PROTECT THE PEACE PROCESS; Congressional Record Vol. 141, No. 165
(Senate - October 24, 1995)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S15522-S15535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       PROTECT THE PEACE PROCESS

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, this bill, which would mandate a move of 
the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999, may be 
popular with a very vocal segment of the United States population, but 
it represents precarious foreign policy for the United States as a 
whole. The United States has played a central role in carrying forward 
the very difficult and sensitive negotiations that will, hopefully, 
bring a lasting peace to Israel and the Middle East. It ill behooves us 
now to undermine what is arguably the single most sensitive issue of 
the negotiations, that of the status of the holy city of Jerusalem, by 
impetuously acting to side with one party to the negotiations. If the 
United States is to be credible as a facilitator of the peace process, 
it must act with fairness and impartiality.
  Proponents of this legislation argue that negotiations on the final 
status of Jerusalem are to be complete by May, 1999, so that this bill 
is compatible with the timetable of the peace process. But this 
presupposes the outcome of the negotiations, which do not even begin 
until next May. This may be exactly what the proponents desire. If it 
is ``imperative to establish now the U.S. conviction that realistic 
negotiations must be premised on the principle that Jerusalem is the 
capital of Israel and must remain united,'' as an October 20, 1995 
mailing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 
asserts, then what is left to negotiate at all? Acting in advance of 
the negotiations undermines the incentive for the Palestinians, who 
also have political and religious claims to the city, to participate in 
the talks.
  United States support for Israel is well known. Israel and the United 
States have close military and diplomatic ties. The United States 
provides more economic aid and military assistance to Israel than to 
any other single state. Moving the United States Embassy from its 
current location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem at this time is not necessary 
to help shore up Israeli support for the peace process. It can wait and 
let the ground breaking in 1999 serve as a visible signal of the 
success of the peace negotiations, should the outcome be as expected. 
Not moving the Embassy at this time is, in my view, probably more 
important to help shore up the willingness of the Palestinians to 
continue along this rocky path to peace. Let the ground breaking for a 
new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem in 1999 be a visible sign of U.S. support 
for the final outcome of the negotiations, if that is the result, 
rather than a continuing reminder to them that the negotiations were 
rigged from the outset.
  Jerusalem is an ancient city, considered holy by three of the world's 
religions, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. There is no more volatile 
mixture in the world than religion and politics, and Jerusalem has 
suffered the devastating effects over the centuries as wars, 
occupations, and divisions have forever marked her walls and buildings. 
Peace is within our grasp, if we can act with sensitivity to 
acknowledge the ancient and competing claims to this most contested 
plot of land. No one, I believe, wants a city torn by terror and 
divisiveness, a Jerusalem that cannot stand as a beacon of tolerance 
and understanding among three religions and all of the peoples of the 
Middle East. Therefore, I will vote against this bill, which does so 
much to undermine the peace process.
  Mr. ROBB. Madam President, I recognize the city of Jerusalem as the 
united, undivided, eternal, and sovereign capital of Israel, and where 
the United States Embassy is located should reflect that reality. While 
some have urged caution about relocating our mission in the midst of 
the peace process, it is my sense that such a move, as envisioned by 
the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act, will not create a detour on the 
road to achieving a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace.
  Jerusalem stands today as an international city, where the rights of 
all ethnic religious groups are protected and freedom of worship is 
guaranteed. Diverse religious faiths coexist peacefully. This week we 
are seeing a hopeful spirit of internationalism expressed by many world 
leaders celebrating the founding of the United Nations 50 years ago. 
Like the community of nations joining together in support of the United 
Nations many religious faiths and sects engender a collective spirit of 
interdenominational harmony in Jerusalem.
  Madam President, Prime Minister Rabin has told the Israeli people 
that ``I assure you that Jerusalem will remain united under Israel's 
sovereignty, and our capital forever.'' That expression leads me to the 
conclusion that the final status talks on the city should not focus on 
issues of overall sovereignty. Rather, making permanent each 
denomination's jurisdiction over its respective holy sites and 
collateral issues of autonomy should be the subject of the negotiations 
next year.
  Even President Clinton has stated that ``I recognize Jerusalem as an 
undivided city, the capital of Israel--whatever the outcome of the 
negotiations, Jerusalem is still the capital of Israel and must remain 
an undivided city, accessible to all.'' That statement represents a 
consensus that our Embassy belongs in the functional capital of Israel.
  Among the 184 countries we maintain diplomatic relations with, Israel 
is the single exception to the rule of locating 

[[Page S 15523]]
the United States chancery in the designated capital of each foreign 
nation. We have a responsibility to respect the decisions of where all 
countries locate their seat of government, and Israel should not be 
viewed in a different light.
  Thus far in the peace talks, Israel has sacrificed the tangible--
land--for the intangible--the security of its people. As we continue 
down the road of peace, Israel will cede valuable territory, natural 
resources, and political authority, while Palestinians will enjoy 
broader political and economic freedoms. There are no long-term 
guarantees for Israel. A single Hamas-sponsored terrorist attack can 
disrupt any sense of peace achieved at the negotiating table.
  Madam President, that is why I endorse this move to demonstrate our 
long-term commitment to having our Embassy in Jerusalem which will 
symbolize the united and undivided character of this city. Such a move 
will not stand in the way of achieving a comprehensive peace. It will 
simply lay to rest doubts about the U.S. position on the status of our 
Embassy.
  I also support the modified substitute offered by the majority leader 
last night that includes compromise language providing the President a 
national security interests waiver. I think it is appropriate that the 
President should be given the authority to waive the legislation if it 
would have dire consequences on the peace process.
  Madam President, I joined as a cosponsor of this legislation some 
time ago, and believe it sends the right message at the right time to 
Israel. It is our decision alone to move the Embassy. With upcoming 
ceremonies in the rotunda of the Capitol celebrating the 3,000th 
anniversary of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, I believe we will be 
serving the interests of peace in the Middle East by passing this 
legislation. So I urge my colleagues to support this effort to relocate 
our Embassy to the capital of the Jewish homeland.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, this week in the Capitol rotunda the 
United States Congress will host the United States Inaugural Ceremony 
of Jerusalem 3000, beginning the celebration of the 3,000th anniversary 
of the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
  It is a particularly appropriate time for the Senate to act on this 
important legislation that would reaffirm our commitment to Jerusalem 
as the undivided capital of Israel by directing the relocation of the 
United States Embassy to Jerusalem by 1999.
  It has been over a decade since a majority of the Members of 
Congress, and I was proud to be among this group, called for the 
movement of our Embassy to where it belongs--in the capital of Israel. 
Since then, as Senator Moynihan has recited in detail, the Senate and 
the other body have repeatedly adopted by overwhelming and frequently 
unanimous votes legislation calling on the United States to affirm 
Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital.
  Most recently, nearly every Member of the Senate signed a letter to 
the President urging that the relocation take place no later than May 
1999. This letter clearly rejected the assertion of some that declaring 
our intent to move our Embassy would endanger the peace process, noting 
that:

       United States policy should be clear and unequivocal. The 
     search for peace can only be hindered by raising utterly 
     unrealistic hopes about the future status of Jerusalem among 
     the Palestinians and understandable fears among the Israeli 
     population that their capital city may once again be divided 
     by cinder block and barbed wire.

  We also endorsed in that letter Prime Minister Rabin's declaration 
that ``United Jerusalem will not be open to negotiation. It has been 
and will forever be the capital of the Jewish people, under Israeli 
sovereignty, a focus of the dreams and longings of every Jew.''
  The bill we have before us, of which I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor, brings this legislative process to fruition by establishing 
in law United States policy that Jerusalem should be recognized as the 
capital of Israel and that our Embassy should be relocated there no 
later than May 31, 1999, and by authorizing funding beginning this year 
for construction of a United States Embassy in Jerusalem.
  To help that ensure the executive branch implements this policy 
faithfully, the bill requires semiannual reports from the Secretary of 
State, beginning in January, on the progress made toward opening our 
Embassy in Jerusalem. It also would give the State Department a strong 
financial incentive by limiting the availability of its construction 
funding after 1999 until the Embassy opens in Israel's capital. As a 
practical matter, this limitation would not actually take effect until 
the middle of the year 2000, given the historical spend-out rates for 
the State Department's construction budget. But it emphasizes the 
importance Congress places on this matter.
  Even with this inherent flexibility, however, the administration has 
shown resistance to this legislation. In response, Senator Dole has now 
added a broad waiver authority that would allow the President to 
suspend this limitation on State Department construction if he believes 
it is necessary to protect the national security interests of the 
United States.
  I should also note that the bill carefully states that the rights of 
every ethnic and religion group should be protected in the undivided 
capital of Jerusalem. Three major faiths revere Jerusalem as a holy 
city. The best way to protect the religious interests of members of all 
these faiths is to ensure that Jerusalem never again is divided, which 
would only threaten to reignite religious conflict.
  Madam President, Senator Dole and Senator Moynihan are to be 
commended for their persistent leadership in ensuring that this 
legislation has finally come for a vote on the floor of the Senate. I 
hope that, once the House of Representatives gives its approval, this 
legislation will be signed into law by the President, who during the 
1992 campaign clearly stated that ``I recognize Jerusalem as an 
undivided city, the eternal capital of Israel.'' Given the very strong 
support this bill rightly enjoys in both Houses of Congress, I think 
the President's advisers would be unwise to suggest another course of 
action.
  And once this bill is enacted into law, through whichever mechanism, 
I trust that the President will move expeditiously to implement it and 
attain its objective before the May 1999 deadline.
  Madam President, many of us in the Senate have had the opportunity to 
help cultivate America's special relationship with the State of Israel. 
As a strategic ally and an island of stability and democracy in an 
important but troubled region, Israel steadfastly supported American 
interests during the cold war. During the gulf war, when Saddam Hussein 
sought to gain control over Middle Eastern energy resources, Israel 
stood firmly with America, enduring savage attacks on its civilian 
population that were designed to split Israeli policy from United 
States policy.
  Having protected U.S. interests in a hostile region for decades, the 
American-Israeli strategic alliance today is the foundation for the 
Middle East peace process. Without steadfast United States support for 
Israel, those among Israel's neighbors who have accepted the necessity 
for a negotiated peace settlement would not have done so. And without 
our continued steadfast support, the peace process will not be 
successful. Nowhere is this need greater than on the question of the 
status of Jerusalem.
  Jerusalem is and will remain the undivided capital of the State of 
Israel, and we must not miss the opportunity to underline that fact--
particularly today on the eve of the inauguration of the celebration of 
the 3,000th anniversary of Jerusalem's establishment as the capital of 
Israel. This legislation will help to ensure that the fourth millennium 
of this holy city will begin with an era of peace.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, so that we can pass 
it with a large majority and ensure its swift enactment into law.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1322, a bill to 
relocate the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
  In the over 180 countries where the United States has a diplomatic 
presence, Israel is the only country where our diplomatic presence is 
outside of the capital city. It is time to pledge ourselves to moving 
our Embassy to Jerusalem, which is the legitimate capital of Israel. It 
is in our interest to 

