[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16170-16183]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1430
    CONDEMNING TERRORISM INFLICTED ON ISRAEL SINCE AQABA SUMMIT AND 
             EXPRESSING SOLIDARITY WITH THE ISRAELI PEOPLE

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree 
to the resolution (H. Res. 294) condemning the terrorism inflicted on 
Israel since the Aqaba Summit and expressing solidarity with the 
Israeli people in their fight against terrorism.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              H. Res. 294

       Whereas Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas 
     (Abu Mazen) announced at the June 4, 2003, Aqaba Summit, 
     ``Our goal is clear, and we will implement it firmly and 
     without compromise: a complete end to violence and 
     terrorism'';
       Whereas Prime Minister Abbas also pledged at the Aqaba 
     Summit to establish a system based on ``rule of law, [a] 
     single political authority, [and] weapons only in the hands 
     of those who are in charge of upholding the law and order . . 
     .'';
       Whereas the Middle East roadmap begins with the assertion 
     that ``A two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and 
     terrorism (when the Palestinian people have a leadership 
     acting decisively against terror and willing and able to 
     build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and 
     liberty)'';
       Whereas 22 innocent Israelis nevertheless were murdered and 
     scores wounded in three separate suicide bombings within less 
     than a week after the Aqaba Summit, and the death toll from 
     these terrorist actions is the equivalent of 1,100 on the 
     basis of the United States population, nearly ten times the 
     number of battle deaths the United States suffered in the 
     recent Iraq War;
       Whereas Palestinians are also victims of these terrorists, 
     who undermine prospects for a just and lasting peace;
       Whereas Islamic fundamentalist Hamas and Palestinian 
     Islamic Jihad consistently make clear their opposition to 
     Israel's existence in any form and within any borders and 
     their determination to use violence and terrorism to achieve 
     their anti-Israeli, anti-Semitic goals, and Hamas leader 
     Abdel Aziz Rantisi vowed ``not to leave one Jew in 
     Palestine'';
       Whereas experience with terrorism demonstrates that there 
     can be no productive negotiations or dialogue with terrorists 
     and that a policy based on compromise with terrorists can 
     only be doomed to failure;
       Whereas the concept of ``cycle of violence'', which implies 
     moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims, 
     should be rejected as a description of Israeli-Palestinian 
     dynamics, since Palestinian terrorism justifies Israeli 
     counterterrorist operations as the response of a legitimate 
     government defending its citizens;
       Whereas Israeli counterterrorist operations would cease 
     entirely were Palestinian terrorism to cease; and
       Whereas Israel has no choice but to use its own measures to 
     fight terrorism if the Palestinians are unwilling to do so: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) condemns in the harshest terms the recent terrorist 
     actions that victimized innocent Israelis;
       (2) expresses solidarity with the Israeli people as they 
     respond to ongoing terrorist attacks;
       (3) expresses sympathy to the families of innocent Israelis 
     and Palestinians who have lost their lives;
       (4) commends the President of the United States for his 
     vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by 
     side in peace and security;
       (5) affirms that this vision can be fully realized only 
     once terrorism is defeated, so that a new state may be 
     created based on rule of law and respect for human rights;
       (6) recognizes and respects Israel's right to fight 
     terrorism and acknowledges Israel's fight against terrorism 
     as part of the global war against terrorism;
       (7) calls on all states to cease recognition of and 
     political and material support for any Palestinian and other 
     terrorist groups;
       (8) calls on all states immediately to establish effective 
     mechanisms to ensure that funding from private citizens 
     cannot be directed to terrorist groups for any purpose 
     whatsoever, including ostensible humanitarian purposes;
       (9) calls on all states to provide support to the 
     Palestinian Authority in its effort to confront and fight 
     terror; and
       (10) calls on all states to assist the Palestinian people 
     in creating the institutions of

[[Page 16171]]

     a democratic state that will respect the rule of law and live 
     in peace with its neighbors.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) opposed to the resolution?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, it is my resolution; and I strongly support 
it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 1(c), the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) to control the time in 
opposition to the resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield half 
of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and that he 
may control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 294.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday we marked the 1-year anniversary of the 
President's seminal address on the Middle East, where he underscored 
that ``it is untenable for Israeli citizens to live in terror,'' and 
President Bush clearly outlined, ``The United States will not support 
the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a 
sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their 
infrastructure.''
  At the recent summit in Aqaba, Jordan, it appeared that the vision 
articulated by President Bush, a vision that is embraced by Israeli 
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and accepted by the Palestinian prime 
minister, would finally be translated into a reality. However, over the 
past few weeks, we have seen history repeat itself as Palestinian 
terrorists have conducted a series of bloody bombings and road 
shootings against innocent Israelis.
  These acts of terrorism must be condemned in no uncertain terms. We 
must send a message to the terrorists that such behavior will not be 
tolerated, that we view such attacks through the prism of the global 
war against terrorism, and as such within the parameters established by 
the President when he underscored ``you are either with us or you are 
with the terrorists.''
  The choice for the new Palestinian leadership is a simple one: end 
the terror. Ending the terror, however, must go beyond mere words. The 
resolution before us clearly acknowledges Palestinian Prime Minister 
Abu Mazen's reiteration at the Aqaba Summit of a ``complete end to 
violence and terrorism.''
  However, such a renunciation of terror must be accompanied by 
concrete, verifiable steps to confront, combat, and destroy the 
terrorists. As long as Israeli citizens continue to be victimized by 
terrorists, Israel will continue to defend herself. Thus, only the full 
implementation of a comprehensive Palestinian anti-terrorism plan aimed 
at destroying the terrorist organizations will serve as a true catalyst 
for peace. The focus should not and must not be on a cease-fire, which 
history has shown us is simply a respite to rearm. The end to terror 
must be unconditional, and it must be complete.
  The new Palestinian leadership must arrest and hold the terrorists, 
not release them soon afterwards. Palestinian jails must not continue 
to be revolving doors from which the terrorists escape. The 
international community must work together to support these objectives, 
and a critical component of this effort is to sever all ties with any 
and all who cavort with terror. Specifically, if Europe is committed to 
the road map process, as a sponsoring party, the EU must do its part to 
implement it. Inherent in those responsibilities is the necessity to 
bypass and marginalize Arafat.
  Nations must end political and material support for any Palestinian 
terrorist group and, in turn, divert those resources to assisting the 
new Palestinian leadership in fighting terror and in building ``a 
practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty,'' as President 
Bush has emphasized.
  These concerns, the hopes that we all hold, our obligations and the 
cooperation we demand of our allies, and perhaps most importantly, the 
friendship and solidarity we feel toward Israel, are set forth in this 
important and comprehensive resolution.
  This resolution serves as a warning to terrorists to beware. The 
current peace process is not business as usual. I commend the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for his leadership on this issue, along with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and especially our ranking member, 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for their commitment. I ask my colleagues to 
vote ``yes'' on the resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time 
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and that he may control that 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I deplore the bus bombings and other acts of terrorism 
against innocent civilians wherever heinous acts of violence occur. The 
violence must stop. President Bush's vision of a two-state solution, 
two states living side by side in the Holy Land, must be implemented. I 
support the road map whole heartily.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just a very short time ago this year that this 
body passed a resolution commending Israel and condemning the 
Palestinian Authority and calling upon the Palestinians to elect new 
leadership. Now the Palestinians have done just that. They have elected 
their new prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. He has been in office for less 
than 2 months now, and now this body all of a sudden expects him to 
stop the violence that has raged out of hand for close to 3 years in 
such a short time. Prime Minister Abbas is trying very hard to 
negotiate an understanding among the militant groups that will end all 
acts of violence against Israelis. And as we speak, as we speak, a 
cease-fire appears to be taking hold. There appears to be such an 
agreement.
  This process going on in the Middle East as we speak certainly needs 
no help from this body with this type of one-sided, inflammatory 
resolution for which this body is so well noted. Prime Minister Abbas 
must be given the time, he must be given the space, he must be given 
the opportunity to assert his authority and that of his new security 
chief Mohammad Dakhlan, with whom our own CIA and Israeli security 
forces have worked very well in the past, and can do so again.
  Let us attempt some objectivity here, Mr. Speaker, if we are to 
remain the responsible super power that we are. The single most 
important step that the Israelis could undertake is to stop its policy 
of political assassinations of Palestinians unless they are proven to 
be ticking time bombs. Tom Friedman said in a recent column that both 
sides have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self-
destruction.
  Is Israel better off or worse off after carrying out these 
assassinations? The day after it tried unsuccessfully to kill a senior 
Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed 17 innocent people aboard a bus 
in Jerusalem, these acts occurring since the Aqaba Summit. The bomber 
said this act was in retaliation for the assassination attempt the 
previous week. Clearly the people of Israel are questioning this 
policy. In a poll last week by a leading Israeli newspaper, 58 percent 
of the Israelis polled supported ending this type of assassination 
policy and cooperating with the new Palestinian government to end all 
violence.
  The fact is, the only time the Israelis have enjoyed extended periods 
of peace

