[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4789-H4802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  REGARDING THE SECURITY OF ISRAEL AND THE PRINCIPLES OF PEACE IN THE 
                              MIDDLE EAST

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 460) regarding the security 
of Israel and the principles of peace in the Middle East.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 460

       Whereas the United States is hopeful that a peaceful 
     resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be 
     achieved;
       Whereas the United States is strongly committed to the 
     security of Israel and its well-being as a Jewish state;
       Whereas Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has proposed an 
     initiative intended to enhance the security of Israel and 
     further the cause of peace in the Middle East;
       Whereas President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Sharon 
     have subsequently engaged in a dialogue with respect to this 
     initiative;
       Whereas President Bush, as part of that dialogue, expressed 
     the support of the United States for Prime Minister Sharon's 
     initiative in a letter dated April 14, 2004;
       Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated 
     that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, 
     including already existing major Israeli population centers, 
     it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status 
     negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will be a 
     full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but 
     realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only 
     be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that 
     reflect these realities;
       Whereas the President acknowledged that any agreed, just, 
     fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the 
     Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status 
     agreement will need to be found through the establishment of 
     a permanent alternative and the settling of Palestinian 
     refugees there rather than in Israel;
       Whereas the principles expressed in President Bush's letter 
     will enhance the security of Israel and advance the cause of 
     peace in the Middle East;
       Whereas there will be no security for Israelis or 
     Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all 
     countries in the region and throughout the world, join 
     together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist 
     organizations;
       Whereas the United States remains committed to the security 
     of Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible 
     borders, and to preserving and strengthening the capability 
     of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any 
     threat;
       Whereas Israel has the right to defend itself against 
     terrorism, including the right to take actions against 
     terrorist organizations that threaten the citizens of Israel;
       Whereas the President stated on June 24, 2002, his vision 
     of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in 
     peace and security and that vision can only be fully realized 
     when terrorism is defeated, so that a new state may be 
     created based on rule of law and respect for human rights; 
     and
       Whereas President Bush announced on March 14, 2003, that in 
     order to promote a lasting peace, all Arab states must oppose 
     terrorism, support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic 
     Palestine, and state clearly that they will live in peace 
     with Israel: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That Congress--
       (1) strongly endorses the principles articulated by 
     President Bush in his letter dated April 14, 2004, to Israeli 
     Prime Minister Ariel Sharon which will strengthen the 
     security and well-being of the State of Israel; and
       (2) supports continuing efforts with others in the 
     international community to build the capacity and will of 
     Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle 
     terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which 
     Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of 
     Israel.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under 
consideration.
  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, and I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 
460, regarding the security of Israel and the principles of Middle East 
peace.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, our majority leader, for 
his unwavering commitment to the State of Israel and stability in the 
region, and commend him, as well as the gentleman from Maryland, the 
Democratic whip, for their efforts in drafting this measure. It is a 
resolution that supports the principles outlined in the President's 
April 14 letter, and in doing so it articulates our own vision of the 
path toward a lasting peace. It has long been our enduring hope that 
Israel's neighbors would see the wisdom of laying down their arms and 
negotiating in earnest, instead of killing. Egypt and Jordan arrived at 
this point and have found peace with Israel. There are others, however, 
who murder and employ terror against innocent civilians to achieve 
their political ends.
  The people of Israel have done their part toward peace and have made 
terrible sacrifices in human and material terms for this effort, yet 
they continue in their search for closure to this long battle. Yasser 
Arafat, on the other hand, lacks the will to fulfill the commitments 
required of Palestinian officials. Arafat seems more intent on 
enriching himself and his cronies and in accommodating Hamas than he is 
in achieving peace with Israel so that his own people can reap the 
political and economic benefits that would come from that peace.
  As the President noted in his recent letter, the United States stands 
ready to lead efforts to help achieve the goal of peace between Israel 
and the Palestinians, working with Egypt and Jordan to build the 
capacity and the will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism 
and bring a permanent end to such violence.
  However, we have been down this road before. Arafat promises, but 
Arafat never delivers. The suicide bombings continue, and the death 
toll rises without so much as a modicum of effort from Arafat-
controlled security forces to prevent it. He promises to disarm the 
radicals, to arrest them; but he does neither. Instead, he has acted as 
a revolving door for the terrorists that he pretends to arrest. He 
swore to end terrorism only to carry out a massive campaign of murder 
against innocent Israelis riding on school buses, shopping in open-air 
malls, and simply going about their daily lives. He has failed 
completely in his commitments, and he has brought only misery to a 
people seeking a peaceful existence.
  As underscored in this resolution and articulated by the President, 
Israel has a sovereign and undeniable right to protect herself and her 
people, including taking actions against terrorist organizations. In 
the same vein, we remain strongly committed to Israel's security and 
well-being as a Jewish state.

[[Page H4790]]

The President has clearly laid out his vision and has pursued it on 
multiple fronts. Through this resolution, we again declare our support 
for Israel for the great sacrifices she has made, and we congratulate 
the President for recognizing those sacrifices and the importance of 
Israel's commitment to peace.
  We also call on the Palestinians to help build a peace that is mutual 
and lasting and not one of fleeting adherence and rhetorical assurances 
to score political points. Their adherence to peace must be real, and 
it must be enduring. For the welfare and security of the people of the 
State of Israel and for the future of the Palestinian people, Arafat 
and the Palestinian leadership must come to the realization that it is 
in their best interests to build the institutions necessary to fight 
and defeat terrorism in order to live side by side in peace together 
with Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses our support for principles 
that are crucial to Middle East peace, and it reflects the current 
reality on the ground. These principles are consistent with U.S. policy 
priorities, and I ask my colleagues to render their strong support for 
this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, 
who played a critical role in the drafting of this important 
resolution.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from California, the ranking member 
of the committee, for yielding time; and I thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for her statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important 
bipartisan resolution, which the majority leader (Mr. DeLay) and I have 
offered along with the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  This is a balanced resolution, Mr. Speaker, that will further the 
cause of peace in the Middle East, enhance the security of our staunch 
ally, the democratic State of Israel, and move the Palestinian people 
closer to the realization of a homeland of their own. In short, this 
resolution does two things. First, it strongly endorses the principles 
for Middle East peace articulated by President Bush in his April 14 
letter to Prime Minister Sharon.
  The Members may recall that the President's letter welcomed Prime 
Minister Sharon's disengagement plan calling for the withdrawal of 
military installations and settlements from Gaza and the West Bank. The 
President believes that this plan will make a real contribution towards 
peace, and so do I. This plan in my view is a bold, historic 
opportunity to break the deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian relations. In 
addition, the President, among other things, reaffirmed the United 
States' commitment to the implementation of the road map to Middle East 
peace; reiterated in the strongest terms our commitment to Israel's 
security; insisted that the Palestinian side immediately cease all acts 
of violence and terror against Israel and her citizens; expressed our 
support for the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, 
contiguous, sovereign, and independent; recognized that in light of the 
reality, on the ground it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of 
final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the 
armistice lines of 1949; and in addition indicated that any final 
status will need to include the establishment of a Palestinian state 
and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this resolution supports continuing efforts by 
the international community to build the capacity and will of 
Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist 
organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn 
from posing a threat to the security of Israel.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, the plight of the Palestinian people must concern all of 
us. Their cause has been diminished by depraved and corrupt leaders, 
led by Yasser Arafat, who employ the tactic of terror, insight their 
people to hate, and refuse to seek peace, thereby tragically relegating 
their own people to poverty and severe insecurity. In fact, it is this 
absence of leadership on the Palestinian side, the absence of a sincere 
negotiating partner, that spurred Prime Minister Sharon to propose his 
recent disengagement plan, which is supported not only by President 
Bush, but also by John Kerry and Members on both sides of the aisle 
here.
  Thus again, Mr. Speaker, Israel has stepped up and shown its 
willingness to take risks for peace and security. And let no one be 
mistaken about the special relationship that has existed between our 
two nations since the State of Israel was founded. Ours is a 
relationship of principle and conscience, of shared values and common 
aspirations, of peace and opportunity, and of a mutual commitment to 
freedom and democracy.
  This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is an important statement by this 
House. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the distinguished Democratic whip for his powerful 
and eloquent statement.
  I rise in strong support of this historic resolution, Mr. Speaker. 
Our resolution represents a unique, bipartisan effort to demonstrate 
congressional support for the State of Israel and for Middle East peace 
by endorsing Prime Minister Sharon's bold disengagement plan.
  Even before this resolution was introduced, expressions of bipartisan 
resolve regarding its core principles were already well on their way. 
President Bush warmly welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's plan and 
reaffirmed this Nation's strong support for Israel and for Middle East 
peace in his letter of April 14. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic 
nominee for President, in turn endorsed both Prime Minister Sharon's 
proposal and the content of the President's letter.
  In setting out some of the principles of peace such as those relating 
to territory and refugees, the President was clearly inspired by ideas 
presented during the Camp David negotiations in the summer of 2000 and 
by President Clinton's so-called ``Parameters'' of December, 2000. Thus 
like President Bush's April 14 letter, the resolution now before us 
distills the ideas of some of our Nation's most respected figures in 
both the Democratic and Republican parties.
  Many of the principles in the resolution have been endorsed 
previously, some of them repeatedly by the Congress. All of them are 
crucial to achieving Middle East peace.
  Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Sharon has taken a bold risk and shown 
great courage in pursuing his plan for unilateral withdrawal from all 
of Gaza and parts of the West Bank. He did so because he believed it 
was the only way to break a deadlock in the peace process and to forge 
a historic path towards the separation of the Palestinian and Israeli 
peoples which is the prerequisite for a two-state solution. The prime 
minister decided that Middle East peace could no longer be held hostage 
to the failure of Palestinian leadership.
  Prime Minister Sharon has pursued his plan despite repeated political 
obstacles. The Israeli people as a whole overwhelmingly embrace his 
initiative, but many of his traditional allies do not. In fact, Mr. 
Sharon's plan was defeated in a referendum of his own Likud parties 
membership. He has been forced to fire some members of his cabinet in 
order to assure cabinet support for the plan. Other ministers have 
resigned in protest. Mr. Sharon has lost his once formidable 
parliamentary majority and now leads a minority government. Perhaps 
most painfully for him, he has parted ways with a settlement movement 
that he once unofficially led. As one senior U.S. official recently 
expressed it to me, ``A year ago we would have been shocked and pleased 
if Sharon had decided to dismantle one single settlement. Now he 
insists on dismantling two dozen.''
  Mr. Speaker, I met with Prime Minister Sharon in his office in 
Jerusalem a month ago. As critics were pronouncing his plan finished, 
he was buoyantly optimistic and firmly committed to overcoming 
opposition to his plan. He told me he would prevail in the cabinet, and 
now he has. There are more steps required before implementation, but 
Mr. Sharon is committed to the battle, and, in my view, he is fully up 
to the task.