[[Page S 15524]]
strongly support Israel and its continued administration of Jerusalem.
  I am a cosponsor of this legislation, along with 63 other Senators. 
In a year some characterize as a very partisan year, you have a 
bipartisan consensus on this issue. Senators have come together for the 
national interest, something which is above politics.
  This is what this bill is all about: The national interest. I have 
heard that this bill is solely about politics of the Presidential kind. 
That is not true--the proof is in the list of cosponsors: This list is 
bipartisan and balanced.
  I have heard the argument against this bill, that moving our Embassy 
ahead of schedule would endanger the Middle East peace process. I am 
not persuaded by this argument. The United States has consistently 
recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. If we want to be an honest 
broker in peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians, we should be 
honest about our view of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem.
  This bill would allow us to break ground in 1996 for the new Embassy. 
Next year will be the 3,000th anniversary year of Jerusalem. King David 
relocated his throne from Hebron to Jerusalem 3 millennia ago. Next 
year, America should move its Embassy to the city of David.
  This bill is not a statement of animosity against any religion. 
Almost all Senators are on record supporting Israel's administration of 
Jerusalem as a unified and universal city, open to all followers of the 
three great world religions. This it has done for 28 years, and that 
will not be jeopardized.
  This bill is not a statement against any country. This bill is for 
the official recognition on our part that our ally Israel has its 
governmental seat in Jerusalem. The peace negotiations can and should 
continue. We should facilitate such negotiations. Relocating our 
Embassy does not and should not have anything to do with ongoing peace 
talks.
  So I think we should pass this bill, and I think the President should 
sign it. Jerusalem has always been at the crossroads of history and 
faith. We should begin next year to place our presence there.
  I am reminded that people of the Jewish faith say at the end of the 
Passover and Yom Kippur services, ``Next year, in Jerusalem.'' This 
expresses their hope of return and the centrality of Jerusalem in the 
Jewish faith.
  I say something similar, Madam President: That I hope this bill 
passes, and next year, we will be in Jerusalem breaking ground for a 
new Embassy in the Holy City.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Israel 
Embassy Relocation Act. I thank the sponsors of this legislation for 
amending it to give Israel more flexibility on when construction on our 
new Embassy will begin.
  Jerusalem is and always will be the capital of Israel. For thousands 
of years the Jewish people prayed, ``next year in Jerusalem.'' This 
prayer helped to sustain Jews even through the darkest days of the 
diaspora.
  Even after Israeli independence, the holy sites of Jerusalem were 
closed to Christians and Jews. The Jewish quarter of the old city was 
destroyed. But since Jerusalem was unified in 1967, Jerusalem is open 
to all religions for the first time in its history.
  I have visited Israel with Jews who were there for the first time. 
When we visited the Western Wall, I saw what it meant for them to touch 
the stones that their ancestors could only dream of. I saw that 
Jerusalem is not just a city or a capital. It is the religious and 
historic homeland of the Jewish people.
  Why is Israel the only nation with which we have diplomatic relations 
that is not allowed to chose its own capital? The sight for the U.S. 
Embassy is in west Jerusalem, which has been part of Israel since its 
independence. We should have moved our Embassy long ago.
  So over the years, I have supported every effort of Congress to call 
upon the executive branch to move our Embassy to Jerusalem. And each 
successive administration has ignored us.
  But now, as Israel takes courageous steps toward peace, we are 
raising this issue again. And what should have been a clear statement 
on Jerusalem has become a political debate.
  When this legislation was first introduced, I had some concerns about 
the requirement that construction on the new Embassy must begin in 
1996. I did not cosponsor it because I believe that we would be 
imposing our own deadlines on the peace process. This new bill removes 
the arbitrary dates that fit United States elections rather than the 
will of the Israeli people. This issue is too important to politicize.
  Madam President, this year we celebrate the 3,000 anniversary of 
Jerusalem. Let us mark this great event by reaffirming that Jerusalem 
is and always will be the capital of the State of Israel.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I stand here today to strongly support S. 
1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995.
  I wish to commend the majority leader for his efforts in introducing 
this bill. I also wish to commend the efforts of Senator Kyl and a 
number of my Democratic colleagues for ensuring that we possess a bill 
that will have, I hope, unanimous support here in the Senate.
  The issue of Jerusalem has been debated on this floor for over a 
decade. I have always believed that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, 
and I believe that now is the time for the United States Congress to 
recognize this reality. That is why I signed the letter to Secretary 
Christopher on March 20, 1995--along with 92 of our colleagues--that 
declared that ``we believe that the United States Embassy belongs in 
Jerusalem.''
  I understand that this legislation has been modified to address 
concerns that we may be restricting the President's foreign 
policymaking powers. With these modifications, I encourage the 
administration to join us in correcting a diplomatic anomaly that we 
have visited on our closest ally in the Middle East for too long: Of 
the diplomatic relations we hold with over 180 nations around the 
world, Israel is the only country in which our Embassy is not in the 
capital.
  I have been and remain a strong supporter of the Middle East peace 
process. But through the years of my support, I have always maintained 
that the policy process must be driven by the participants, and that 
the United States' role is to support, not dictate, the terms of the 
negotiations. Israel has made some courageous concessions over these 
negotiations. It has waged a fight for peace that has been, on some 
days, as bloody as its previous wars.
  Next year will begin the ``Final Status'' negotiations. There has 
been much positioning by certain parties over the future of Jerusalem. 
But Israeli governments have not vacillated over this issue, and their 
position has always been clear: Jerusalem is the seat of the Israeli 
Government, and Jerusalem shall remain the united capital of Israel. 
This is the conviction of the Israeli Government, the only democratic 
state and our most valuable ally in the region.
  This should be our conviction now. Our ambivalence beyond this point 
will only muddle, and I believe frustrate, the final status 
negotiations. The parties must set the terms, and we must not confound 
expectations by perpetuating the anomaly of the U.S. Embassy in Tel 
Aviv. If we wish to continue supporting the peace process, and I firmly 
believe we should, then we must make clear that it is the policy of the 
U.S. Government to have its Embassy in Jerusalem by the conclusion of 
the peace negotiations at the end of this century.
  Jerusalem just celebrated its 3,000th anniversary. Let us now declare 
that the U.S. Embassy will reside in that holy city by the end of this 
troubled 20th century. Let us now pass resoundingly S. 1322.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Madam President, I strongly support S. 1322, the 
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act, legislation which 
would locate the United States Embassy in Israel in Jerusalem, Israel's 
capital city.
  It is customary, indeed, universal, that an embassy is located in the 
capital city of every sovereign nation in which a diplomatic presence 
is maintained; that is why I cosponsored S. 1322, along with 62 of my 
colleagues.
  Madam President, Jerusalem is Israel's chosen seat of government. It 
is where the President, Prime Minister, Parliament, Supreme Court, 
central 

[[Page S 15525]]
bank, and all other authoritative institutions of state are 
headquartered. It has been the capital of Israel since 1950. Moving the 
American Embassy is nothing more than an acknowledgment of what is in 
fact the reality--Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.
  Presently, the United States maintains diplomatic relations with 184 
countries around the world. Of these, Israel is the only nation in 
which our Embassy is located in a city not regarded by the host nation 
as its capital.
  Imagine, Madam President, the huge outcry, within and outside of 
government, if any foreign nation refused to locate its embassy in our 
capital or insisted that it would maintain relations with us, but not 
in the location we designated as our capital city. That kind of refusal 
would create serious and unnecessary tensions between the United States 
and that country. After all, the question of where to locate the 
capital of the United States is for the United States to decide--and no 
one else.
  That same logic applies in this case to the capital of Israel. The 
question of where to locate its capital is for Israel to decide and no 
other nation or power to frustrate. And Israel decided long ago that 
Jerusalem would be its capital.
  If the argument is made that Middle East peace negotiations are at a 
delicate stage, and that this is not the time for this legislation, my 
response to that is: Peace negotiations are always at a delicate stage. 
The pendency of discussions should not force an untenable 
discrimination against one of the negotiators.
  Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since 1950. The time for 
waiting is over. Forty-five years is a long enough period for closure 
of what should be a matter of simple fairness.
  Critics of this legislation also argue that the passage--even the 
discussion--of this legislation will undermine the peace process, 
thereby harming Israel's security and strategic interests. However, the 
Government of Israel and its citizens, the ultimate authorities on 
Israel's security and strategic interests, do not share that view. They 
enthusiastically support the relocation of the American Embassy to the 
capital city, Jerusalem.
  Others argue that the relocation of the American Embassy to Jerusalem 
would prejudge and prejudice the final status of Jerusalem negotiations 
under the Oslo agreement. I do not agree. The site the United States is 
considering for a future Embassy is in an area that has been part of 
Israel since its founding in 1948. Moreover, Israel's right to this 
section of Jerusalem is uncontested, even by the Palestine Liberation 
Organization.
  Madam President, I understand and appreciate the uniqueness of the 
city of Jerusalem. It is unique in the world as a holy place. The 
hilltop city is sacred to Jews as the site of their ancient temple, to 
Christians as the birthplace of Christianity, and to Moslems as the 
site from which Muhammad ascended into heaven. It is all of these 
things--and it is also the capital of Israel.
  Each and every U.S. Embassy abroad exists to represent our Government 
to the government of the country in which it is located. The Government 
of Israel is in Jerusalem. Jerusalem, therefore, is the only place our 
Embassy should be.
  The logic of locating our Embassy in Israel's capital city is 
overwhelming and compelling, which is why this legislation enjoys such 
widespread, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of 
Representatives. I urge the prompt passage of this legislation, and I 
look forward to the day in the near future when the United States 
Embassy opens in Israel's capital--Jerusalem.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the 
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act. Like almost all of my 
colleagues, I believe that an undivided Jerusalem is the legitimate 
capital of the State of Israel, and that United States policy should 
clearly reflect that. Accordingly, the United States Embassy should be 
housed in Israel's capital, just like it is in every other country, and 
not in the country's economic center.
  Of course, the Jerusalem issue is practically unique in world 
politics. The ancient city is holy for Jews, Christians, and Moslems, 
and both Israelis and Palestinians claim Jerusalem as their capital. 
The Tomb of the Holy Sepulchre is sacred for Christians to honor 
Christ's death. Moslems claim the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa 
mosque as the site of Abraham's sacrifice. Jews pray at the Kotel, the 
Western Wall, the last remaining wall of the ancient synagogues, as 
well as the scores of other holy sites nestled in so many quarters.
  Named as the City of Peace, Jerusalem has unfortunately been split by 
war. Throughout history, Arabs and Jews and Christians have locked each 
other out, and have often accused each other of desanctifying religious 
monuments, and barring access to each other's holy places.
  Incidents have occurred where Moslems have felt offended by 
desecrations of their holy monuments and religious foundations. My own 
memory is seared by the defacing of meaningful and historic synagogues 
in the Old City's Jewish Quarter in 1947-67, when the city was not 
controlled by Israel. I remember with pain the laundry that hung on the 
Wailing Wall, a place of immensely spiritual and sacred value for Jews. 
I cannot forget the pictures of Jewish tombstones thrown around the 
Mount of Olives cemetery just at the foot of the walls of the Old City.
  Though the international community has tried to split Jerusalem under 
the political solution of corpus separatum, to my mind, the 
spirituality and emotion of the city make division impossible. Given 
the 3,000 years of the history of Jerusalem, it will always be the 
heart of the Jewish people and the capital of the Jewish state. Indeed, 
it is the capital of the sovereign nation of Israel--a sovereignty the 
United States has heavily invested in and fiercely supported for 45 
years. If our support for Jewish sovereignty over the land of Israel is 
to mean anything, then the United States should recognize Israel's 
capital appropriately.
  Waiting years--if not decades--for the right moment to move the 
United States Embassy is not an appropriate recognition of Israel's 
sovereignty. As much as I hate to admit it, I do not think there will 
ever be a right time for a move with such emotional associations. And 
therefore, now is as right as ever. In exchange, Israel must guarantee 
universal access to other religions who seek to honor their holy places 
as well. I believe that, save some very unfortunate incidents, Israel 
for the most part has protected the right of access to Moslem and 
Christian holy places, and has a responsibility to continue to do so.
  I am very sensitive to concerns that such a move by the United States 
at this time would undermine the peace process. I understand the risk 
that perhaps the United States would compromise its important position 
as an honest broker in the peace process: To that, I respond that 
America's position is nonnegotiable since Israel's claim to Jerusalem 
is nonnegotiable. Already, there should be no doubt of what the United 
States position is; hiding our Embassy in Tel Aviv does not change 
that.
  I am also troubled by suggestions that such a move would predetermine 
the outcome of the final status talks between Israel and the Palestine 
Liberation Organization, and tie the chairman's hands in other critical 
negotiations. I am not persuaded, however, that the move of the U.S. 
Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would have such a devastating 
effect. It is important to keep this proposal in perspective, and not 
underestimate the power of the commitment of the parties themselves to 
the peace process--wherever the U.S. Embassy is housed. Further, I 
believe that Prime Minister Rabin's own assertions that Israel will not 
cede Jerusalem are just as important to the process, and can guide 
United States actions on the issue.
  The stationing of the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has been a 
widely supported proposal. The Democratic Party has included it as a 
plank in our platform since 1967. Sweeping majorities in Congress have 
urged it for years. It has not been a partisan issue; it has not been a 
personal crusade for just a few Members of Congress. Indeed, it is when 
we have broad-based and bipartisan support such as this that coherent 
and successful policies emerge. Israel has always been a beneficiary of 
such unity. For that reason, I appreciate Senator Dole working 