[[Page 16172]]

in the last decade is when the Palestinian Security Service, under Mr. 
Dakhlan, have cooperated with Israel and both sides spent their energy, 
successfully, I might note, in preventing acts of violence.
  We are right today to call upon Prime Minister Abbas and his 
government to make greater and more efficient efforts to control the 
militant groups and end violence, but we also have a responsibility in 
order to be objective and even-handed, to ask the government of Prime 
Minister Sharon in this same resolution whether these policies are 
making Mr. Abbas's tasks easier or harder.
  The people of Israel is asking this question, so should the Congress 
of the United States. Let us have a little balance here. Let us have a 
little balance here. Let us call on the Palestinian Authority to make 
greater and more effective efforts against terrorists; but also, let us 
call on the Israeli Government to stop making Mr. Abbas's tasks more 
difficult. It is also time for Israel to reassess and hopefully end 
this process of political assassinations. We cannot allow the 
extremists on either side to sabotage the peace process. We cannot 
allow terrorists to torpedo the peace process. Let us look at some 
objectivity before we pass, once again, another resolution of this 
nature.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which 
condemns the recent wave of terrorism inflicted on Israel and expresses 
solidarity with the people of Israel in their heroic fight against 
terrorism.
  First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) 
for the gentleman's cooperation in bringing this resolution to the 
floor. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Republican leader, for his principled support, 
and to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority 
leader, for her valued cosponsorship. The fact that these three leaders 
of the House have cosponsored my resolution is a powerful indication 
that it has strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution with one basic conviction, 
that Israel has as much right to fight against suicide bombers and 
ruthless terrorists as any other free and democratic nation. At the 
recent Aqaba Summit, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon, made 
some extraordinary and historic statements. He called for a democratic 
state living at peace with Israel with mutual respect and shared 
prosperity.
  In less than a week of the Prime Minister's landmark speech, 22 
innocent Israeli men, women and children fell victim to suicide 
bombings and over 100 were wounded. Israel's response to this 
unprovoked carnage was the only response a self-respecting democratic 
state could offer. When Israel responds with counterterrorist 
operations against suicide bombers, some criticize it for provoking a 
cycle of violence.
  This is an absurd and sinister argument. Let us be clear about one 
thing. As our resolution states, Israel would not conduct 
counterterrorist operations if Palestinian counterterrorism would 
cease. The bloodshed, the violence, the tragedy would end.
  The term ``cycle of violence'' must be permanently retired from the 
lexicon of Middle East politics since it preposterously implies moral 
equivalence between suicide bombers and the justified response of a 
free and democratic nation.
  Based on comparative populations, the 22 Israelis who were murdered 
in the days following the Aqaba Summit are the equivalent of 1,100 
Americans. Were al Qaeda again to murder over a thousand Americans, we 
would demand that our government take strong measures to eliminate the 
threat they pose. None of us would tolerate our government waiting 
while someone pleads with the terrorists for a temporary cease-fire.
  In my recent meeting with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu 
Mazen in Ramallah, he told me that he is opposed to terrorism. 
Subsequently he repeated his statement to President Bush and many 
others, but Abu Mazen's effectiveness as a leader will not be judged by 
his words, but by his deeds. Abu Mazen's political situation is 
unquestionably complex; but if he continues to refuse to use force 
against murderous terrorists, he will soon become irrelevant and his 
political demise will be sure to follow.

