Debate will last 3 days.

The Honorable Rep. Schmidt, for himself and for the the Honorable Reps. Gootman, Spitzen, Hanscom, Fernandez, Lindsay, Mondragon, Garwood, Laverone, and Troutman, introduces the following bill, which was forwarded to the Committee on International Relations and Armed Services.

To provide for the relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and for other purposes.

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 Relocation Act of 2004.�

Section 2. Findings.
The congress makes the following findings:
Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.
Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the state of Israel.
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.
The city of Jerusalem is a spiritual center to the three of the world's major religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
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.
In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.
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.
This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights all faiths have been respected and protected.
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 religious group are protected�.
In 1992, the United States Senate and House Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Committee to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.
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.
The United States maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friends and strategically, the State of Israel.
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.
In 1996, the States of Israel celebrated the 3,000 anniversary of the Jewish presence in Jerusalem since King David�s entry.

Section 3. Timetable.

(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United States that:-
Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected;
Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and
the United States Embassy in Israel should be relocated to Jerusalem no later than July 31, 2006.
( Opening Determination.-- Not more than 50 percent of the funds appropriated to the Department of States for fiscal year 2006 for �Acquisition and Maintenace of Building Abroad� may be obligated until the Secretary of State determines and reports to Congress that the United States Embassy in Jerusalem has officially opened.

Section 4. Funding

(a) Congress appropriations for the Department Of State 40 million dollars to open an Embassy in Jerusalem.

Section 5. Report on Implementation.

No 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:-
estimated dates of completion for each phase of the relocation of the United States Embassy, including site identification, land acquisition, architectural, engineering and construction surveys, site preparation, and construction; and
an estimate of the funding necessary to implement this Act, including all costs associated with relocating the United States Embassy to Jerusalem.

Section 6. Semiannual Reports.

Beginning January 1, 2005, 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.

SEC. 7. 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.

This post has been edited by hellhathnofury on Dec 4 2004, 04:40 PM

Mr. Chairman,

Though ultimately justified, this bill would deteriorate the current status of peace initiatives even more. This bill would not produce the long-term two state solution that we must seek if we truly want peace in the Holy Land. For that reason I will be opposing this bill and I encourage my fellow committee members to think long and hard before voting.

Thank you.

I respectfully yield.

Mr. Chairman,

Embassies belong in the capital city of a nation and since the capital of Israel is Jerusalem our embassy should be placed there.

I yield.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee,

I rise on behalf of this fine bill. Much like Americans of all stripes support Israel, our only true ally in the Middle East, except for Musharaf's government, this bill was supported by liberal Democrats, moderate Federalists, and conservative Republicans. The purpose of it is to have the embassy of the US in Israel in Jerusalem, the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel. The gentleman from California opposes it on grounds that it inhibits the peace process, which has been stagnant from lack of will on the Palestinean side. If the Gentleman thinks it will make terrorists upset, I got news for him: America does not bow down to terrorists-we do what is best for ourselves and our allies, terrorists be damned!

I yield the floor.

Mr. Chairman,

I would note the following:

1. The current intifada started because of the actions of leaders like Mr. Sharon who seek not peace, but more war. I reject the interpretation put before the committee of why negotiations collapsed.

2. The peace process has not been rekindled because of the militant belicoseness of gentleman like Mr. Sharon, Mr. Bush, Mr. Yoshida and the Chair of this Distinguished Committee. This drives the other party away from the table.

3. This bill would inflame tensions and no one can reasonably dispute that.

If this committee wants peace it will reject this bill. If it wants war, it will pass it. Personally, I believe history honors those who choose peace.

I humbly yield.

Ladies and Gentleman of the Committee,

I am honored by my fellow Californian mentioning me in the same sentence as Mr. Sharon, and Presidents Bush and Yoshida, all men I admire and hope to be as good as. I sincerely wish that on my deathbed I can say I contributed as much as they did to the survival of Western Civilization.

I do not know why the intifada started, nor do I particularly care. I will tell you this...Israeli Prime Minister gave a extremely generous offer to the Palestinean Arabs, even offering them a part of Jerusalem, the center of Jewish dreams for 3,000 years. The complete offer at Camp David was the surrender of the Gaza Strip, 95% of Judea and Samaria, Israeli land given in exchange for the remaining 5% of Judea and Samaria, and Palestinean control of East Jerusalem. This included the cessation of Israeli soveriegnity over Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism. While the Israelis respect all religious claims to Temple Mount, the Arabs between 1948 and 1967 have shown a complete disrespect for religious claims to Temple Mount. Yet, despite this extremely generous offer, the Palestinian Arabs declined, showing their true objective- driving the Jews (or "brothers of pigs and monkeys") into the sea. Otherwise, what else could they want? What else could Israel give? So, I ask the preceding speaker to reconsider: Is Mr. Sharon really at fault, or is it the terroristic Palestinean leadership?