[[Page S 15526]]
with the administration to craft a bill that can have near-unanimous 
support, and to avoid the nonsense of division on an issue like 
Jerusalem.
  This year Jerusalem is celebrating its 3,000th anniversary. For it to 
remain the unclaimed capital of Israel is a shame. We should honor it, 
and the State of Israel, with the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation 
Implementation Act.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I fully recognize that Israel is one of 
the most strategic and important allies of the United States--the only 
working democracy in the Middle East. We should never waver in our 
support for a nation that has been militarily threatened by its 
neighbors since its founding over 40 years ago.
  But I also strongly support the peace process that Israeli Prime 
Minister Rabin and the Palestine Liberation Organization began over 2 
years ago. A glimmer of hope has emerged in recent years that the 
longstanding hostilities that have fueled conflict in this volatile 
region of the world may soon come to an end. It is imperative that the 
United States stand firmly behind the efforts of Israel and the 
Palestinians to reach agreement on the many disagreements that have 
divided these peoples for so long.
  In announcing its accord on Jericho and the Gaza Strip 2 years ago, 
Israel and the PLO also agreed to negotiate the permanent status of 
Jerusalem beginning next year. The United States has stood firmly--and 
indeed has been a leader--behind negotiations on these and other 
unresolved issues that are aimed at achieving long-term peace.
  I certainly recognize that Israel declared Jerusalem to be its 
capital in 1950. However, since 1967 the United States has called for a 
negotiated resolution of Jerusalem's status, a position restated by the 
September 1993 agreement between Israel and the PLO. I am convinced 
that the question of when we construct our Embassy in Israel should be 
left to the President and the State Department. Having Congress dictate 
to the State Department a construction schedule for our Embassy would 
surely disrupt and possibly derail the ongoing Mideast peace process, a 
most sensitive diplomatic effort.
  Although the administration is given a national security waiver in 
the compromise version of this legislation, there is still no guarantee 
that the Embassy move could be waived if the peace process is halted. 
That is why the State Department remains opposed to this bill. Because 
of my support for the Mideast peace process and executive branch 
authority on foreign policy, I will vote against S. 1322.
  Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of this 
resolution to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I 
strongly believe that Jerusalem is, and will always be, the undivided 
capital of the state of Israel. The United States Embassy should have 
been moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem long ago, and I have supported 
many past efforts to that end. Earlier this year, I joined 91 other 
Senators in a letter to Secretary of State Christopher urging that our 
Embassy be moved as soon as possible.
  Beyond the protocol concerns of maintaining an embassy outside a 
state's declared capital city, the U.S. Government is ignoring the 
centrality of Jerusalem to the Jewish people by keeping its embassy in 
Tel Aviv. Jerusalem is more than just a capital for the people of 
Israel. Israelis cherish Jerusalem for its historical and religious 
significance and hold it in great affection. As a result, this 
continued reluctance to move the Embassy to Israel's precious capital 
and most important city is perceived as the ultimate diplomatic snub. 
It is only appropriate that we correct this slight.
  Jerusalem has emotional resonance that reaches far beyond the Middle 
East as the religious capital for all Jews and as an important 
religious site for many other faiths. The Israeli Government has earned 
our praise in its valiant efforts to ensure that people of all faiths 
have unhindered access to their holy sites. Unfortunately, Jerusalem 
has not always been so accessible, as Senator Lautenberg detailed for 
the Senate yesterday.
  Mr. President, I have been somewhat skeptical as to whether we can 
pass legislation that will really move our Embassy from Tel Aviv to 
Jerusalem. The administration has expressed reasonable concerns that 
this measure is ill-timed and that in its original form could have had 
an adverse effect on the peace process. I am pleased that Senators 
Feinstein and Lautenberg were able to work with the original sponsors 
of this measure to achieve a compromise to address the administration's 
concerns.
  With or without this legislation, I continue to urge the 
administration to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as soon as 
possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill to send that 
message to the administration.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise in support of S. 1332, a bill to 
relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. I have long supported placing 
the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. It is time that the United States 
recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by placing our Embassy 
there. Such recognition is long overdue--47 years overdue. Over time, 
the location of the Embassy in Tel Aviv has taken on a significance 
that is at odds with our strong and unwavering support for Israel and 
Jerusalem as its undivided capital.
  The United States failure to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of 
Israel has only served to embolden the enemies of Israel, leading them 
to think perhaps the United States, Israel's closest ally, was 
ambivalent about the status of Jerusalem. We are not. And it is long 
past time for us to demonstrate our steadfast commitment to an 
undivided Jerusalem as the historic, governmental, and spiritual 
capital of Israel.
  Much of the discussion on this bill has addressed concerns that 
relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem would have a detrimental 
effect on the peace process. The opposite is true. An essential part of 
the peace process involves a clear understanding between the parties on 
a number of issues, an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is 
one. PLO compliance is another. On both counts, I want to be absolutely 
clear: both are essential to a lasting peace in the Middle East. Both 
are good for Israel and both are good for the Palestinian people. Both 
are fundamental prerequisites for moving forward into a phase of good 
relations between Israel and its neighbors. Both are necessary for 
stability, economic development, good government, and the rule of law 
for the Palestinian people.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Madam President, I want to join the strong chorus of 
bipartisan support for S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act. 
As an original cosponsor of this bill, as well as the legislation 
introduced early this year, S. 770, I am pleased the Senate is taking 
decisive action. This bill already has more than 60 cosponsors--a 
testament once again to the strong bond between the people of the 
United States and Israel, our friend and ally in the Middle East. I 
urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to pass this 
legislation and send it to the White House as soon as possible.
  Swift passage would not only be appropriate, but timely. In less than 
2 weeks, Prime Minister Rabin and Mayor Olmert of Jerusalem will be 
with us here in the Capitol to commemorate the 3,000th anniversary of 
the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by King David. 
It was 45 years ago, in 1950, when Jerusalem formally was reestablished 
as the capital of Israel. Throughout this city's rich history, 
Jerusalem has been an important city to people of many faiths. It has 
been occupied by military governments, psuedo-states, and empires. 
However, for three centuries, only one State has called Jerusalem her 
capital--the State of Israel. Jerusalem is and should forever be the 
capital of Israel. Jerusalem is where our Embassy belongs.
  The Senate repeatedly has expressed in a strong, unified voice that 
the United States Embassy in Israel should be relocated to Jerusalem. 
Earlier this year, I was pleased to join a vast majority of my 
colleagues--92 to be exact--in a letter to Secretary of State Warren 
Christopher, urging that the State Department begin taking concrete 
steps to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The legislation we 
will pass today more than gets the process moving. Specifically, S. 
1322 would set a definitive timeline for the construction and 
relocation of the 

[[Page S 15527]]

United States Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem. It would authorize 
funding over the next 2 years to ensure the timeline is met, including 
the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem by May 31, 1999.
  Madam President, I strongly disagree with those who claim that this 
legislation could threaten the Middle East peace process. There is no 
rational basis to question the Senate's commitment to achieving a 
lasting peace in the Middle East. All want to see the peace process 
succeed. The safety and security of all the people of Israel is 
critical to attaining a stable environment in the Middle East.
  Clearly, a number of issues in the peace process remain to be worked 
out. However, there are a few facts that are not in dispute: Jerusalem 
is an undivided city. Jerusalem is a city open to all people of all 
nationalities and faiths. Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel. By 
relocating our Embassy in this historic city, we simply reinforce these 
facts--facts that reinforce U.S. policy. Nothing more. Nothing less.
  Again, Madam President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of 
this very important legislation. Throughout my career in the Senate, 
this body has passed a number of nonbinding resolutions recognizing 
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. U.S. policy is clear. Congress has 
spoken many times. Now the time has come for action. I commend the 
majority leader, my friends and colleagues from New York--Senator 
D'Amato and Senator Moynihan--and my friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl, 
for their tenacious leadership to see this bill through to final 
passage today. I can think of no action by the United States to be more 
appropriate on this extraordinary year--the 3,000th anniversary of King 
David's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel--than to 
place our Embassy in Israel's capital city, Jerusalem--a city forever 
free, forever undivided and forever the capital of the people of 
Israel.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President: I rise today to speak about S. 1322--
Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Implementation Act of 1995. Let me say at 
the outset that I share the fundamental premise of the sponsors of this 
legislation, namely that Jerusalem is and should remain the undivided 
capital of the State of Israel. I also agree that the logical extension 
of that premise is that the U.S. Embassy should therefore appropriately 
be located in that city.
  I have joined with my colleagues on numerous occasions expressing 
this view. Most recently, on March 20, I joined with 92 of my Senate 
colleagues on a letter to Secretary of State Warren Christopher stating 
our view that:

     it would be appropriate for planning to begin now to ensure 
     such a move no later than the agreements on permanent status 
     take effect and the transition period has ended, which 
     according to the Declaration of Principles is scheduled for 
     May 1999.

  Mr. President, several weeks ago I had the privilege of being present 
at the White House to witness the historic signing of the Interim 
Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza by Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak 
Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. With the stroke of their pens, 
they took, the peoples of the Middle East one step closer to lasting 
peace. All of the efforts of those who were the enemies of peace could 
not deter these two brave leaders from their goal of finding the common 
ground that made that agreement a reality.
  Since the establishment of the State of Israel more than 47 years 
ago, the people of Israel have sought to live in peace with their 
neighbors in the Middle East. For too long Israeli efforts to reach out 
for peace and dialog with its Arab counterparts were met with rejection 
and terrorism. Fortunately that has now largely changed. Clearly the 
break up of the Soviet Union and the gulf war were defining moments 
that totally reshaped the political landscape in the Middle East and 
improved the prospect for peace.
  Mr. President, I fully understand the emotional attachment that 
Israelis--indeed all Jews--have for Jerusalem. I also respect the 
significance of this city for those of Moslem and Jewish faiths. Under 
Israeli sovereignty, all nations have enjoyed complete freedom of 
worship in a united Jerusalem. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem 
will in no way effect freedom of access to holy places or Moslem and 
Christian continued control of their respective holy sites in that 
city.
  We can all be justly proud of the enormous progress that has been 
made to date to undo the destruction and distrust that are the 
byproduct of decades of hatred and havoc in the Middle East. But we 
must also be realistic about the difficult issues that remain to be 
resolved. We must also be mindful of actions we might take here in this 
body that could further complicate efforts to reach a final agreement.
  It is within that context that the administration's opposition to 
legislatively mandating the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem 
by a date certain should be understood. Having said that, I believe 
that at this point not to vote in support of this legislation would 
send the wrong signal to those who would prefer to see the Middle East 
remain in turmoil. It would send the wrong signal to those who may hold 
some allusion that our views about the undivided nature of the capital 
of Israel will somehow change.
  Mr. President, I also would note that the changes that have been made 
to the original legislation by its sponsors do address some of the 
specific concerns expressed by the administration about earlier 
versions. I am pleased that ongoing discussions concerning the 
inclusion of Presidential waiver authority bore fruit.
  Mr. President, while I may have had some doubts about the specific 
wording of the legislation or the timing of its consideration, I 
wholeheartedly endorse its intent, and will join with my colleagues at 
the appropriate time in support of final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, this is an historic day for the Senate. 
Long discussed and long promised, today marks the day that means a U.S. 
Embassy in Jerusalem will be a reality. On October 13, 1995, along with 
Senators Moynihan, Kyl, Inouye, and 61 other colleagues, I introduced 
S. 1322, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995. It modifies S. 
770, introduced last May, by deleting the requirement setting the 
groundbreaking must be begun on the Embassy by May 1996. This 
legislation states that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital 
of Israel and that our Embassy should be relocated to that city no 
later than May 1999. That is the bottom line.
  I wish to say at the outset that the sponsors of this legislation do 
not want to undermine the peace process. We support the process of 
building peace in the Middle East.
  In our view this legislation is not about the peace process, as the 
Senator from Arizona pointed out in a meeting we had the other day with 
the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, the Senator from New 
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and the Senator from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman, time and time again.
  This legislation is not about the peace process, it is about 
recognizing Israel's capital. Israel's capital is not on the table in 
the peace process, and moving the United States Embassy to Jerusalem 
does nothing to prejudge the outcome of any future negotiations.
  Years ago, I expressed some concern about the impact of Jerusalem and 
related issues could have on the prospects for peace. But we live in a 
very different world today. The Soviet empire is gone, and Arab States 
can no longer use cold war rivalries in their differences with Israel. 
Iraqi aggression against Kuwait has been reversed with American forces 
fighting shoulder to shoulder with Arab allies. American military 
forces remain in the Persian Gulf region. Jordan has joined Egypt in 
making genuine peace with Israel. The second phase of the Declaration 
of Principles is being implemented, Gaza is under Palestinian control, 
and Israeli withdrawal from West Bank towns has begun.
  Even yesterday Arafat met with a group of 100 some Jewish leaders in 
New York City. I never thought it would happen. It happened.
  No one can fail to see that the Middle East has changed dramatically. 
In my view, now is the time to set the deadline for moving the American 
Embassy to Jerusalem.
  In the more than 5 months since this legislation was introduced, 
there was not one single overture from the Clinton administration. 
There were veto 

[[Page S 15528]]
threats and legal arguments, but no effort to even discuss our 
differences. Despite the administration's refusal to talk, the sponsors 
of the legislation remained willing to address concerns about the bill.
  I had no doubt we can work it out and move forward on this 
legislation.
  I want to thank my colleagues, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Feinstein, 
and others for their willingness to cooperate and work out some of the 
differences we had, along, of course, with Senator Kyl, Senator 
Lieberman, Senator Moynihan, and Senator Inouye.
  The administration raised concerns over the lack of a waiver 
provision in the bill. Last Friday, they proposed a national interest 
waiver with no limits. In the interest of getting the broadest possible 
support--we hope, even including the support of the White House--the 
substitute adopted last night included a national security interest 
waiver. If the waiver is exercised, funding withholding would take 
place in the next fiscal year. This should take care of any possibly 
unforseen impact of the legislation. Despite having the votes to 
prevail, we have demonstrated our willingness to meet the concerns 
raised. We did not want a confrontation with the White House. In sum, 
we have gone the extra mile, and now is the time for the Senate to 
speak.
  Some have said the Israeli Government is opposed to this legislation. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. The architect of the Oslo 
accord, Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin recently made Israeli 
Government views very clear:

       Any timing for transferring any embassy to Jerusalem, is 
     good timing. The earlier the better. Israel is the only 
     nation in the world that doesn't have a recognized capital.