[[Page H4791]]

  Mr. Speaker, the Israeli people have endured considerable heartbreak 
in the peace process. They were stunned and many still are, as are we, 
that an inexcusable Palestinian intifada erupted 4 years ago in the 
wake of an incredibly generous Israeli peace offer. That intifada, with 
its repeated suicide bombings, has claimed nearly 1,000 innocent 
Israeli lives. Proportional to the U.S. population, that would be 
50,000 lives lost at the hands of domestic terrorism.
  Nevertheless, another Israeli leader has embarked on yet another bold 
and politically precarious peace initiative. That initiative deserves 
the support of the Congress. So does the vast majority of the Israeli 
people who, polls show, support the Sharon plan. And the Palestinian 
people deserve this body's support. They have endured all kinds of 
hardships, including incompetent, cynical, and violent leadership that 
has led them to the edge of the abyss.
  Mr. Speaker, what we will do here today will reverberate throughout 
the Middle East. By strongly supporting Israeli security and this new 
initiative, we will embolden Israeli leaders to take further key and 
courageous steps toward the Middle East peace all sides desire, even in 
the face of spirited domestic opposition. And hopefully moderate 
Palestinians will be encouraged to push aside their failed 
authoritarian leadership and take control of their own lives.
  Mr. Speaker, for the sake of a secure Israel, increased hope for 
Palestinians, and the all-important peace in the Middle East, I urge 
all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Berkley), a distinguished member of the committee.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos), ranking member of the Committee on 
International Relations; the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen); the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer); and the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for their leadership on this very important and 
urgent issue.
  I rise today in strong support of this resolution, in support of 
America's closest ally in the Middle East, and I rise with the hope 
that a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be 
achieved.
  No country in the world is more familiar with what Americans 
experienced on September 11 than Israel. Since Yasser Arafat turned his 
back on peace with Israel and fled Camp David to oversee the latest 
wave of violence, there have been over 130 suicide bombings responsible 
for the death of over 500 Israelis. Thousands more have been injured, 
and little progress has been made in forging a lasting peace between 
the Palestinians and the Israelis.
  This resolution sends a strong, bipartisan message of support for 
strengthening the security and well-being of Israel.
  The peace process is dead because the Palestinian Authority continues 
to refuse to fulfill its most basic obligations under the roadmap. It 
refuses to stop the terrorist attacks against Israel, dismantle the 
terrorist infrastructure, and begin a process of political reform.
  It is time for the Palestinian leadership to express their desire for 
a Palestinian state living side by side peacefully with Israel rather 
than a Palestinian state in place of Israel.
  Israel has the right to secure and defensible borders that reflect 
the demographic realities. The time is long past for the Palestinian 
people to reject terrorism and violence. America will never condone 
terrorist acts. America will never support those that perpetrate them, 
and America will stand side by side with Israel in its struggle against 
terrorism.
  This resolution, once again, sends a clear message to the supporters 
of terrorism and the enemies of Israel. America will always side with 
democratic and peace-loving people. America should and does stand side 
by side with the people of the State of Israel. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I thank her for her extraordinary leadership on the Middle East 
and Central Asia Subcommittee. She is a great champion for that about 
which this resolution attends today, that strong and historic alliance 
between the United States of America and Israel.
  I also speak in commendation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
majority leader; and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), minority 
whip, who have brought forward this House concurrent resolution 
regarding the security of Israel and the principles of Middle East 
peace. And I also congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos), my friend and mentor on these issues, a great leader on the 
world stage on behalf of human rights and Israel.
  When I met Prime Minister Sharon during January of this year during 
my first journey to Israel, he asked me if I had ever been to that 
historic land, and I replied reflexively ``Only in my dreams.'' And the 
truth is that for many millions of American Christians, Israel is just 
that. It is a dream. And it is a dream, make no mistake about it, Mr. 
Speaker, that American Christians cherish with a fervor and the fire of 
American members of the Jewish community. It was a dream that was made 
real by the leadership of the United States of America in 1948, and it 
is a dream the reality of which the American people, even the people 
across the heartland district that I serve, are dedicated to.
  It was my passion for Israel that led me, after my return from Israel 
this year, to draft a resolution, along with the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley), who just spoke. We authored the Pence-Berkley 
resolution that was able to endorse Israel's right of self-defense 
openly as this resolution does and condemn the adjudication of Israel 
before the civil court of justice at the Hague. We were both, I think, 
pleasantly surprised to see over 160 Democrats and Republicans support 
that resolution.
  So it was with special pride that I learned that the leadership of 
this Congress and the leadership of the House Committee on 
International Relations have come together in a bipartisan way to make 
an affirmative statement about Israel's right of self-defense.

                              {time}  1245

  The relationship between the United States and Israel is truly unique 
and precious. It is forged in the best values and hopes of the peoples 
of both nations, and it is forged in the uniqueness that at no other 
time in human history has one people so committed themselves to the 
reestablishment of another people in their historic homeland.
  I see our relationship with Israel as one of stewardship. Until such 
a time that Israel has developed both the economic and military 
capability to stand on its own, the United States, as we are doing 
today, must stand with Israel as a protector, a friend, and a partner.
  As a protector, this commitment begins with defending the territorial 
integrity of Israel through military aid and means if necessary. As a 
friend, this commitment includes foreign aid by the United States of 
America. And as partner, it means partnering in a process for peace in 
the Middle East, but recognizes that the role of the United States of 
America in that Middle East process is not one of an honest broker, but 
it is one of a partner on one side of the table, honestly dealing on 
behalf of peace.
  I am specifically pleased to see this resolution endorsing Israel's 
right of self-defense. During my tour of Israel, we, along with Israeli 
defense forces, toured a large section of the security fence. Mr. 
Speaker, during the 2 hours that my wife and I toured that fence with 
military personnel, they received three separate calls for attempted 
terrorist incursions along the fence line.
  When we arrived at their post, I asked the commander who had 
accompanied us, Havi, I said, ``Is this a pretty busy day?'' And he 
smiled the way that Israelis tend to do in the face of unthinkable 
threats and terror, and said, ``Pretty typical day, Congressman.'' 
Three attempted terrorist incursions along the fence line.
  It is that reality that sent me home to go to work here in Congress 
on behalf of the statement that we will

[[Page H4792]]

make today in deafening and bipartisan terms. It is the firsthand 
reality of daily terror that the people of Israel face that makes it 
imperative that the United States of America, in bipartisan and 
deafening terms, be heard in this place and on this day.
  I pray for the peace of Jerusalem, Mr. Speaker; and I close by saying 
that like millions of Americans, Republican and Democrat, as we see 
witness here today, liberal and conservative, as we see here today, I 
stand for the dream that is Israel. But I stand even more firmly for 
making that dream a reality; not just past, not just present, but a 
permanent and truly eternal reality of the Nation of Israel, with 
Jerusalem as her capital.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, I thank our leadership 
for their extraordinary effort on behalf of our great partner and ally.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my friend from Indiana 
for his powerful and eloquent statement, and let me yield 3 minutes to 
my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  (Mr. PASCRELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I must remind my brother from Indiana that the Mideast 
is in reality a dream for Jews, Christians, and Muslims; and that is 
the approach. I am going to vote for this resolution probably, but I 
would like to take the opportunity to speak about what people in my 
area, my district, and abroad should take from the resolution.
  The conflict in Israel is the axis on which much of Middle East 
politics spins. Let us not forget that what we do and say here has 
major implications all across the globe.
  The United States is strongly committed to the security of Israel as 
a Jewish state. That is not debatable. There is no question that our 
friend and ally has every right to defend itself against terrorists who 
oppose freedom and democracy. This resolution takes a strong stand on 
that issue.
  But equally important, this resolution stands in favor of a peaceful 
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Read it 
carefully.
  A vital first step to a peaceful solution is the proposed withdrawal 
from Gaza, as the Prime Minister has planned and President Bush has 
endorsed. But we must not forget that this withdrawal should be a 
precursor to the restart of negotiations.
  By passing a resolution that endorses the road map to peace and 
discusses what should be done during final status negotiations, the 
House is recognizing the importance of negotiations led by the United 
States and the quartet. We lost valuable time in the first 8 months of 
this administration when we did nothing. We separated ourselves from 
the issue.
  On a parallel track, the Congress should be looking at ways to spur 
economic development throughout Israel, including the West Bank and 
Gaza.
  Let us use this resolution as an opportunity to get back on track. We 
must work to get the two sides negotiating for an agreed-upon solution, 
rather than imposing one which will not have the legitimacy that is 
needed. The United States must use its leadership to get the Israelis 
and Palestinians and neighboring nations in the Middle East to the 
table and start the talks, so that when we look to the future, we will 
see Israeli and Palestinian children living in peace. This is what we 
want; and as committed as we are to Israel, that must be our commitment 
as well.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Matsui), one of our great Democratic leaders.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the 
ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for 
yielding me time.
  I want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida, obviously the 
gentleman from California, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and 
certainly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for bringing this 
resolution before the floor of the House at this particular time.
  I have to say that, first, I think all of us acknowledge, 
particularly with what has been going on today in the Middle East, and 
Iraq in particular, that the whole issue of Israel's importance to the 
United States could not be more clear. Israel is important for the 
strategic defense of the United States in the free world. Given, as I 
said, the fact that it is the only democracy in that region, it is 
absolutely critical that Americans understand and this country 
understands the importance of Israel from our strategic perspective.
  Secondly, there is no question that Israel has the absolute right to 
defend itself from terrorist activities, and this resolution will go a 
long way in fulfilling those two principles.
  Certainly the negotiation process has broken down. When Prime 
Minister Barak was negotiating with Mr. Arafat with the help of Mr. 
Clinton, it was obvious Mr. Arafat was not able or willing to actually 
engage in an actual agreement. That being the case, the Palestinian 
Authority at this time has no one in charge to negotiate, and that is 
why the whole issue of the disengagement policy is the correct policy.
  Our resolution today, with great support from both Democrats and 
Republicans on a bipartisan basis in the House of Representatives, 
would go a long way in at least trying to find some leader in the 
Palestinian Authority to stand up and say let us begin to talk, to 
negotiate, because obviously the status quo is unacceptable.
  This resolution, to a large extent, just basically puts together what 
is a reality. It puts together the point of the fact that obviously the 
whole issue of the Palestinian refugee situation will be actually 
resolved once there is a Palestinian state. So I urge the adoption of 
this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for 
debate on this resolution be extended for 20 minutes, to be equally 
divided between the two sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and 
fellow Californian, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my California colleague for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the statements contained in this 
resolution. Most notably, it is important that Congress continue to 
recognize and endorse President Bush's vision of two states, Israel and 
Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.
  I believe the resolution places too much emphasis on the recent 
exchange of letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, 
but I am pleased the legislation notes that changes to a final status 
agreement based on new realities on the ground must be mutually agreed 
to by Israel and the Palestinians.
  I join the authors of this resolution in support of Prime Minister 
Sharon's plan to evacuate all settlers from Gaza and at least some from 
the West Bank. This is an important step, but it must be a first step.
  The proposed Israeli withdrawal will increase Israel's security. It 
will also ease the economic and humanitarian crisis faced by the 
Palestinians.
  But this plan must not be mistaken for a complete and comprehensive 
agreement that must be reached. The only hope for resolving the deadly 
status quo is for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a political 
settlement. For this to happen, both sides must live up to the 
agreements they have previously made. Palestinians must dismantle 
terrorist organizations, and Israel must impose a settlement freeze, 
knock down illegal outposts, and ease the harsh conditions of 
occupation.
  None of this will transpire without the hands-on, vibrant commitment 
of the United States, election year or no election year. America's 
failure to engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not only 
doom those long-suffering peoples to continued violence and misery, but 
it harms vital U.S. national interests as well; and that is a risk we 
cannot afford to take.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for 
yielding me time, and I want to congratulate her and thank her for her

