of section 9

to remove from the certification requirement for

international financial institutions a determination of the

President that the Palestinian Authority has taken effective

steps and

made demonstrable progress toward ``ensuring democracy, the

rule of law, and an independent judiciary, and adopting other

reforms such as ensuring transparency and accountable

governance.'' Given the importance and timeliness of the

Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, and your willingness to work

with us regarding these issues, further proceedings on this

bill in this Committee will no longer be necessary. However,

I do so only with the understanding that this procedural

route should not be construed to prejudice the jurisdictional

interest of the Committee on Financial Services on these

provisions or any other similar legislation and will not be

considered as precedent for consideration of matters of

jurisdictional interest to my committee in the future.

Furthermore, should these or similar provisions be considered

in a conference with the Senate, I would expect members of

the Committee on Financial Services be appointed to the

conference committee on these provisions.

Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our

exchange of letters in the Congressional Record during the

consideration of this bill. If you have any questions

regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. I

thank you for your consideration.

Yours truly,

Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, this week I made a very difficult decision in voting for H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I have been deeply moved by my constituents from both sides of the issue, including individuals with strong family ties to the Middle East. I want to take this opportunity to share my thoughts behind voting in support of the legislation.

In January 2006, Hamas, a designated terrorist organization that does not recognize the state of Israel and calls for an Islamized Palestinian state, won the legislative election to lead the PA government. Since then, the United States and the European Union have announced a series of measures designed to further isolate and pressure the Hamas-led Palestinian government until it recognizes Israel, renounces violence, and accepts previously signed Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements.

Specifically, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently announced that the United States has begun to suspend over $400 million in direct aid to Hamas, while redirecting about $100 million from canceled projects to humanitarian assistance such as food and medicine distributed by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The canceled aid includes: $45 million in direct aid to the PA; $130 million in infrastructure projects; $20 million in private enterprise development and revitalization, financial markets reform, trade programs and information technology sector support; $17 million in electoral, political party, local government and legislative support programs; $13 million in civil society development; $10 million in rule of law and judicial programs; $7 million in technical assistance and vocational training; $4 million in community policing, among others. Similarly, the EU Commission announced that it had halted payments to the Hamas government, freezing all direct aid to the PA and payment of public employees' salaries with EU funds through the World Bank, but not humanitarian aid through international and nongovernmental organizations. In the mean time, the Israeli government has cut off all ties with nearly all branches of the PA government, including its security. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has declared that his government will avoid meetings with visiting representatives or diplomats from PA.

I am in support of certain financial sanctions on Hamas to ensure no U.S. government funding goes directly to support terrorism activities. On February 15, 2006, I voted in favor of, and the House passed, S. Con. Res. 76, which expressed the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should be provided directly to the PA if the majority party in control of the PA parliament maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. I believe it was a sensible resolution that called for an end of U.S. financial support of Hamas while allowing other forms of humanitarian aid to flow through NGOs to the Palestinian people.

The impact of cuts in aid is being felt by the PA. Omar Abdel-Razeq, Finance Minister of the PA, recently confirmed that the PA could not pay March and April salaries to about 140,000 government workers. These salaries support about one-third of the Palestinian population. These cuts in aid came on top of the fact that Gaza's economy is in dire straights, with average family income already below the U.N. poverty line. Economic conditions are also precipitously declining in the West Bank. Overall the PA shoulders a total debt of $1.3 billion, including $640 million to regional and local banks and making it virtually impossible for the PA to obtain new loans. Furthermore, Israel has decided to withhold $50 million a month in customs and tax receipts since January, although it continues to pay Israeli companies about $5.5 million a month from those receipts for the water and electricity used by the Palestinians. The Israeli government has also recently announced that it will buy drugs and medial equipments needed by Palestinian hospitals in Gaza out of the withheld funds.

Yet, despite the dire needs of Palestinians, Hamas has chosen to ignore reality in favor of its extremist commitment to terrorism.

On April 17 of this year, a suicide bomber struck in a Tel Aviv restaurant, killing nine Israelis and injured dozens. The suicide bombing was carried out by Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed extremist group that refuses to acknowledge the cease-fire followed by

Hamas. The Passover attack was a grotesque display of terrorism and violence, yet it was quickly defended by Hamas. Sami Abu Zuhri, the official spokesman for Hamas, stated at the time that the attack was ``a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes'' against Palestinians and that ``our people are in a state of self-defense and they have every right to use all means to defend themselves.'' It became clear to me that, without regards to the pressing needs of the Palestinian people, Hamas was ready to ignore its own cease-fire policy in favor of extremist political rhetoric that further isolate and weaken the PA and endangers the humanitarian situation of the Palestinian people. It was a chilling reminder of Hamas' tendency to favor violence over peace and political posturing over progress, all at the expense of Palestinian people's welfare.

The Passover bombing and the Hamas response to the bombing was a turning point in my consideration and analysis of H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. I believe that a stronger message must be sent by the United States to Hamas that we will not support a government that continues to embrace terrorism. H.R. 4681 is an appropriate vehicle to send that message. The bill intensifies the pressure placed on the Hamas-led PA by not only restricting direct U.S. aid to the PA (which has already been suspended by Secretary Rice), but also restricting U.S. assistance to NGOs working in the West Bank and Gaza, subject to exceptions based on humanitarian needs. It expresses the sense of Congress that PA-controlled territories should be deemed as terrorist sanctuaries; denies visas to any PA officials or affiliated persons; and restricts the travel of any PA representative to the UN outside of a 25-mile radius of the U.N. headquarters building in New York City. Finally, the bill directs the President to prohibit international financial institutions from directly assisting a Hamas- led PA, and prohibits any U.S. officer or employee from having any official contacts with members or official representatives of Hamas.

In examining H.R. 4681 leading up to the vote, the bill had raised several significant questions for me: Is additional financial and political isolation the most effective means to induce changes to Hamas policy towards Israel? Will such noose-tightening prompt the Palestinian people to insist that Hamas change its policy or will it inadvertently lead to humanitarian crisis and civil unrest in the West Bank and Gaza? Will political and financial sanctions firmly aimed at Hamas serve to strengthen the role of Mahmoud Abbas, the moderate President of the PA or further radicalize Hamas while undermining the position of President Mahmoud Abbas? While these are difficult questions with which to wrestle, I eventually decided that H.R. 4681 sends an important and necessary message to PA that the United States will not tolerate a terrorist-controlled government's role in obstructing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

First, I believe H.R. 4681 provides the United States the additional leverage it needs to push Hamas toward the acceptance of Israel and the rejection of violence. The Act amends the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) by adding a new section prohibiting direct financial transfers by the United States to the PA until the President certifies that no part of the PA is controlled by a foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designated by the United States and Europe and no member of an FTO serves in a senior policy making position in the PA, the PA has publicly acknowledged Israel's right to exist and recommitted itself to previous agreements and understandings with Israel and the United States, and the PA has taken effective steps and made progress toward a number of objectives including purging its security services of individuals with ties to terrorists, dismantling terrorist infrastructure, and halting anti-Israeli incitement. I believe these are reasonable and necessary benchmarks that Hamas must make in order to demonstrate its capability to be a responsible government.

Furthermore, I believe the bill's humanitarian provisions address my concern that the increased sanctions advocated by the legislation would unnecessarily hurt the Palestinian people. Make no mistake, I do not believe that the Palestinian people should be punished for exercising their right to elect the representatives of their choice. In March 2005, Hamas accepted a temporary cease-fire with Israel in exchange for Abbas' agreement to allow the group into PA's electoral system. Throughout the process, the Bush Administration stood on the sidelines, assuming that Hamas' political participation would either transform the group or marginalize it. Indeed, Secretary Rice stated last fall that the United States had ``to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process.'' As a result, Hamas entered the field for the 2006 legislative elections. Understanding the widespread public dissatisfaction with the PA's corruption under the control of the Fatah party and the sour economy, Hamas ran on a platform of clean governance and reform, rather than ideology. Subsequently, observers widely agree that Hamas was democratically elected by the Palestinian people not for its ideological platform, but for its practical appeal in improving the day-to-day living conditions of Palestinians.

I strongly believe Palestinians should not be punished for exercising their Democratic choice in electing their representatives. Yet, with nearly 50 percent of the PA's residents living below the poverty line, unemployment on the rise, and government salaries already not being paid, Hamas' ongoing pursuit of extremist rhetoric demonstrates to me the party's inability to put the interests of the Palestinian people above its terrorist ideology and its unwillingness to govern in a responsible manner. I believe H.R. 4681, which provides an exception to the restrictions for basic human needs such as food, water, medicine, and sanitation services and allows the President to provide other targeted democracy or rule of law assistance, strikes a balance in both pressuring Hamas but also ensuring that necessary assistance reaches the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.

