*EPF205 10/01/2002
Excerpt: State's Boucher Says Jerusalem Is Permanent Status Issue
(Says State Department opposes U.S. legislative action on Jerusalem) (910)

The status of Jerusalem is a matter to be negotiated by the Israelis and the Palestinians, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said in response to a question about new U.S. legislation calling for recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

The question at a September 30 briefing in Washington referred to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. "Our view on Jerusalem has not changed," Boucher said. "Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be negotiated between the two parties."

Boucher added, "We have always opposed legislative action that hinders the President����s prerogatives on advancing our interests in the region and promoting a just and lasting peace. And our view of Jerusalem has always been that it is a permanent status issue that needs to be part of a negotiated peace."

The Jerusalem provision, calling for the U.S. to recognize Jerusalem as Israel����s "undivided and eternal capital," appeared in the "Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003" that was passed by Congress in April, and signed by President Bush on September 30. In a statement issued on September 30, the President said that he had signed the act, but that "the Act contains a number of provisions that impermissibly interfere with the constitutional functions of the presidency in foreign affairs, including provisions that establish foreign policy that are of significant concern."

President Bush����s singled out the act����s provisions on Jerusalem as just such impermissible interference, noting "U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed," and that the administration would regard such provisions as advisory, rather than mandatory.

Following are excerpts of State Department spokesman Boucher����s statements related to Jerusalem.

(begin excerpt)

QUESTION: I'm sure you've seen the Jerusalem provisions in the Foreign
Relations Authorization Act passed by Congress last April. What does
-- first of all, are you willing to go along with these? And if so,
how are we going to reconcile this with current policy?

MR. BOUCHER: In terms of the specific legislation, I think the State
Department authorization -- I believe it needs to be signed or not by
the President today, as the last day of the fiscal year. So you'd have
to ask the White House about that, what the President intends to do,
and what they might say at the time.

QUESTION: Well, will it happen?

MR. BOUCHER: I'm not going to speculate on that.

QUESTION: No, but I mean just in terms of -- if you said it had to be
signed by today because it's the last day of the fiscal year, what
happens if it's not signed?

MR. BOUCHER: I take it it doesn't go into effect. I'm not, frankly,
sure. I'd have to go re-read my ninth grade civics book to figure that
one out. But this is on the agenda right now. The White House is
considering the legislation and what to do with it, how to handle it,
including the provisions on Jerusalem that we're aware of. And we're
discussing with them and other agencies how those could be handled, but
I'd leave it to the White House to make any final announcements on the
legislation and what they intend to do about it.

I would say that our view on Jerusalem has not changed. Jerusalem is a
permanent status issue that must be negotiated between the parties.

QUESTION: -- Richard, that you don't think that this language is a
good idea?

MR. BOUCHER: We have always opposed legislative action that hinders
the President's prerogatives on advancing our interests in the region
and promoting a just and lasting peace. And our view of Jerusalem has
always been that it is a permanent status issue that needs to be part
of a negotiated peace.

QUESTION: But these things are kind of -- they're kind of technical in
nature. But you believe that these provisions do harm the President's
ability to --

MR. BOUCHER: I'd leave it for the White House to give a final analysis
of these provisions.

QUESTION: Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post on Saturday reported
that there were -- he quoted aides in Congress saying that it was the
view of the administration to treat this as a sense of the Congress
resolution, which means it would just be simply the advice of Congress,
but it would be something that you wouldn't necessarily have to
enforce. Is that the view of the State Department?

MR. BOUCHER: I would leave it to the White House to give the view of
the administration on this legislation --

QUESTION: Okay, fair enough.

MR. BOUCHER: -- since the White House currently has the legislation.
And they will decide how to -- they will announce how we intend to
handle it.

QUESTION: He also reported in that article that senior State
Department officials had said that they were not approached when this
language was being crafted. And usually there's a lot of
back-and-forth between the Hill and the State Department on something
like this. Is that -- can you comment on that?

MR. BOUCHER: There were a variety of provisions in this bill, I think
some of which have been there from the beginning. And the State
Department made consistently clear that it was opposed to those
provisions. We also have made consistently clear to everybody on the
Hill that we oppose legislation that hinders the President's ability to
advance our interests in pursuing a negotiated settlement.

(end excerpt)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents