[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 25, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5853-H5866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1430
CONDEMNING TERRORISM INFLICTED ON ISRAEL SINCE AQABA SUMMIT AND
EXPRESSING SOLIDARITY WITH THE ISRAELI PEOPLE
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 294) condemning the terrorism inflicted on
Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the
Israeli people in their fight against terrorism.
The Clerk read as follows:
H. Res. 299
Whereas Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas
(Abu Mazen) announced at the June 4, 2003, Aqaba Summit,
``Our goal is clear, and we will implement it firmly and
without compromise: a complete end to violence and
terrorism'';
Whereas Prime Minister Abbas also pledged at the Aqaba
Summit to establish a system based on ``rule of law, [a]
single political authority, [and] weapons only in the hands
of those who are in charge of upholding the law and order . .
.'';
Whereas the Middle East roadmap begins with the assertion
that ``A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and
terrorism (when the Palestinian people have a leadership
acting decisively against terror and willing and able to
build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and
liberty)'';
Whereas 22 innocent Israelis nevertheless were murdered and
scores wounded in three separate suicide bombings within less
than a week after the Aqaba Summit, and the death toll from
these terrorist actions is the equivalent of 1,100 on the
basis of the United States population, nearly ten times the
number of battle deaths the United States suffered in the
recent Iraq War;
Whereas Palestinians are also victims of these terrorists,
who undermine prospects for a just and lasting peace;
Whereas Islamic fundamentalist Hamas and Palestinian
Islamic Jihad consistently make clear their opposition to
Israel's existence in any form and within any borders and
their determination to use violence and terrorism to achieve
their anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic goals, and Hamas leader
Abdel Aziz Rantisi vowed ``not to leave one Jew in
Palestine'';
Whereas experience with terrorism demonstrates that there
can be no productive negotiations or dialogue with terrorists
and that a policy based on compromise with terrorists can
only be doomed to failure;
Whereas the concept of ``cycle of violence'', which implies
moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims,
should be rejected as a description of Israeli-Palestinian
dynamics, since Palestinian terrorism justifies Israeli
counterterrorist operations as the response of a legitimate
government defending its citizens;
Whereas Israeli counterterrorist operations would cease
entirely were Palestinian terrorism to cease; and
Whereas Israel has no choice but to use its own measures to
fight terrorism if the Palestinians are unwilling to do so:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) condemns in the harshest terms the recent terrorist
actions that victimized innocent Israelis;
(2) expresses solidarity with the Israeli people as they
respond to ongoing terrorist attacks;
(3) expresses sympathy to the families of innocent Israelis
and Palestinians who have lost their lives;
(4) commends the President of the United States for his
vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by
side in peace and security;
(5) affirms that this vision can be fully realized only
once terrorism is defeated, so that a new state may be
created based on rule of law and respect for human rights;
(6) recognizes and respects Israel's right to fight
terrorism and acknowledges Israel's fight against terrorism
as part of the global war against terrorism;
(7) calls on all states to cease recognition of and
political and material support for any Palestinian and other
terrorist groups;
(8) calls on all states immediately to establish effective
mechanisms to ensure that funding from private citizens
cannot be directed to terrorist groups for any purpose
whatsoever, including ostensible humanitarian purposes;
(9) calls on all states to provide support to the
Palestinian Authority in its effort to confront and fight
terror; and
(10) calls on all states to assist the Palestinian people
in creating the institutions of a democratic state that will
respect the rule of law and live in peace with its neighbors.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) opposed to the resolution?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is my resolution; and I strongly support
it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1(c), the Chair recognizes the
[[Page H5854]]
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to control the time in
opposition to the resolution.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield half
of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and that he
may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 294.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we marked the 1-year anniversary of the
President's seminal address on the Middle East, where he underscored
that ``it is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror,'' and
President Bush clearly outlined, ``The United States will not support
the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a
sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their
infrastructure.''
At the recent summit in Aqaba, Jordan, it appeared that the vision
articulated by President Bush, a vision that is embraced by Israeli
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and accepted by the Palestinian prime
minister, would finally be translated into a reality. However, over the
past few weeks, we have seen history repeat itself as Palestinian
terrorists have conducted a series of bloody bombings and road
shootings against innocent Israelis.
These acts of terrorism must be condemned in no uncertain terms. We
must send a message to the terrorists that such behavior will not be
tolerated, that we view such attacks through the prism of the global
war against terrorism, and as such within the parameters established by
the President when he underscored ``you are either with us or you are
with the terrorists.''
The choice for the new Palestinian leadership is a simple one: end
the terror. Ending the terror, however, must go beyond mere words. The
resolution before us clearly acknowledges Palestinian Prime Minister
Abu Mazen's reiteration at the Aqaba Summit of a ``complete end to
violence and terrorism.''
However, such a renunciation of terror must be accompanied by
concrete, verifiable steps to confront, combat, and destroy the
terrorists. As long as Israeli citizens continue to be victimized by
terrorists, Israel will continue to defend herself. Thus, only the full
implementation of a comprehensive Palestinian anti-terrorism plan aimed
at destroying the terrorist organizations will serve as a true catalyst
for peace. The focus should not and must not be on a cease-fire, which
history has shown us is simply a respite to rearm. The end to terror
must be unconditional, and it must be complete.
The new Palestinian leadership must arrest and hold the terrorists,
not release them soon afterwards. Palestinian jails must not continue
to be revolving doors from which the terrorists escape. The
international community must work together to support these objectives,
and a critical component of this effort is to sever all ties with any
and all who cavort with terror. Specifically, if Europe is committed to
the road map process, as a sponsoring party, the EU must do its part to
implement it. Inherent in those responsibilities is the necessity to
bypass and marginalize Arafat.
Nations must end political and material support for any Palestinian
terrorist group and, in turn, divert those resources to assisting the
new Palestinian leadership in fighting terror and in building ``a
practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty,'' as President
Bush has emphasized.
These concerns, the hopes that we all hold, our obligations and the
cooperation we demand of our allies, and perhaps most importantly, the
friendship and solidarity we feel toward Israel, are set forth in this
important and comprehensive resolution.
This resolution serves as a warning to terrorists to beware. The
current peace process is not business as usual. I commend the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his leadership on this issue, along with the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and especially our ranking member,
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi) for their commitment. I ask my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and that he may control that
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I deplore the bus bombings and other acts of terrorism
against innocent civilians wherever heinous acts of violence occur. The
violence must stop. President Bush's vision of a two-state solution,
two states living side by side in the Holy Land, must be implemented. I
support the road map whole heartily.
Mr. Speaker, it was just a very short time ago this year that this
body passed a resolution commending Israel and condemning the
Palestinian Authority and calling upon the Palestinians to elect new
leadership. Now the Palestinians have done just that. They have elected
their new prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. He has been in office for less
than 2 months now, and now this body all of a sudden expects him to
stop the violence that has raged out of hand for close to 3 years in
such a short time. Prime Minister Abbas is trying very hard to
negotiate an understanding among the militant groups that will end all
acts of violence against Israelis. And as we speak, as we speak, a
cease-fire appears to be taking hold. There appears to be such an
agreement.
This process going on in the Middle East as we speak certainly needs
no help from this body with this type of one-sided, inflammatory
resolution for which this body is so well noted. Prime Minister Abbas
must be given the time, he must be given the space, he must be given
the opportunity to assert his authority and that of his new security
chief Mohammad Dakhlan, with whom our own CIA and Israeli security
forces have worked very well in the past, and can do so again.
Let us attempt some objectivity here, Mr. Speaker, if we are to
remain the responsible super power that we are. The single most
important step that the Israelis could undertake is to stop its policy
of political assassinations of Palestinians unless they are proven to
be ticking time bombs. Tom Friedman said in a recent column that both
sides have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self-
destruction.
Is Israel better off or worse off after carrying out these
assassinations? The day after it tried unsuccessfully to kill a senior
Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed 17 innocent people aboard a bus
in Jerusalem, these acts occurring since the Aqaba Summit. The bomber
said this act was in retaliation for the assassination attempt the
previous week. Clearly the people of Israel are questioning this
policy. In a poll last week by a leading Israeli newspaper, 58 percent
of the Israelis polled supported ending this type of assassination
policy and cooperating with the new Palestinian government to end all
violence.
The fact is, the only time the Israelis have enjoyed extended periods
of peace in the last decade is when the Palestinian Security Service,
under Mr. Dakhlan, have cooperated with Israel and both sides spent
their energy, successfully, I might note, in preventing acts of
violence.
We are right today to call upon Prime Minister Abbas and his
government to make greater and more efficient efforts to control the
militant groups and end violence, but we also have a responsibility in
order to be objective and even-handed, to ask the government of Prime
Minister Sharon in this same resolution whether these policies are
making Mr. Abbas's tasks easier or harder.
The people of Israel is asking this question, so should the Congress
of the United States. Let us have a little balance here. Let us have a
little balance
[[Page H5855]]
here. Let us call on the Palestinian Authority to make greater and more
effective efforts against terrorists; but also, let us call on the
Israeli Government to stop making Mr. Abbas's tasks more difficult. It
is also time for Israel to reassess and hopefully end this process of
political assassinations. We cannot allow the extremists on either side
to sabotage the peace process. We cannot allow terrorists to torpedo
the peace process. Let us look at some objectivity before we pass, once
again, another resolution of this nature.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which
condemns the recent wave of terrorism inflicted on Israel and expresses
solidarity with the people of Israel in their heroic fight against
terrorism.