Finally, I believe the approach of economic and diplomatic isolation of Hamas will help strengthen the position of PA President Mahmoud Abbas and lead to the creation of pragmatic, reform-minded activists and parties. H.R. 4681 has been amended to allow for exceptions to the ban on direct assistance permitting the United States to maintain an open dialogue with President Abbas. It allows the president to use a national security waiver to provide assistance to the office of the PA president for non-security expenses directly related to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or for the personal security detail of the PA president. Emboldened by U.S. and Israeli opposition to Hamas, Abbas recently announced that it will call a national referendum on accepting a Palestinian state alongside Israel that would implicitly recognize Israel's right to exist. Abbas is ready and willing to demonstrate to the international community that there is a Palestinian partner for negotiations with Israel, and the United States should seize this opportunity to continue press for a breakthrough in long-stalled peace efforts.

I sincerely hope that H.R. 4681 will play a constructive role to secure permanent peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, would like to enter into the record my views on a bill that was marked-up in the International Relations Committee on April 6, 2006, H.R. 4681, The Palestinian Anti- Terrorism Act of 2006. I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to Chairman Henry Hyde for his wisdom and determined effort to temper H.R. 4681 to reflect the shared commitment of members of the U.S. House to ensure Israel's security, combat terrorism and work towards a peaceful two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinian people. Despite Chairman Hyde's noblest efforts, I unfortunately believe the substance of the legislation as put before the committee will not help the U.S. advance our vital interests in the Middle East and therefore I cannot support the bill in its current form.

Among our colleagues in the U.S. House, there is unanimous intolerance and condemnation for the Hamas-led government of the Palestinian Authority. The refusal of the political leadership of Hamas to recognize the State of Israel, renounce violence and terrorism, and agree to previous agreements and obligations of the Palestinian Authority is unacceptable and therefore they must be isolated by the international community. Congress should be extending our support for the Bush administration's current position of leading the international community to keep firm pressure on Hamas until they agree to an internationally recognized civilized standard of conduct. At the same time, Congress must work with the administration and the international community to avoid a serious humanitarian crisis among the Palestinian people.

Unfortunately, instead of advancing the U.S. interests, H.R. 4681 does not recognize the three criteria set forth by President Bush for engagement with the U.S. H.R. 4681 sets an elevated threshold which will make engagement nearly impossible even if Hamas does agree to recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and agree to abide by all previous agreements. The policy outcome of H.R. 4681 would not only isolate Palestinian leaders who have been committed to advancing the peace process, have denounced terrorism and are working with Israel for a permanent two-state solution, it will result in the isolation of the U.S. among members of the international community that are working for a peaceful and just solution between Israel and the Palestinians.

This bill also places extreme constraints on the delivery of humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people which has the potential for very negative human consequences. Palestinian families and children must not be targeted for deprivation of their basic human needs, but instead treated in a fashion that reflects our values and the belief that their lives are valued. Non-governmental organizations (representing many of our faith communities) with significant experience delivering humanitarian assistance have expressed serious concerns regarding the lack of flexibility in H.R. 4681. An April 6, 2006 letter from the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops to Chairman Hyde expressing concerns regarding the substitute amendment to H.R. 4681 states, ``the legislation should provide for the urgent needs of the Palestinian people. A further deterioration of the humanitarian and economic situation of the Palestinian people compromises human dignity and serves the long term interests neither of Palestinians nor of Israelis who long for a just peace.''

Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the text of the letter from the Catholic Bishops Conference for the record as well.

In it present form, this bill will not allow NGOs to properly carry out the very assistance determined to be necessary by the Secretary of State. It would be my hope that this is not an attempt to intentionally make it prohibitively difficult for NGOs to fulfill their contracts, thus ensuring suffering and misery among the Palestinian people, but rather a failure in drafting the bill that can be remedied as the legislative process proceeds.

The inclusion of the section of the bill targeting the United Nations agencies and programs, section 4, is very disappointing and clearly not intended to advance the peace process or the well-being of Israelis or Palestinians. The United Nations, as a member of the Quartet, has a vital role to play in ensuring humanitarian needs are met. To target a member of the Quartet in such a fashion is a clear sign that this bill is intended to undermine the Bush administration's multilateral leadership. This section has no positive effect on the policy goal stated in section 2 of the bill and will likely isolate the U.S. in the future. This entire section of the bill must be removed.