  As I said when introducing this legislation, the time has come to 
move beyond letters, expressions of support, and sense-of-the-Congress 
resolutions. The time has come to enact legislation that will get the 
job done.

  Madam President, we have a very sound piece of legislation before us 
today. I would particularly like to thank the lead sponsors and those 
who have been helpful in the process.
  I am pleased that Senator Feinstein and Senator Lautenberg agreed to 
cosponsor the legislation after the substitute was worked out last 
night.
  It would seem to me we ought to have unanimous or near unanimous 
support for this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that several items referred to in my 
statement be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    Shaw, Pittman,


                                           Potts & Trowbridge,

                                                    June 27, 1995.
     To: American Israel Public Affairs Committee
     From: Gerald Charnoff, Charles J. Cooper, and Michael A. 
       Carvin
     Re S. 770; Bill to Relocate U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem


                            i. introduction

       This memorandum is in response to your request for an 
     analysis of the constitutionality of the ``Jerusalem Embassy 
     Relocation Implementation Act of 1995,'' hereinafter S. 770, 
     a measure introduced by Senator Dole in the first session of 
     the 104th Congress. Maintaining that Jerusalem should be 
     recognized by the U.S. as the capital of Israel, the bill, in 
     a Statement of Policy, states that groundbreaking for the 
     U.S. embassy in Jerusalem ``should begin'' by 31 December 
     1996 and that the embassy ``should be officially open'' by 31 
     May 1999. S. 770, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 3(a). The 
     measure further establishes that no more than 50% of the 
     funds appropriated to the Department of State in fiscal year 
     1997 for ``Acquisition & Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' 
     may be obligated until the Secretary of State certifies that 
     construction has begun on the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem. Id. 
     Sec. 3(b). Similarly, not more than 50% of the funds 
     appropriated in the same account for fiscal year 1999 may be 
     obligated prior to certification by the Secretary of State 
     that the Jerusalem embassy has officially opened. Id., 
     Sec. 3(c). Additional provisions, contained in sections four 
     and five of the measure, earmark certain funds for the 
     relocation effort.'' \1\
     \1\ Footnotes at end of letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice 
     has taken the position that the funding mechanism 
     incorporated into S. 770 is an unconstitutional infringement 
     on the President's powers. See Bill to Relocate the United 
     States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Op. Off. Legal 
     Counsel (May 16, 1995) (``The proposed bill would severely 
     impair the President's constitutional authority to determine 
     the form and manner of the Nation's diplomatic relations.'') 
     (hereinafter ``OLC Op.'').


                              ii. analysis

       The Office of Legal Counsel (``OLC'') Opinion argues that 
     the President has primary responsibility for foreign affairs 
     and that his specific power to recognize foreign governments 
     to exclusive. OLC Op., p. 2-3. Accordingly, OLC concludes 
     that ``Congress may not impose on the President its own 
     foreign policy judgments as to the particular sites at which 
     the United States' diplomatic relations are to take place.'' 
     Id. at 3. OLC maintains that the imposition of fixed-
     percentage restrictions on the State Department's FY 1997 and 
     FY 1999 acquisition and maintenance funds until specified 
     steps are completed in the relocation effort constitutes an 
     impermissible restriction on the President's discretion in 
     foreign affairs. Although OLC does not in any way dispute 
     Congress' plenary power over the purse, it maintains that 
     Congress may not ``attach conditions to Executive Branch 
     appropriations requiring the President to relinquish his 
     constitutional discretion in foreign affairs.'' Id. at 4, 
     quoting Issues Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 
     and Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 102-140, 16 Op. Off. Legal 
     Counsel at 30-31 (1992) (emphasis added.). In support of this 
     assertion, OLC places exclusive reliance on prior Executive 
     Branch opinions which criticize congressional appropriations 
     riders that directly required the President to take (or 
     refrain from) a particular action by stating that no 
     appropriated funds could be used for the congressionally 
     proscribed action. Id. at 3-4. See also Issues Raised by 
     Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 & Section 503 of Pub. L. 
     No. 102-140, 16 Op. Off. of Legal Counsel 18, 19 (1992), 
     citing Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 102-140, 105 Stat. at 820 
     (1991) (``[N]one of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     used by the Department of State to issue more than one 
     official or diplomatic passport to any United States 
     government employee. . . .''); Appropriations Limitation for 
     Rules Vetoed by Congress, 4B Op. Off. of Legal Counsel 731, 
     731-32 (1980), citing H.R. 7484, Sec. 608, 96th Cong., 2nd 
     Sess. (1980) (``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available to implement . . . any regulation which has 
     been disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted. . . .'').
       OLC's assertion concerning the primacy of the Chief 
     Executive in foreign affairs is well-supported,\2\ and its 
     further assertion that Congress may not interfere with these 
     foreign policy prerogatives even when exercising its spending 
     power is also consistent with long-standing Executive Branch 
     precedent, although Congress has taken a different view.\3\ 
     The issue has never been resolved judicially.\4\ However, 
     OLC's assertion that S. 770 ``requires'' or ``compels'' the 
     President to move the Embassy to Jerusalem, and is thus 
     subject to the same constitutional objections as 
     appropriation riders containing such unconditional 
     requirements, is belied by the plain language of the bill and 
     is otherwise unsupported by law or Executive Branch opinions.
       S. 770 does not purport to restrict the President's ability 
     to maintain an Embassy in Tel Aviv or to otherwise interfere 
     with the President's authority to use appropriated monies in 
     any manner he believes best serves the Nation's foreign 
     policy interests. Rather, the measure merely states that, 
     absent compliance with an established timetable for 
     relocation of the U.S. Embassy in Israel, Congress will 
     invoke its spending power to reduce the aggregate funding 
     level that can be obligated in certain related discretionary 
     accounts. Instead of a prohibition on the ability of the 
     President to use money to exercise his constitutional powers, 
     S. 770 merely provides a fiscal incentive for the President 
     to exercise his discretion in a certain manner, though 
     leaving him capable of eschewing these incentives and acting 
     in direct contravention of Congress' wishes. Thus, such a 
     mechanism in no way restricts the ability of the President to 
     use his foreign affairs power to employ appropriated money as 
     he sees fit.
       That being so, S. 770 is different in this critical respect 
     from any other appropriation rider ever objected to by 
     Executive Branch officials as an unconstitutional 
     infringement on the President's foreign affairs power or 
     other executive powers. In all such cases, the appropriations 
     riders have directed a particular course of action or 
     inaction by prohibiting certain uses of appropriated funds, 
     even if the President desired to take such actions in 
     fulfilling his constitutionally-assigned duties. Issues 
     Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 & Section 503 of 
     Pub. L. No. 102-140, supra, citing Section 503 of Pub. L. No. 
     102-140, 105 Stat. at 820 (1991) (``[N]one of the funds 
     provided in this Act shall be used by the Department of State 
     to issue more than one official or diplomatic passport to any 
     United States government employee. . . . ''); Appropriations 
     Limitation for Rules Vetoed by Congress, supra, citing H.R. 
     7584, Sec. 608, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1980) (``None of the 
     funds appropriated or otherwise made available shall be 
     available to implement . . . any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted. . . .'').

[[Page S 15529]]

       The Attorney General and OLC have reasoned that if Congress 
     is without constitutional power to make decisions for the 
     President in areas the Constitution commits to his 
     discretion, it matters not whether that intrusion is embodied 
     in appropriations or other legislation. In exercising its 
     power of the purse, Congress has no greater authority to 
     usurp the President's exclusive constitutional authority than 
     when it acts pursuant to other enumerated powers. See, The 
     Appropriations Power & the Necessary & Proper Clause, 68 
     Wash. U. L. Q. 623, 30 (1990) (``[W]hen we hear discussions 
     about Congress' weighty role in . . . the foreign relations 
     power, and Congress adverts to `the power of the purse,' it 
     does not make sense. Congress still has to point to a 
     substantive power. The power of the purse . . . is only 
     procedural.'') (remarks by the Honorable William Barr).
       Here, in contrast, Congress imposes no restrictions on 
     appropriated funds: such funds may continue to be used to 
     maintain an Embassy in Tel Aviv should the President decide 
     to leave the Embassy there. Accordingly, there is nothing in 
     S. 770 ``requiring the President to relinquish his 
     constitutional discretion in foreign affairs'' and thus OLC's 
     reliance on Executive Branch condemnation of such 
     appropriation riders is entirely misplaced. OLC Op., p. 4.
       To be sure, if the President retains the status quo in 
     Israel, the State Department will have less funds in two 
     upcoming fiscal years than it would otherwise have, and so S. 
     770 is plainly designed to influence the President's decision 
     on the Jerusalem Embassy. But this sort of ``horse trading'' 
     is a basic staple of relations between the two political 
     branches and hardly infringes the President's constitutional 
     authority or powers. For example, the President has 
     unfettered constitutional authority to nominate whomever he 
     desires for, say, Surgeon General, and Congress does not 
     unconstitutionally interfere with that presidential 
     appointment authority by abolishing or reducing the funding 
     for the Surgeon General's Office if certain nominees are 
     proposed. Similarly, Congress may constitutionally pledge to 
     reduce financial support for certain foreign interests or 
     international organizations simply because it is displeased 
     with the President's exercise of his responsibilities as 
     foreign affairs spokesman or Commander-in-Chief. Since the 
     use of these sorts of quid pro quos to influence the 
     President's exercise of his constitutional duties does not 
     unconstitutionally interfere with those duties, S. 770's 
     establishment of such a device is similarly within Congress' 
     constitutional authority.
       By entrusting the President with the authority to 
     definitively resolve certain questions, the Framers did not 
     erect a prophylactic shield protecting the President against 
     all attempts to influence the manner in which he resolves 
     those issues. Accordingly, the Founders did not erect some 
     special constitutional protection for the President which 
     immunizes him from the give and take of inter-branch 
     disagreements. Rather, they expected that a President of 
     ``tolerable firmness'' would be able to resist congressional 
     blandishments to pursue a course he deemed unwise, assuming 
     such appropriations riders survived his veto in the first 
     instance. Alexander Hamilton, ``The Federalist No. 73,'' at 
     445 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
       For this reason, even those scholars who believe Congress 
     ``ought not be able to regulate Presidential action by 
     conditions on the appropriation of funds . . . if it could 
     not regulate the action directly,'' Henkin, supra at 113, 
     acknowledge that establishment of financial penalties or 
     incentives to influence presidential action is permissible. 
     Henkin, supra at 79. (``Since the President is always coming 
     to Congress for money for innumerable purposes, domestic and 
     foreign, Congress and Congressional committees can use 
     appropriations and the appropriations process to bargain also 
     about other elements of Presidential policy and foreign 
     affairs.''). Indeed, the Attorney General has favorably 
     opined on the constitutionality of an appropriation rider 
     that imposed a markedly more onerous restriction on the 
     President's exclusive Commander-in-Chief powers than S. 770 
     imposes on his foreign policy discretion. In 1909, Congress 
     attached the following rider to the Navy's appropriation:
       ``[N]o part of the appropriations herein made for the 
     Marine Corps shall be expended for the purpose for which said 
     appropriations are made unless officers and enlisted men 
     shall serve on board all battleships and armored cruisers, 
     and also upon such other vessels of the navy as the President 
     may direct, in detachments of not less than eight percentum 
     of the strength of the enlisted men of the navy on said 
     vessels.'' Naval Appropriations Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 753, 
     773, reprinted in Appropriations--Marine Corps--Service on 
     Battleships, 27 Op. Att'y Gen. 259 (1909).
       The Attorney General found this restriction constitutional 
     because, ``Congress has power to create or not to create . . 
     . a marine corps, make appropriation for its pay, [and] 
     provide that such appropriation shall not be made available 
     unless the marine corps be employed in some designated way . 
     . .'' 27 Op. Att'y Gen. at 260.
       So far as we can discern, neither OLC nor the Attorney 
     General have subsequently disavowed or undermined the 
     vitality of this Attorney General Opinion, although they 
     opined at times that appropriation riders could not direct 
     the President to take action within his constitutional 
     sphere. Presumably, then, even Executive Branch officials 
     have recognized a distinction between impermissible riders 
     that mandate certain action or inaction and permissible ones 
     which, like the Marine Corps appropriation, provide the 
     President with at least a nominal choice between two courses 
     of action, with financial ``penalties'' if he chooses the 
     disfavored option. In the 1909 naval appropriation, the 
     President's ``choice'' was between having marines constitute 
     eight percent of battleship crews or having no funding for 
     the Marine Corps at all. This complete defunding penalty for 
     exercising the disfavored option is obviously far more 
     draconian than the 50% reduction in construction funding 
     occasioned by S. 770.
       In short, there is an obvious and constitutionally 
     significant difference between an appropriations law 
     forbidding the President to take action which the 
     Constitution leaves to his discretion and a law which merely 
     sets out the negative financial consequences that will ensue 
     if the President pursues a certain policy. This distinction 
     between coercive laws and laws which offer financial 
     incentives to exercise one's sovereign power in the preferred 
     way has been well-recognized by the Supreme Court in directly 
     analogous circumstances.
       Most notably, in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), 
     the Supreme Court considered a congressional statute, known 
     as Section 158, which directed the Secretary of 
     Transportation to withold five percent of allocable highway 
     funds from any state in which individuals under the age of 21 
     could legally purchase or possess alcohol. Like S. 770, the 
     funding mechanism in Dole constituted a congressional attempt 
     to provide indirect financial inducement to affect policy in 
     an area presumably beyond Congress' power to legislate 
     directly.
       Despite earlier recognition that the ``Twenty-first 
     Amendment grants States virtually complete control over 
     whether to permit importation or sale of liquor and how to 
     structure the liquor distribution system,'' \5\ the Court 
     upheld this statutory incursion into state sovereignty, 
     asserting that the ``encouragement to state action found in 
     Sec. 158 is a valid use of the spending power.'' Dole, 483 
     U.S. at 212. Accordingly, even though the Constitution 
     assigned to the states the responsibility for establishing 
     drinking ages, and thus Congress presumably could not direct 
     the states to set a minimum age, this funding restriction was 
     permissible because ``Congress has acted indirectly under its 
     spending power to encourage uniformity in the States' 
     drinking ages.'' Id. at 206. Thus, such restrictions are 
     permissible because the potential recipient of appropriated 
     federal funds is free to reject Congress' financial 
     inducement and exercise unfettered discretion in the relevant 
     area, so long as the recipient is willing to endure the 
     financial sacrifice that ensues. Id. at 211-212 (``Congress 
     has offered . . . encouragement to the States to enact higher 
     minimum drinking ages than they would otherwise choose. But 
     the enactment of such laws remains the prerogative of the 
     States not merely in theory but in fact.''). Similarly, in 
     upholding federal appropriation riders requiring the 
     regulation of State employees' political activities, the 
     Supreme Court has ruled that even though Congress ``has no 
     power to regulate local political activities as such of state 
     officials,'' the federal government nevertheless ``does have 
     power to fix the terms upon which its money allotments to 
     states shall be disbursed.'' Oklahoma v. Civil Service 
     Comm'n, 330 U.S. 127, 143 (1947). The Court found that the 
     state's sovereignty remained intact because the state could 
     adopt ``the `simple expedient' of not yielding to what she 
     urges is federal coercion.'' Id. at 143-144.
       Thus, Dole would seem to directly establish that the sort 
     of conditional funding provided by S. 770 is constitutionally 
     permissible. In Oklahoma and Dole, the Tenth and Twenty-first 
     Amendments provided the states with exclusive authority over 
     their employees' political activities and citizens' legal 
     drinking age, yet Congress did not unconstitutionally 
     infringe these powers by offering financial incentives to 
     adopt a particular policy. By the same token, the fact that 
     the Constitution vests the President with exclusive 
     recognition authority does not disable Congress from using 
     its plenary spending power to seek to influence the exercise 
     of that authority.
       Like the drinking-age restriction in Dole, the funding 
     mechanism in S. 770 merely attempts to induce recipients of 
     federal funds to pursue policy ends advocated by Congress via 
     clearly established conditions on future appropriations, 
     while leaving that decisionmaker with the option of refusing 
     such conditions. The President may exercise his discretion to 
     retain the American embassy in Tel Aviv and accept the 
     potential of reduced congressional funding in certain related 
     discretionary accounts, or he can move the embassy. S. 770 
     does nothing to alter the fundamental fact that the decision 
     as to where to locate the U.S. embassy in Israel ``remains 
     the prerogative'' of the President ``not merely in theory but 
     in fact.'' Dole, 483 U.S. at 211-12.\6\
       To be sure, the President differs from state governments 
     because, as noted, he cannot pursue any action requiring 
     expenditures without congressional funding. Thus a blanket 
     prohibition against using appropriated funds does not leave 
     him with any option to pursue the proscribed activity. 
     Because of this distinction, a straightforward restriction 
     against using any funds for an action 

[[Page S 15530]]
     otherwise within the President's constitutional power is an effective 
     prohibition against taking such action and thus presents a 
     different, and more difficult, constitutional question. As 
     noted, however, that is not the situation here. The President 
     has been offered a choice directly analogous to that offered 
     the states in Dole--he may pursue the congressionally 
     disfavored option and accept the financial consequences or 
     acquiesce to the preferred option without any such sacrifice.
       OLC has nonetheless previously sought to distinguish Dole 
     on the grounds that the Supreme Court's decision in 
     Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority v. Citizens for 
     the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, 111 S. Ct. 2298 (1991) 
     (hereinafter ``MWAA'') found Dole ``inapplicable'' to issues 
     that ``involve separation-of-powers principles.'' Issues 
     Raised by Section 129 of Pub. L. No. 102-138 and Section 503 
     of Pub. L. No 102-140, supra, at 31. This assertion is 
     patently untrue. MWAA in no way suggests that, while Congress 
     is free to use its spending power to influence the sovereign 
     power of states guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and the 
     Constitution's basic structure, the sovereign powers of the 
     President are somehow different and thus immune from such 
     congressional blandishments. Contrary to OLC's misleading 
     selective quotation, MWAA never said Dole's rationale was 
     ``inapplicable'' to cases involving ``separation-of-powers 
     principles,'' it simply stated that Dole's rationale was 
     ``inapplicable to the issue presented by this case.'' MWAA, 
     1111 S. Ct. at 2309 (emphasis added). Dole's rationale was 
     inapplicable not because the sovereign authority of the 
     President is somehow different from that of the states, but 
     because the infringement of executive powers in MWAA was 
     obviously and significantly different from the funding 
     appropriation conditions at issue in Dole.
       The issue that divided the dissenting and majority opinions 
     in MWAA was whether Congress was effectively responsible for 
     creating the Board of Review, which was composed of Members 
     of Congress and had veto power over the Airport Authority's 
     important decisions. Id. at 2313 (White, J. dissenting). The 
     dissent argued that no separation-of-powers issue was 
     implicated by this Board of Review because the Commonwealth 
     of Virginia (and the District of Columbia) had created that 
     Board and no federalism principles prevented the states from 
     so utilizing the talents of Members of Congress. Id. 
     According to the dissent, the fact that Congress had coerced 
     Virginia to make this decision was of no moment because this 
     ``coercion'' was no different than Congress' use of the 
     spending power to influence states in Dole. Id. at 2316-17.
       In the section of the opinion relied upon by OLC, the 
     majority refuted both prongs of the dissent's arguments:
       ``Here, unlike Dole, there is no question about federal 
     power to operate the airports. The question is whether the 
     maintenance of federal control over the airports by means of 
     the Board of Review, which is allegedly a federal 
     instrumentality, is invalid, not because it invades any state 
     power, but because Congress' continued control violates the 
     separation-of-powers principle, the aim of which is to 
     protect not the States but ``the whole people from 
     improvident laws.'' Chadha, at 951, 103 S. Ct. at 2784. 
     Nothing in our opinion in Dole implied that a highway grant 
     to a State could have been conditioned on the State's 
     creating a ``Highway Board of Review'' composed of Members of 
     Congress.''--Id. at 2309.
       The first two sentences merely make the obvious point that 
     since MWAA deals with a ``federal instrumentality'' and there 
     was no question about the propriety of ``federal power to 
     operate the airports,'' there is simply no issue of federal 
     interference with state power.\7\ Since there was no question 
     of federal interference with, or bargaining for, state power, 
     the only relevant question was who controlled the federal 
     power--Congress or the Executive. In that regard, Congress 
     had not ``bargained'' with the Executive by establishing 
     financial conditions analogous to S. 770, but had directly 
     commandeered control over the Airport Authority by 
     establishing the Review Board.
       The third sentence in the quoted passage simply says that 
     Dole is inapplicable because the infringement in MWAA is 
     different from the appropriation restriction in Dole and 
     would be impermissible if applied to the states. This 
     obviously belies the assertion that Dole was found 
     inapplicable because different standards govern infringement 
     on the President's powers than those which govern state 
     intrusions. Specifically, Dole was distinguishable because, 
     in MWAA, Congress did not provide money in return for 
     Virginia exercising its sovereignty in a certain way. Rather, 
     Virginia agreed to transfer its sovereignty over the Airport 
     Authority to Congress. As the opinion's derisive citation to 
     a ``Highway Board of Review'' makes clear, while the federal 
     government may use its spending power to influence a state's 
     exercise of its own sovereignty, Congress cannot use its 
     spending power to induce the state to enhance congressional 
     authority by creating congressionally-controlled federal 
     instrumentalities. In short, Virginia was not trading away 
     its own state power over airports; it had none. Rather, it 
     was trading away the pre-existing Executive power over the 
     airports to Congress. Since Virginia obviously had no 
     Executive power to trade, Congress could not invoke Dole to 
     justify its exercise of Executive power.
       As this detailed review establishes, MWAA said that Dole 
     was inapplicable because 1) there was no state power to 
     bargain away, and 2) states cannot enhance congressional 
     power in return for congressional dollars. Nothing in MWAA 
     suggests that Dole was inapposite because the Executive, 
     unlike states, in somehow disabled from agreeing to exercise 
     his sovereign authority in a particular manner in return for 
     increased congressional monies.
       To the contrary, like the states, the Executive Branch, 
     ``absent coercion . . . has both the incentive and the 
     ability to protect its own rights and powers, and therefore 
     may cede such rights and powers.'' MWAA, 111 S. Ct. at 2309. 
     The fact that preserving the President's powers against 
     congressional enactments is ultimately designed to protect 
     the ``whole people from improvident laws'' does not suggest a 
     different rule, since the federalism concerns implicated in 
     Dole were also designed to preserve the people's liberty. See 
     U.S. v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1626-27 (1995) (``Just as the 
     separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the 
     Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of 
     excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power 
     between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the 
     risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.''), quoting 
     Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991); New York v. 
     U.S., 112 S. Ct. 2408, 2431 (1992) (``[t]he Constitution 
     divides authority between federal and state governments for 
     the protection of individuals.'') (emphasis added.)
       To be sure, under MWAA, Congress could not condition 
     appropriations on the President's agreement to establish an 
     ``Israeli Embassy Board of Review,'' where congressional 
     agents determine the location of the Embassy. The President 
     cannot transfer his recognition powers to congressional 
     decisionmakers and, as indicated, there is a plausible 
     argument that Congress cannot directly supplant the 
     President's decisionmaking authority on such matters, even 
     though directives in appropriations bills. Like any other 
     sovereign, however, the President may consider many factors 
     in making his own decisions. Just as he may consider the 
     reaction of foreign countries, he may also consider a 
     negative congressional reaction. Accordingly, nothing 
     precludes Congress from seeking to influence that decision 
     through use of its own constitutional powers including the 
     spending power.
       Indeed, OLC's contrary position demeans the President's 
     constitutional status and certainly cannot be advanced in the 
     name of a strong Executive. The OLC Opinion suggests that the 
     President, unlike the states, lacks the ability or the will 
     to resist Congress' financial inducements. Particularly given 
     the existence of his veto power, this view of the President's 
     authority vis-a-vis Congress is obviously untenable and 
     irreconcilable with the Framers' views. The Framers did not 
     erect a prophylactic constitutional umbrella protecting the 
     President from the persuasive power of Congress' financial 
     inducements, they forged only a shield against congressional 
     directives. OLC simply ignores this vital distinction and the 
     Executive Branch and judicial precedent which support it.
       Under these precedents and a proper understanding of the 
     constitutional framework, S. 770 does not violate any 
     separation-of-powers principle or infringe any constitutional 
     authority of the President.