First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde)
for the gentleman's cooperation in bringing this resolution to the
floor. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Republican leader, for his principled support,
and to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority
leader, for her valued cosponsorship. The fact that these three leaders
of the House have cosponsored my resolution is a powerful indication
that it has strong bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution with one basic conviction,
that Israel has as much right to fight against suicide bombers and
ruthless terrorists as any other free and democratic nation. At the
recent Aqaba Summit, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon, made
some extraordinary and historic statements. He called for a democratic
state living at peace with Israel with mutual respect and shared
prosperity.
In less than a week of the Prime Minister's landmark speech, 22
innocent Israeli men, women and children fell victim to suicide
bombings and over 100 were wounded. Israel's response to this
unprovoked carnage was the only response a self-respecting democratic
state could offer. When Israel responds with counterterrorist
operations against suicide bombers, some criticize it for provoking a
cycle of violence.
This is an absurd and sinister argument. Let us be clear about one
thing. As our resolution states, Israel would not conduct
counterterrorist operations if Palestinian counterterrorism would
cease. The bloodshed, the violence, the tragedy would end.
The term ``cycle of violence'' must be permanently retired from the
lexicon of Middle East politics since it preposterously implies moral
equivalence between suicide bombers and the justified response of a
free and democratic nation.
Based on comparative populations, the 22 Israelis who were murdered
in the days following the Aqaba Summit are the equivalent of 1,100
Americans. Were al Qaeda again to murder over a thousand Americans, we
would demand that our government take strong measures to eliminate the
threat they pose. None of us would tolerate our government waiting
while someone pleads with the terrorists for a temporary cease-fire.
In my recent meeting with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu
Mazen in Ramallah, he told me that he is opposed to terrorism.
Subsequently he repeated his statement to President Bush and many
others, but Abu Mazen's effectiveness as a leader will not be judged by
his words, but by his deeds. Abu Mazen's political situation is
unquestionably complex; but if he continues to refuse to use force
against murderous terrorists, he will soon become irrelevant and his
political demise will be sure to follow.
{time} 1445
But should he choose to take bold action against terrorism, he will
deserve and he will receive the support of this body and the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, my resolution underscores the obvious. Israel's fight
against terrorism is one of the front lines of the global war against
terrorism. Israel's enemies are motivated by a hate-filled, sick,
totalitarian ideology, as are our terrorist foes. Israel's enemies are
ruthless and bloodthirsty, just like ours. If the Palestinian Authority
will not or cannot destroy and defeat Palestinian terrorist groups,
Israel has no choice but to take matters into its own hands. We are
fighting our enemies relentlessly. Israel, under infinitely less
favorable circumstances, can do nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, it is universally accepted that it is the right of all
states, including the democratic state of Israel, to make the defense
of its citizens its number one priority. This is the bedrock of my
resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Aqaba summit earlier this month
seemed to offer hope for the road map to peace offered by President
Bush. For the first time, a Palestinian leader had condemned in Arabic
for the entire world to hear the use of terrorism as a solution to the
problems in the Middle East. Unfortunately, terrorist groups like Hamas
refuse to stop the violence. The Palestinian Authority must immediately
begin to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and in
Gaza, because there is no chance for a Palestinian state if terrorism
continues. It is in the interest of the Palestinians to put an end to
the violence. The victims of these attacks are not only innocent
Israelis but also the Palestinian people who continue to be held down
by the most radical among them. These radical terrorists communicate to
the world their ultimate goal, the destruction of Israel. Any other end
is unacceptable to these terrorists. Therefore, peace will not be
reached until the terrorists are destroyed.
The time has come to rekindle the hope of Aqaba, to end the
terrorism, to get back on the road map to peace.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to violence,
killing and to the senseless murders which have been taking place in
the Middle East. I also rise in support of peace. I also rise in
support of the road map for Middle East peace in the hope that it will
be implemented and that the United States will provide the leadership
that is needed. I also rise with still some hope in my heart that we
could achieve the purposes which we thought were beginning with the
summit at the Gulf of Aqaba and to express the hope that we will be
able to see a time coming when Israeli, Muslim, Jew, Christian and the
Palestinian people can know that there is peace in the Mideast. I also
look forward to the leadership of the United States in moving towards
achieving the real goal of this Nation, which is peace in the Middle
East so that all persons, Israelis, Palestinians and everyone else who
is concerned with that area can know that there will be peace there and
so that the threat to the United States and the rest of the world of
terrorism will suffer a real setback of the kind all of us here hope
will be achieved.
George Santayana said something that I thought was very important. He
said, ``He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.'' I
see that the hope that we had is being diminished both by the killings
and by the fact that we are now moving away from what I had hoped would
be the role of the United States in the Middle East, and that is the
role of an honest broker, of a nation who could appeal to both sides to
bring the killing to an end and to achieve a lasting peace negotiated
by and between the parties. The Oslo process has collapsed. Eight
hundred Israelis have died; 2,000 Palestinians have been killed.
Twenty-two Israelis have been killed since the Aqaba summit, but about
double that number of Palestinians. This is hardly the basis upon which
peace can be achieved. It is also hardly the basis upon which we can
say that the United States is providing the strong, the determined and
the forceful leadership which is necessary to assure that both
[[Page H5856]]
parties do the things that are needed to achieve a real and a lasting
peace to the area.
I would point out that if we do not listen to George Santayana, we
have the possibility of repeating the mistakes of the past. What is it
that we should be directing our attention to? Forceful, forcible,
vigorous, strong efforts to achieve peace, to bring the parties
together, to see to it that they talk, and to achieve the reputation
amongst them of an honest, impartial broker, of a nation that is
interested in seeing to it that both parties not only work together but
achieve the best result of their negotiation that is possible to
achieve. I do not see that in this resolution and that is the vice of
this resolution. This resolution takes sides.
I am not prepared to quarrel with any of my colleagues as to who is
at fault over in the Mideast. That is not the function of an honest
broker. I am prepared to say that our efforts today and that our
efforts as a Nation should be directed at one thing, and that is
achieving peace on the basis of a reputation of honesty, decency and
fairness and upon the basis of the trust of the parties in the area. I
do not see this document as stimulating that kind of response. This
document is one-sided. It condemns violence on one side. I hear nothing
about the need for the United States to, in fact, lead toward peace or
that the United States wants a termination of violence by all parties.
That is clearly lacking here, but it is desperately needed. Our problem
if we seek to be seekers of and builders of peace is to assure that we
make possible the trust of all parties, Israelis and of Palestinians,
so that we can get them to the table, a difficult task, to talk about
peace, about building a peace which will last, which will give justice,
equality, comfort and solace to all, men, women, children and also
Israelis and Palestinians. That is absent in this resolution. It is
something which must not only be in the resolutions of the Congress but
it must be in the policies of the United States.
I say that I took great comfort and pleasure and pride when I saw
that President Bush was getting the parties together and that he was
really going to lead in this undertaking. I urge him to continue that
undertaking, because in that is not only the interest of the
Palestinians and of the Israelis but also of the United States. And a
failure for this country to take a position which achieves the trust,
the respect and the support of both parties for the negotiation is
assurance that we will not have the success that we want and that we
need. It also is assurance that we will not have the kind of security
against terrorism which finds its seeds and which finds its roots in
the kind of injustice that the people of the Mideast on both sides feel
exists.
I urge us, then, to be honest brokers. I urge us, then, to strive for
peace and for the trust of all persons over there who seek that peace.
And I urge us to take the steps that are necessary. This resolution is
not one of those steps. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which
condemns the unconscionable terrorist attacks directed at the state of
Israel since the Aqaba summit earlier this month and which expresses
our solidarity with the Israeli people in the fight against terrorism.
I might add that we ought to have solidarity with those Palestinians
who join in the fight against terrorism.
Let me add, too, I am very proud to have joined the gentleman from
California as well as the chairman of the Committee on International
Relations and the majority whip in circulating a letter that was signed
by more than 300 Members of this House that urges President Bush to
adhere to the principles he articulated a year ago concerning the
Israeli-Palestinian crisis. That letter and this resolution share this
nonnegotiable demand: Any road map for peace must require the
Palestinian side to unconditionally cease its campaign of terror and
violence against Israel. Like the Dean of the House, my good friend, I
desire to be an honest broker. But in that honesty, I need to observe
what each side does. We must require the Palestinian side to
unconditionally cease its campaign of terror and violence against
Israel.
There are some who believe the United States and other nations must
demonstrate more evenhandedness on the Palestinian question. However,
Mr. Speaker, we must guard against making muddled parallelisms between
justified actions by Israel and terrorist tactics that are designed
only to inflame and destroy and undermine, I might say, the Prime
Minister of Palestine from accomplishing the objectives articulated at
Aqaba. As this resolution states, we must reject the concept of a cycle
of violence as the gentleman from California has so powerfully said,
because it implies a moral equivalence between terrorist and victim
where no such parallelism exists. The state of Israel like every other
nation on Earth has the right of self-defense and this resolution
expresses American solidarity with Israel as it acts to maintain and
secure its independence as a free and sovereign nation.
Mr. Speaker, we must continue to work to bring peace to this savaged
region of the globe and achieve justice for Israel as well as justice
for the Palestinian people, so many of whom have toiled under despots
who only preach death and destruction.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader of
the House.
Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, no man knows the battle between good and evil like the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). It is an honor to once again
have worked with him on this resolution. I am proud to call the
gentleman from California my colleague and my friend.
Mr. Speaker, today Israelis will wake up and go to work. They may
drive their children to day care or have lunch with their friends.
Israeli children will go to school and play with their classmates. We
do not know which ones and we do not know where, but soon some of them
will probably die. A bright light will flash, a terrifying concussion
will bloom through the air, and in an instant fear, blood, panic, pain
and death. And somewhere in Gaza, violent men will laugh. If this is
not evil, nothing is.
{time} 1500
However unfashionable this so-called ``simplistic'' vocabulary is
among the diplomatic elite, it is honest. It is the vocabulary of the
American people and their President whose moral clarity has led our
Nation in our ongoing war on terror. Individuals, nations, and
organizations who equivocate, who see the savagery of terrorists and
the self-defense of free states as two sides of the same coin, as a
cycle of action and counteraction, undermine that clarity.
Those who say Israel's self-defense is an impediment to progress
completely miss the point. The destruction of Palestinian terrorism is
not an impediment to progress. It is the definition of progress. Offers
of temporary cease-fires by Hamas and other terrorist groups are not
the solution to the problem. The point of the war on terror is not just
to defeat terror, but to destroy terrorists. Murderers who take 3-month
vacations are still murderers. They are still enemies of the civilized
world and must be hunted and targeted as such.
Mr. Speaker, Israel's fight is our fight. Israel's liberation from
Palestinian terrorism is an essential component of the global war
against terror, and in that war there is no moral equivalence between
aggrieved parties engaging in a so-called cycle of violence. There is
only the cold-blooded murderer and the soldier sworn to defend his
nation. This resolution makes that distinction and affirms American
solidarity with the people of Israel and their war against terror. It
makes clear that the American people acknowledge Israel's fundamental
right to defend herself and that her fight against terror is our fight,
and it calls on the Palestinian leadership at long last to act in the
interest of their suffering people and stop the terrorists.
No more empty promises, no more games, no more points of effort.
There is a war on and the terrorists are going
[[Page H5857]]
to lose that war. Now the only question is whether Palestinian leaders
will stand with the civilized world in defiance of evil or whether they
will fail like their predecessors have failed. We must not allow the
Palestinian people who have been so long robbed of hope by corrupt and
hateful leaders to be used as pawns to undermine this President's
vision for peace.
The ascension of Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas gives us some
reason to hope, but Israel and the United States must adopt a policy of
trust but verify, and the only way to verify the destruction of
Palestinian terrorism is the end of Palestinian terrorism, period. When
the violence stops, the peace process can move forward; and until it
does, Israel must defend itself. And either way, she will not stand
alone because the people of the United States will never abandon their
brothers and sisters in Israel or any nation that is threatened by
terror.
A vote for this resolution reaffirms the House's commitment to Israel
and to the moral clarity of our war on terror. So I just urge all
Members to cast that vote and join Israel's heroic stand against evil.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing outrage
at terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian extremists since the Aqaba
Summit. The people of the United States continue to stand in solidarity
with the people of Israel. But I regret this resolution is not as
complete or constructive as it might be. We mourn the 22 innocent
Israelis that have been killed since the summit, but over twice that
number of innocent civilian Palestinians have also died as a result of
military strikes from Israel. Their loss should also be explicitly
recognized in such a resolution.
I sincerely wish the House had used this opportunity to offer its
clear support for the President's road map to Middle East peace. This
road map is not perfect, but it is currently the only legitimate way to
stop terrorism and get the parties back to the path of peace. Under the
road map the Palestinian Authority must crack down on terrorism, and
Israel must dismantle illegal settlements and begin an end to
occupation. Abandoning the road map in the wake of the recent terrorism
would not help Israel. In contrast, it would reward the terrorists.
I object to the resolution's condemnation of the phrase ``cycle of
violence'' because it is a fact for the past 2\1/2\ years we have
witnessed a heartbreaking and endless cycle of terrorist attacks,
assassinations, reprisals and retaliations. Since the peace process
collapsed, 800 Israelis and 2,100 Palestinians have been killed. The
Israeli economy has collapsed. The humanitarian crisis in the West Bank
and in Gaza has intensified. Therefore, it is imperative that under the
road map security cooperation would resume. This is critical because it
is clear that neither prime minister, Abu Mazen nor Sharon, neither of
these can stop terrorism without the other. This conflict will never
end without a comprehensive political solution; and we, the United
States, must lead both parties to that agreement. Otherwise Israelis
and Palestinians may be doomed to a life of violence and suffering
forever. It is not what these people deserve, and it is surely not what
America can afford.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking Democrat on the
Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee.
Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the old vaudeville act
where the guy goes to a doctor and he says ``Doctor, Doctor it hurts
when I do this. What should I do? And the doctor says, `Do not do
that.' ''
Every action has a reaction. And people who perpetrate violence and
commit acts of violence provoke responses.
I rise in strong support of the resolution. I want to commend the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the author, for bringing it to
us. The resolution brings something critical to our discussion about
the future of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, and that is moral
clarity. We should be absolutely clear about this. Neither the Israeli
soldier nor the American soldier who defends his nation by preemptively
eliminating terrorists can with any decency be compared to the
terrorist who intentionally sets out to murder innocent women and
children on a bus or in a disco or in a pizzeria or in a shopping mall
or in a supermarket or going to work in the Twin Towers in New York.
Terrorism and the defense against terrorism are not a cycle of
violence. Active defense against terrorism including strikes against
terrorists and terrorist leaders and those who harbor them is a moral
obligation of a free and democratic society. We do it because it is
right, and Israel does it for the same reason.
Tempting as it may be, peace cannot be achieved through delusion,
pretending that all parties to this conflict are of equal goodwill or
everyone shares the belief that the two-state solution is a recipe for
failure. Hamas and Islamic jihad engage in terrorism not to create the
state of Palestine, but to destroy the State of Israel. Their victims
are Jews not by coincidence of citizenship, but by active design. These
are not just misguided militants or eager extremists, as our newspapers
might label them. They are fanatical haters, murderous zealots
committed to destroying both Israel and the Palestinian Authority,
driving out both Jews and Christians and building an Islamic state on
the ashes.
Mr. Speaker, peace may be possible; but it is not automatic. It is
almost certainly impossible until these hate groups are crushed. The
Palestinian Authority cannot succeed. It cannot fulfill its mandate as
the single voice of the Palestinian people. It cannot perform its
historic role as the agent of Palestinian statehood as long as these
groups are allowed to exist. In the words of a former Israeli prime
minister, we must pursue the peace process as if there were no
terrorists, and we must pursue terrorists as if there were no peace
process.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, since there are colleagues on various sides
of this issue who wish to speak and, given the time limits, they no
longer would have the opportunity, I ask unanimous consent that each
side be given an additional 20 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I
understand the gentleman correctly that it would be split as it was
originally split, 10 minutes and 10 minutes on his side?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman
is correct.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding the leadership concurred with the notion of an additional
20 minutes to be split 10 minutes for and 10 minutes against.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate. A good
number of colleagues wish to speak on it. We waste so much time in this
body on so many unimportant issues, I think an additional 20 minutes
for each side is not an unreasonable request.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, speaking personally, I am in full
concurrence. My problem, reserving the right to object, is that I have
been informed that leadership is very concerned about the bill to
follow and would like to stick with what I understood was an agreement
of 20 minutes total, 10 minutes to be divided between each side. And
based on that, I would be constrained to object to 20, but I am very
pleased to assert 20 minutes to divide it 10 and 10.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. RAHALL. I think for once the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) and I totally agree on this particular issue. I agree with what
he just said about the importance of it. I agree to the extension of
time as he has requested.
Mr. LEACH. Again, I am personally in full agreement, but I am
informed
[[Page H5858]]
that this is a leadership decision and therefore would be constrained
to object.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman consult with the
leadership while we take up the next 10 minutes to see if they agree to
an additional 10 minutes?
Mr. LEACH. Yes. I think that is very reasonable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California making a
new request?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am making the request that each side be
given 10 minutes.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will clarify. Is the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) going to then yield one half of his time?
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield one-half of my time
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach) has 5 minutes, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) has 5 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) has 10 minutes. The total times are the gentleman from West
Virginia now controls 17 minutes, the gentleman from Iowa controls 5
minutes, and the gentleman from California controls 5 minutes.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the thrust of this resolution is four-fold:
A, it reflects America's concern for terrorism as an instrument to
advance political advantage.
B, it expresses sympathy to the families of both innocent Israelis
and Palestinians who have lost lives in this struggle.
{time} 1515
C, it commends the President for his vision of two states, Israel and
Palestine, living side-by-side and, thus, implicitly affirms the peace
process that the President has so wisely helped precipitate.
D, it is implicitly designed to empower the new government of the
Palestinian Authority. The goal is to strengthen those who have the
best chance of negotiating a long-term resolution to the Palestinian-
Israeli issue.
Here let me note that at the Aqaba summit, King Abdullah of Jordan
turned to the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers and said, ``Prime
Minister Sharon, Prime Minister Abbas, I urge you today to end the
designs of those who seek destruction, annihilation, and to have the
will to begin to realize our dreams of peace, prosperity, and
coexistence.''