There are other aspects of this bill which I disagree with because I believe they harm U.S. interests. Fortunately, some of my remaining concerns regarding the bill are appropriately addressed in S. 2370, as introduced in the U.S. Senate, which I feel provides the President appropriate flexibility to positively advance U.S. interests with regard to the Palestinian Authority and the peace process.

Finally, my opposition to H.R. 4681 is based on policy grounds that reflect my support for a Middle East peace process which will ultimately yield security and freedom from terrorism for the people of Israel and a democratic, secure and peaceful Palestinian state. H.R. 4681, in its current form, will result in no greater security or opportunities for peace than exist today with current law and the administration's present policy course, but may in fact have the result of destabilizing the current situation while fueling a humanitarian crisis. It would be my hope that this legislation will be amended and improved as the process moves forward. Advancing this bill in its current form undermines U.S. interests, exacerbates a potential humanitarian crisis and has potential long-term negative consequences for the Israeli people and the Palestinians. In its current form, I must oppose H.R. 4681.

Department of Social Development and World Peace,

Washington, DC, April 6, 2006.

Hon. Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of

Representatives, 2110 Rayburn House Office Building, Room

2170, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the United States

Conference of Catholic Bishops, I write to express the

bishops' concerns regarding the Amendment in the Nature of a

Substitute to H.R. 4681, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act

of 2006.

The bishops' perspective on this legislation is shaped by

two overriding concerns. First, H.R. 4681 should be measured

in light of the ultimate goal of promoting a two-state

solution that provides security for Israel and a viable state

for the Palestinians, two states living alongside one another

in peace. Second, the legislation should provide for the

urgent needs of the Palestinian people. A further

deterioration of the humanitarian and economic situation of

the Palestinian people compromises human dignity and serves

the long term interests neither of Palestinians nor of

Israelis who long for a just peace.

Mr. Chairman, the bishops are grateful that the language of

the substitute now acknowledges the goal of a two-state

solution, but we remain profoundly concerned that some of the

provisions of the bill would directly undermine this goal.

For example, the legislation rightly calls upon Hamas to

renounce terrorism, recognize Israel and accept prior

agreements, including the Road Map, but then forbids contact

with the Palestinian Authority, ``including the Palestinian

Legislative Council'' (page 9, lines 15-16) despite the fact

that many members of the Council are not members of Hamas or

a Foreign Terrorist Organization and have, in fact, renounced

terrorism, recognized Israel and supported past agreements.

Similarly, in section 7 and 8 the travel and representation

of officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)

in the United States is restricted despite the fact that the

PLO has renounced terrorism, recognized Israel and negotiated

the prior agreements. These actions curtail contact with

moderate Palestinian leaders whose support and cooperation

are crucial for pursuing a two state solution.

The bishops appreciate the steps you have taken to improve

section 3 of the legislation, (e.g., the shortening of

notification provisions). However, we remain profoundly

concerned with the narrow definition of the exception to

limitations on aid to Gaza and the West Bank in subsection

(d). Especially given the deepening poverty and unemployment

in the Palestinian territories, the exception ought to

include more than the provision of services to meet ``basic

human health needs.'' The basic human needs of the

Palestinian people as they fall into deeper poverty

include: ``education, job training, psycho-social

counseling and other humanitarian needs.'' The bishops'

relief and development agency, Catholic Relief Services,

reports that their assistance programs in the Palestinian

Territories could be severely curtailed or ended under the

proposed legislation. Other reputable, Non-Governmental

Organizations (NGOs) report similar concerns.

Another issue related to NGOs is the prohibition on all

contact with the Palestinian Authority (PA). Any organization

delivering assistance in the West Bank and Gaza will need to

have incidental contact with the PA in order to secure

permits and conform to legal requirements. This routine, non-

substantial contact should not be prohibited.

Attached to this letter you will find some specific

language recommendations that the Bishops' Conference

believes would help the legislation to meet two important

goals supporting a two-state solution to the conflict and

alleviating the urgent human needs of the Palestinian people

through aid. These goals are in the best interests of both

Palestinians and Israelis who long for a just peace.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Thomas G. Wenski,

Bishop of Orlando, Chairman,

Committee on International Policy.