[[Page H4793]]

leadership on this and many other issues, and also the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) for his steadfast support of human rights 
across the globe, and as well thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) and the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), 
for bringing this resolution to the floor.
  I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 460 because I think it recognizes 
the tremendous accomplishments of the Bush administration, in 
particular President Bush, as far as the U.S.-Israel relationship is 
concerned. Make no mistake about it: this President, more than any 
other, has done more to strengthen that U.S.-Israel relationship, to 
recognize the importance of our relationship with our democrat ally in 
the Middle East, the State of Israel and its people. It is his policies 
under the Bush doctrine that I think reflect a very strong moral 
courage that again transcends into a moral clarity as he begins and as 
he continues to implement his foreign policy.
  I think across the country what we see are Americans who now 
understand the fact that Israel has been fighting the same war against 
the terrorists that we are fighting today, and Israel has been doing it 
for decades. The bombings on the streets of Tel Aviv are no different 
than the bombings that occurred on September 11 in New York or here in 
Washington or in Pennsylvania. The absolute scale of a suicide bomber 
on a bus may be different than those planes running into those towers 
on September 11; but make no mistake about it, they were morally 
equivalent.
  This resolution recognizes that this President and this House will 
never, ever accept terrorism under any, any situation and for any 
reason whatsoever.
  In this resolution, we also keep the onus where it belongs, and that 
is on the Palestinian people and their leadership. We have for too long 
seen that they have failed to live up to the obligations that we 
continue to set forth in the road map for peace and other instances 
where we ask that they stop the terrorist attacks, that they dismantle 
the terrorist infrastructure and they institute political reform so 
they can ultimately achieve what their dream is, a state living 
alongside the Jewish State of Israel.
  But it is not until we reach the point that we see the Palestinians 
recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state that this 
Congress or this President will ever allow Israel to go without secure 
borders and the ability to secure its population.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before recognizing my friend from New York, 
I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Republican leader 
for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley), my good friend and a distinguished member of 
the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding me this time, and I want to thank the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the minority whip, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for introducing this resolution.
  I rise in strong support of this resolution, and I ask my colleagues 
to support it.
  This bipartisan resolution shows the United States Congress is united 
in our support for our democratic ally in the Middle East, Israel. The 
United States must not only continue to support Israel because of our 
shared common values, but because we know the terrible repercussions of 
terrorist attacks on our own population.
  The decision taken by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on 
unilateral disengagement was necessary for the security of Israel and 
her people.
  This bold initiative has received international support and needs the 
support of all governments to ensure it can be implemented to remove 
the fear of terrorist strikes within Israel.
  This unilateral step has to be taken because the Palestinian 
Authority is currently not a viable partner in peace.
  For too long, the Palestinian Authority has allowed terrorists to 
operate in the territory under their control and done little, if 
anything, to stop them from attacking civilians in Israel. In fact, in 
my opinion, they have been complicit in those attacks.
  The terrorism against Israel and her people continues without a sign 
of it stopping. Over the past few weeks, I have seen countless reports 
of the Israeli Defense Force preventing terrorist plots to kill 
innocent Israeli civilians.
  While I applaud the strength of the Israeli Defense Force, the people 
of Israel cannot and should not have to live like that. The United 
States must take a firm stance and continue its support of Israel 
without wavering when faced with criticism from the Arab world.
  If the peace process is to continue to move forward, the United 
States must increase its engagement and stick with a consistent message 
as we continue positive support for a lasting and peaceful solution in 
the Middle East.
  Once again, I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation and for 
bringing it forward today.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority leader and 
the author and prime sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I too want to express my thanks to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his incredible work on this 
issue and his cooperation and his friendship. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip, for his 
cooperation in developing this resolution and for his help in bringing 
it to the floor today.
  It is really important for two reasons for the record to note that 
this legislation is bipartisan. In the first place, it is always 
valuable in times of national conflict, and especially during election 
campaigns, to show that for all of our differences, we can all rise 
above our partisan allegiances and come together as Americans behind 
our President. Secondly, it shows not only to the country, but to the 
world, that one of those issues that we can unite behind is our 
national commitment to the people of Israel.
  That commitment was reaffirmed on April 14 of this year when the 
President wrote a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon expressing 
his support for Israel's right to self-defense in a war against 
Palestinian terror. In this letter, the President established two 
fundamental principles that, in light of the repeated and willful 
failure of the Palestinian Authority to dismantle the terrorist 
elements within it, have become unavoidable.
  This resolution expresses the House's affirmation of those 
principles, specifically, that ``it is unrealistic to expect that the 
outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return 
to the Armistice lines of 1949.'' And that ``any agreed, just, fair, 
and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue 
will need to be found through the establishment of a permanent 
alternative and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than 
in Israel.''
  Put simply, Mr. Speaker, Israel must not retreat behind its 1949 
borders, and there is no so-called ``right of return.''
  The people of Israel are at war, and it is our responsibility to help 
them win it. As long as the Palestinian Authority refuses to take the 
necessary steps to end terrorism within its ranks, we must stand with 
Israel.
  We must stand by the commonsense principles established in the 
President's April 14 letter and stand against the voices of violence 
and appeasement that would sacrifice Israel's security.
  Peace cannot be negotiated with unpeaceful men. Peace must be won. We 
must stand with Israel as they work every day towards its winning.
  The alliance between the United States and Israel is not merely one 
of shared strategic goals and common interests, though it is that too. 
No, Mr. Speaker, the alliance between the United States and Israel is 
one of shared values and a common destiny. From Israel we have learned 
the need for an iron will in the face of terrorist evil; and from us, 
Israel has learned the value of steadfast friendship in good times and 
in bad times.
  Today, both the United States and Israel are fighting a war on 
terror; and one day soon, we both will win it.
  So I urge all of our Members to support this resolution before us 
today,

[[Page H4794]]

which, once again, reaffirms the unbreakable bonds of freedom our two 
nations share.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent 
that he may be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her usual courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for obtaining the extra time, as well as the gentlewoman 
from Florida for yielding that extra time to this side.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to state in the beginning, as one who has 
rather regularly opposed what in the past have traditionally been 
grossly one-sided resolutions, inappropriate, in this gentleman's 
opinion, for U.S. best interests in the Middle East, I do find the 
current resolution a minute, itsy bitsy, tiny bit headed in the right 
direction. And I do say that, taking into perspective what I view is in 
America's best interests in this region.
  Mr. Speaker, it has well been documented, and many in this body have 
always pointed out, how U.S. credibility and morality across the world 
is at an all-time low today. I do not think there are many countries 
that would doubt that statement; and it is due to many, many factors: 
our go-it-alone approach to the war in Iraq, unprovoked attacks, an in-
your-face type of attitude to our allies, many of whom we badly need at 
this point in time. There were no weapons of mass destruction found, 
false reliance upon the neoconservatives, bosom buddy, Ahmed Chalabi 
who gave us shabby information; an insurgency in Iraq that was more 
vigorous than even the neo-cons in the Pentagon could ever imagine, far 
from the statement that Americans would be greeted as liberators. We 
found no direct involvement of Saddam Hussein on 9/11, and I could go 
on and on.
  But there is one particular false perception we were lead to believe 
that is tied directly into this resolution today. We were told by the 
administration that the victory over Saddam Hussein would lead to a 
peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are still 
looking for that statement to be proven correct. And, indeed, the 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is linked to our actions in Iraq, linked 
to the view of Americans around the world, linked to our morality and 
credibility. It is all linked together.
  Peace on the Palestinian-Israeli front I hope and pray is near; and 
perhaps in secret channels that may be the case. We have not had any 
suicide attacks, for example, in the last 3 or 4 months. There has not 
been, thank God, in this period an Israeli to lose his or her life in 
these horrendous, condemnable suicidal bombs that go off.
  So now we come forth with this resolution from the U.S. Congress: 
``Regarding the Security of Israel and the Principles For Peace in the 
Middle East.'' I agree. Except I would add one word in that title, and 
that is Regarding the Security of Israel ``and Palestinians'' and the 
Principles of Peace in the Middle East.
  The resolution goes on to state: ``whereas, President Bush and Prime 
Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in dialogue with respect to 
this initiative.'' My question would be, where were the Palestinians in 
this dialogue? Is it not their future at stake as well? Where were the 
Palestinians in this dialogue?
  The response will come back, of course, that there is no credible 
Palestinian with whom to negotiate. There are credible Palestinians and 
moderate Palestinians and those who condemn suicidal bombings and 
terrorism as much as me and any other Member of this body. And they are 
the ones we should be reaching out to involve in these negotiations.
  Continuing further to quote from the resolution, on the second page, 
second whereas clause: ``but realistic to expect that any final status 
agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes 
that reflect these realities.'' Again I ask, where are the Palestinians 
in discussions about these ``mutually agreed upon'' efforts?
  The very next paragraph: ``any final status agreement will need to be 
found through the establishment of a permanent alternative and 
settlement of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.'' True. 
I would not dispute that. But where is that permanent alternative? 
Again, where are the Palestinians involved in discussions upon the no-
return issue? Is their future not at stake here? Should they not be 
involved in the negotiations?
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with paragraphs in this resolution. On 
page 3, the second and third paragraphs, yes: two states, Israel and 
Palestine, living side by side in peace and security; and in the next 
paragraph, yes: all Arab states must oppose terrorism, support the 
emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine.
  But there is a disconnect between those whereas clauses and the first 
paragraph of the resolved clause: stating the security and well being 
of the State of Israel, and again I would say the words ``and 
Palestine'' should be inserted therein.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding time, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume, because I would just would like to remind my 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, that there may not have 
been any successful suicide attempts in some time; there are weekly 
suicide attempts which are thwarted by the vigilance of the Israeli 
Defense Force. So the fact that suicide bombers do not succeed in 
blowing up additional groups of innocent civilians is not an indication 
that the attempts at suicide bombings have come to an end.
  Secondly, may I remind my friend that innocent civilians are killed 
in ways other than through suicide bombing. A pregnant mother and four 
of her young daughters were killed in cold blood just this past month. 
A pregnant woman with four small daughters in her car, all six of them 
were killed just this past month.
  So I do not think it is accurate to portray a picture which would 
indicate that the attempts at extremist violent terrorism is over. The 
attempts are less successful than they were at a time when Israel was 
less prepared to deal with it.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANTOS. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would 
respond to the gentleman that I condemn those attacks as well, and I 
would say that there have been attempts thwarted by the Israeli 
security forces.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. Speaker, the Israelis have not done that alone, they have had a 
great deal of information submitted to them from a lot of other 
countries, and from moderate Palestinians, working within whatever 
security apparatus they have left. The Palestinians who truly want to 
see peace and recognize how horrendous these actions are want to help 
stop terrorism.
  In addition, let us not forget innocent Palestinians. I am sure the 
gentleman would agree there have been a number of those that have lost 
their lives since the Intifada and many other skirmishes.
  I would say to the gentleman as well, I am sure he recognizes that 
under this administration, there have been over 900 Israelis and 
foreigners who have lost their lives during the last 3 or 4 years, 
which is 10 times more than the number of Israelis and foreigners that 
lost their lives under the Clinton administration.
  So let us help this President take advantage of the opportunities 
that are presented to him to achieve a breakthrough in the region. I 
hope and pray to God such may be on the table today being worked 
through back channels.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the principles that were 
articulated by President Bush in his April letter to Mr. Sharon can be 
seen as a first step