This sentiment is what we ask the international community to follow.
This direction is where our President, as well as the king of Jordan,
is leading, and this is the direction we want this Congress also to go
in.
Speaking personally, I would like to stress full support for the
President's road map, for peace, but I would underscore that the road
has been traversed before, but proved full of cavernous holes and
multiple detours. The end is in sight. Everyone knows it will relate to
a resolution along the lines of Camp David and subsequent talks at
Tabba. But the slower the process, the more likely terrorists will be
empowered.
The issue is speed. Three weeks or 3 months are vastly preferable to
3 years or 3 decades. The violence may not end with a political
resolution, but it has no chance of ending without it.
Therefore, I think it should be the goal of this Congress to stress
that violence is an evil in and of itself, but a resolution of this
particular circumstance in international affairs, which is the most
difficult, possibly, in the history of man, is an imperative. All of us
identify with all reasonable people who are attempting all reasonable
techniques to bring a resolution to this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, many of us will vote for
House Resolution 294 because we indeed deplore the terrorist attacks
inflicted on Israel. We wish to express solidarity with the people of
Israel. And we understand the necessity of the Palestinian Authority
confronting and fighting terror and terrorist organizations.
I am baffled and dismayed, however, by the resolution's failure to
straightforwardly endorse the effort of our government and our Quartet
partners to implement the so-called ``Roadmap'' which, at this moment,
represents Israel's best hope for ending terror and the Palestinians'
best hope for achieving self-determination. We must condemn terrorism
without qualification, and that is consistent with promoting the
simultaneous accommodations by both sides which the Roadmap envisions.
We must affirm Israel's right to defend itself, but that is consistent
with urging on Israel tactics and timing that do not undermine the
Roadmap initiative, as our President and our Secretary of State have
recently articulated.
What this resolution fails fully to grasp is that concern for
Israel's security and integrity is a major motivation for many of us,
most of us, as we push for American leadership via the Roadmap. This
effort will require all of the energy and persistence and support we
can muster, in this body and in our government, in the critical weeks
that lie ahead.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution, and I thank Congressman Lantos for his leadership and
determination on this issue that is a priority to so many of us in this
body.
I stand here today to express my outrage and grief over the latest
round of terrorist attacks in Israel since the Aqaba (Ak-a-ba) summit
earlier this month.
Twenty-two innocent Israelis have been murdered since the beginning
of this month and many others have been injured in three separate
homicide bombings.
For most of us, September 11, 2001, forever change our way of looking
at the world. We learned that even the awesome power of the United
States could not protect us from terrorists bent on destruction.
It forced us into a position that Israel has been in for a very long
time--trying to protect loss of innocent life against an enemy that has
no reservations about killing.
I strongly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against
suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks and that the world must
recognize that Israel has a right to use military means to protect its
citizens and its borders.
To bring an end to terrorism in Israel and peace in the region, Prime
Minister Abbas must start by living up to his agreements, including a
commitment to stop this violence against civilians. That means
fulfilling promises of prosecutions.
His ability to maintain the rule of law would finally demonstrate a
Palestinian interest in engaging in discussions of peace.
It is my true hope that Israelis and Palestinians can one day live
side-by-side in peace.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my friend, the distinguished
senior member of the Committee on International Relations.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this
time.
To my friends who are concerned about this resolution, I remind them
of the words of Yitzak Rabin earlier quoted: ``I will fight terrorism
as if there were no negotiations. I will negotiate as if there was no
terrorism.''
While he will never admit it, Prime Minister Sharon in the last 3
weeks has moved to that position. Notwithstanding 17 Israelis killed in
a bus bombing, other Israelis killed in two other terrorism attacks
since the Aqaba statements, the Israeli government has continued with
these negotiations.
The notion that the Roadmap would exist, that this process would be
moving forward, that the hope that we
[[Page H5859]]
heard at a conference this weekend by the Dead Sea from both Arabs and
Israelis about the chances of moving forward would come because the
United States played a neutral role in this conflict, are terribly
misplaced.
The reason that the Israelis have the courage to move forward,
notwithstanding the continued terrorist attacks, is because they know
that the United States Government and particularly that the Congress
stands with them in this conflict.
This is a resolution that for the first time in the history of this
House of Representatives recognizes a two-State solution, an
independent Palestinian State, and seeks to strengthen and embolden the
Palestinian Authority in governing a State without terrorism.
I urge support for the resolution.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this resolution,
although I have not yet determined how I shall vote on it.
The resolution has ``resolved'' clauses that speak for themselves and
are reasonable. In the ``resolved'' clauses we do see a recognition of
expression of sentiment about both the Palestinian as well as the
Israeli innocent people who have been killed. Also, it recognizes the
Roadmap and talks about some of the goals that we all agree on.
I do have some reservations as to the ``whereas'' clauses which seem
to be one-sided. The clause most disconcerting to me happens to be the
one that people seem to be the most frantic in trying to get across
today, and that is the claim that in some way, by saying that this is a
cycle of violence that is going on, as it says in the ``whereas''
clause, that this implies a moral equivalency. It does not. The cycle
of violence could well have been started, and I do believe there is a
cycle of violence going on; it could be that both sides have made
mistakes. That does not mean they are both morally equivalent. Who is
judging the morality of it? We are judging the reality of it.
The fact is, Israel may have made some mistakes. Certainly the
Palestinians have made horrible immoral decisions in terms of suicide
bombings and other types of acts of terrorism. But Israel may have made
some mistakes. Was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, in retrospect,
was that not a mistake? How about the Israeli settlement policy for
these last few years? I think in retrospect these things have not
furthered the cause of peace; these things have created a cycle of
violence, if you will.
It is our job to try to come to grips with what is going on there and
end this conflict, and quit trying to say that all of the blame is on
one side. Both sides have made mistakes. Let us try to be an honest
broker.
Now, I will probably be voting for the resolution, because the
``resolved'' clauses are things that I agree with. But I would hope
that we would be honest with ourselves and try to discuss this in a way
that will further the cause of peace and not just simply be one-sided.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in any of our minds of
this country's strong support for the State of Israel. We have shown
that time and time again. But as my colleague, the gentleman from
California just indicated, neither side is totally innocent of all of
the violence that has occurred over the years.
But as I look at and read this resolution, I think the question all
of us have to answer, the only question that we have to answer is: Will
passing this resolution further the peace process? And the answer is
clearly no.
A reading of the resolution will find it lacking in one major regard
and that is, there is no endorsement in this resolution of the Roadmap,
the Roadmap which President Bush has worked so hard to promote to both
sides; the Roadmap which was a subject of the Aqaba summit. Yes, there
has been a flare-up in the hostilities since the summit. But now the
House comes with a resolution which is one-sided. And again, I ask:
will this resolution enhance the peace process? And I say to my
colleagues, the answer is no.
Only yesterday, the Palestinian Authority agreed to a 3-month truce
from any further hostilities. Many of us will say, 3 months! We want it
permanent. How about 6 months? Mr. Speaker, how about taking some
progress when we can get it? If this 3-month truce moves along the
peace process, let us take it. And then fight for another 3 months, and
another 3 months. It has to be done in small steps.
Our offices just received communications from two pro-peace Jewish
groups. The first group was Americans For Peace Now, a premier Jewish
organization working to enhance Israel's security through the peace
process, and the second group that is questioning the wisdom of this
resolution is the Israel Policy Forum, which supports American efforts
at resolving the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
So I say to my colleagues, let us all answer the question together
when the vote comes, and that is will a vote for this resolution
enhance the Roadmap, and will it further peace in the region? And
again, the conclusion I draw is that the answer is no.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lantos
resolution.
The terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli citizens have
increased at a horrific rate since the Aqaba summit. Palestinian
terrorists are enemies of the peace process and enemies of the Jewish
people. The peace process cannot move forward until all terrorist
activity ceases against the State of Israel.
The murderous ways of Hamas must be stopped, and I fully support
Israel's right to defend itself by any means necessary, as Israel
supported our right to defend ourselves against terrorism after the
attacks of 9/11.
The press reports these killings as suicide bombings. Some in our
government have taken it a step further and called them homicide
bombings. I think we should go one step further and call them what they
really are: genocide bombings, with the intent to annihilate the State
of Israel and the Jewish people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this worthy
resolution.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me correct something in which I may have misspoke
earlier when we were talking about an extension of time on all sides
and I said that perhaps that was the only area in which the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, and I agreed. That is not
the case. It was a misstatement on my part, and I do correct it,
because as he has stated and as we have discussed on numerous occasions
throughout our careers in this body, we perhaps see eye-to-eye on 95
percent of the issues involved in this particular area and in the
Middle East. We certainly agree on the need to stop the violence. We
agree on the need to end the terrorism. We agree on the strong Israeli-
U.S. relationship that must always be maintained. And we certainly
agree on the need for peace for all people in the region.
I must respond to some comments that were made by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House. He spoke quite
eloquently about all of the Israeli deaths, as does this resolution
refer to those numbers as well. But I never once heard the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) mention any type of sympathy for the innocent
Palestinian deaths that have occurred since the Aqaba summit alone. The
resolution mentions the 22 Israelis killed, but fails to mention the 55
Palestinians killed, the 258 Palestinians injured just since the Aqaba
summit.