                              {time}  1445

  But should he choose to take bold action against terrorism, he will 
deserve and he will receive the support of this body and the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, my resolution underscores the obvious. Israel's fight 
against terrorism is one of the front lines of the global war against 
terrorism. Israel's enemies are motivated by a hate-filled, sick, 
totalitarian ideology, as are our terrorist foes. Israel's enemies are 
ruthless and bloodthirsty, just like ours. If the Palestinian Authority 
will not or cannot destroy and defeat Palestinian terrorist groups, 
Israel has no choice but to take matters into its own hands. We are 
fighting our enemies relentlessly. Israel, under infinitely less 
favorable circumstances, can do nothing less.
  Mr. Speaker, it is universally accepted that it is the right of all 
states, including the democratic state of Israel, to make the defense 
of its citizens its number one priority. This is the bedrock of my 
resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The Aqaba summit earlier this month 
seemed to offer hope for the road map to peace offered by President 
Bush. For the first time, a Palestinian leader had condemned in Arabic 
for the entire world to hear the use of terrorism as a solution to the 
problems in the Middle East. Unfortunately, terrorist groups like Hamas 
refuse to stop the violence. The Palestinian Authority must immediately 
begin to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and in 
Gaza, because there is no chance for a Palestinian state if terrorism 
continues. It is in the interest of the Palestinians to put an end to 
the violence. The victims of these attacks are not only innocent 
Israelis but also the Palestinian people who continue to be held down 
by the most radical among them. These radical terrorists communicate to 
the world their ultimate goal, the destruction of Israel. Any other end 
is unacceptable to these terrorists. Therefore, peace will not be 
reached until the terrorists are destroyed.
  The time has come to rekindle the hope of Aqaba, to end the 
terrorism, to get back on the road map to peace.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to violence, 
killing and to the senseless murders which have been taking place in 
the Middle East. I also rise in support of peace. I also rise in 
support of the road map for Middle East peace in the hope that it will 
be implemented and that the United States will provide the leadership 
that is needed. I also rise with still some hope in my heart that we 
could achieve the purposes which we thought were beginning with the 
summit at the Gulf of Aqaba and to express the hope that we will be 
able to see a time coming when Israeli, Muslim, Jew, Christian and the 
Palestinian people can know that there is peace in the Mideast. I also 
look forward to the leadership of the United States in moving towards 
achieving the real goal of this Nation, which is peace in the Middle 
East so that all persons, Israelis, Palestinians and everyone else who 
is concerned with that area can know that there will be peace there and 
so that the threat to the United States and the rest of the world of 
terrorism will suffer a real setback of the kind all of us here hope 
will be achieved.
  George Santayana said something that I thought was very important. He 
said, ``He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.'' I 
see that

[[Page 16173]]

the hope that we had is being diminished both by the killings and by 
the fact that we are now moving away from what I had hoped would be the 
role of the United States in the Middle East, and that is the role of 
an honest broker, of a nation who could appeal to both sides to bring 
the killing to an end and to achieve a lasting peace negotiated by and 
between the parties. The Oslo process has collapsed. Eight hundred 
Israelis have died; 2,000 Palestinians have been killed. Twenty-two 
Israelis have been killed since the Aqaba summit, but about double that 
number of Palestinians. This is hardly the basis upon which peace can 
be achieved. It is also hardly the basis upon which we can say that the 
United States is providing the strong, the determined and the forceful 
leadership which is necessary to assure that both parties do the things 
that are needed to achieve a real and a lasting peace to the area.
  I would point out that if we do not listen to George Santayana, we 
have the possibility of repeating the mistakes of the past. What is it 
that we should be directing our attention to? Forceful, forcible, 
vigorous, strong efforts to achieve peace, to bring the parties 
together, to see to it that they talk, and to achieve the reputation 
amongst them of an honest, impartial broker, of a nation that is 
interested in seeing to it that both parties not only work together but 
achieve the best result of their negotiation that is possible to 
achieve. I do not see that in this resolution and that is the vice of 
this resolution. This resolution takes sides.
  I am not prepared to quarrel with any of my colleagues as to who is 
at fault over in the Mideast. That is not the function of an honest 
broker. I am prepared to say that our efforts today and that our 
efforts as a Nation should be directed at one thing, and that is 
achieving peace on the basis of a reputation of honesty, decency and 
fairness and upon the basis of the trust of the parties in the area. I 
do not see this document as stimulating that kind of response. This 
document is one-sided. It condemns violence on one side. I hear nothing 
about the need for the United States to, in fact, lead toward peace or 
that the United States wants a termination of violence by all parties. 
That is clearly lacking here, but it is desperately needed. Our problem 
if we seek to be seekers of and builders of peace is to assure that we 
make possible the trust of all parties, Israelis and of Palestinians, 
so that we can get them to the table, a difficult task, to talk about 
peace, about building a peace which will last, which will give justice, 
equality, comfort and solace to all, men, women, children and also 
Israelis and Palestinians. That is absent in this resolution. It is 
something which must not only be in the resolutions of the Congress but 
it must be in the policies of the United States.
  I say that I took great comfort and pleasure and pride when I saw 
that President Bush was getting the parties together and that he was 
really going to lead in this undertaking. I urge him to continue that 
undertaking, because in that is not only the interest of the 
Palestinians and of the Israelis but also of the United States. And a 
failure for this country to take a position which achieves the trust, 
the respect and the support of both parties for the negotiation is 
assurance that we will not have the success that we want and that we 
need. It also is assurance that we will not have the kind of security 
against terrorism which finds its seeds and which finds its roots in 
the kind of injustice that the people of the Mideast on both sides feel 
exists.
  I urge us, then, to be honest brokers. I urge us, then, to strive for 
peace and for the trust of all persons over there who seek that peace. 
And I urge us to take the steps that are necessary. This resolution is 
not one of those steps. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which 
condemns the unconscionable terrorist attacks directed at the state of 
Israel since the Aqaba summit earlier this month and which expresses 
our solidarity with the Israeli people in the fight against terrorism. 
I might add that we ought to have solidarity with those Palestinians 
who join in the fight against terrorism.
  Let me add, too, I am very proud to have joined the gentleman from 
California as well as the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations and the majority whip in circulating a letter that was signed 
by more than 300 Members of this House that urges President Bush to 
adhere to the principles he articulated a year ago concerning the 
Israeli-Palestinian crisis. That letter and this resolution share this 
nonnegotiable demand: Any road map for peace must require the 
Palestinian side to unconditionally cease its campaign of terror and 
violence against Israel. Like the Dean of the House, my good friend, I 
desire to be an honest broker. But in that honesty, I need to observe 
what each side does. We must require the Palestinian side to 
unconditionally cease its campaign of terror and violence against 
Israel.
  There are some who believe the United States and other nations must 
demonstrate more evenhandedness on the Palestinian question. However, 
Mr. Speaker, we must guard against making muddled parallelisms between 
justified actions by Israel and terrorist tactics that are designed 
only to inflame and destroy and undermine, I might say, the Prime 
Minister of Palestine from accomplishing the objectives articulated at 
Aqaba. As this resolution states, we must reject the concept of a cycle 
of violence as the gentleman from California has so powerfully said, 
because it implies a moral equivalence between terrorist and victim 
where no such parallelism exists. The state of Israel like every other 
nation on Earth has the right of self-defense and this resolution 
expresses American solidarity with Israel as it acts to maintain and 
secure its independence as a free and sovereign nation.
  Mr. Speaker, we must continue to work to bring peace to this savaged 
region of the globe and achieve justice for Israel as well as justice 
for the Palestinian people, so many of whom have toiled under despots 
who only preach death and destruction.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader of 
the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, no man knows the battle between good and evil like the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos). It is an honor to once again 
have worked with him on this resolution. I am proud to call the 
gentleman from California my colleague and my friend.
  Mr. Speaker, today Israelis will wake up and go to work. They may 
drive their children to day care or have lunch with their friends. 
Israeli children will go to school and play with their classmates. We 
do not know which ones and we do not know where, but soon some of them 
will probably die. A bright light will flash, a terrifying concussion 
will bloom through the air, and in an instant fear, blood, panic, pain 
and death. And somewhere in Gaza, violent men will laugh. If this is 
not evil, nothing is.