[[Page H4795]]

in finding a resolution to the Israeli Palestinian dispute.
  This resolution demonstrates that Congress's position is consistent 
with the majority of Israelis who endorse the evacuation of settlers 
from the Gaza Strip, and at least parts of the West Bank. This 
disengagement plan is a reflection of Israel's basic interests and a 
major recognition that settlements hurt Israel's security, economic 
prosperity, and demographic future. Disengagement will also help 
moderate Palestinian leaders to make concrete moves to finally 
establish a true democratic state.
  By implementing this initiative, tensions between Israels and 
Palestinians should diminish, thus paving the way for more renewed and 
more constructive peace negotiations.
  But disengagement should not be seen as a substitute for negotiation. 
Good faith negotiations are essential to any long-term reconciliation. 
The evacuation of Gaza must be seen as a first step but not the last in 
a comprehensive peace process. Simply on its own, withdrawal of Gaza 
will not result in peace or security for Israel. The end goal must be 
mutually agreed-upon, negotiated solutions by all parties involved that 
must address a host of other key and sensitive issues. Only then will 
long-term peace and stability be achievable.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us not forget our diplomatic and our moral 
obligation as well as our vital interest in halting the cycle of 
violence and in resolving this protracted conflict. Our failure to 
actively engage in the Middle East peace process has damaged our 
international credibility and it has hurt our ability to promote 
democracy in the region.
  As we consider this resolution today we must urge the administration 
to bring both Israelis and Palestinians back to the negotiating table, 
encourage both sides to live up to previous commitments, and to have 
all parties rededicate themselves to the principles laid out in the so-
called road map and the quest for security and peace in the Middle 
East. I believe that this resolution can represent a good starting 
point for long-term stability and peace in the region.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute from our 
time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) so that he can 
control it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
California will control an additonal minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my dear friend and good 
colleague.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend and thank the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on International 
Relations, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for his great 
leadership on this issue and for bringing this resolution to the floor. 
He has been a champion supporter for a strong national defense for our 
country and knows that it is in our interest to have a secure and safe 
Israel.
  I also want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) for her leadership and consistent leadership on this issue as 
well. I commend also the makers of the motion, the majority leader the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), our distinguished whip, for putting before us a resolution that 
I think we should all support. I think it gets right to the point, 
right to the point of what we need which is a negotiated settlement 
between the parties. This resolution preserves that right for those 
parties.
  Mr. Speaker, we can never say it enough, America's commitment to the 
safety and security of the State of Israel is unwavering. There are 
unbreakable bonds of friendship between the United States of America 
and the State of Israel. That is for sure. The United States stands 
with Israel because of our common interest, our fundamental from in the 
most basic of all rights, the right to exist, the right to live free 
from fear, the right to put our children on a school bus in the morning 
knowing that they will come home safely in the afternoon.
  Let there be no doubt the United States of America stands with the 
State of Israel because of those bonds of friendship but really first, 
and more fundamentally, because it is in our national interest to stand 
with the State of Israel. I view this resolution as an endorsement of a 
fresh start.
  I listened intently to what my colleagues have said about concerns 
they have about the plight of the Palestinians in the region and I 
share them. This resolution preserves the right for final negotiations 
between the parties for those parties to resolve their differences. It 
recognizes that for Israel to be secure and safe, it is important and 
necessary for there to be a Palestinian state.
  So when the Prime Minister of Israel Sharon announced withdrawal from 
Gaza, and we do not know the extent yet from the West Bank, I viewed it 
as a new, fresh opportunity for peace in the Middle East, which is in 
the national interest of our country and the international interest of 
the world and, certainly, the regional interest of those involved 
directly.
  By passing this resolution, the House of Representatives will affirm 
the support of the United States already confirmed by President Bush 
for Prime Minister Sharon's withdrawal plan. The principles endorsed by 
the resolution are consistent with the framework for peace previously 
outlined by President Clinton and intended to facilitate the 
implementation for the road map for peace.
  The road map remains the best chance for a comprehensive solution for 
the differences between Israelis and Palestinians. It is time for all 
parties to the road map to use the opportunities presented by the 
Sharon plan to bring an end to the violence and achieve lasting peace 
in the Middle East.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished Democratic 
Leader for her powerful and eloquent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel), my good friend.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution. I commend our colleagues for working in a bipartisan manner 
towards recognizing the historic agreement in April on some of the most 
important issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  This resolution puts Congress on record today to express unwavering 
support for the position we took in response to the ongoing failure of 
the Palestinian authority to crack down on terrorist attacks, dismantle 
terrorist organizations, or achieve political reform inside the PA.
  We join with Israel in this fight and we will do all that we can to 
root out threats to our mutual security and allies in the Mideast. This 
resolution says to the people of Israel and to the rest of the people 
of the Mideast that the United States will never leave Israel's side as 
a friend, as we have since 1948 been the best friend America has in 
that area. We will remain united by a common bond of common values, of 
mutual love for both freedom and liberty.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution and the principles of the Mideast peace 
initiative will help preserve both of our Nations as unwavering symbols 
of freedom where intolerance and terrorism still threaten liberty and 
peace.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis) who, in this very brief time with us has made a 
notable contributions to the work of his body.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
California for his commitment and the power of his example on this 
issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I did not want this debate to end without adding my 
voice to it and my strong endorsement of this resolution. It follows a 
very long, very enduring bipartisan tradition, one that says that we 
are two lonely defenders of freedom, the United States and Israel. We 
are two lonely defenders in a very difficult neighborhood in this world 
and we do have a common obligation.
  And that is something else that should be said from this side of the 
aisle, and our leader alluded to it very well. A lot of us on this side 
of the aisle have profound disagreements with the administration over 
policy in Iraq. A lot of us on this side of the aisle have profound 
disagreements with this administration over the skill with which

[[Page H4796]]

it has gone about building a new course for Iraq and whether we should 
have gone in the first place. But none of that should obscure that the 
value behind that policy, if it is one of promoting democracy, if it is 
one of expanding the frontier of freedom, that is a value that we all 
share.
  And when we think of Abu Ghraib and we think of all the mistakes that 
have been made in the last year and a half, the fact that those values 
may not have been defended so well does not diminish the power of those 
values.
  And I would simply close on this observation: Whenever we think of 
our friends in Israel, their lonely struggle, we should recall the 
words of an old union general who came back to Gettysburg, an old Union 
soldier who came back to Gettysburg on the 50th anniversary of that 
fight, he reminded his daughter in a letter that when we talk about the 
cause of the Civil War, he said, ``The men who won that day will always 
be right; the men who lost that day will always be wrong.''
  So it is when it comes to freedom. Those of us who believe in it, 
those of us who promote the frontier of democracy shall always be right 
and those who stand for oppression, authoritarianism, and who do not 
respect the dignity of men and women shall always be wrong. I am proud 
to support this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, because I believe it is important for this 
institution to express its ongoing support of Israel, because I believe 
that withdrawal from Gaza is an important step towards peace in the 
region, because I deplore the attacks of terrorists on innocent 
civilians, I intend to support this resolution.
  I do want, however, to express two concerns: First, I believe Mr. 
Rahall expressed a number of important considerations and I believe 
those should be taken under the deliberation of this body.
  Second, in this resolution it commends principles outlined in the 
President's letter. And I just would express one reservation about an 
element to the President's letter. The President wrote, ``The United 
States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose 
any other plan.'' Now, I think the President has put forward some sound 
points, but we have many friends and allies within the region even and 
internationally, our friends in Egypt and Jordan and elsewhere who may 
have some good ideas.
  I believe that it would be a mistake for us to say or assume that 
only our Nation can put forward a good plan and that all other 
proposals will be rejected. I would encourage the President and this 
body to consider various options.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green), my good friend.
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution reconfirming the commitment of the United States and this 
House to support the people of Israel in their struggle for a lasting 
peace. Specifically, our resolution supports the principles of peaceful 
resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the President Bush and 
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon laid out when they met on April 14 of 
this year.
  In absence of a viable Palestinian peace partner with whom to 
negotiate, Mr. Sharon has taken an unprecedented step forward by 
planning to unilaterally disengage from Gaza and parts of the West 
Bank.

                              {time}  1330

  Since these settlements are seen by many as an obstacle to peace, 
this is a clear indication to the Palestinians that Israel is willing 
to make this effort to get the stalled peace process moving again. 
Peace will not be possible, however, without the combined commitment by 
Israel's neighbors and the Palestinian people to stop terrorism and 
stop supporting terrorism.
  From my firsthand experience, from actually my first visit with the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in 1993 and a visit since, it is 
clear that there can be no lasting peace with Israel if it has to 
constantly worry about combating terrorists against Israeli citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield a minute to my 
good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, in seeking a just and lasting peace in this 
region, I will be supporting this resolution, because it does recognize 
a fundamental change in Israeli policy of now withdrawing from at least 
a portion of the occupied territories, and we should recognize that 
although this seems an obvious first step, it is difficult in Israel; 
and we should recognize that accomplishment.
  But there are two points I want to make. First, should these parties 
negotiate ultimately some residence in Israel of a number of 
Palestinians that does not threaten the Jewish character of the Israeli 
state, this Nation should not discourage that decision by these 
parties.
  And, secondly, we should not act as enablers by silence in either 
party's taking actions that makes peace impossible. We should not 
enable Palestinians' violence by not being vocal against it, and we 
should not enable Israeli continued expansion in the West Bank, which 
is happening today.
  I stand in unison with my Israeli friends who are speaking out 
against the continued expansion in the settlements in the West Bank, 
because it is an impediment to ultimate settlement.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Scott.)
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to join my 
colleagues in rising to offer great support for this resolution. It is 
so important and so timely at this time that this Congress of the 
United States stand united in their support of Israel.
  I was over in Israel just a few months ago, and I had a wonderful 
visit; but your heart goes out for the tenacity and the strength of 
Israeli people. They are at the forefront in this world fight on 
terror, have been there for a long time. So it is very important for us 
to recognize the heroic role and the heroic struggle for world peace 
that Israel is in the forefront of, and it is very important for us to 
recognize their struggle and to give them the support as our strongest 
allies in the region of the Middle East.
  It is a great honor on my part to be able to stand and give support 
to this resolution to a great nation that is fighting an extraordinary 
cause under extraordinary circumstances.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) from our time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic resolution. It recognizes the 
security needs of the State of Israel. It holds out the hope for 
peaceful negotiations once a negotiating partner is found on the 
Palestinian side, and it underscores bipartisan American support for 
peace, tranquility, progress, and security in the region.
  I am delighted that we are endorsing both the President's position 
and Senator Kerry's position, which on this issue are identical. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with the 
remainder of the time that I have.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to congratulate the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos) for always being a leader on the human 
rights front and always being a strong supporter of peace in the Middle 
East, and I would like to highlight some of the more critical 
principles that are outlined in the resolution that is before us.
  I want to read just four of the ``whereas'' clauses. It says, 
``Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in 
light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already 
existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect 
that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the