I yield the floor.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee,

What you just witnessed was a complete refusal to work towards a constructive solution to the intifada. The speaker, typical of his ilk, willfully constrains his viewpoint in order to prevent him from actually learning the true state of affairs. Mr. Sharon's solution seems to be a police state reminiscent of South African apartheid. This is not a solution, and America should not support it in any way. The truth is that even though increased violent security measures have temporarily reduced attacks they do not propose an acceptable long-term solution. Israel cannot exist if it entails the creation of a territory reminiscent of the Warsaw ghetto. As evidence of this I offer up the following story in this mornings Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Nov28.html

Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is completely counter to any constructive solution. The Palestinians will not come back to the table if they have no faith in our evenhandness. You cannot claim that because you failed once, you should not try again. I am not a pessimist. I believe we can achieve a workable two state solution and those that oppose it are lower than dogs. The only justice unknown to man is that of peace and that in itself is a tragedy.

I beseech this committee to reject this bill in the name of a hope for peace.

I yield.

I hand over the gavel to Harry Ellison, as he is the new chair.*gavel*

Mr. Chair,

While not a Christian, the New Testement holds a number of excellent lessons and sayings. "Judge not lest ye be judged" is one of them. Mr. Chair, if there would be daily terrorist attacks from Canada, you sure as hell would want a barrier to protect you and you wouldn't give a crap if the barrier caused Canadians inconveniances. War is hell, and people die, but removing the system of roadblocks will cause many more to die.

I condemn you for your disgusting and sickening comparison of the situation in the Holy Land to the Warsaw Ghetto. No Palestineans are being deported to death camps. When terrorists are arrested, they are put in prison, where they are treated humanely. The Palestineans deliberatly aim at civilians, while the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was aimed at the Nazi military machine. I call upon you to apoligize to the millions of Holocaust victims, survivors, and their families for your remarks.

Instead of resorting to inflamatory comments, comparing it to apartheid and the Warsaw ghetto, I ask you , why shouldn't Israel have a wall to protect itself? and furthermore, how is is like apartheid?

Israel gave the Palestinean Arabs are incredibly good offer, argueably, more than they should have offered, yet they declined, and went back to what they do best- terrorism- in the form of Intifada II. To paraphrase Golda Meir, there will be peace when the Palestineans learn to love their children more than they hate the Israelis. When I saw those dancing Arabs in the streets on America's greatest tragedy, I realized who these people were- people who celebrate the slaughter of innocents. Unlike liberals, I did not, to quote the President, discuss the 'existential metaphysics of the situation.'

I yield.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Committee,

When Israel stops leveling Palestinian homes, systematically covering up war crimes, and in general inhibiting the national aspirations of the Palestinian people then I will have spoken in haste. Until then, there is ample evidence I can provide the Gentleman from the 12th District of California of crimes and violations reminiscent of World War II. You cannot build a wall around an entire nation and not expect a negative reaction. You cannot detain random citizens from their daily lives for life threatening periods in the sun without basica neccessities and not expect a negative reaction. You cannot destroy the lives of millions for the protection of a tiny settler population and not expect a negative reaction.

Israel does not have a pass to do whatever it wants because of the Holocaust. It must abide by the international systems of law it is privy too.

My interest is only for peaceful respect for human life and dignity and when both sides honor that I will respect both sides. Until then I reserve the right to condemn Israel for it's actions as I will the Palestinians.

You can't expect a captive population to demand peace when their opponent insists on keeping it's boot on their necks. Until Israel backs down from its crushing military posture I do not expect peace to come.

Oh, and about that claim of dancing in the streets. Small minority.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/f...1601izpal.story

Mr. Chair,

The fact of the matter is: Jerusalem is not only the home of just Israel, it is also home to Christian, Armenian and Muslim Palestinians. By placing our embassy in the holy city, we can try to reach out to the non-Jewish Israelis besides coordinating with the Sharon administration.

Our current location in Tel-Aviv certainly indicates that we back the Israeli government since Tel-Avivi is an Israeli stronghold. Perhaps by moving to Jersualem we could reach out to the Palestinians and other ethnic groups within Palestine.

I strongly support this bill and I urge my fellow congresspeople to pass it,

I yield.

Mr. Chair,

I strongly back this move and it should have been made years ago. We should not blame Israel first. We should blame the terrorists who are killing innocent people in their desire to wipe out Israel.

I yield.

Mr. Chariman,

While I do hold some of the same sentiments as the gentleman from California that such a move might inflame the situation between Israel and Palestine, I believe if done right this could be very beneficial.

Yes, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and embassies are traditionally located in the capitals.

However, I believe that is not the main reason why I urge an AYE vote on this bill.

I concur with the statements by the gentleman from Michigan. Tel Aviv is a "stronghold" of Israel and is a de facto statement of our support for Israel. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem will still show support for Israel, but it will also acknowledge, once again if done properly and our reasons stated clearly, and Palestine. Jerusalem is home to three of the major world religions. I believe this is a step in the right direction in repairing the bridge between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Another note. We should open this embassy to celebrate the diversity of the city of Jerusalem and respecting the place in history and reverence that the city holds in the religions of Jerusalem, Islam, and Judaism.

I urge and AYE vote.

I yield.

Mr Chair

I must rise in opposition to this divisive Bill because it gives the appearance that the US has a one-sided Israeli bias and as a result this Bill would be a dagger in the heart of the peace process

I Yield

Mr. Chariman,

I move to amend the bill as follows:

To replace the following:

with the following:

I yield.

Mr Chair

I 2nd that amendment but oppose the rest of the Bill

I Yield

This post has been edited by Mick Peruzza on Nov 30 2004, 07:19 PM