                              {time}  1500

  However unfashionable this so-called ``simplistic'' vocabulary is 
among the diplomatic elite, it is honest. It is the vocabulary of the 
American people and their President whose moral clarity has led our 
Nation in our ongoing war on terror. Individuals, nations, and 
organizations who equivocate, who see the savagery of terrorists and 
the self-defense of free states as two sides of the same coin, as a 
cycle of action and counteraction, undermine that clarity.
  Those who say Israel's self-defense is an impediment to progress 
completely miss the point. The destruction of Palestinian terrorism is 
not an impediment to progress. It is the definition of progress. Offers 
of temporary cease-

[[Page 16174]]

fires by Hamas and other terrorist groups are not the solution to the 
problem. The point of the war on terror is not just to defeat terror, 
but to destroy terrorists. Murderers who take 3-month vacations are 
still murderers. They are still enemies of the civilized world and must 
be hunted and targeted as such.
  Mr. Speaker, Israel's fight is our fight. Israel's liberation from 
Palestinian terrorism is an essential component of the global war 
against terror, and in that war there is no moral equivalence between 
aggrieved parties engaging in a so-called cycle of violence. There is 
only the cold-blooded murderer and the soldier sworn to defend his 
nation. This resolution makes that distinction and affirms American 
solidarity with the people of Israel and their war against terror. It 
makes clear that the American people acknowledge Israel's fundamental 
right to defend herself and that her fight against terror is our fight, 
and it calls on the Palestinian leadership at long last to act in the 
interest of their suffering people and stop the terrorists.
  No more empty promises, no more games, no more points of effort. 
There is a war on and the terrorists are going to lose that war. Now 
the only question is whether Palestinian leaders will stand with the 
civilized world in defiance of evil or whether they will fail like 
their predecessors have failed. We must not allow the Palestinian 
people who have been so long robbed of hope by corrupt and hateful 
leaders to be used as pawns to undermine this President's vision for 
peace.
  The ascension of Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas gives us some 
reason to hope, but Israel and the United States must adopt a policy of 
trust but verify, and the only way to verify the destruction of 
Palestinian terrorism is the end of Palestinian terrorism, period. When 
the violence stops, the peace process can move forward; and until it 
does, Israel must defend itself. And either way, she will not stand 
alone because the people of the United States will never abandon their 
brothers and sisters in Israel or any nation that is threatened by 
terror.
  A vote for this resolution reaffirms the House's commitment to Israel 
and to the moral clarity of our war on terror. So I just urge all 
Members to cast that vote and join Israel's heroic stand against evil.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing outrage 
at terrorism perpetrated by Palestinian extremists since the Aqaba 
Summit. The people of the United States continue to stand in solidarity 
with the people of Israel. But I regret this resolution is not as 
complete or constructive as it might be. We mourn the 22 innocent 
Israelis that have been killed since the summit, but over twice that 
number of innocent civilian Palestinians have also died as a result of 
military strikes from Israel. Their loss should also be explicitly 
recognized in such a resolution.
  I sincerely wish the House had used this opportunity to offer its 
clear support for the President's road map to Middle East peace. This 
road map is not perfect, but it is currently the only legitimate way to 
stop terrorism and get the parties back to the path of peace. Under the 
road map the Palestinian Authority must crack down on terrorism, and 
Israel must dismantle illegal settlements and begin an end to 
occupation. Abandoning the road map in the wake of the recent terrorism 
would not help Israel. In contrast, it would reward the terrorists.
  I object to the resolution's condemnation of the phrase ``cycle of 
violence'' because it is a fact for the past 2\1/2\ years we have 
witnessed a heartbreaking and endless cycle of terrorist attacks, 
assassinations, reprisals and retaliations. Since the peace process 
collapsed, 800 Israelis and 2,100 Palestinians have been killed. The 
Israeli economy has collapsed. The humanitarian crisis in the West Bank 
and in Gaza has intensified. Therefore, it is imperative that under the 
road map security cooperation would resume. This is critical because it 
is clear that neither prime minister, Abu Mazen nor Sharon, neither of 
these can stop terrorism without the other. This conflict will never 
end without a comprehensive political solution; and we, the United 
States, must lead both parties to that agreement. Otherwise Israelis 
and Palestinians may be doomed to a life of violence and suffering 
forever. It is not what these people deserve, and it is surely not what 
America can afford.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking Democrat on the 
Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the old vaudeville act 
where the guy goes to a doctor and he says ``Doctor, Doctor it hurts 
when I do this. What should I do? And the doctor says, `Do not do 
that.'''
  Every action has a reaction. And people who perpetrate violence and 
commit acts of violence provoke responses.
  I rise in strong support of the resolution. I want to commend the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the author, for bringing it to 
us. The resolution brings something critical to our discussion about 
the future of the Israeli/Palestinian peace process, and that is moral 
clarity. We should be absolutely clear about this. Neither the Israeli 
soldier nor the American soldier who defends his nation by preemptively 
eliminating terrorists can with any decency be compared to the 
terrorist who intentionally sets out to murder innocent women and 
children on a bus or in a disco or in a pizzeria or in a shopping mall 
or in a supermarket or going to work in the Twin Towers in New York. 
Terrorism and the defense against terrorism are not a cycle of 
violence. Active defense against terrorism including strikes against 
terrorists and terrorist leaders and those who harbor them is a moral 
obligation of a free and democratic society. We do it because it is 
right, and Israel does it for the same reason.
  Tempting as it may be, peace cannot be achieved through delusion, 
pretending that all parties to this conflict are of equal goodwill or 
everyone shares the belief that the two-state solution is a recipe for 
failure. Hamas and Islamic jihad engage in terrorism not to create the 
state of Palestine, but to destroy the State of Israel. Their victims 
are Jews not by coincidence of citizenship, but by active design. These 
are not just misguided militants or eager extremists, as our newspapers 
might label them. They are fanatical haters, murderous zealots 
committed to destroying both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, 
driving out both Jews and Christians and building an Islamic state on 
the ashes.
  Mr. Speaker, peace may be possible; but it is not automatic. It is 
almost certainly impossible until these hate groups are crushed. The 
Palestinian Authority cannot succeed. It cannot fulfill its mandate as 
the single voice of the Palestinian people. It cannot perform its 
historic role as the agent of Palestinian statehood as long as these 
groups are allowed to exist. In the words of a former Israeli prime 
minister, we must pursue the peace process as if there were no 
terrorists, and we must pursue terrorists as if there were no peace 
process.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, since there are colleagues on various sides 
of this issue who wish to speak and, given the time limits, they no 
longer would have the opportunity, I ask unanimous consent that each 
side be given an additional 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I 
understand the gentleman correctly that it would be split as it was 
originally split, 10 minutes and 10 minutes on his side?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman 
is correct.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my 
understanding the leadership concurred with