[[Page H4797]]

Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines 
of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will 
only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect 
these realities.''
  Furthermore, it says, ``Whereas, the President acknowledged that any 
agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the 
Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will 
need to be found through the establishment of a permanent alternative 
and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.''
  And, ``Whereas, the principles expressed in President Bush's letter 
will enhance the security of Israel and advance the cause of peace in 
the Middle East.''
  Whereas, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until 
Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in the region and 
throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle 
terrorist organizations.''
  And, ``Whereas, the United States remains committed to the security 
of Israel, including secure, recognized and defensible borders, and to 
preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies 
and defend itself against any threat.''
  And I think that on that wording, we can all come to agreement, 
because this resolution is in keeping with our national and 
international antiterrorism goals, our hopes for a lasting and profound 
peace and for a region of freedom-loving nations based on the rule of 
law, respect for human rights, and fundamental freedoms; and it shows a 
unity of purpose.
  It sends a message to the world that the policies relating to 
Israel's security and existence as a Jewish state, relating to peace 
for Israel and the Palestinians and relating to combating terrorism are 
not just the President's policies or the position of the U.S. Congress 
but of the United States Government as a whole.
  The path outlined in this resolution is clear. And what awaits us at 
the end of the road? Peace and stability. So let us join together and 
vote overwhelmingly for this measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If I might be permitted, I would like to express our appreciation to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his extraordinary work 
in bringing this resolution before the body.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution, and I would like to elaborate upon the issues that are 
involved in securing Israel and peace in the Middle East.
  I support the statements in the resolution declaring that the United 
States is strongly committed to the security of Israel and its well-
being as a Jewish state and that there will be no security for Israelis 
or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in 
the region and throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism 
and dismantle terrorist organizations. I think it is vitally important 
that the resolution reemphasizes the U.S. commitment to the security of 
Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders, and to 
preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies 
and defend itself against any threat.
  However, I am concerned about the perception that the President's 
letter prejudges the final outcome of negotiations on issues like 
borders and refugees. It's important to recognize that Prime Minister 
Sharon's plan cannot be seen as a substitute for negotiations, that it 
is a first step, not the last. The plan can provide a window of 
opportunity, a short-term opening that might enable the two parties to 
return to the negotiating table. Only there, through mutual agreement, 
can Israel and the Palestinians resolve some of the most sensitive 
issues--and only then can there be real peace and security for Israel, 
which is so vital for Israel, the region and for the United States.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, today the House considered House 
Concurrent Resolution 460 regarding efforts to promote peace and 
security regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I gave thorough 
consideration to the resolution language and felt compelled to cast a 
nay vote.
  I voted against the resolution because in my congressional district I 
have one of the largest Arab and Islamic populations in the nation. My 
vote reflected my humanitarian instincts, and my refusal to support 
language that was not inclusive. Although I reject terrorism and 
inhumane treatment by any person or government, I contend that the 
resolution failed to address fundamental and grave implications 
regarding the dangerous and ongoing conflict in the region. The 
resolution addressed Prime Minister Sharon's efforts to promote peace 
and security, and his dialog with President Bush. A major failure of 
the resolution is that it did not address other themes I consider 
important, specifically, the pain and suffering occurring in the 
region.
  Although the resolution addressed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 
it said nothing about the plight of Palestinian civilians. 
Additionally, while Arab States are called upon to be part of the fight 
against terrorism, the resolution language did not acknowledge the 
difficulties confronting Palestinians. While I recognize the efforts of 
Israel to make concessions regarding thorny issues associated with land 
settlements, I believe much more needs to be done. Finally, the 
resolution failed to strike the humanitarian chord and sense of 
fairness that is essential if peace and security are to be realized in 
that region of the world.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, United States leadership in pursuit of peace 
in the Middle East is essential if we are to help bring about an 
equitable and fair peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians and 
end the bloodshed. The situation in the Middle East is a dominant issue 
on the minds of people in the region and throughout the world, and we 
cannot lose sight of the fact that stability in this region is tied 
directly to our own national security.
  I applauded the United States leadership in crafting the ``Roadmap'' 
to Middle East peace coauthored by the European Union, Russia, and the 
United Nations. This promising commitment has suffered at the hands of 
continued bloodshed and disagreement. However, I believe we must push 
for follow-through on the principles embodied in the Roadmap as a 
building block for a viable Palestinian State and secure Israel.
  Given the lack of progress in tandem by Israel and the Palestinian 
Authority, the region has suffered from the violence continuing to 
engulf the region. The need to break the deadlock is greatly apparent, 
and Prime Minister Sharon's proposal for Israel to unilaterally 
withdraw certain military installations and settlements from the Gaza 
Strip and West Bank is an opportunity for progress toward peace. 
Involvement by regional governments such as Egypt in pressuring reforms 
from the Palestinian Authority also hold promise that progress can be 
made. With continued involvement, we maintain the hope the next steps 
will be done through successful negotiation and compromise.
  The resolution before us supports the concepts included in President 
Bush's letter to Prime Minister Sharon dated April 14, 2004, regarding 
recent actions taken by Israel and the United States commitment to the 
peace process. It includes a reaffirmation of America's commitment to 
Israel's security and reinforces that Israelis and Palestinians, and 
all states in the region and beyond, must work together to fight 
terrorism. It also highlights highly sensitive issues including future 
refugee resettlement and border lines based on negotiations, which have 
been part of peace talks started under President Clinton.
  While I would prefer the language in this resolution to more closely 
focus on the international commitment to Middle East peace and the 
obligations of the parties involved, I believe the intention of the 
resolution is consistent with the Roadmap for Peace, and I will support 
it. We must stay engaged in this matter and constantly work toward 
peace and security for Israel and the Palestinian people.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. As I 
have argued so many times in the past when legislation like this is 
brought to the Floor of Congress, the resolution before us is in 
actuality an endorsement of our failed policy of foreign 
interventionism. It attempts to create an illusion of our success when 
the truth is rather different. It seeks not peace in the Middle East, 
but rather to justify our continued meddling in the affairs of Israel 
and the Palestinians. As recent history should make clear, our 
sustained involvement in that part of the world has cost the American 
taxpayer billions of dollars yet has delivered no results. On the 
contrary, despite our continued intervention and promises that the 
invasion of Iraq would solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem the 
conflict appears as intractable as ever.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution in several places asserts that the 
United States is ``strongly committed'' to the security of Israel. I 
find no provision in the Constitution that allows the United States 
Government to confiscate money from its own citizens and send it 
overseas for the defense of a foreign country. Further, this 
legislation promises that the United States ``remains committed to . . 
. Israel, including secure, recognized, and defensible borders.'' So we 
are pledging to defend Israel's borders while we are not even able to 
control our own borders. Shouldn't we be concentrating on fulfilling 
our constitutional obligations in our own country first, before we

[[Page H4798]]

go crusading around the world to protect foreign borders?
  I do agree with one of the statements in this legislation, though it 
is hardly necessary for us to affirm that which is self-evident: ``. . 
. Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorism, including 
the right to take actions against terrorist organizations that threaten 
the citizens of Israel.'' Yes, they do. But do the Israelis really need 
the U.S. Congress to tell them they are free to defend themselves?
  I also must object to the one-sidedness of this legislation. Like so 
many that have come before it, this resolution takes sides in a 
conflict that has nothing to do with us. Among other things, it affirms 
Israel as a ``Jewish state.'' Is it really our business to endorse a 
state church in a foreign country? What message does this send from the 
United States to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish?
  Like my colleagues who have come to the floor to endorse this 
legislation, I would very much like to see peace in the Middle East--
and elsewhere in this troubled world. But this is not the way to 
achieve that peace. As our Founders recognized, the best way for the 
United States to have peaceful relations with others is for Americans 
to trade freely with them. The best way to sow resentment and 
discontent among the other nations of the world is for the United 
States to become entangled in alliances with one power against another 
power, to meddle in the affairs of other nations. One-sided legislation 
such as this in reality just fuels the worst fears of the Muslim world 
about the intentions of the United States. Is this wise?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending 
resolution. The resolution gives us the opportunity to express our 
support for the President's statements about the Israeli government's 
plans to withdraw from its settlements from Gaza, and about other key 
matters related to the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians.
  Our debate today also gives us an opportunity to look at the larger 
picture. It is critical that we continue to support President Bush's 
performance-based, goal-driven roadmap to a final and comprehensive 
settlement of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Congress should join 
President Bush in pressing all parties to take necessary steps toward 
peace, as provided in the roadmap and in President Bush's statement of 
April 14, 2004.
  According to the roadmap, during Phase I, the Palestinians should, 
among other things, reiterate their commitment to a two-state solution, 
immediately undertake a cessation of violence against Israelis and end 
official incitement, and reform their institutions. Israel should begin 
with affirming its commitment to a two-state solution, ending official 
incitement, and resuming security cooperation with the Palestinians; it 
should also freeze settlement activity, immediately dismantle 
unauthorized settlement outposts erected since March 2001, and improve 
the humanitarian situation by lifting curfews and easing restrictions 
on the movement of persons and goods.
  Despite the great political risks involved, it is essential not only 
for the United States, but also for other governments in the region, to 
demonstrate their leadership by assisting the Palestinians and Israelis 
in fulfilling their responsibilities. Such actions will create an 
environment conducive to real achievements on the ground, allowing for 
a true peace to take root. I commend the leadership Egypt and Jordan 
have shown in this area, and welcome their continued efforts, which are 
alluded to in the Resolution under consideration.
  As the House affirmed when it passed H.R. 1950,

       The United States has a vital national security interest in 
     a Middle East in which two states, Israel and Palestine, will 
     live side by side in peace and security, based on the terms 
     of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. A 
     stable and peaceful Palestinian state is necessary to achieve 
     the security that Israel longs for. The Palestinian 
     leadership and Israel should take concrete steps to support 
     the emergence of a viable, credible Palestinian state.