                               footnotes

     \1\ Section 4 of S. 770 merely reprograms $5 million in funds 
     appropriated in the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, 
     the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
     1995. Pub. L. No. 103-317, 108 Stat. 1724, 60 (1994) (Title V 
     contains appropriations specifically for the Department of 
     State and related agencies.) Specifically, $5 million 
     previously contained in the aggregate account for expenses of 
     general administration is earmarked for costs incurred in 
     activities associated with the relocation of the U.S. embassy 
     in Israel: Id., Sec. 4 (``Of the funds appropriated for 
     fiscal year 1995 for the Department of State and related 
     agencies, not less than $5,000,000 shall be made available 
     until expended for costs associated with relocating the 
     United States Embassy in Israel. . . .'').
     The $5 million authorization is to remain in effect without 
     temporal restriction until such funds are expended. Sec. 4 
     Though the President is in no way obligated to spend the $5 
     million earmarked for the relocation effort, such funds 
     cannot be used for any other purposes. General Accounting 
     Office, ``Principles on Federal Appropriations Law'' 6-6 (2. 
     ed., 1992) (In an appropriations bill providing $1,000 for 
     ``[s]moking materials . . . of which not less than $100 shall 
     be available for Cuban cigars . . . portions of the $100 not 
     obligated for Cuban cigars may not be applied to the other 
     objects of the appropriation.''); Earmarked Authorizations, 
     64 Comp. Gen. 388, 394 (1985) (asserting that where measure 
     providing funding for the National Endowment for Democracy 
     earmarks ``Not less than $13,800,000'' for projects of the 
     Free Trade Union Institute, ``awards should not be made'' 
     where there is no worthy programs, ``but the consequence of 
     this [non-allocation] is not to free the unobligated earmarks 
     for other projects.''). Similarly, Section 5 of the bill 
     earmarks a specified amount of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated in the Department of State's general account for 
     ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' in fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997, requiring that such earmarked funds be 
     spent on the embassy relocation effort. As in Section 4, the 
     budget authority is not temporarily restricted and is to last 
     ``until expended'' on the relocation effort. Given the 
     identical requirement that ``not less than [the earmarked 
     amount] . . . shall be made available'' in fiscal years 1996 
     and 1997 respectively, the President has discretion as to 
     whether to use the money, but cannot use earmarked funds for 
     other general purposes.
     \2\ See, e.g., Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc. v. Republic of 
     Cuba, 425 U.S. 682, 705-06 n. 18 (1976) ( ``[T]he conduct of 
     [diplomacy] is committed primarily to the Executive Branch.'' 
     ); Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino, 376 U.S. 398, 410 
     (1964) (``Political recognition is exclusively a function of 
     the Executive.''); 

[[Page S 15531]]
     United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 229 (1942) (Asserting that the 
     executive's constitutional authority to recognize governments 
     ``is not limited to a determination of the government to be 
     recognized. It includes the power to determine the policy 
     which is to govern the question of recognition.'').
     \3\ Congress has repeatedly used its control over 
     appropriations to influence executive actions on foreign 
     policy and has repeatedly opined that these conditions are 
     constitutional. See, e.g., William C. Banks & Peter Raven-
     Hansen, ``National Security and the Power of the Purse'' 3-4 
     (1994); Louis Henkin, ``Foreign Affairs and the 
     Constitution'' 114 (1972). (``Congress has insisted and 
     Presidents have reluctantly accepted that in foreign affairs 
     . . . spending is expressly entrusted to Congress and its 
     judgment as to the general welfare of the United States, and 
     it can designate the recipients of its largesse and impose 
     conditions upon it.''); ``Report of the Committees 
     Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair,'' S. Rept. No. 100-216, 
     H. Rept. No. 100-433, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. 475 (1987) 
     (``[W]e grant without argument that Congress may use its 
     power over appropriations . . . to place significant limits 
     on the methods a President may use to pursue objectives the 
     Constitution put squarely within the executive's 
     discretionary power.'' ). Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1985, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 
     Sec. 8066, 98 Stat. 1837, 1935 (1984), reprinted in Banks, 
     supra at 138. ( ``During fiscal year 1985, no funds available 
     to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of 
     Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States 
     involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or 
     expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of 
     supporting . . . military or paramilitary operations in 
     Nicaragua. . . .'' ); Arms Control Export Act of 1976, Pub. 
     L. No. 94-329, Sec. 404, 90 Stat. 729, 757-58 (1976) ( ``[N]o 
     assistance of any kind may be provided for the purpose, or 
     which would have no effect, of promoting . . . the capacity 
     of any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual 
     to conduct military or paramilitary operations in Angola. . . 
     .'' ).
     \4\ It is well-established that Congress may not use its 
     spending power to coerce activity that itself violates a 
     provision of the Constitution. See United States v. Butler, 
     297 U.S. 1, 69-70, 74 (1936): United States v. Lovett, 328 
     U.S. 303, 315-16 (1946) (striking a funding restriction as a 
     bill of attainder in violation of the U.S. Constitution). 
     Obviously, this doctrine has no application here since the 
     Constitution does not prohibit moving the American Embassy in 
     Israel to Jerusalem. However, OLC, as it has in the past, 
     further maintains that the spending power cannot be used to 
     force the President to take action that is perfectly 
     constitutional, if the appropriation restricts the 
     President's power to exercise his unfettered discretion in an 
     area within his constitutional authority. There is no 
     judicial precedent either way on OLC's extension of the 
     independent constitutional bar principle in a separation-of-
     powers context. In the context of congressional funding 
     conditions on state governments, the Supreme Court has 
     unequivocally rejected an expanded notion of the independent 
     constitutional bar:
     ``[T]he ``independent constitutional bar'' limitation on the 
     spending bar is not, as petitioners suggest, a prohibition on 
     the indirect achievement of objectives which Congress is not 
     empowered to achieve directly. Instead, we think that the 
     language in our earlier opinions stands for the 
     unexceptionable proposition that the power may not be used to 
     induce activities that would themselves be 
     unconstitutional.''
     South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 210 (1987). See also 
     Oklahoma v. Civil Service Commission, 330 U.S. 127 (1947). Of 
     course, the President, unlike the states, has no access to 
     funds other than those appropriated by Congress. Thus, unlike 
     the situation with state governments, a prohibition 
     precluding the President from spending any appropriated 
     monies on a particular activity is a direct prohibition 
     against pursuing that activity. This provides a plausible 
     basis for distinguishing the statute involved in Dole from a 
     direct appropriations restriction on the President's 
     activities. As we discuss below, however, Dole provides 
     direct support, where, as here, there is no prohibition 
     against spending money on the President's desired activity.
     \5\ California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal 
     Aluminum, 445 U.S. 97, 110 (1980) cited in Dole, 483 U.S. at 
     205.
     \6\ The Supreme Court has recognized that at some point, a 
     financial inducement becomes so lucrative that ``pressure 
     turns into compulsion'' and such incentive becomes 
     unconstitutional coercion. Dole, 483 U.S. at 211. See also, 
     Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 590 (1937). 
     However, the Dole Court dismissed any claim of coercion 
     involved in the drinking age funding provision, stating that 
     the ``relatively small percentage'' of highway funds involved 
     in the cutoff were not coercive. 483 U.S. at 211. The Court 
     further asserted that the mere fact that a conditional grant 
     of money is successful in achieving compliance with 
     congressional restrictions will not establish coercion. Id. 
     seems clear that, given the minuscule amount of funding 
     involved in S. 770, especially relative to the substantial 
     highway fund allocations involved in Dole, the incentive 
     mechanism at issue could not be deemed coercive. Should the 
     President refuse to move the embassy, he would be barred from 
     obligating funds amounting to a mere one percent of the 
     budget authority reserved for international affairs in each 
     of the fiscal years involved and a mere one one-hundredth of 
     one percent of the aggregate budget in those same years. 
     Office of Management & Budget, ``Appendix to the Budget of 
     the United States for Fiscal Year 1996'' 692-93 (1995); 
     Office of Management & Budget, ``Historical Tables to 
     Supplement the Budget of the United States for Fiscal Year 
     1996'' 14, 69 (1995).
     \7\ The Court had previously noted that the Board of Review 
     was ``an entity created at the initiative of Congress, the 
     powers of which Congress has delineated, the purpose of which 
     is to protect an acknowledged federal interest, and 
     membership in which is restricted to congressional officials. 
     Such an entity necessarily exercises sufficient federal power 
     as an agent of Congress to mandate separation-of-powers 
     scrutiny.'' Id. at 2308.


                                            Jerusalem, Israel,

                                                     July 5, 1995.
     The Editor,
     New York Times.
       To the Editor: The debate about the relocation of the U.S. 
     Embassy continues and I write to express my whole-hearted 
     support of the Dole/Inouye legislation, which calls for 
     moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem by 1999.
       Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the founding 
     of the State in 1948. Throughout history, Jerusalem has been 
     the capital of the Jewish nation and must remain so. For the 
     Embassy of the United States--``Israel's closest friend''--
     not to be in the functioning capital of Israel is an anomaly. 
     Israel is the only country in the world where the U.S. 
     Embassy is located in a city not regarded by the host nation 
     as its capital. The basis for the Embassy not being located 
     in Jerusalem was incorrect from the beginning, and this 
     policy should finally be corrected.
       Jerusalem is sacred to all three monotheistic religions but 
     is meaning is not equal for them. In Christendom and Islam 
     there are many spiritual centers and many symbolic capitals. 
     In Judaism and for the Jewish people, there is only one 
     Jerusalem.
       Public attention is focused on whether or not this is the 
     ``right time'' for such a move. I believe it is. The 
     placement of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem has been a 
     consensus issue for the American Jewish community and for 
     successive Israeli governments for years. In the last decade, 
     both Houses of Congress have enacted four resolutions calling 
     on the U.S. government to acknowledge united Jerusalem as the 
     capital of Israel.
       The Dole/Inouye legislation, which is cosponsored by a 
     majority of the U.S. Senate, will be put to a vote. It must 
     be enacted by an overwhelming majority. Failure to do so will 
     send a wrong message to the Arab States. It is imperative to 
     establish now the U.S. conviction that realistic negotiations 
     be premised on the principle that Jerusalem is the capital of 
     Israel, and must remain united, Israelis of all political 
     stripes are for the establishment of the U.S. Embassy in 
     Jerusalem. The site reserved for the new Embassy is in West 
     Jerusalem--on land which has been part of Israel since 1948.
       Support for this legislation is, and has always been, 
     bipartisan. Now is the time to move forward with it.
           Sincerely yours,
     Teddy Kollek.
                                                                    ____


   Yossi Beilin on Legislation to Move the United States Embassy to 
                               Jerusalem

       (Press conference with Israeli journalists, Oct. 12, 1995)

       Question. Regarding the Jerusalem legislation to move the 
     embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, are you pleased with the 
     initiative and the timing of this?
       Beilin. Any timing for transferring any embassy to 
     Jerusalem is good timing. The earlier the better, from my 
     perspective. I am happy that there is the intention to do 
     this. I'm only sorry that this has become part of election 
     strife in Congress between the Republicans and Democrats in a 
     bit of a cynical manner. To my disappointment, it has been 
     promised by the opposition but then it was not carried out.
       Question. Aren't you concerned that it will hurt the peace 
     process or the standing of the U.S. in the eyes of the Arabs 
     if the legislation will pass?
       Beilin. Israel is the only nation in the world that doesn't 
     have a recognized capital and I am not prepared to accept 
     that if Israel has a recognized capital this will affect the 
     negotiations.