[[Page 16175]]

the notion of an additional 20 minutes to be split 10 minutes for and 
10 minutes against.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate. A good 
number of colleagues wish to speak on it. We waste so much time in this 
body on so many unimportant issues, I think an additional 20 minutes 
for each side is not an unreasonable request.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, speaking personally, I am in full 
concurrence. My problem, reserving the right to object, is that I have 
been informed that leadership is very concerned about the bill to 
follow and would like to stick with what I understood was an agreement 
of 20 minutes total, 10 minutes to be divided between each side. And 
based on that, I would be constrained to object to 20, but I am very 
pleased to assert 20 minutes to divide it 10 and 10.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. I think for once the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) and I totally agree on this particular issue. I agree with what 
he just said about the importance of it. I agree to the extension of 
time as he has requested.
  Mr. LEACH. Again, I am personally in full agreement, but I am 
informed that this is a leadership decision and therefore would be 
constrained to object.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from California.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman consult with the 
leadership while we take up the next 10 minutes to see if they agree to 
an additional 10 minutes?
  Mr. LEACH. Yes. I think that is very reasonable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California making a 
new request?
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am making the request that each side be 
given 10 minutes.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will clarify. Is the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) going to then yield one half of his time?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield one-half of my time 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will state that the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach) has 5 minutes, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lantos) has 5 minutes, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) has 10 minutes. The total times are the gentleman from West 
Virginia now controls 17 minutes, the gentleman from Iowa controls 5 
minutes, and the gentleman from California controls 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the thrust of this resolution is four-fold:
  A, it reflects America's concern for terrorism as an instrument to 
advance political advantage.
  B, it expresses sympathy to the families of both innocent Israelis 
and Palestinians who have lost lives in this struggle.

                              {time}  1515

  C, it commends the President for his vision of two states, Israel and 
Palestine, living side-by-side and, thus, implicitly affirms the peace 
process that the President has so wisely helped precipitate.
  D, it is implicitly designed to empower the new government of the 
Palestinian Authority. The goal is to strengthen those who have the 
best chance of negotiating a long-term resolution to the Palestinian-
Israeli issue.
  Here let me note that at the Aqaba summit, King Abdullah of Jordan 
turned to the Israeli and Palestinian Prime Ministers and said, ``Prime 
Minister Sharon, Prime Minister Abbas, I urge you today to end the 
designs of those who seek destruction, annihilation, and to have the 
will to begin to realize our dreams of peace, prosperity, and 
coexistence.''
  This sentiment is what we ask the international community to follow. 
This direction is where our President, as well as the king of Jordan, 
is leading, and this is the direction we want this Congress also to go 
in.
  Speaking personally, I would like to stress full support for the 
President's road map, for peace, but I would underscore that the road 
has been traversed before, but proved full of cavernous holes and 
multiple detours. The end is in sight. Everyone knows it will relate to 
a resolution along the lines of Camp David and subsequent talks at 
Tabba. But the slower the process, the more likely terrorists will be 
empowered.
  The issue is speed. Three weeks or 3 months are vastly preferable to 
3 years or 3 decades. The violence may not end with a political 
resolution, but it has no chance of ending without it.
  Therefore, I think it should be the goal of this Congress to stress 
that violence is an evil in and of itself, but a resolution of this 
particular circumstance in international affairs, which is the most 
difficult, possibly, in the history of man, is an imperative. All of us 
identify with all reasonable people who are attempting all reasonable 
techniques to bring a resolution to this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, many of us will vote for 
House Resolution 294 because we indeed deplore the terrorist attacks 
inflicted on Israel. We wish to express solidarity with the people of 
Israel. And we understand the necessity of the Palestinian Authority 
confronting and fighting terror and terrorist organizations.
  I am baffled and dismayed, however, by the resolution's failure to 
straightforwardly endorse the effort of our government and our Quartet 
partners to implement the so-called ``Roadmap'' which, at this moment, 
represents Israel's best hope for ending terror and the Palestinians' 
best hope for achieving self-determination. We must condemn terrorism 
without qualification, and that is consistent with promoting the 
simultaneous accommodations by both sides which the Roadmap envisions. 
We must affirm Israel's right to defend itself, but that is consistent 
with urging on Israel tactics and timing that do not undermine the 
Roadmap initiative, as our President and our Secretary of State have 
recently articulated.
  What this resolution fails fully to grasp is that concern for 
Israel's security and integrity is a major motivation for many of us, 
most of us, as we push for American leadership via the Roadmap. This 
effort will require all of the energy and persistence and support we 
can muster, in this body and in our government, in the critical weeks 
that lie ahead.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
resolution, and I thank Congressman Lantos for his leadership and 
determination on this issue that is a priority to so many of us in this 
body.
  I stand here today to express my outrage and grief over the latest 
round of terrorist attacks in Israel since the Aqaba (Ak-a-ba) summit 
earlier this month.
  Twenty-two innocent Israelis have been murdered since the beginning 
of this month and many others have been injured in three separate 
homicide bombings.
  For most of us, September 11, 2001, forever change our way of looking 
at the world. We learned that even the awesome power of the United 
States could not protect us from terrorists bent on destruction.
  It forced us into a position that Israel has been in for a very long 
time--trying to protect loss of innocent life against an enemy that has 
no reservations about killing.