  I express full support for President Bush when he said the following 
on April 14, 2004:

       I welcome the disengagement plan prepared by the Government 
     of Israel, under which Israel would withdraw certain military 
     installations and all settlements from Gaza, and withdraw 
     certain military installations and settlements in the West 
     Bank. These steps will mark real progress toward realizing 
     the vision I set forth in June of 2002 of two states living 
     side by side in peace and security, and make a real 
     contribution toward peace.

Even as we support Israel in the ways discussed in the Resolution, we 
also need to keep in mind Israel's commitments to the President and the 
American people that were part of the April 15 package.
  I will vote for this resolution for the reasons I have stated. It 
should not need to be said, but our support for Israel, or the 
Palestinians, does not imply support for actions that violate human 
rights standards or the expectations established by the roadmap. Our 
credibility requires that we do not undermine our most important 
policies in any of our actions or statements.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 460 
and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's proposed disengagement plan to remove 
settlements and certain military outposts from Gaza and areas of the 
West Bank.
  This initiative gives hope for the future of the peace process and 
the effort to end the suffering of the Israeli and Palestinian people.
  Since putting forth a bold peace initiative at Camp David in 2000, 
the Israeli side has endured years of terrorist attacks that have taken 
the lives of nearly 1,000 civilians. Israeli troops are now reengaged 
in Palestinian areas they once hoped they had left for good.
  Among Palestinians there is also despair. Instead of taking the 
measures to pursue statehood and independence, the Palestinian 
leadership has recruited their children for suicide attacks, and 
weakened their economy with corruption and the siphoning of funds for 
terrorist activities.
  The disengagement plan presents a much needed opportunity to reduce 
tensions, make Israel more secure, and give the Palestinian people an 
opportunity for self-governance. The proposal will also set the stage 
for future negotiations by putting pressure on the Palestinian 
leadership to undertake the internal economic and political reforms 
necessary to improve quality of life and build the institutions for 
statehood.
  I believe it is equally important that in endorsing the Sharon 
initiative on April 14, the President also underscored two fundamental 
realities to be taken into consideration once final status negotiations 
ultimately resume. First, that the open-ended Palestinian claim to a 
right of return for refugees is demographically untenable for Israel's 
future as a Jewish state. And second that existing demographics need to 
be taken into account in future negotiations to provide Israel with 
secure, recognized, and defensible borders and provide the territory 
for a Palestinian state.
  Some say a clear U.S. position on these issues prejudges the outcome 
of the negotiations, but these realities are the very same principles 
that guided the peace effort initiated by President Clinton at Camp 
David. Those negotiations failed not because of the U.S. position, but 
because Yasser Arafat responded to Israel's offer with terrorism and 
violence instead of full-faith negotiations.
  The Israeli and Palestinian people deserve a better future. I urge my 
colleagues to support his resolution and the commitment of the United 
States to remain engaged and stand prepared to broker a final status 
agreement when a credible and willing Palestinian leadership prepared 
to embrace peace emerges.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, this resolution affirms Congress's 
bipartisan support for the principles outlined by President Bush and 
Prime Minister Sharon regarding Israel's proposed disengagement plan. 
Congressional support for the disengagement from Gaza and removal of 
settlements is a positive step toward reducing tensions with the 
Palestinians and could help revitalize the stalled Mideast peace 
process.
  Our nation's support for Israel is of the utmost importance and could 
not be clearer. We stand firmly in support of Israel in the fight 
against terrorism. We must acknowledge the strategic importance of 
Israel as the only democracy in the region and, above all, Israel's 
absolute right of self-defense. We will continue to offer our steadfast 
support as Israel faces the ongoing threat of terrorism.
  In 2000, then Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority 
Chairman Arafat were close to forging an accord on final status issues, 
but Arafat walked away. There is no doubt that Arafat is not capable of 
negotiating a peace agreement. At this time, Israel lacks a viable 
Palestinian partner to negotiate a peace agreement, yet the people of 
Israel continue to face the daily threat of suicide bombers. This 
status quo is unacceptable. The framework laid out by Prime Minister 
Sharon and President Bush provides a sound basis for Israelis to live 
their lives with a decreased threat of terror until a viable 
Palestinian partner emerges.
  This resolution goes a long way toward acknowledging the realities on 
the ground today and the impact they will have on final status 
negotiations. It recognizes that the Palestinian claim to a right of 
return beyond the borders of a future Palestinian state is 
demographically untenable for Israel's future as a Jewish state. As 
such, negotiations must ensure that Israel can live as an independent 
state within secure, recognized and defensible borders that reflect 
this reality. At the same time, we recognize the importance and support 
the establishment of a separate Palestinian state that can live in 
peace with its neighbor, Israel.
  Recently, Israel has been waging a significant campaign to eliminate 
the terrorist threat, resulting in a three-month period of calm despite 
terrorist groups' intent to continue violent

[[Page H4799]]

attacks on Israelis. This period of calm combined with the steps taken 
in Sharon's disengagement plan could provide an opportunity to reassess 
of the status of peace negotiations and get the discussions back on 
track.
  It is our hope that the Israeli and Palestinian people ultimately 
live as independent nations in peace and security. I sincerely hope 
these new efforts will revitalize the stalled Mideast peace process and 
bring all parties back to the negotiating table. Until those 
negotiations restart, the agreement reached by the President and Prime 
Minister Sharon will promote Israel's continuing efforts to defend 
itself from terrorism, and Congress fully supports this agreement.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
resolution. Like my colleagues, I support a strong and stable State of 
Israel. Like my colleagues, I support the peace process and fervently 
hope that peace will someday come to this troubled land. This 
resolution, however, does not advance that process in any helpful or 
meaningful way.
  This resolution does not call on both Israelis and Palestinians to 
work together to find a peaceful solution to this conflict. In order to 
reach peace, all parties in the process must work together. This 
resolution does not make that clear.
  I am disappointed that the House Leadership brought this resolution 
to the floor instead of House Resolution 479, of which I am a 
cosponsor. House Resolution 479 applauds Israelis and Palestinians who 
are working together to conceive pragmatic, serious plans for achieving 
peace and encourages both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize 
on the opportunity offered by these peace initiatives. I'm enclosing, 
for the record, a copy of that resolution.
  Ultimately, Middle East peace can only be achieved with all parties 
working together to find a solution. To play a constructive role, the 
United States must be perceived by all parties as an honest, objective 
broker. This resolution frustrates that goal.

                              H. Res. 479

       Whereas ending the violence and terror that have devastated 
     Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza since September 2000 is in 
     the vital interests of the United States, Israel, and the 
     Palestinians;
       Whereas ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict strengthens 
     extremists and opponents of peace throughout the region, 
     including those who seek to undermine efforts by the United 
     States to stabilize Iraq and those who want to see conflict 
     spread to other nations in the region;
       Whereas more than 3 years of violence, terror, and 
     escalating military engagement have demonstrated that 
     military means alone will not solve the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict;
       Whereas despite mutual mistrust, anger, and pain, 
     courageous and credible Israelis and Palestinians have come 
     together in a private capacity to develop serious model peace 
     initiatives, like the People's Voice Initiative, One Voice, 
     and the Geneva Accord;
       Whereas those initiatives, and other similar private 
     efforts, are founded on the determination of Israelis and 
     Palestinians to put an end to decades of confrontation and 
     conflict and to live in peaceful coexistence, mutual dignity, 
     and security, based on a just, lasting, and comprehensive 
     peace and achieving historic reconciliation;
       Whereas those initiatives demonstrate that both Israelis 
     and Palestinians have a partner for peace, that both peoples 
     want to end the current vicious stalemate, and that both 
     peoples are prepared to make necessary compromises in order 
     to achieve peace;
       Whereas each of the private initiatives addresses the 
     fundamental requirements of both peoples, including 
     preservation of the Jewish, democratic nature of Israel with 
     secure and defensible borders and the creation of a viable 
     Palestinian state; and
       Whereas such peace initiatives demonstrate that there are 
     solutions to the conflict and present precious opportunities 
     to end the violence and restart fruitful peace negotiations: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) applauds the courage and vision of Israelis and 
     Palestinians who are working together to conceive pragmatic, 
     serious plans for achieving peace;
       (2) calls on Israeli and Palestinian leaders to capitalize 
     on the opportunity offered by these peace initiatives; and
       (3) urges the President of the United States to encourage 
     and embrace all serious efforts to move away from violent 
     military stalemate toward achieving Israeli-Palestinian 
     peace.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, there is much in H. Con. Res. 460 that I 
do support. I support the finding that ``there will be no security for 
Israelis or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all 
countries in the region and throughout the world, join together to 
fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations.'' I support the 
finding that ``the United States remains committed to the security of 
Israel, including secure, recognized and defensible borders, and to 
preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies 
and defend itself against any threat.'' And I support the right of 
Israel to defend itself against terrorism.
  But what I do not support, and what I think is inappropriate for 
Congress to do, is to predetermine the outcome of certain questions 
that the Israelis and Palestinians must themselves decide. It is not 
the place of the U.S. Congress, if we wish to preserve the U.S. as an 
honest broker of a negotiated peace, to circumscribe the rights of 
Palestinian refugees. It is not the place of the U.S. Congress to 
condone, as ``new realities on the ground in Israel,'' unlawful 
settlements of Israelis in the Occupied Territories.
  Congress did not have to make inappropriate judgments such as these 
to offer support for the security of Israel. I believe that H. Con. 
Res. 460 is more of a disservice than an aid to the peaceful resolution 
of the conflict, and for that reason, I must vote against it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``Yes'' on H. Con. 
Res. 460 because I strongly support Israel and desire to promote her 
security. However, I would like to express my hesitation and concern 
with certain aspects of the policy that the Resolution seems to affirm. 
I believe that it would be prudent to obtain some answers before we 
completely commit to affirming the plan to resettle Israelis currently 
living in Gaza. It is important to know what the United States' 
commitment will be in supporting Prime Minister Sharon's initiative, 
including any undertaking regarding funding, humanitarian aid or other 
assistance, or military personnel to police the area.
  One of the major questions I have, Mr. Speaker, is whether supporting 
the Gaza pullout and a future Palestinian state is the proper 
diplomatic message we wish to send to those who would terrorize Israel, 
her people, and all of those who desire freedom and peace. I believe we 
must think proactively rather than reactively. We must ask ourselves, 
``how will supporting this plan affect our continued war against 
terrorism and what will be the eventual impact on Israel?'' We must 
always be ready to re-evaluate our policies for the future in light of 
current circumstances and reflection on history.
  Mr. Speaker, in resolving to support continuing efforts to build the 
capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, I 
further urge caution and great care to be taken in distinguishing 
between those who have proved themselves willing to work for peace and 
those who have continued in their battle against it.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is committed to 
Israel's defense as a sovereign, independent, Jewish state. Its 
democratically-elected leaders face enormous challenges defending 
Israeli citizens in the face of a terrorist threat.
  In this resolution, the House applauds the efforts of Israel's Prime 
Minister, Ariel Sharon, to further the peace process through a plan to 
withdraw from the Gaza Strip and to consider current realities in 
future negotiations on Israel's borders and the status of Palestinian 
refugees. It also credits the President of the United States with 
having the courage to support the Israeli government in this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, the President was absolutely right when he stated, on 
April 14th in a letter to Prime Minister Sharon, that ``it is 
unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations 
between Israel and the Palestinians will be a full and complete return 
to the armistice lines of 1949.'' He was also correct in acknowledging 
that a final status agreement for Palestinian refugees will almost 
certainly not include their resettlement in the State of Israel.
  None of this precludes the establishment of a Palestinian state. The 
President stated two years ago his vision of two states living side by 
side and remains committed to the Road Map as the only widely accepted 
path to peace in the region. But, Mr. Speaker, as this resolution 
accurately states, terrorist elements within Palestinian society must 
be defeated and the rule of law must prevail in any newly created 
Palestinian entity. And, perhaps as importantly, Arab states must state 
clearly that they will live in peace with Israel and support the 
emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine.
  An end to the Israel-Palestinian conflict presents huge challenges 
and requires difficult decisions. Past leaders have opted for overly-
simplified solutions that, I would argue, have made the problem worse. 
I strongly support the President's efforts to facilitate peace in the 
region, and to give his backing to Israel's democratically-elected 
leaders as they work to protect the citizens of Israel from terrorism.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support an end to terror and 
violence in the Middle East, so I voted for resolution supporting peace 
between the Israelis and Palestinians, and American engagement.
  At the same time, this resolution does not tell the whole story. It 
rightfully holds the Palestinians to their commitments, but says 
nothing about the commitments made by Israel to freeze all settlement 
growth and remove illegal outposts in the West Bank. It rightfully 
supports the withdrawal of Israeli settlements and