  Mr. KYL. The waiver provision in S. 1322 will be examined by many 
people. I would like to join with the distinguished majority leader in 
clarifying on the Record the meaning and purpose of the waiver 
language.
  Mr. DOLE. I agree with my friend from Arizona, that it is important 
to address the scope and meaning of the waiver provision. It is 
important that no one think that this provision would allow the 
President to ignore the requirements of S. 1322 simply because he 
disagrees with the policy this legislation is promulgating. The 
President cannot lawfully invoke this waiver simply because he thinks 
it would be better not to move our Embassy to Jerusalem or simply 
because he thinks it would be better to move it at a later time. The 
waiver is designed to be read and interpreted narrowly. It was included 
to give the President limited flexibility--flexibility to ensure that 
this legislation will not harm U.S. national security interests in the 
event of an emergency or unforeseen change in circumstances.
  Mr. KYL. What is the significance of the phrase ``national security 
interests'' as opposed to ``national interest''?
  Mr. DOLE. This is the way we are ensuring that the waiver will not 
permit the President to negate the legislation simply on the grounds 
that he disagrees with the policy. ``National security interests'' in 
much narrower than the term ``national interest''--and it is a higher 
standard than national interest. The key word is security. No President 
should or could make a decision to exercise this waiver lightly.
  Mr. KYL. Is it fair to say that the intention of the waiver is to 
address constitutional concerns that have been raised about S. 1322?
  Mr. DOLE. It is fair to say the waiver is intended to address unusual 
or unforeseen circumstances. We believe S. 1322 is constitutional even 
without the waiver, but the constitutional questions that have been 
raise about it deal 

[[Page S 15532]]
with issues so important that we think it is best to offer the 
President the limited flexibility of the waiver. It is within the 
constitutional appropriations power of Congress to withhold funds from 
the executive branch if it does not act in accordance with 
congressional mandates.
  Mr. KYL. Although in drafting the legislation Senators did not limit 
the number of times the President could invoke the waiver authority, is 
it correct to say that the intent of the drafters is not to grant the 
President the right to invoke the waiver in perpetuity?
  Mr. DOLE. The waiver authority should not be interpreted to mean that 
the President may infinitely push off the establishment of the American 
Embassy in Jerusalem. Our intent is that the Embassy be established in 
Jerusalem by May 1999. If a waiver were to be repeatedly and routinely 
exercised by a President, I would expect Congress to act by removing 
the waiver authority.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California.
  I would ask how much time is left, because I want to be certain that 
my colleague from Delaware has a chance to say a few words.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. After your 4 minutes, there will be 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining on your side.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. And also for the Senator from California and the 
Senator from Connecticut. I will try to wrap up in a couple minutes 
because yesterday I think I expressed myself and my full support for 
this substitute.
  I want to commend the majority leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Kyl 
for the hard work that they did to move this legislation along to 
ensure that the capital of Israel, the capital chosen by that State, is 
going to be home to our Embassy, as it ought to be.
  Frankly, there was some difficulty in arriving at the consensus view 
that we finally did. And that was largely, not because we disagreed on 
the objective, that is, moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, but because 
perhaps there might have been an involvement that would have interfered 
with the orderly discussion of the peace process.
  Madam President, the one thing that I want to be sure of is that as 
much as possible we stop the killing in the Middle East, that as much 
as possible we get these parties together on an open and honest basis. 
And the process is in being at this moment. There has not been in the 
history of the creation of the State of Israel a friendlier President 
than President Clinton is to Israel.
  We saw on the lawn of the White House the celebration of the end of 
enormous hostilities that existed for decades where people just looking 
at one another were almost ready at first sight to kill each other.
  Yesterday's story in the Washington Post was a poignant recollection 
of what happens to two families, one Arab, one Jew, who lost their 
sons, one responsible in a way for the death of the other, but 
nonetheless no one seeking revenge, no one looking for vengeance. What 
they wanted to do was make sure that other families did not have to 
mourn the loss of a son or a daughter, be they Palestinian or Jew.
  That is the way we ought to be approaching this. And I think, Madam 
President, that is what is going to happen. All of us want the Embassy 
moved. The question is, we want it to happen as soon as possible, but 
we want the peace discussions to continue, as I said, in an orderly 
fashion.
  I worked very closely with some dear friends, with Senator Lieberman 
from Connecticut, with whom I share a very deep interest in the State 
of Israel, in Jerusalem, in the peace process, and with Senator Biden 
who has had a long history of support for Israel. And I want to commend 
Senator Feinstein for her diligence, for her insight into the problem, 
and for getting us to this point where I believe that the supporting 
vote will be almost unanimous, as I believe it should be.
  And so, Madam President, it is a moment that not yet calls for 
celebration, but does initiate a process of which I think we can all be 
proud.
  Madam President, I support this substitute amendment.
  Unlike the original bill, this amendment includes a waiver for the 
President. I believe the amendment will mandate the move of the 
American Embassy to Jerusalem while providing the administration 
flexibility in case it's necessary for national security reasons.
  Madam President, I have long supported having the American Embassy in 
Jerusalem. I wish the American Embassy had been opened in Jerusalem 
long ago, when the State was established or when the city was reunified 
in 1967. I believe Jerusalem--a city I have visited many times--will 
always remain the undivided capital of the State of Israel.
  The pace at which the Middle East peace process has yielded tangible 
results has been breathtaking. Just 2 years ago, on September 13, 1993, 
Prime Minister Rabin and Yasir Arafat agreed to end decades of 
bloodshed when they signed the historic Declaration of Principles and 
shook hands at the White House. Continuing their pursuit of peace, they 
signed the Cairo Agreement on Gaza and Jericho on May 4, 1994. And just 
weeks ago, on September 28, 1995, they again met at the White House to 
sign an agreement on the West Bank.
  Jordan, too, has been brought into the process and has signed a 
formal peace agreement with Israel.
  America should be proud of the role it has played in helping former 
enemies agree to end hostilities. To be sure, the parties in the Middle 
East needed to be ready to take the giant step toward peace. It was 
their readiness and their political courage that made peace attainable.
  The amendment we offer now would help protect the peace process 
should national security interests warrant it. The amendment would 
provide a national security waiver for periods of up to 6 months with 
prior reporting to Congress. It was included to give the administration 
a limited amount of flexibility.
  It also includes a clear expression of the Congress' belief that 
Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every 
ethnic and religious group are protected. It expresses the Congress' 
clear view that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the 
State of Israel and that our Embassy there should be established by May 
1999.
  I am firmly convinced, Mr. President, that the peace process will 
result in Israel retaining control over all of Jerusalem, and that 
Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel.
  I am encouraged by support for the peace process. Even those who have 
lost their children to senseless acts of terrorism agree about the 
imperative of achieving peace. Earlier this year, a young college 
student from New Jersey, who was studying in Israel, was killed in a 
suicide bombing in Gaza. Her name was Aliza Flatow, and her death 
brought home to the people of New Jersey the urgent need to bring peace 
to the Middle East.
  I was in Israel at the time of this terrible tragedy, and from there, 
I spoke to Aliza's parents in New Jersey. Despite the loss of their 
daughter and in the midst of grieving her loss, Aliza's father urged me 
to do whatever I could to support the peace process and to ensure that 
it would move forward unimpeded. Only the peace process, he said, holds 
the promise of bringing an end to these senseless deaths.
  Our goal is to send a bill to President Clinton that will mandate the 
opening of the Embassy in Jerusalem. The amendment we are offering is 
consistent with that goal. It would represent a clear policy statement 
that the Embassy will be moved and is intended to preserve the 
President's constitutional authority. Absent a national security 
interest, it requires the Embassy to be established in Jerusalem by May 
1999.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham 
from Florida be added as a cosponsor to the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. At this time I would yield time to the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. How much time remains?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I do not think I need more than 3 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  
[[Page S 15533]]

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona, not only for yielding 
time but for the extraordinary leadership and dedication he has shown 
in his support of this measure.
  Madam President, perhaps it is appropriate that I begin with some 
words from the prophets.
  Amos first.

       In that day I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is 
     fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise 
     up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old.

  Then Jeremiah.

       So says the Lord; Behold I will return the captives of the 
     tents of Jacob . . . and the city will be rebuilt on its 
     mound.

  Madam President, tomorrow in this Capitol we will join in the 
worldwide celebration of the 3,000th anniversary of the entering of 
King David into the holy city of Jerusalem.
  In our time, in 1948, thanks to the courage of the people of the 
State of Israel, thanks to extraordinary support from people throughout 
the world, including particularly the Government of the United States, 
we witnessed the creation of the modern State of Israel and the 
establishment of Jerusalem as its capital.
  For the ensuing 47 years, for a lot of reasons that were not 
adequate, we in the United States, administration after administration 
of both parties, refused to locate our Embassy in Israel in the city of 
Jerusalem designated as the capital by that country as we do in 
virtually every other country in the world.
  Today, thanks to the leadership of Senator Dole who began this 
effort, of Senator Moynihan who has fought for it for so many years, of 
Senator Inouye, Senator Kyl, Senator Biden, who is on the floor, who 
has been unyielding and persistent in his support of this principle 
and, in the last few days, working together with Senators Feinstein and 
Lautenberg, we have come to the point where I think we fashioned an 
extraordinarily strong and honest bill that will receive overwhelming 
bipartisan support in both Chambers and I hope will be signed by the 
President.
  Madam President, I want to say that there have been concerns raised 
about the impact that passing this measure now would have on the peace 
process. In this regard, I will make two brief points. First, the 
location of the U.S. Embassy never was and never should be the subject 
of negotiations among third parties. It is our decision, it is an 
American decision, and we will make it here today.
  Second, as a supporter of the peace process in the Middle East, I 
feel particularly that this is the moment, as trust grows--and honesty 
is at the core of our relations with the Israelis and the Palestinians 
and the Arab world--that we do what is honest and say clearly our 
Embassy belongs in Jerusalem, the city that has been denoted by the 
Israelis as their capital.
  I will say in closing, ending, it seems to me, appropriately with a 
Psalm that we are realizing in this vote today the hopes expressed by 
David in Psalm 122, when he wrote:

       Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that 
     love thee.
       Peace be within thy walls, calm within thy palaces.