[[Page 16176]]

  I strongly believe that Israel has the right to defend itself against 
suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks and that the world must 
recognize that Israel has a right to use military means to protect its 
citizens and its borders.
  To bring an end to terrorism in Israel and peace in the region, Prime 
Minister Abbas must start by living up to his agreements, including a 
commitment to stop this violence against civilians. That means 
fulfilling promises of prosecutions.
  His ability to maintain the rule of law would finally demonstrate a 
Palestinian interest in engaging in discussions of peace.
  It is my true hope that Israelis and Palestinians can one day live 
side-by-side in peace.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my friend, the distinguished 
senior member of the Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  To my friends who are concerned about this resolution, I remind them 
of the words of Yitzak Rabin earlier quoted: ``I will fight terrorism 
as if there were no negotiations. I will negotiate as if there was no 
terrorism.''
  While he will never admit it, Prime Minister Sharon in the last 3 
weeks has moved to that position. Notwithstanding 17 Israelis killed in 
a bus bombing, other Israelis killed in two other terrorism attacks 
since the Aqaba statements, the Israeli government has continued with 
these negotiations.
  The notion that the Roadmap would exist, that this process would be 
moving forward, that the hope that we heard at a conference this 
weekend by the Dead Sea from both Arabs and Israelis about the chances 
of moving forward would come because the United States played a neutral 
role in this conflict, are terribly misplaced.
  The reason that the Israelis have the courage to move forward, 
notwithstanding the continued terrorist attacks, is because they know 
that the United States Government and particularly that the Congress 
stands with them in this conflict.
  This is a resolution that for the first time in the history of this 
House of Representatives recognizes a two-State solution, an 
independent Palestinian State, and seeks to strengthen and embolden the 
Palestinian Authority in governing a State without terrorism.
  I urge support for the resolution.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this resolution, 
although I have not yet determined how I shall vote on it.
  The resolution has ``resolved'' clauses that speak for themselves and 
are reasonable. In the ``resolved'' clauses we do see a recognition of 
expression of sentiment about both the Palestinian as well as the 
Israeli innocent people who have been killed. Also, it recognizes the 
Roadmap and talks about some of the goals that we all agree on.
  I do have some reservations as to the ``whereas'' clauses which seem 
to be one-sided. The clause most disconcerting to me happens to be the 
one that people seem to be the most frantic in trying to get across 
today, and that is the claim that in some way, by saying that this is a 
cycle of violence that is going on, as it says in the ``whereas'' 
clause, that this implies a moral equivalency. It does not. The cycle 
of violence could well have been started, and I do believe there is a 
cycle of violence going on; it could be that both sides have made 
mistakes. That does not mean they are both morally equivalent. Who is 
judging the morality of it? We are judging the reality of it.
  The fact is, Israel may have made some mistakes. Certainly the 
Palestinians have made horrible immoral decisions in terms of suicide 
bombings and other types of acts of terrorism. But Israel may have made 
some mistakes. Was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, in retrospect, 
was that not a mistake? How about the Israeli settlement policy for 
these last few years? I think in retrospect these things have not 
furthered the cause of peace; these things have created a cycle of 
violence, if you will.
  It is our job to try to come to grips with what is going on there and 
end this conflict, and quit trying to say that all of the blame is on 
one side. Both sides have made mistakes. Let us try to be an honest 
broker.
  Now, I will probably be voting for the resolution, because the 
``resolved'' clauses are things that I agree with. But I would hope 
that we would be honest with ourselves and try to discuss this in a way 
that will further the cause of peace and not just simply be one-sided.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in any of our minds of 
this country's strong support for the State of Israel. We have shown 
that time and time again. But as my colleague, the gentleman from 
California just indicated, neither side is totally innocent of all of 
the violence that has occurred over the years.
  But as I look at and read this resolution, I think the question all 
of us have to answer, the only question that we have to answer is: Will 
passing this resolution further the peace process? And the answer is 
clearly no.
  A reading of the resolution will find it lacking in one major regard 
and that is, there is no endorsement in this resolution of the Roadmap, 
the Roadmap which President Bush has worked so hard to promote to both 
sides; the Roadmap which was a subject of the Aqaba summit. Yes, there 
has been a flare-up in the hostilities since the summit. But now the 
House comes with a resolution which is one-sided. And again, I ask: 
will this resolution enhance the peace process? And I say to my 
colleagues, the answer is no.
  Only yesterday, the Palestinian Authority agreed to a 3-month truce 
from any further hostilities. Many of us will say, 3 months! We want it 
permanent. How about 6 months? Mr. Speaker, how about taking some 
progress when we can get it? If this 3-month truce moves along the 
peace process, let us take it. And then fight for another 3 months, and 
another 3 months. It has to be done in small steps.
  Our offices just received communications from two pro-peace Jewish 
groups. The first group was Americans For Peace Now, a premier Jewish 
organization working to enhance Israel's security through the peace 
process, and the second group that is questioning the wisdom of this 
resolution is the Israel Policy Forum, which supports American efforts 
at resolving the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors.
  So I say to my colleagues, let us all answer the question together 
when the vote comes, and that is will a vote for this resolution 
enhance the Roadmap, and will it further peace in the region? And 
again, the conclusion I draw is that the answer is no.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lantos 
resolution.
  The terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli citizens have 
increased at a horrific rate since the Aqaba summit. Palestinian 
terrorists are enemies of the peace process and enemies of the Jewish 
people. The peace process cannot move forward until all terrorist 
activity ceases against the State of Israel.
  The murderous ways of Hamas must be stopped, and I fully support 
Israel's right to defend itself by any means necessary, as Israel 
supported our right to defend ourselves against terrorism after the 
attacks of 9/11.
  The press reports these killings as suicide bombings. Some in our 
government have taken it a step further and called them homicide 
bombings. I think we should go one step further and call them what they 
really are: genocide bombings, with the intent to annihilate the State 
of Israel and the Jewish people.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this worthy 
resolution.

[[Page 16177]]


  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me correct something in which I may have misspoke 
earlier when we were talking about an extension of time on all sides 
and I said that perhaps that was the only area in which the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, and I agreed. That is not 
the case. It was a misstatement on my part, and I do correct it, 
because as he has stated and as we have discussed on numerous occasions 
throughout our careers in this body, we perhaps see eye-to-eye on 95 
percent of the issues involved in this particular area and in the 
Middle East. We certainly agree on the need to stop the violence. We 
agree on the need to end the terrorism. We agree on the strong Israeli-
U.S. relationship that must always be maintained. And we certainly 
agree on the need for peace for all people in the region.
  I must respond to some comments that were made by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House. He spoke quite 
eloquently about all of the Israeli deaths, as does this resolution 
refer to those numbers as well. But I never once heard the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) mention any type of sympathy for the innocent 
Palestinian deaths that have occurred since the Aqaba summit alone. The 
resolution mentions the 22 Israelis killed, but fails to mention the 55 
Palestinians killed, the 258 Palestinians injured just since the Aqaba 
summit.

                              {time}  1530

  Five ambulances have been destroyed; 33 houses have been demolished 
and 236 damaged; 7,116 trees uprooted; 328,000 meters of cultivated 
land have been destroyed; 500,000 meters of land confiscated for 
illegal settlement; 67 private businesses destroyed; water and 
irrigation pipes destroyed; homes demolished; people detained, as we 
saw in this morning's press.
  All of these actions have occurred since the Aqaba Summit against 
innocent Palestinians, so it is that perspective that this resolution 
so much fails to mention.
  I would say as well in calling upon both sides to agree with what 
they set upon at the Aqaba Summit, yes, there have been some illegal 
outposts, perhaps a flag here or a pole here that has been dismantled 
by the Israelis. But according to Israeli sources and journalists, 12 
new outposts have been constructed since the Aqaba Summit, and there 
are rumored to have been five additional ones yet to be discovered. 
This has happened since the Aqaba Summit.
  I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that a recent 
poll of Christian conservatives here in the United States found that 78 
percent of the Christian conservatives in this country support 
President Bush's vision for Middle East peace.
  So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas in which all the speakers 
today have agreed. And certainly that makes some points of this 
resolution commendable.
  But, again, in looking at its totality, the resolution lacks in its 
objectivity. It lacks, Mr. Speaker, in what I term the United States' 
best interest first. A lot of parallels have been drawn today between 
the Israeli responses to terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself 
and the United States' global war against terrorism and our fight 
against al Qaeda. I would say the main question that needs to be asked 
here is does the Israeli assassination policy, when there is no proven 
link that those assassinated are ticking time bombs, where there has 
been nothing judicial pending against them, there has been nothing but 
allegations of terrorist activity, in those type of assassinations, is 
that fairness? Does it promote what is justice in the region? Does it 
promote the United States' best interest in fairness when it is done 
with what is perceived to be United States approval?
  Maybe there are some in the Sharon government that compare this to 
our fight against al Qaeda. But those educated and those that will 
profess some sense of fairness will view this in a different light and 
see that that comparison is disingenuous to say the least. Certainly, 
Israel has the right to defend itself against those ticking time bombs 
and to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. The United States has 
that right to fight the global war on terrorism, to fight al Qaeda 
whenever and wherever we can.
  But to make the comparisons between what is happening in the West 
Bank and Gaza by these Islamic militant groups, to compare them with al 
Qaeda is stretching it a bit in this gentleman's estimation. We must 
realize what are the true roots of the al Qaeda and the true roots of 
why they hate us in the Arab world. Let us look at that response before 
we determine if we can compare the Israeli fight against terrorism with 
the United States' fight against al Qaeda.
  There are many countries in the world that help us in the fight 
against the true terrorists, which is the al Qaeda network; and it is 
those countries that we will continue to need their help in our 
coalition fight against al Qaeda.
  Mr. Speaker, I do say to all those who are participating in this 
debate, it has been healthy. It has been what we have needed in this 
Congress for some time, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to 
debate this issue many more times. I have demonstrated during this 
debate the question that many Israelis have about the policies of their 
government in regard to fighting terrorism, and I think it is just as 
worthy a debate here in this country as it is in the country of Israel. 
We have that right in our democratic system. We also have the 
responsibility in this country to look at actions that we take as 
Members of Congress and resolutions we pass, to ask first and foremost 
what is in the best interest of the United States of America.
  I referred earlier to the cease-fire that has just been announced 
today and appears to have taken hold. While this resolution does not 
have the force of law, we must, and we know as Members of this body 
that every word we utter and every resolution we pass has profound 
impact across this world. Whether they are actually the words of the 
law or not, they do send a message. I think this is the wrong message 
that the United States should be sending at this particular time, this 
precarious time in the Middle East. Some say this cease-fire is only 
temporary and it would give the militant a chance to rearm during a 3-
month cease-fire. This is the time that the new prime minister with 
whom the United States has built a relationship, with whom the Israelis 
have built a relationship, for the newly installed Prime Minister Abu 
Mazen, who has been in office for less than 2 months, this is the time 
he needs to gain the political credibility, to gain the support among 
his own people, to further crack down on the militants without creating 
a civil war among the Palestinians.
  Now, perhaps that is the goal of some on the other side, but that is 
not the goal of the United States; and it should not be the goal of the 
United States. But, rather, we should give the newly created prime 
minister, the newly installed prime minister in the Palestinian 
territories the time, the space, and the opportunity he needs to gather 
the support he needs to crack down and, indeed, make this cease-fire, 
however temporary in nature, of a permanent nature.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues look carefully and hard at 
this resolution before making up their minds and cast their votes in 
what in their good conscience they deem to be in the United States' 
best interest and in the interest of peace in the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very 
important resolution, and I associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Ackerman), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

[[Page 16178]]


  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Majette).
  Ms. MAJETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow for the 
victims who continue to suffer the peril of deadly attacks of terror in 
Israel. I also rise in solidarity alongside the Israeli people in a 
stance against terrorists attempting to inhibit the progress of a 
successful peace process. I further rise in support of the cause of 
democracy and freedom in the Middle East.
  In order to further a road map for peace, there must be an immediate 
dismantling of Hamas, Islamic jihad, and all other terrorist 
organizations that actively threaten the lives of those who seek to 
dwell peacefully in this region.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support this important resolution to 
send a message to those who would willfully threaten the peace process.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sorrow for the victims who 
continue to suffer the peril of deadly acts of terror in Israel. I also 
rise in solidarity alongside the Israeli people in a stance against the 
terrorists attempting to inhibit the progress of a successful peace 
process. Most importantly, I rise in support of the cause of democracy 
and freedom in the Middle East.
  A year ago, in President Bush's speech in the Rose Garden, two 
criteria were outlined as necessary predicates for a successful 
agreement: First, a change in leadership of the Palestinian people, 
which has already taken place, and second, changes in conditions, which 
have not yet been accomplished. Steps are being taken on both sides to 
begin to implement the ``Road Map,'' but so much must be done. There 
has still been no end to the ongoing violence in the region.
  At the June 4th Summit in Aqaba, the new Palestinian Prime Minister 
pledged to end the violence and terrorism in this region ``without 
compromise.'' Since that time, there have been twenty-two innocent 
Israelis murdered and many others injured in three separate suicide 
attacks. More must be done to stop this violence now.
  Mere promises are not enough. While it is promising that the radical 
groups Hamas, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad today 
offered to suspend attacks against Israelis for three months, I would 
note that Hamas members in Gaza have already raised doubts about the 
deal. In order to further a ``roadmap for peace,'' there must be an 
immediate dismantling of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and all other terrorist 
organizations that actively threaten the lives of those who seek to 
dwell peacefully in this region.
  I urge the House to support this important resolution to seen a 
message to those who willfully threaten the peace process.
  We will not tolerate violence nor yield to its demands.
  We will continue to fully support the democratic state of Israel.
  We support democracy and statehood for the Palestinian people.
  Mr. Speaker, I would also note that what other democratic nations are 
doing also sends a message to the world community and to terrorists. 
For instance, I am deeply concerned about the plight of the Iranian 
opposition being detained in France today. I am concerned that the 
wrong message is being sent to the opponents of democracy and freedom 
when democratic nations punish supporters of democracy.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the measure before 
us, to stand up and speak loudly for democracy and freedom in the 
Middle East.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. 
Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. As President Bush said, 
there are no good terrorists or bad terrorists, only bad terrorists.
  I very strongly support this resolution standing with the people of 
Israel.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman), the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, as the daughter of a refugee from Nazi 
Germany, issues of anti-Semitism and the continuing terrorist violence 
against Israel are close to my heart.
  I strongly support the resolutions debated this afternoon and commend 
their sponsors. There is a fleeting chance for peace in the Middle 
East, the first since the brutal and feckless second Intifada began 
almost 3 years ago. But success depends on reining in Hamas, the 
Palestinian Islamic jihad, and others committed to ongoing terror.
  One of those others is Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassir Arafat, 
who should be pressed or forced to step aside in order to allow the 
nation's government of Mahmoud Abbas to succeed.
  Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago I accompanied President Clinton to Gaza and 
to Israel. Much of what he sought has been undone by the second 
Intifada. The escalation of violence has not only killed people, it has 
all but killed hope. We need to rekindle that hope. I urge passage of 
this resolution.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bell), a distinguished member of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. BELL. Mr. Speaker, friends of Israel recognize that the road map 
may bring opportunities for greater peace in our time; but for this 
effort to work, combatting terrorism must be the first step.
  On June 4, 2003, Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas pledged a complete 
end to violence and terrorism. But Mr. Abbas says he is unwilling to 
use force to put an end to terrorists and terrorist groups, even while 
innocent Israelis continue to be murdered by suicide bombers and while 
the guaranteed and expected acts of retribution against his own people 
are carried out. That is why we offer this resolution to condemn the 
terrorism inflicted on Israel and express solidarity with the Israeli 
people. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time 
I yielded back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I do that in keeping with what I said 
earlier was an important debate and I believe that all Members who wish 
to speak on this should be heard.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman yields 2\3/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in unwaivering support of House 
Resolution 294, to reaffirm strong relations between the United States 
and Israel and condemn the acts of terror against the Israel people.
  The United States has a unique relationship with Israel, the only 
democratic nation in the Middle East. We must continue to support 
nations with similar ideological goals that share the same commitment 
to democratic principles. Our history of friendship spans many decades, 
and the United States has been the strongest advocate for efforts to 
craft a long-term peace settlement in the region.
  If the United States is truly committed to establishing a lasting 
peace by pursuing the road map, then we must remain true to its 
principles and condemn violence and terrorist attacks. We must continue 
our efforts in Congress to promote peace in the Middle East and 
maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. I urge all of my colleagues 
to vote for the resolution before us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardoza).
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new 
vision for bringing peace in the Middle East. I