[[Page H4800]]

military installations from the Gaza Strip, but says nothing about the 
need for a return to negotiations.
  The ultimate resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the 
preservation of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, and security 
for Israel can only come through a negotiated solution, the outline of 
which has been known for years. President Bush has diminished America's 
leadership role, despite backtracking only a week later in discussions 
with King Abdullah of Jordan.
  American leadership is needed now more than ever to re-engage with 
regional allies and the Palestinian Authority to make the Israeli 
withdrawal from Gaza a success and to ensure that leaving Gaza is the 
first step towards peace. Helping Israel and the Palestinians to live 
up to their previous commitments and renewing negotiations can bring 
security to Israel, independence to the Palestinians, and peace to the 
region. An expression of support for Israel would be more effective if 
it dealt with the entire picture.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
expressing support for the vision for peace that President George Bush 
outlined in his letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on April 
14, 2004. Today we are considering a resolution that affirms many of 
the principles laid out in the President's letter. These principles 
include recognition that the United States remains committed to the 
peace and security of the Israeli people. We believe that peace cannot 
be achieved until all states in the region, and the Palestinians 
themselves, join in the fight against terrorism. And we believe that 
Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorism.
  But this resolution falls short of fully expressing the President's 
vision as it was articulated in his letter. Along with assurances to 
Israel, the President's letter also acknowledges that peace is not 
possible without a Palestinian state. As the President himself said, 
this state must be ``viable; contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so 
that the Palestinian people can build their own future.'' President 
Bush, as President Clinton did before him, understands that a lasting 
peace cannot be achieved if the Palestinians are consigned to live in 
cantons and denied basic rights as citizens of a nation state.
  This resolution makes only a passing reference to a Palestinian 
state, thereby missing a critical aspect of the formula for peace. 
Without the hope of a Palestinian state or the promise of democratic 
opportunity for the Palestinian people to live in their own country, 
lasting peace cannot be achieved. The true hope for peace lies in a 
Palestinian right to self-determination.
  President Bush wisely recognized that, in order to prevent the 
Palestinian ``Right of Return'' to the Israeli state, Palestinian 
refugees must be able to return to their own homeland. Without their 
own state, millions of Palestinian refugees around the world will 
remain stateless people. As long as this is the case, peace will remain 
elusive.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to recognize the progress 
that President Bush has made toward a just and lasting peace.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 460 
and the principles it supports.
  The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian people has been a 
long and terrible blight in our shared human history. The harm this 
conflict has caused spreads far beyond the borders of Israel and it is 
incumbent upon all who support freedom and peace to resolve this 
situation.
  I am strongly committed to the security and well-being of a Jewish 
state, and like President Bush, I do not believe lasting security and 
peace will come to the region until a two-state solution is achieved 
and the Palestinian people and surrounding nations actively pursue an 
end to terrorist organizations. Sadly, currently Israel has no partner 
for peace within the Palestinian leadership. As a result, both Israel 
and the Palestinian people are left to suffer.
  Israel has a right to defend itself and its people from violence and 
the threat of terrorism. To further the security of Israel, Prime 
Minister Sharon will initiate a plan to withdraw all Israeli villages 
and military personnel from the Gaza Strip as well as other villages 
and military personnel from the West Bank and extend a temporary 
security fence. Like the resolution we now consider, I fully support 
``efforts to continue working with others in the international 
community to build the capacity and will of the Palestinian 
institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and 
prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat 
to the security of Israel.''
  Like so many on both sides of this conflict and throughout the 
international community, I remain hopeful that peace can and will be 
achieved. My district is home to Seeds of Peace, which brings young 
Israelis and Palestinians together. I believe this is an extremely 
important program, and I believe we must continue to support and 
encourage both diplomatic and personal dialogue between Israel and 
Palestinians.
  Mr. Speaker, again I would like to voice my support for H. Con. Res. 
460, for lasting security for the state of Israel and for peace in the 
Middle East.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the 
DeLay-Hoyer Israel resolution and urge Congress to strongly endorse the 
Sharon disengagement plan. Sharon is pursuing this plan even in the 
face of opposition from his own party.
  This disengagement plan proves once again that Israel is willing to 
make difficult sacrifices in order to pursue a peace agreement. 
Dismantling settlements has always been discussed in the context of 
negotiations with the Palestinians, but offered only in exchange for an 
end to terrorism. Unfortunately, with Arafat still in power, the 
continued terrorism against Israeli civilians, and the political 
process on hold indefinitely, Israel is willing to take action for 
peace on its own.
  The United States is engaged in a war on terrorism to defend our 
nation from the relentless men and women who hate our way of life and 
seek our destruction. We are taking whatever steps are necessary to 
protect our citizens. I sincerely hope that a viable two state solution 
can soon be reached, but in the meantime we must allow Israel, our 
friend, our ally, and a strong democracy that shares our values to do 
the same.
  Israel has enjoyed steadfast bipartisan support from Congress for 
years. This resolution by Mr. Delay and Mr. Hoyer will send a strong 
message to Israel that despite our partisan disputes on many foreign 
and domestic issues, the Democrats and Republicans in this Congress 
stand with Israel.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for H. 
Con. Res. 460, a resolution regarding Israel's security and the 
principles of Middle East peace. I welcome this opportunity to explain 
my reasoning to my colleagues.
  The resolution, which was formulated with more than the usual 
bipartisan consultation, affirms the goal of Israeli and Palestinian 
states ``living side by side in peace and security.'' It acknowledges, 
as President Clinton did in the plan he offered at Taba, that the 
adjustment of boundaries must take into account the existence of 
Israeli population centers. But it makes clear that final boundaries 
would be subject to Israeli-Palestinian negotiation. Presumably this 
would leave open the consideration of land swaps and the contiguity of 
Palestinian territory, as did the Taba proposal.
  The resolution has some curious and unfortunate omissions. There is 
no specific reference to settlement evacuation, the focus of the plan 
by Prime Minister Sharon, for which the United States is offering 
support. There is no mention of the Road Map, our country's primary 
current diplomatic initiative, very much in need of invigoration. In a 
more positive omission, the resolution declines to endorse Israeli 
construction of a ``security'' fence.
  On balance, the resolution offers a timely endorsement of the 
proposed evacuation of all settlements in Gaza and some settlements in 
the West Bank. This proposal is under attack from the right wing of the 
Prime Minister's own party. It could be a first step toward returning 
to the path of negotiations envisioned in the Roadmap, and for that 
reason I intend to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today this House passed a resolution 
expressing support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, 
expressing support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, and insisting that the Palestinians and all Arab states 
create and utilize the capacity to dismantle terrorist organizations 
and fight terrorism. These are all things we should and must support.
  But once again, this House has missed an opportunity to express 
support not only for Israel's withdrawal from settlements in the 
Palestinian territories, but also support for the rebuilding of 
infrastructure in a future democratic Palestine.
  This conflict isn't about who has the stronger military, and it's not 
about lines in the sand. It's about people's lives, and it's about the 
notion that we humans are better than all the death and destruction 
that's become so commonplace. There are channels in place to achieve 
peace; we must utilize them. I oppose unilateral action in peace just 
as I oppose unilateral action during war. Unilateralism may work in the 
short term, but it is unsustainable in the long term. That's why the 
U.S., the world's largest democracy, must provide leadership to both 
the Israelis and the Palestinians to take steps towards peace.
  In 2002, President Bush established what he called the ``Road Map'' 
to Peace in the Middle East. This Road Map established bilateral, 
incremental steps that Israel and the Palestinians must take to attain 
peace. The Quartet--composed of the U.N., the U.S., the EU, and 
Russia--was intended to be the group overseeing this process. But the 
Bush Administration has chosen rhetoric over action, letters over 
deeds, meetings over negotiations.

[[Page H4801]]