  If I may offer a modern-day interpretation of the word palaces, calm 
be within thy embassies as they locate in the city of Jerusalem.
  I thank the Chair and my friends and colleagues. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I yield the remainder of my time to 
the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized for 3 
minutes, 32 seconds.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, thank you very much. I would like to 
thank my colleague from California for her leadership in bringing about 
what I think is a workable piece of legislation.
  I would like to thank Senator Moynihan, who is not here. In 1983, he 
started this process. He argued we should be doing this, and we are 
finally getting there.
  With regard to the last point made by my colleague from Connecticut 
about the peace process, I have had the view for the past 24 years that 
the only way there will be peace in the Middle East is for the Arabs to 
know there is no division between the United States and Israel--none, 
zero, none.
  I argue that is why we are where we are today, because we did not 
relent under the leadership of this President and others. We made it 
clear that no wedge would be put between us, thereby leaving no 
alternative but the pursuit, in an equitable manner, for peace.
  Those familiar, and all are on this floor, with the Jewish people 
know the central meaning that the ancient city of Jerusalem has for 
Jews everywhere. Time and again, empires have tried to sever the 
umbilical cord that unites Jews with their capital.
  They have destroyed the temple. They have banished the Jews from 
living in Jerusalem. They have limited the number of Jews allowed to 
immigrate to that city. And, finally, in this century, they tried 
simply to eliminate Jews.
  (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BIDEN. They may have succeeded, Mr. President, in destroying 
physical structures and lives. But they have never succeeded in wholly 
eliminating Jewish presence in Jerusalem, or in cutting the spiritual 
bond between Jews and their cherished capital.
  After the horrific events of the Holocaust, the Jewish people 
returned to claim what many rulers have tried to deny them for 
centuries: The right to peaceful existence in their own country in 
their own capital.
  How many of us can forget that poignant photograph of an unnamed 
Israeli soldier breaking down in tears and prayer as he reached the 
Western Wall after his army liberated the eastern half of the city in 
the Six Day War?
  Those tears told a story. A story of a people long denied their 
rightful place among nations. A people denied access to their most 
hallowed religious sites. A people who had finally, after long 
tribulation, come home.
  Mr. President, it is unconscionable for us to refuse to recognize the 
right of the Jewish people to choose their own capital. What gives us 
the right to second-guess their decision?
  For 47 years, we, and much of the rest of the international 
community, have been living a lie. For 47 years, Israel has had its 
government offices, its Parliament, and its national monuments in 
Jerusalem, not in Tel Aviv. And yet, nearly all embassies are located 
in Tel Aviv. I think this is a denial of fundamental reality.
  Mr. President, are we, through the continued sham of maintaining our 
Embassy in Tel Aviv, to refuse to acknowledge what the Jewish people 
know in their hearts to be true? Regardless of what others may think, 
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
  And Israel is not just any old country. It is a vital strategic ally.
  As the Israelis and Palestinians begin the final status negotiations 
in May 1996--negotiations, I might add, that were made possible through 
the leadership of President Clinton--it should be clear to all that the 
United States stands squarely behind Israel, our close friend and ally.
  Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem will send the right signal, not 
a destructive signal. To do less would be to play into the hands of 
those who will try their hardest to deny Israel the full attributes of 
statehood.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority 
leader for bringing this to a head. It has not been easy. We have 
talked about this for years. The people of Israel have fought 
repeatedly to hold the State of Israel intact. They have designated 
their capital. The capital is Jerusalem. This historic, important 
religious city is their capital. I think it is most unusual for the 
United States to go to another city to establish its Embassy when the 
country where we are being hosted has established a different city for 
its capital.
  The time has come long since for America to recognize the capital 
city of Israel. It is Jerusalem. It is time for us to move in a 
responsible way to 

[[Page S 15534]]
have our Embassy also in the capital city of Jerusalem.
  I commend the majority leader and the Senator from Arizona for their 
leadership in this area. I appreciate the fact that all factions have 
come together. Clearly, there must be some leeway for the President to 
make this move in a timely way. I think that leeway has been granted. 
This is quite a reasonable resolution. The time has come for us to have 
our Embassy in the capital of Israel. The capital is Jerusalem.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to use my leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, finally, after 50 years, the Congress is 
about to act to assure the movement of our Embassy to Israel's capital. 
This has been a bipartisan effort. I have been proud to cosponsor 
Senator Dole's legislation, and it is truly a historic day. This is a 
meaningful day. It is a day where we finally acknowledge the reality, 
which is that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that at the end of 
the peace process will be the capital of Israel.
  It will not help the peace process for there to be any ambiguity 
about where Israel's capital is. Our action today will help to 
eliminate any such ambiguity and to make it clear to all concerned that 
this country is finally going to do in Israel what we have done in 
every single country in the world, which is to place our Embassy in the 
capital city.
  I want to thank the Democratic leader. I want to thank the majority 
leader, also, for his leadership here. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, let me commend the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan for his comments and associate myself with his 
remarks. This has been a bipartisan effort over the last several weeks, 
particularly the last several days.
  There is little doubt that we all share the same goals. There has 
been a good-faith effort to reach an agreement that allowed us the 
confidence that those goals could be met.
  I want to commend in particular the participants in those 
negotiations over the last several days, Senators Feinstein, my good 
friend, Senator Kyl, Senators Lautenberg and Lieberman, and certainly 
the majority leader for all of the work that he put into ensuring that 
we would reach this point today.
  I think it is fair to say we all agree on three shared goals. The 
first is the most obvious: moving the Embassy to Jerusalem. We 
recognize that Jerusalem is the spiritual center and the capital of 
Israel, as well as a special city for those all over the world. Each 
country, as so many have already indicated, has the right to designate 
its capital, and certainly our Embassy should be there.
  Second, we want to ensure that Jerusalem remains an undivided city in 
which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected. 
That has been a goal articulated officially by this Senate since we 
adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106 in 1990.
  Third, and perhaps most important in the context of this debate and 
the negotiations that have taken place, we want to ensure that the 
peace process moves forward.
  Let me commend the administration for emphasizing as strongly as they 
have their concern for that last goal. It is their concern and their 
desire to ensure that we have the flexibility, that we have the 
opportunities, that we have all of the tools necessary to ensure that 
we can reach all three goals--that we move the Embassy, that we can 
ensure that it remains an undivided city, and, most importantly, that 
the peace process be allowed to continue.
  I personally believe that the language that has now been agreed upon 
will provide the President the flexibility to ensure that the peace 
process can move forward. Definitely, the whole concept of a peace 
process is in our national security interest. That peace process must 
be contained. That peace process has to be nurtured throughout the next 
several years, and certainly the administration needs to proceed very 
carefully as we begin to articulate our goals as it relates to moving 
the Embassy.
  The administration has concerns about the constitutionality of this 
legislation. I understand that. I hope that we can find this agreement 
has adequately addressed those concerns, as well.
  Clearly, this has to be an effort on which we continue to work with 
the administration. I am very hopeful that, as a result of the 
tremendous work that has been done in the last several days, we can 
build upon our work with the State Department and with others in the 
administration to ensure that our goals are realized.
  Let me again commend all of those who were instrumental in reaching 
this agreement, to ensure a U.S. commitment to an Embassy in Jerusalem, 
and equally as important, Madam President, to ensure that the U.S. 
commitment to the peace process maintains the kind of priority that we 
all have recognized during these very difficult talks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 12 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I am pleased 
and honored to close this debate on this important and historic 
legislation which will finally cause the United States Embassy to be 
relocated in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, by the year 1999.
  We all know that diplomacy is filled with subtleties but that some 
things are fundamental. One of those fundamental things is the 
relationship between the United States and Israel.
  Key to that relationship is an underlying principle. The principle is 
that Jerusalem is the essence of the historical connection of the 
Jewish people for Palestine. That is why Jerusalem is the capital of 
Israel.
  This legislation, which is a bipartisan presentation of congressional 
intent that finally actions replace words, that deeds replace words, 
and expressing that historical connection, as I said, is supported in a 
bipartisan way by the overwhelming majority of both sides of the aisle.
  There are approximately 50 Republicans which have cosponsored this 
legislation, and it is strongly supported as well by the many Democrats 
who have spoken on it.
  I think the key here is for the American people to finally express, 
as I said, in deeds rather than words, their support for Israel through 
the acknowledgment that Jerusalem is the capital by the relocation of 
the United States Embassy in the capital city of Jerusalem.
  As Senator Lieberman from Connecticut so ably pointed out, and 
Senator Dole did as well, this is not about the peace process, which we 
all support. Rather, it is an expression on the part of the United 
States that no longer will there be any doubt about our position 
relative to Jerusalem. It is an honest position, as Senator Lieberman 
said.
  That is why, Madam President, it is so important for this body, in an 
overwhelming way, to express its support for the United States-Israel 
relationship by supporting this legislation to relocate the Embassy of 
the United States to the capital of Israel, Jerusalem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 5, as follows:
  
[[Page S 15535]]


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 496 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--5

     Abraham
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Hatfield
     Jeffords

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Bradley
       
  So the bill (S. 1322), as amended, was passed as follows:

                                S. 1322

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Jerusalem Embassy Act of 
     1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Each sovereign nation, under international law and 
     custom, may designate its own capital.
       (2) Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital 
     of the State of Israel.
       (3) The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel's 
     President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of 
     numerous government ministries and social and cultural 
     institutions.
       (4) The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of 
     Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of 
     other religious faiths.
       (5) From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and 
     Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of 
     all states were denied access to holy sites in the area 
     controlled by Jordan.
       (6) In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the 
     conflict known as the Six Day War.
       (7) Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city 
     administered by Israel, and persons of all religious faiths 
     have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the 
     city.
       (8) This year marks the 28th consecutive year that 
     Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which 
     the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.
       (9) In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress 
     ``strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided 
     city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group 
     are protected''.
       (10) In 1992, the United States Senate and House of 
     Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent 
     Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to 
     commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of 
     Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that 
     Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
       (11) The September 13, 1993, Declaration of Principles on 
     Interim Self-Government Arrangements lays out a timetable for 
     the resolution of ``final status'' issues, including 
     Jerusalem.
       (12) The Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area 
     was signed May 4, 1994, beginning the five-year transitional 
     period laid out in the Declaration of Principles.
       (13) In March of 1995, 93 members of the United States 
     Senate signed a letter to Secretary of State Warren 
     Christopher encouraging ``planning to begin now'' for 
     relocation of the United States Embassy to the city of 
     Jerusalem.
       (14) In June of 1993, 257 members of the United States 
     House of Representatives signed a letter to the Secretary of 
     State Warren Christopher stating that the relocation of the 
     United States Embassy to Jerusalem ``should take place no 
     later than . . . 1999''.
       (15) The United States maintains its embassy in the 
     functioning capital of every country except in the case of 
     our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of 
     Israel.
       (16) The United States conducts official meetings and other 
     business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of 
     its status as the capital of Israel.
       (17) In 1996, the State of Israel will celebrate the 
     3,000th anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since 
     King David's entry.

     SEC. 3. TIMETABLE.

       (a) Statement of the Policy of the United States.--
       (1) Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the 
     rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected;
       (2) Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the 
     State of Israel; and
       (3) the United States Embassy in Israel should be 
     established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.
       (b) Opening Determination.--Not more than 50 percent of the 
     funds appropriated to the Department of State for fiscal year 
     1999 for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings Abroad'' 
     may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and 
     reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in 
     Jerusalem has officially opened.

     SEC. 4. FISCAL YEARS 1996 AND 1997 FUNDING.

       (a) Fiscal Year 1996.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings 
     Abroad'' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1996, not 
     less than $25,000,000 should be made available until expended 
     only for construction and other costs associated with the 
     establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the 
     capital of Jerusalem.
       (b) Fiscal Year 1997.--Of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated for ``Acquisition and Maintenance of Buildings 
     Abroad'' for the Department of State in fiscal year 1997, not 
     less than $75,000,000 should be made available until expended 
     only for construction and other costs associated with the 
     establishment of the United States Embassy in Israel in the 
     capital of Jerusalem.

     SEC. 5. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary of State shall submit a report to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate detailing the Department of 
     State's plan to implement this Act. Such report shall 
     include--
       (1) estimated dates of completion for each phase of the 
     establishment of the United States Embassy, including site 
     identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering 
     and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction; 
     and
       (2) an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this 
     Act, including all costs associated with establishing the 
     United States Embassy in Israel in the capital of Jerusalem.

     SEC. 6. SEMIANNUAL REPORTS.

       At the time of the submission of the President's fiscal 
     year 1997 budget request, and every six months thereafter, 
     the Secretary of State shall report to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate on the progress made toward opening 
     the United States Embassy in Jerusalem.

     SEC. 7. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       (a) Waiver Authority.--(1) Beginning on October 1, 1998, 
     the President may suspend the limitation set forth in section 
     3(b) for a period of six months if he determines and reports 
     to Congress in advance that such suspension is necessary to 
     protect the national security interests of the United States.
       (2) The President may suspend such limitation for an 
     additional six month period at the end of any period during 
     which the suspension is in effect under this subsection if 
     the President determines and reports to Congress in advance 
     of the additional suspension that the additional suspension 
     is necessary to protect the national security interests of 
     the United States.
       (3) A report under paragraph (1) or (2) shall include--
       (A) a statement of the interests affected by the limitation 
     that the President seeks to suspend; and
       (B) a discussion of the manner in which the limitation 
     affects the interests.
       (b) Applicability of Waiver to Availability of Funds.--If 
     the President exercises the authority set forth in subsection 
     (a) in a fiscal year, the limitation set forth in section 
     3(b) shall apply to funds appropriated in the following 
     fiscal year for the purpose set forth in such section 3(b) 
     except to the extent that the limitation is suspended in such 
     following fiscal year by reason of the exercise of the 
     authority in subsection (a).

     SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

       As used in this Act, the term ``United States Embassy'' 
     means the offices of the United States diplomatic mission and 
     the residence of the United States chief of mission.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona for a unanimous-consent request without losing my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Pell be 
listed as a cosponsor of the bill just passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for 
not to exceed 30 minutes--I will not require that much time--out of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.

                          ____________________