{time} 1530
Five ambulances have been destroyed; 33 houses have been demolished
and 236 damaged; 7,116 trees uprooted; 328,000 meters of cultivated
land have been destroyed; 500,000 meters of land confiscated for
illegal settlement; 67 private businesses destroyed; water and
irrigation pipes destroyed; homes demolished; people detained, as we
saw in this morning's press.
[[Page H5860]]
All of these actions have occurred since the Aqaba Summit against
innocent Palestinians, so it is that perspective that this resolution
so much fails to mention.
I would say as well in calling upon both sides to agree with what
they set upon at the Aqaba Summit, yes, there have been some illegal
outposts, perhaps a flag here or a pole here that has been dismantled
by the Israelis. But according to Israeli sources and journalists, 12
new outposts have been constructed since the Aqaba Summit, and there
are rumored to have been five additional ones yet to be discovered.
This has happened since the Aqaba Summit.
I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that a recent
poll of Christian conservatives here in the United States found that 78
percent of the Christian conservatives in this country support
President Bush's vision for Middle East peace.
So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas in which all the speakers
today have agreed. And certainly that makes some points of this
resolution commendable.
But, again, in looking at its totality, the resolution lacks in its
objectivity. It lacks, Mr. Speaker, in what I term the United States'
best interest first. A lot of parallels have been draw today between
the Israeli responses to terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself
and the United States' global war against terrorism and our fight
against al Qaeda. I would say the main question that needs to be asked
here is does the Israeli assassination policy, when there is no proven
link that those assassinated are ticking time bombs, where there has
been nothing judicial pending against them, there has been nothing but
allegations of terrorist activity, in those type of assassinations, is
that fairness? Does it promote what is justice in the region. Does it
promote the United States' best interest in fairness when it is done
with what is perceived to be United States approval?
Maybe there are some in the Sharon government that compare this to
our fight against al Qaeda. But those educated and those that will
profess some sense of fairness will view this in a different light and
see that that comparison is disingenuous to say the least. Certainly,
Israel has the right to defend itself against those ticking time bombs
and to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. The United States has
that right to fight the global war on terrorism, to fight al Qaeda
whenever and wherever we can.
But to make the comparisons between what is happening in the West
Bank and Gaza by these Islamic militant groups, to compare them with al
Qaeda is stretching it a bit in this gentleman's estimation. We must
realize what are the true roots of the al Qaeda and the true roots of
why they hate us in the Arab world. Let us look at that response before
we determine if we can compare the Israeli fight against terrorism with
the United States' fight against al Qaeda.
There are many countries in the world that help us in the fight
against the true terrorists, which is the al Qaeda network; and it is
those countries that we will continue to need their help in our
coalition fight against al Qaeda.
Mr. Speaker, I do say to all those who are participating in this
debate, it has been healthy. It has been what we have needed in this
Congress for some time, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to
debate this issue many more times. I have demonstrated during this
debate the question that many Israelis have about the policies of their
government in regard to fighting terrorism, and I think it is just as
worthy a debate here in this country as it is in the country of Israel.
We have that right in our democratic system. We also have the
responsibility in this country to look at actions that we take as
Members of Congress and resolutions we pass, to ask first and foremost
what is in the best interest of the United States of America.
I referred earlier to the cease-fire that has just been announced
today and appears to have taken hold. While this resolution does not
have the force of law, we must, and we know as Members of this body
that every word we utter and every resolution we pass has profound
impact across this world. Whether they are actually the words of the
law or not, they do send a message. I think this is the wrong message
that the United States should be sending at this particular time, this
precarious time in the Middle East. Some say this cease-fire is only
temporary and it would give the militant a chance to rearm during a 3-
month cease-fire. This is the time that the new prime minister with
whom the United States has built a relationship, with whom the Israelis
have built a relationship, for the newly installed Prime Minister Abu
Mazen, who has been in office for less than 2 months, this is the time
he needs to gain the political credibility, to gain the support among
his own people, to further crack down on the militants without creating
a civil war among the Palestinians.
Now, perhaps that is the goal of some on the other side, but that is
not the goal of the United States; and it should not be the goal of the
United States. But, rather, we should give the newly created prime
minister, the newly installed prime minister in the Palestinian
territories the time, the space, and the opportunity he needs to gather
the support he needs to crack down and, indeed, make this cease-fire,
however temporary in nature, of a permanent nature.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues look carefully and hard at
this resolution before making up their minds and cast their votes in
what in their good conscience they deem to be in the United States'
best interest and in the interest of peace in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) of the Committee on International
Relations.
(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very
important resolution, and I associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Majette).
(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow for the
victims who continue to suffer the peril of deadly attacks of terror in
Israel. I also rise in solidarity alongside the Israeli people in a
stance against terrorists attempting to inhibit the progress of a
successful peace process. I further rise in support of the cause of
democracy and freedom in the Middle East.
In order to further a road map for peace, there must be an immediate
dismantling of Hamas, Islamic jihad, and all other terrorist
organizations that actively threaten the lives of those who seek to
dwell peacefully in this region.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this important resolution to
send a message to those who would willfully threaten the peace process.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow for the victims who
continue to suffer the peril of deadly acts of terror in Israel. I also
rise in solidarity alongside the Israeli people in a stance against the
terrorists attempting to inhibit the progress of a successful peace
process. Most importantly, I rise in support of the cause of democracy
and freedom in the Middle East.
A year ago, in President Bush's speech in the Rose Garden, two
criteria were outlined as necessary predicates for a successful
agreement: First, a change in leadership of the Palestinian people,
which has already taken place, and second, changes in conditions, which
have not yet been accomplished. Steps are being taken on both sides to
begin to implement the ``Road Map,'' but so much must be done. There
has still been no end to the ongoing violence in the region.
At the June 4th Summit in Aqaba, the new Palestinian Prime Minister
pledged to end the violence and terrorism in this region ``without
compromise.'' Since that time, there have been twenty-two innocent
Israelis murdered and many others injured in three separate suicide
attacks. More must be done to stop this violence now.
Mere promises are not enough. While it is promising that the radical
groups Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad today
offered to suspend attacks against Israelis for three months, I would
note that Hamas members in Gaza have already raised
[[Page H5861]]
doubts about the deal. In order to further a ``roadmap for peace,''
there must be an immediate dismantling of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all
other terrorist organizations that actively threaten the lives of those
who seek to dwell peacefully in this region.
I urge the House to support this important resolution to seen a
message to those who willfully threaten the peace process.
We will not tolerate violence nor yield to its demands.
We will continue to fully support the democratic state of Israel.
We support democracy and statehood for the Palestinian people.
Mr. Speaker, I would also note that what other democratic nations are
doing also sends a message to the world community and to terrorists.
For instance, I am deeply concerned about the plight of the Iranian
opposition being detained in France today. I am concerned that the
wrong message is being sent to the opponents of democracy and freedom
when democratic nations punish supporters of democracy.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the measure before
us, to stand up and speak loudly for democracy and freedom in the
Middle East.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a distinguished member of the
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. As President Bush said,
there are no good terrorists or bad terrorists, only bad terrorists.
I very strongly support this resolution standing with the people of
Israel.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a refugee from Nazi
Germany, issues of anti-Semitism and the continuing terrorist violence
against Israel are close to my heart.
I strongly support the resolutions debated this afternoon and commend
their sponsors. There is a fleeting chance for peace in the Middle
East, the first since the brutal and feckless second Intifada began
almost 3 years ago. But success depends on reining in Hamas, the
Palestinian Islamic jihad, and others committed to ongoing terror.
One of those others is Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassir Arafat,
who should be pressed or forced to step aside in order to allow the
nation's government of Mahmoud Abbas to succeed.
Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago I accompanied President Clinton to Gaza and
to Israel. Much of what he sought has been undone by the second
Intifada. The escalation of violence has not only killed people, it has
all but killed hope. We need to rekindle that hope. I urge passage of
this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Bell), a distinguished member of the Committee on
International Relations.
(Mr. BELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, friends of Israel recognize that the road map
may bring opportunities for greater peace in our time; but for this
effort to work, combatting terrorism must be the first step.
On June 4, 2003, Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas pledged a complete
end to violence and terrorism. But Mr. Abbas says he is unwilling to
use force to put an end to terrorists and terrorist groups, even while
innocent Israelis continue to be murdered by suicide bombers and while
the guaranteed and expected acts of retribution against his own people
are carried out. That is why we offer this resolution to condemn the
terrorism inflicted on Israel and express solidarity with the Israeli
people. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time
I yielded back.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I do that in keeping with what I said
earlier was an important debate and I believe that all Members who wish
to speak on this should be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman yields 2\3/4\ minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unwaivering support of House
Resolution 294, to reaffirm strong relations between the United States
and Israel and condemn the acts of terror against the Israel people.
The United States has a unique relationship with Israel, the only
democratic nation in the Middle East. We must continue to support
nations with similar ideological goals that share the same commitment
to democratic principles. Our history of friendship spans many decades,
and the United States has been the strongest advocate for efforts to
craft a long-term peace settlement in the region.
If the United States is truly committed to establishing a lasting
peace by pursuing the road map, then we must remain true to its
principles and condemn violence and terrorist attacks. We must continue
our efforts in Congress to promote peace in the Middle East and
maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. I urge all of my colleagues
to vote for the resolution before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardoza).
(Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new
vision for bringing peace in the Middle East. I support that vision.
But that vision is one that we must support through a fairness
situation where we do not make equivalency between what has happened by
Mr. Sharon going to the Temple Mount and the death and destruction that
have been wrapped upon Israel with the terrorist threat. I support the
Lantos resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which
condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses
solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.
On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for
bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must
develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel
and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the
United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.
Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new
leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian
Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat.
And I'm pleased to hear that--just this morning--Hamas, Islamic Jihad
and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against
Israelis. That's a very positive step. But we've heard positive talk
many times before. The proof will be borne out over time through deeds.
Just this morning, the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in
northern Israel. Clearly, the vigil for peace and security will have to
be maintained.
I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve
lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the
President last June; particularly, the necessity of combating terrorism
as the first of a sequence of events.
And I believe the U.S. must remain supportive of Israel in its fight
against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and able to
carry out this responsibility.
Like my colleagues here today, I welcome the positive steps the
Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to
dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.
As Americans, we understand the fight against those who seek our
destruction. We
[[Page H5862]]
stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in their fight against those who
oppose their existence.
The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to
support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to
provide safety and stability for its people.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
(Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year,President Bush
stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership not tainted
by support for terror. The new leadership must be committed to peace
with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then
would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.
Israel is fulfilling its commitment by dismantling unauthorized
outposts, releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing Palestinians to
work in Israel, and releasing funds out of the treasury.
They cannot be expected to give up counterterror measures so long as
Palestinians fail to comply with their road map obligation to stop
terror. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to
self-defense. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go
after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has the
responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist
attacks.
Merely negotiating a cease-fire is not enough. Terrorism must end.
Peace demands it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my firm commitment to the safety
and security of Israel and the Israeli people. One year ago, President
Bush called upon the Palestinian people to put in place leadership not
tainted by support for terrorism. Terrorism is the great scourge of our
age, and there is little doubt that it represents an insurmountable
threat to peace throughout the world, but most particularly in Israel
and in the Middle East.
In order for peace to be realized, terrorist groups like Hamas and
Islamic Jihad must be contained. The Palestinian leadership--with
support from the rest of the Arab world--must take a firm stand against
the blight of violence and death that terrorists spread wherever they
commit their atrocities. The destruction of the terrorist
infrastructure that threatens innocent Israelis everyday is a necessary
precondition to the success of the peace process and the recognition of
a Palestinian state.
While I am encouraged that the Bush administration appears to be re-
engaged in the peace process, the fact that 22 innocent Israelis have
been killed and many more injured in a serious of suicide bombings
since the summit in Aqaba, Jordan, demonstrates clearly the difficult
and treacherous road to peace that lies ahead.
The sad fact is that we as a nation have too often overlooked or
considered route the terror that daily threatens the peace and security
of Israel. So, I ask you to consider a situation that would be better
understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy street
in New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago or New Orleans; and think
about the people who might be on the bus on their way to school or to
work; people going about their daily business, shopping for groceries
or picking up that last-minute necessity. Now imagine that someone came
along with a bomb in one of those cities, or right here in Washington,
DC, and created an explosion that killed 7 or 70 or 700 in one fiery
blast.
What would the response be in America? We would call out the Army,
the Navy, the Marines, the FBI, the police, every agency that could
retaliate, whether to capture or kill the responsible person and the
leaders of an organization that would seduce a young person to
sacrifice his or her life for such a heinous purpose.
Yet, when Israel responded to the murder of 17 innocent Israelis by
launching an attack on the leadership of Hamas, the Bush administration
criticized the attack as heavy-handed and an unnecessary complication
to the peace process.
We would not stand by five minutes and accept such attacks on
American civilians. And we should not expect Israel to stand by five
minutes and accept it either. We cannot look at the violence on both
sides as though it is comparable. It simply is not the same.
Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for violence that radical
terrorists--murderers or killers, to use the President's terms--have
brought down upon them. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades, among others, delight in taking responsibility for a suicide
bomber who walks into a cafe or disco and takes 8, 10, 20 or more
innocent lives.
Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend
itself against the cowardly acts of terrorists. The United States must
not be caught in the trap of thinking of Israel's response to terrorism
on its soil as the equivalent of the terrorism itself. There is no
doubting the difference.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing
our solidarity with Israel. Just as we have when the terrorist attacks
were on our soil or against our national interests, we must roundly
condemn the acts of terrorists in Israel, and we must continue to exert
pressure on Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen to use very resource
at his disposal, including force, to root out terrorism and remove it
as an obstacle to peace. Moreover, we must be unwavering in our support
for Israel's right to defend and secure herself against such senseless
violence.
If the peace process is to succeed, rather than criticizing Israel
for its efforts to combat terrorism, we must offer our full support and
take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Israel is free from
the scourge of terrorism.
Only then will the Israeli and Palestinian people realize the promise
of peace embodied in the ``road map.''
I have no doubt that the Israeli and Palestinian people can live
side-by-side in peace and prosperity, as so many do even today
throughout Israel. Yet that goal will likely never be realized unless
and until terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad,
and others are removed from the equation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the House to express their full
support for Israel and their continuing commitment to the eradication
of terrorism wherever it rears it violent and ugly head and to vote for
this important demonstration of our commitment to peace.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
{time} 1545
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this peace belongs to the
American people. This peace belongs to President William Jefferson
Clinton as well the present administration. This peace belongs to all
of us who have worked to ensure a just and sustainable peace. The road
map must be supported.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to my colleagues that I spent 2
weekends ago in Oslo, Norway, working with women from Palestine and
from Israel discussing the issue of peace.
I believe we can move forward. I am going to vote for this
resolution. I believe that we can move forward, but I believe as well
as we move forward we must accept the view and the understanding that
as we abolish and get rid of terrorism we all believe and support an
independent Palestinian State, and so I am going to associate myself
with the women that I had the pleasure of being with in Oslo, Norway
and will be writing a resolution to increase the number of women in the
mideast peace process as we fight to secure a just and sustainable
peace.
I rise today in support of House Resolution 294, condemning the
terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba summit and expressing
support for the Israeli people.
The Aqaba summit took place on June 4, 2003. Newly elected
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed, ``our goal is
clear, and we will implement it firmly and without compromise: a
complete end to violence and terrorism.'' This is a laudable statement,
and we are happy to see the Palestinian government taking such strides
towards democracy and stability for their nation.
Prime Minister Abbas pledged at the Aqaba summit to establish a
system based on rule of law and a single political authority. His
intentions are the beginning steps needed for the Middle East Roadmap
to Peace.
The roadmap begins with the assertion that ``a two state solution to
the Israeli Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end
to violence and terrorism.'' Prime Minister Abbas' leadership will be
tested through these turbulent times, as terrorism is still rampant in
the Middle East, and more people are suffering at the hands of
violence.
Since that June 4 summit, less than three weeks have gone by, and
already 22 Israelis are dead and scores more wounded. There have been
three separate suicide bombings. When compared with our population, the
death toll for the Israeli population would be equivalent to the loss
of 1,100 American lives.
Palestinians are also victims of this violence as terrorists continue
their attempts to undermine prospects for a lasting peace in the
region. I was recently at a conference in Norway where Palestinian and
Israeli women were joined by other leaders from around the world to
seek a greater understanding of what must be done to secure peace in
the region. Some
[[Page H5863]]
progress was made but I realize that there is much that remains to be
done.
Peace will continue to be undermined as long as these terror attacks
persist. Sadly, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic groups are driving a
wedge into the process to peace that many Palestinians and Israelis are
trying so hard to build.
This is why I condemn in the harshest terms the recent terrorist
acts, and express support for a peaceful and secure Israel and
Palestine. I also offer my sympathy to the families of both the
Israelis an Palestinians whose lives have been lost.
The roadmap to peace is a vision, not just for our generation, but
for the future of Middle East stability. This vision can only be
realized once terrorism is defeated, so that a new state may be created
based on rule of law and respect for human rights.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the
Committee on International Relations, my good friend.
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution
because I support the road map plan for peace. Those of us who care so
deeply about the State of Israel and its security know that there is no
alternative to a peace plan led by the United States, but the
Palestinian people must understand that in order to attain the state
they justly deserve that their terrorist attacks of Hamas, Islamic
Jihad, Hezbollah must be defeated, and one of the ways that America
helps defeat terror is to stand 100 percent behind Israel's right of
self-defense.
The President was mistaken last week when he condemned Israel's right
of self-defense in effect, and he made a distinguishing mark between
the way the United States acts and the way Israel acts.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my friend and distinguished
colleague.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, those who have opposed this resolution have
opposed it for what it does not say, not for what it does.
The United States can be an honest broker and should be between
Palestinians who want peace such as perhaps Abu Mazen, whose sincerity
is still subject to proof, but it cannot be an honest broker with Hamas
and other terrorist groups who desire genocide.
This resolution supports the road map by supporting the first
preconditions for it, the disarmament of the terrorist groups, by
agreement if possible, by force if necessary.
Finally, there is no equivalence between Israeli victims of
premeditated murder and Palestinian victims who either were terrorists
or were victims of warfare unleashed by Palestinian terrorists. This
resolution strikes a proper balance, and I strongly support it.
Mr. LANTOS. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Lantos) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are passionately committed to
peace, and all of us in this House are passionately committed to
justice. The Palestinian people are certainly entitled to an infinitely
better life than what they have had for many years. The blame clearly
lies with the surrounding Arab states which failed to allow them to
establish civilized communities or to absorb them.