President Bush's letter to Ariel Sharon--the principles of which this 
resolution endorses--is not suitable compensation for neglecting to sit 
down with leaders on both sides to work out a peaceful resolution of 
this long-standing crisis.
  This House must stop passing strongly-worded resolutions on behalf of 
a President who is unwilling to fully support those statements through 
diplomatic means in the Middle East. To achieve a real and lasting 
peace, we must instead engage in balanced efforts to re-establish 
trust, respect and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regret and oppose the 
resolution on the floor.
  My opposition to this resolution does not stem from favoring one side 
over another, but rather because I favor peace above all else; and like 
previous resolutions passed by this institution will not help to bring 
about peace, security, and prosperity to the suffering on both sides of 
this conflict.
  This resolution, like past resolutions, allows this Congress to 
emote, nothing more. It allows members--who take little real notice of 
the dreadful situation facing Israelis and Palestinians--to feel good 
about ``doing something.''
  But in reality, what we are voting on makes no commitment about 
peace. It makes no effort to find common ground. It doesn't really hold 
terrorists accountable for the maelstrom of destruction and tragedy 
they have caused. It doesn't remove any illegal settlements. It doesn't 
invigorate legitimate Palestinian democracy. And most of all, it 
doesn't force our aggravatingly lethargic and timid peace initiatives 
to the importance it deserves.
  The withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlements from the Gaza is a 
good step. No one can possibly deny it. But imposing a solution on the 
Palestinians will land their problems not just on the doorstep of 
Israel, but on the doorstep of the United States as well.
  This withdrawal demands that it be followed by strong American 
action. I am afraid that this Congress and the current administration 
are unprepared to deal with a post-withdrawal Palestinian entity.
  I am pleased that the resolution makes clear that this body supports 
a two state solution. I am also pleased that it encourages a 
continuation of dialogue between the parties.
  The commitments of finding peace do not begin and end with one side. 
All sides, from the parties on the ground, to those orchestrating the 
negotiations have responsibilities that go far beyond what is on the 
floor today.
  I am voting against this resolution not because of what it contains--
although I do find some of the word choices problematic--I am voting 
against it because what it does not contain. That is, simply, a way to 
find peace in the bleakness following the collapse of Oslo.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 
460, and I thank the leadership on both sides of the aisle for their 
efforts in bringing this important statement of Congressional support 
for Israel to the floor. Few causes unite our political system as much 
as support for our beleaguered ally, our fellow democracy, the State of 
Israel, which long before September 11th was fighting daily against 
radical Islamist terrorism.
  American support for Israel has been a key element of our foreign 
policy ever since President Harry Truman defied his advisors and chose 
to make the United States the first nation to recognize the new Jewish 
state in Palestine. That historic decision put the United States firmly 
in the camp of those who support the return of the Jewish people to 
Zion, with full sovereignty over their affairs, and perfect legitimacy 
in their right to live as a free and independent people in their own 
homeland.
  In the sixties and seventies, when the rest of the world turned its 
back on Israel, during those years when the Arab states swore to 
destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, it was the United 
States that sold Israel the arms it needed to defend itself. During the 
eighties and nineties, as the threat of armed conflict began to fade 
with the supply of U.S. military equipment to the Israel Defense 
Forces, and diplomacy began to displace the threat of war, it was the 
United States that led the world toward a peaceful resolution of the 
Arab-Israeli conflict. And so it is today.
  Though many are now willing to grudgingly accept Israel's right to 
exist, they continue to resist its right to define its own identity as 
a democratic Jewish state. In this resolution we make perfectly clear 
our ironclad support for this principle.
  Though many are now willing to grudgingly acknowledge that Israelis 
have the right to live in peace, they continue to shrink from 
recognizing Israel's right to self-defense. In this resolution we make 
perfectly clear our strong support for that right, particularly in 
Israel's decision to take the fight against terrorism directly to those 
responsible for the violence.
  Though many are now willing to concede that Prime Minister Sharon's 
plan for disengagement from Gaza is an important step forward, they 
continue to resist accepting this step as a demonstration of Israel's 
genuine willingness to make sacrifices for peace. In this resolution we 
make perfectly clear our appreciation for the real courage and powerful 
leadership this step represents.
  Guileful advocates complain about Palestinian refugee rights and 
speak innocently of their so-called ``right of return.'' We know this 
is no more than a call for Israel's elimination by demographic means. 
Shrewd propagandists blandly describe the Palestinian campaign of 
terror, of bus-bombings and mass-murder in pizzerias and discos as an 
``uprising'' and even have the nerve to complain of its cost to 
Palestinian civilians. We know the terrorists come from among the 
Palestinian people and it is incumbent on the Palestinian people to 
stop them without reward. Naive diplomats urge Israel to once again 
shake hands with terrorist thugs whose promises are worthless and whose 
intentions are only of Israel's ultimate demise. We know that political 
reform in the Palestinian Authority is an absolute prerequisite to 
achieving peace. Outrage and bile are spent in unlimited quantities 
over Israeli settlements, as if building a house and bombing a bus were 
somehow equivalent or even related. We know that Israel has already 
offered to make concessions for peace and that secure and recognized 
borders are essential for any final status agreement to hold. And we 
know too that ultimately, all the contentious issues between Israelis 
and Palestinians, over security, borders, refugees, water, Jerusalem 
and many others, will have to be decided not on a battlefield, but at a 
bargaining table; not by suicide bombers but by negotiators.
  Mr. Speaker, Israel is engaged, as it has been since its first days 
as a sovereign state, in a fight for its life. Israel's enemies can 
fulminate and dispense their vitriol. We know, and we make clear today 
in this resolution that a safe, secure Israel is the fundamental 
requirement on which Arab-Israeli peace can, one day we hope, be made. 
I again thank the leaders of the House for bringing this important 
resolution to the floor and I urge all Members to join me in voting in 
support of it.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
people of the 4th Congressional District to express my support of the 
Hoyer-DeLay Israel Resolution, which intends to seek a peaceful 
resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  I have always been a strong supporter of Israel and I believe the 
people of Israel have a fundamental right to defend themselves against 
terrorism and those trying to destroy the freedoms and rights of 
Israel. As a member of the U.S.-Israel Security Caucus, I believe the 
United States must assist Israel in its fight against terrorism because 
it is the only democracy in the Middle East and has proven to be a 
reliable ally.
  The Hoyer-DeLay Israel Resolution begins the process of disengaging 
from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank and is a positive step 
towards peace. I commend Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to begin 
this process regardless of the absence of a viable Palestinian peace 
partner with whom to negotiate. The process will only be successful if 
backed by a democratic ally, the United States. I recognize this 
resolution as an important initiative that will hopefully reduce 
tensions with the Palestinians, perhaps revitalizing the seemingly 
stalled peace process.
  The Hoyer-DeLay agreement enunciates a number of principles, which 
must be appropriately addressed before a lasting peace settlement can 
be reached. The resolution recognizes the need for Israel to have 
defensible borders reflecting demographic realities. It also 
appropriately recognizes the need for Palestinian refuges to understand 
they will not be returning to Israel and the need for Palestinians to 
end their campaign of terror. These intentions leave me hopeful in 
finding a way forward toward a resolution of the dispute.
  I have voiced my concerns on numerous occasions that the United 
States must not dictate Israeli policy, but must encourage Israel to do 
what it believes is right to protect its people and prevent more 
Israeli deaths. I am pleased that the work of my colleagues and I is 
ensuring a steadfast commitment to Israel's security, which includes 
intentions of securing defensible borders and preserving and 
strengthening Israel's capacity to defend itself against any threat or 
possible combination of threats.
  Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and extended 
security is only a vision that can be fully achieved if terrorism is 
fully defeated. I have always been a strong supporter of Israel and 
will continue to support efforts of this government to fight for the 
security of Israel and the best interest of its people.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent 
Resolution 460, which endorses President Bush's April 14, 2004 letter 
embracing the disengagement plan proposed by Israeli Prime Minister 
Ariel Sharon to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West 
Bank.
  Critics have expressed concern that President Bush's letter prejudges 
the final outcome of negotiations on sensitive issues like borders

[[Page H4802]]

and refugees. However, the President and Secretary of State have 
indicated that it does not undermine the fundamental requirement that 
all issues be mutually agreed upon in final status negotiations.
  The problem right now is that Israel has no reliable Palestinian 
partner capable of negotiating a final status agreement. Israel's 
disengagement plan responds to the void left by the failure of the 
current Palestinian leadership to lead. I would also suggest that the 
Israeli disengagement initiative is in the interests of Israelis and 
Palestinians alike. It will help Palestinians to take concrete moves to 
establish a democratic state, and it will help preserve both the Jewish 
and democratic character of Israel over the long term while 
contributing to its security.
  It is also important to remember that policy articulated in the 
President's letter is consistent with the peace negotiations initiated 
by President Clinton at Camp David. Those negotiations took into 
account the fact that the Palestinian claim to an open-ended right of 
return would be demographically untenable for Israel's future as a 
Jewish state. The Clinton negotiations also operated on the premise 
that the final settlement negotiated in accordance with UN Resolutions 
242 and 338 would involve mutually agreed-upon adjustments to the 1949 
armistice lines to provide Israel with secure, recognized, and 
defensible borders that reflect demographic realities and to provide 
the Palestinians with territory for their own state.
  By passing this resolution today and expressing its support for the 
April 14 letter and the disengagement plan, I believe Congress can help 
show its support for an enduring and sustainable peace settlement in 
the Middle East.
  Months of cooperation and shuttle diplomacy between Washington and 
Jerusalem led to a White House meeting on April 14th, 2004 and an 
historic agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon on 
some of the most important issues in the conflict. That agreement was 
included in a letter the President sent to Prime Minister Sharon, 
enunciating a number of principles that are specifically referenced in 
the resolution before this House today, among them: The need for Israel 
to have defensible borders that reflect demographic realities; the need 
for Palestinian refugees to understand that they will not be returning 
to Israel; the need for Palestinians to end their campaign of terror 
and for Israel to have the ability to defend itself against that 
terror.
  H. Con. Res. 460 strongly endorses the principles articulated in the 
April 14th letter and sends a strong, bipartisan show of support for 
that agreement.
  These principles are clearly framed as subject to future negotiations 
between the parties. They lay out basic parameters that reflect the 
reality of the Middle East today and, as such, could play a useful role 
in helping promote realistic peace negotiations.
  The resolution also expresses support for ``efforts to continue 
working with others in the international community to build the 
capacity and will of the Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, 
dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which 
Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel.''
  Such efforts are desperately needed, as it will not be possible to 
reach a comprehensive solution to the conflict in the Middle East until 
the Palestinians renounce the use of terror and return to the 
negotiating table. Today, for example, we know that Palestinian 
terrorists are continuing to smuggle guns and explosives from Egypt 
into Gaza. Recent press reports indicated that the terrorists are now 
using an elaborate network of tunnels to carry out such smuggling. For 
example, a May 16, 2004 article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post 
reported that:

       A short list of items smuggled via the tunnels to 
     terrorists in the Gaza Strip includes Katyusha rockets, 
     mortars, shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles, antitank 
     grenades, large amounts of explosives, ammunition, and 
     rifles. The arms come from Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya. The 
     underground smuggling is necessary because the navy has 
     successfully blocked attempts by Palestinians to smuggle 
     weapons into Gaza via the sea.
       The army frequently conducts operations along the 
     Philadelphi Route and in the outskirts of Rafah in an attempt 
     to uncover and destroy the tunnels. One of the painstaking 
     tasks is similar to that in which the five soldiers died on 
     Wednesday evening: boring holes meters under the ground, 
     placing explosives to blow up tunnels.
       The IDF has uncovered and destroyed 11 tunnels this year--
     and close to 100 during the past three and a half years.

  As Israel proceeds to withdraw from Gaza, the Bush Administration 
needs to put pressure on the Egyptian government to shut down these 
terrorist smuggling tunnels. Egypt is a substantial recipient of U.S. 
economic aid and an ally of the U.S., and it has a responsibility to 
ensure that its borders are not being used by terrorist organizations 
seeking to smuggle weapons into Gaza for use in terrorist attacks 
against Israel. The President and Secretary of State Colin Powell need 
to take forceful action now to convince Egypt to shut down all of these 
smuggling tunnels at once.
  In closing, I believe that this resolution reflects the strong 
bipartisan support which exists in the Congress for Israel's security, 
and for the conclusion of a Middle East Peace agreement that is 
consistent with the protection of Israel's security and self 
determination for the Palestinian people, including a Palestinian 
state.
  I urge adoption of the resolution.
  Mr. LANOS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent 
resolution, H. Con. Res. 460.
  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.

                          ____________________