Other societies have done that. The Greeks of Cyprus absorbed the
Greeks from northern Cyprus, and the people of Israel absorbed millions
of their fellow nationals from all over the world.
There was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the misery of the
Palestinians in refugee camps. Hopefully, with the President's vision,
we will now see an end to this long, painful, tragic, misery-filled
process.
To embark on that road, we must see the end of terrorism. There is no
road map unless terrorism ceases, and if it does, the road map, in
fact, will be implemented.
I congratulate the President for having the vision of recognizing
that two states can live side by side in peace, with mutual respect and
prosperity, but only if terrorism ends.
Abu Mazen, the new Prime Minister, has repeatedly indicated his
opposition to terrorism. We have to help him to put an end to
terrorism. He must gain control of the territory in Gaza, first in the
north, then in central Gaza, then in southern Gaza and then on the West
Bank, town by town, and as he does so, we will move towards peace, and
the Israeli and the Palestinian people at long last will live in a
civilized region.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This has been a good debate, a very healthy debate. There is no doubt
that security cooperation needs to be restored between the Palestinians
and Israelis. It has worked in the past. The road map now is the way to
do it. Several of the speakers today have risen in support of the road
map, and they will support this resolution. I cannot even find the word
``road map'' mentioned in this resolution, and that is a major, major
problem with it.
The economies of both Israelis and the Palestinians are in dire
shape. There is no question about it, and this road map, for which I
have already commended and continue to salute the President for
presenting it, is the way out.
Confidence building measures by both sides, coupled with stability
and economic development, must occur, and it will help bring back the
necessary hope that both sides so desperately need and the trust in one
another that is so lacking at the current time.
There are obligations of both parties under the road map. This
resolution, unfortunately, points only to obligations of Palestinians
and insinuates they are not fulfilling those obligations. There are
obligations by the Israelis as well that are very clear. Yet they are
not stated in this resolution.
We must give Prime Minister Abu Mazen, a good friend with whom I have
met, the help he needs to fight terrorism and we must not allow civil
war among Palestinians to occur. The road map is the way to do that. It
will take time.
I salute President Bush for his personal involvement, for Secretary
of State Powell's involvement, for Condoleezza Rice's involvement via
her trip to the region any day now, and I salute our security people,
the United States security people, our CIA and others that are on the
scene in an effort to help the Palestinians restore security. That
takes time. That takes patience and that takes an opportunity, that we
must give and Israelis must give the Palestinians to create that
security that is so vital to bring peace to this area.
I am not going to urge my colleagues to vote one way or another on
this resolution. They can make up their own minds, but each colleague I
would say has to look in his or her conscience and has to determine in
their best opinion what is in the United States' best interests in
promoting the road map to peace in the Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has 30
seconds left.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about two subjects--
violence and peace.
On point one, the Congress cannot be equivocal in condemning
terrorism. On point two, this resolution unequivocally commends the
President for a vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side
by side in peace and security.
This is the first President to assert legitimacy of a Palestinian
state, and this resolution not only implicitly endorses the President's
road map for peace but breaks affirmative ground in a congressional
resolution on the Palestinian legitimacy issue.
Peace is the goal. Diplomacy, not violence, must be the means. On
this basis, I urge this resolution's passage.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of security for
Israel and in utter condemnation of terrorism. I cannot, however, vote
for a resolution that I believe fails to advance the Middle East peace
process, and it undermines hope for the Roadmap.
On May 8, 2003, I wrote President Bush commending him for his efforts
to help the parties find a way out of their ongoing tragedy. This
letter read in part: ``I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud
your efforts to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The
[[Page H5864]]
`Roadmap to Peace,' presented by the Quartet to the Israeli Government
and Palestinian Authority, represents a welcome and desperately needed
opportunity to work toward a lasting two-state solution that offers the
prospect for an ordinary peace between current adversaries and with
that peace, the promise of stability for the region. Such a solution is
very much in our own national interest as well.''
I believe the principles laid out in the Roadmap, including its
emphasis on reciprocity, must continue to guide us. Ending terror is
imperative, and I absolutely agree with the sentiments in this
resolution decrying terror and expressing sympathy for the loss of so
many lives, Israeli and Palestinian, in this conflict. However, at this
critical juncture, the resolution I wish that we were voting on was one
that expressed those principles while at the same time voicing
solidarity toward Israel by endorsing the Roadmap as our best chance to
reach the much desired destination of peace and security. This
resolution fails to reflect the reciprocity that is the hallmark of the
Roadmap.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
The Aqaba Summit presented one of the most promising moments in years
of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. At that summit, Prime
Minister Abbas pledged his commitment to a complete end to the violence
and terrorism that has devastated the region. Prime Minister Abbas and
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon also took the first bold step on the
Roadmap to Peace by recognizing the right of one another to exist in
peace.
Mr. Abbas and Sharon had just returned from Aqaba, however, when
violence once again flared. There is no way the peace process can
continue while terrorist organization such as Hamas continue to act
with impunity in the West Bank and Gaza.
Prime Minister Abbas maintains that terror can only be stopped on
moral and political grounds. He remains unwilling to use force to
dismantle terrorist organizations. Under current circumstances,
however, Mr. Abbas doesn't have the ability to forcefully dismantle
such organizations. It is critically important that the United States,
Europe, Russia, the United Nations and the Arab League renew their
commitment to cut terrorism at its roots, and provide Mr. Abbas the
support he needs.
International support means denying the flow of dollars to Hamas. I
am a cosponsor of House Resolution 285, which urges the European Union
to classify all of Hamas as a terrorist organization, and not just its
military wing. I find it astonishing that a distinction would be made
between the political and armed divisions of a terrorist organization.
The Arab League must also commit itself to peace in Israel by denying
Yasser Arafat the funding and support he needs to maintain control over
security forces in the Palestinian territories.
I continue to support an active U.S. role in the Middle East peace
process because the suffering of people--destined to live on the same
piece of land--is too great, and the stakes for them too high.
I support this resolution's condemnation of the recent terrorist
violence that victimized innocent Israelis, as well as its expression
of sympathy to the families of both Israelis and Palestinians who have
lost their lives. I urge its adoption and thank the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lantos, for bringing it to the floor.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 294,
condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel, expressing solidarity
with the Israeli people, and calling on the Palestinian Authority to
take immediate and effective steps to dismantle the terrorist
infrastructure on the West Bank and Gaza. I also rise today to express
my solidarity with all those who support the efforts towards peace
between Israelis and Palestinians.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the
gentlewoman from California, Representative Capps. I wish to echo her
reservations about this bill. The introduction of this resolution
should have provided us the opportunity to restate the United States'
commitment to peace, and our commitment to the President's roadmap,
which lays out responsibilities for both the Israelis and the
Palestinians in the pursuit of peace. The roadmap, like any negotiated
plan, is imperfect. But it is supported by the President, it is
supported by Israel, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority. It
is the best plan that we have right now.
Having said that, I am pleased that this resolution recognizes the
plight of innocent Palestinians who have been caught in a cycle of
terrorist attacks and government reprisals. It also recognizes the
aspiration of Palestinians to create their own state, which will live
in peace and prosperity with its neighbor Israel.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, with
the Administration and with the communities in the Middle East to
foster a true and lasting peace in the Middle East. I believe that
peace must be the ultimate goal of the United States policy towards the
region. Peace is in the national interest of Israel, the future
security of a Palestinian state, and in the national security interest
of the American government and its people.
Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 294. I am
deeply saddened by the loss of lives at the hands of terrorists, and it
is of great disappointment to me that the terror has escalated since
the Aqaba summit. As the violence continues, even in the face of
efforts by all sides to bring peace to the region, the United States
must show nothing short of steadfast support for Israel as it continues
to bear the entire burden of ending the violence.
The U.S. and Israel both agree that Prime Minister Abbas is the
legitimate alternative to Yassir Arafat as leader of the Palestinian
people. We welcome his statements acknowledging the need to stop terror
both on moral and political grounds. However, the terrorist
infrastructure is committed to the undermining of Prime Minister Abbas
and the peace process.
Earlier this month, 22 innocent Israelis were killed and many others
have been injured in continuous suicide bombings. Among the obligations
in the roadmap is the responsibility of the Palestinians to stop all
terror and violence against Israel. Merely negotiating a cease-fire
with the terrorist groups is not sufficient. Terrorist groups can
simply use this time to rearm and plan future attacks against innocent
civilians. Militants must be arrested and arms collected to dismantle
the terrorist infrastructure.
As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go after the
terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has the sole
responsibility of protecting its citizens against further terrorist
attacks. Israel has an obligation to safeguard its citizens and like
every other sovereign nation, Israel has the same right to self-
defense. If the Palestinian Authority does not act against terrorism,
Israel must.
U.S. policy needs to be supportive of Israel in its fight against
terror. Just as the U.S. has the right to send soldiers around the
world to fight terrorists, Israel has the same right to fight terrorism
in its own neighborhood and its own capitol.
The people of Israel are confronted with the grim realities of
terrorism on a daily basis. Yet the darker reality is that were it not
for the successful actions Israel takes in defense of its people,
terrorism against them would increase tenfold. As Israel embarks on the
difficult path to peace, it is essential that her efforts to quell acts
of senseless terror have the full support of the United States.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H. Res. 294, a
measure expressing solidarity with the people of Israel and condemning
the terrorist attacks inflicted on them since the Aqaba Summit. The
timing could not be any more ironic. Today as we consider this one-
sided resolution on the Mideast, there are reports of a ceasefire
taking hold that underlines the need for America to find a way to
condemn violence in a way that does not favor one set of innocent
victims over another. Unfortunately, this resolution does not meet this
standard. Instead, this resolution, in its present form, will do more
to take us away from peace than to bring us closer to an agreement that
serves the needs and desires of all people in the Middle East.
That is not to say that I disagree with the text of this resolution:
I condemn, in the strongest terms, all terrorist attacks against
Israelis and remain committed to Israel's security and the well-being
of Israeli citizens. Brutal attacks against civilians are always
unacceptable and as a sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend
itself from these kinds of attacks. But, this resolution, which does
not address the losses on both sides, sends the wrong message to
Israelis, Palestinians, and the world community.
My concern is also that this resolution does not endorse the
``roadmap'' for peace, nor does it recognize the commitments and
obligations that Israel must implement for the peace process to move
forward. Furthermore,, it does not recognize the terrible pain and
suffering that Israeli occupation and crackdown has caused in the
disputed territories. We need to condemn Palestinian terrorists, but
acknowledge the honorable goals of peace-loving Palestinians that want
nothing more than a better life. This Congress should recognize the
pain of every mother that has lost an innocent child because of
violence in the Mideast, not only Israeli mothers.
Mr. Speaker I share the anger and sadness of my colleagues who have
brought this resolution regarding the Mideast to the floor. But, I am
convinced that this resolution will not advance the prospects for the
lasting peace that we all want, which, is why I will vote against it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of
course we all deplore terrorism and violence that any innocents are
forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this in the world today.
But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence
in the Middle East. I have a problem with most resolutions like this
because they have the appearance of taking one side or the other in a
[[Page H5865]]
conflict that has nothing to do with the United States. Our
responsibility is to the American people and to the Constitution, not
to adjudicate age-old conflicts half-way around the world.
When we take sides in these far off conflicts, we serve to antagonize
the people affected and end up no closer to peace than when we started.
This bill makes reference to the need to have solidarity with Israel.
Elsewhere people say we should have solidarity with the Palestinians
and the Arabs. So, as I have said before when bills such as this are on
the floor, it is sort of a contest: Should we be pro-Israel or pro-
Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-Arab, and how are we perceived in doing
this? It is pretty important.
But I still believe, through all these bills attempting to intervene
in the Middle East, that there is a third option to this that we so
often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best
interests of the United States? We do not hear much talk of that,
unfortunately.
As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best
foreign policy for the United States is noninterventionism. It is a
policy American interests first, costs must less money, and is in
keeping with a long American tradition so eloquently described by our
Founders.
I hope the peoples of the Middle East are able to resolve their
differences, but because whether they decide or not is not our business
I urge a no vote on this resolution.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though I agree
in principle on the intent of the resolution, I believe it could have
been drafted differently. I intend to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 294.
All of us who support Middle East peace process are aware of the
fragile relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe that
future progress toward peace will require a real commitment on the part
of Israel and the Palestinians, and the active participation of the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Israel, but I also strongly support
efforts to bring about peace in the region, which will allow the
Israeli and Palestinian people to live together side by side without
having to endure this type of violence.
All sides of this conflict have responsibilities. Israel must take
tangible steps now to ease the suffering of Palestinians and to show
respect for their dignity. As progress is made toward peace, Israel
must stop settlement activity in the occupied territories. Arab nations
must fight terror in all forms, and recognize and state the obvious
once and for all: Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state at
peace with its neighbors.
There is no excuse for terrorist acts. I want to save the lives of
Israelis, and I want to save the lives of Palestinians. Both are
equally precious, both deserve to live in peace and security.
It is in that spirit, and with that faith, that I will continue to
work with the Administration to ensure the United States remains firm
in its commitment to the principles necessary to guarantee the success
of the Arab-Israeli peace process.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution,
which condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses
solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.
On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for
bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must
develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel
and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the
United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.
Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new
leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian
Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat. Since
assuming office, Abu Mazen has refused, however, to take concrete steps
to rein in the terrorists in any way. And despite the change in
leadership, Yasser Arafat maintains a high degree of control, including
authority over major elements of the Palestinian security apparatus.
And I am pleased to hear that, just this morning Hamas, Islamic Jihad
and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against
Israelis. That is a very positive step. But as we have seen many times
before, the proof will be borne out over time. Also just this morning,
the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in northern Israel. So
clearly, the vigilance for peace and security will continue.
I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve
lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the
President last June, particularly the necessity of combating terrorism
as the first of a sequence of events.
Since the Aqaba summit earlier this month, 22 Israeli civilians have
been killed and many others have been injured in three separate suicide
bombings. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to
self-defense. Israel must act against terrorism if the Palestinian
Authority does not. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively
go after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has a
responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist
attacks. I believe U.S. policy must be supportive of Israel in its
fight against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and
able to assume this responsibility.
We must also wholly reject the concept of a ``cycle of violence.''
Use of that term implies a moral equivalence between those who commit
terrorist acts and their victims. Israel's targeting of terrorist
leaders is not the moral equivalent of targeting of innocent civilians,
including women and children.
Like my colleagues here this morning, I welcome the positive steps
the Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to
dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Without such action, the Road
Map or any other effort, however well intentioned, will fail.
The Palestinian people deserve a leadership that looks beyond the
narrow goal of nationalism and works toward bettering the lives of its
people. Regrettably, the current leadership has shown no signs of
embracing those goals. As Americans, we understand the fight against
those who seek our destruction. We stand should to shoulder with Israel
in their fight against those who oppose their existence.
The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to
support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to
provide safety and stability for its people.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as we are hearing all too
frequently about continued violence in Israel, I rise in support of H.
Con. Res. 294, expressing solidarity with Israel.
For me, terrorism has hit close to home on too many occasions. Just
last Friday, Eugene and Lorraine Goldstein, an elderly couple from
Plainview, which is on Long Island, were visiting their son in Israel.
It was supposed to be a time of joy for the family, but became a matter
of grief.
Eugene and Lorraine Goldstein, and their son and daughter-in-law were
on their way to a wedding dinner for a grandson at the Holyland Hotel,
and also celebrating their son and daughter-in-law's 27th wedding
anniversary. The family was traveling along Route 60, a West Bank
highway.
During the drive, the Goldstein's happy day was shattered by the
bullets of terrorists. The Goldsteins were shot in an attack that the
Palestinian group Hamas has admitted carrying out. Within minutes
Eugene and Lorraine's son was dead, their daughter-in-law was injured,
and they were severely wounded, taken to a Jerusalem hospital.
Eugene Goldstein is a watch salesman at the Fortunoff store in
Westbury, also in my district. Fortunoff calls Eugene a ``superstar
with a big wave and a big grin,'' and their family, friends and
neighbors know the Goldsteins as good people. The family is in great
shock, just one more family with lives destroyed from terrorism. I am
praying that the Goldsteins recover quickly and fully, and my
condolences go to their family for their loss.
Today, Israel finds herself in an unbearable situation. Despite
Israeli trust, Yasser Arafat has allowed terrorism to pervade Israeli
society. Prime Minister ``MA-MOOD'' Abbas must keep his pledge for a
``complete end to violence and terrorism.'' Until that happens, Israel
has every right to enter Palestinian cities and refugee camps to root
out terror. We cannot expect Israel to sit by and watch her country
crumble, and her people be murdered in groups of 20 while they ride
buses.
As a Member of Congress, I will support Israel's decisions regarding
security and self-defense in any way possible.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise concerns with House
Resolution 294, Condemning The Terrorism Inflicted On Israel And
Expressing Solidarity With The Israeli People.
I am greatly troubled by the violence between Palestinians and
Israelis over the last two weeks. It poses a great threat to the road
map toward peace before it has had a chance to progress. I am outraged
by extremists on both sides who continue to frustrate and delay the
peace process. For the sake of the Israeli and Palestinian people, this
process must be allowed to succeed.
While I join my colleagues in denouncing all acts of terrorism, this
resolution unfairly places blame on one side in the ongoing cycle of
violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States
should always act as a fair and impartial broker in the peace process.
This resolution violates that responsibility.
Let me be clear. I condemn the recent bus bombings and other acts of
terrorism carried out by Hamas just as I believe Israel must halt its
policy of assassinations. The day after Israel attempted to kill a
senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed seventeen innocent people
aboard a bus in Jerusalem. The cycle of violence being perpetuated by
both sides must end, but this resolution does nothing constructive to
further that goal.
It is only right that Congress call upon the new government of Prime
Minister Abbas to
[[Page H5866]]
take more effective measures in controlling Hamas and ending violence.
But we should also ask the government of Prime Minister Sharon to do
the same. We should sponsor impartial legislation supporting continued
dialogue to end the violence in the Middle East--protecting the human
rights of the innocent involved in the cross fire. We must balance our
demands on both of these governments.
Both sides have crossed the line--it is time to get back to the
negotiating table. We are not aiding this already volatile situation by
giving our weighted support to one side in this conflict. For that
reason, I must abstain on this resolution.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 294.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________