[[Page 16179]]

support that vision. But that vision is one that we must support 
through a fairness situation where we do not make equivalency between 
what has happened by Mr. Sharon going to the Temple Mount and the death 
and destruction that have been wrapped upon Israel with the terrorist 
threat. I support the Lantos resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which 
condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses 
solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.
  On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for 
bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must 
develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel 
and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the 
United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.
  Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new 
leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian 
Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat.
  And I'm pleased to hear that--just this morning--Hamas, Islamic Jihad 
and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against 
Israelis. That's a very positive step. But we've heard positive talk 
many times before. The proof will be borne out over time through deeds. 
Just this morning, the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in 
northern Israel. Clearly, the vigil for peace and security will have to 
be maintained.
  I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve 
lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the 
President last June; particularly, the necessity of combating terrorism 
as the first of a sequence of events.
  And I believe the U.S. must remain supportive of Israel in its fight 
against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and able to 
carry out this responsibility.
  Like my colleagues here today, I welcome the positive steps the 
Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to 
dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.
  As Americans, we understand the fight against those who seek our 
destruction. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in their fight 
against those who oppose their existence.
  The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to 
support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to 
provide safety and stability for its people.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year,President Bush 
stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership not tainted 
by support for terror. The new leadership must be committed to peace 
with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then 
would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state. 
Israel is fulfilling its commitment by dismantling unauthorized 
outposts, releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing Palestinians to 
work in Israel, and releasing funds out of the treasury.
  They cannot be expected to give up counterterror measures so long as 
Palestinians fail to comply with their road map obligation to stop 
terror. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to 
self-defense. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go 
after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has the 
responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist 
attacks.
  Merely negotiating a cease-fire is not enough. Terrorism must end. 
Peace demands it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my firm commitment to the safety 
and security of Israel and the Israeli people. One year ago, President 
Bush called upon the Palestinian people to put in place leadership not 
tainted by support for terrorism. Terrorism is the great scourge of our 
age, and there is little doubt that it represents an insurmountable 
threat to peace throughout the world, but most particularly in Israel 
and in the Middle East.
  In order for peace to be realized, terrorist groups like Hamas and 
Islamic Jihad must be contained. The Palestinian leadership--with 
support from the rest of the Arab world--must take a firm stand against 
the blight of violence and death that terrorists spread wherever they 
commit their atrocities. The destruction of the terrorist 
infrastructure that threatens innocent Israelis everyday is a necessary 
precondition to the success of the peace process and the recognition of 
a Palestinian state.
  While I am encouraged that the Bush administration appears to be re-
engaged in the peace process, the fact that 22 innocent Israelis have 
been killed and many more injured in a serious of suicide bombings 
since the summit in Aqaba, Jordan, demonstrates clearly the difficult 
and treacherous road to peace that lies ahead.
  The sad fact is that we as a nation have too often overlooked or 
considered route the terror that daily threatens the peace and security 
of Israel. So, I ask you to consider a situation that would be better 
understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy street 
in New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago or New Orleans; and think 
about the people who might be on the bus on their way to school or to 
work; people going about their daily business, shopping for groceries 
or picking up that last-minute necessity. Now imagine that someone came 
along with a bomb in one of those cities, or right here in Washington, 
DC, and created an explosion that killed 7 or 70 or 700 in one fiery 
blast.
  What would the response be in America? We would call out the Army, 
the Navy, the Marines, the FBI, the police, every agency that could 
retaliate, whether to capture or kill the responsible person and the 
leaders of an organization that would seduce a young person to 
sacrifice his or her life for such a heinous purpose.
  Yet, when Israel responded to the murder of 17 innocent Israelis by 
launching an attack on the leadership of Hamas, the Bush administration 
criticized the attack as heavy-handed and an unnecessary complication 
to the peace process.
  We would not stand by five minutes and accept such attacks on 
American civilians. And we should not expect Israel to stand by five 
minutes and accept it either. We cannot look at the violence on both 
sides as though it is comparable. It simply is not the same.
  Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for violence that radical 
terrorists--murderers or killers, to use the President's terms--have 
brought down upon them. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs 
Brigades, among others, delight in taking responsibility for a suicide 
bomber who walks into a cafe or disco and takes 8, 10, 20 or more 
innocent lives.
  Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend 
itself against the cowardly acts of terrorists. The United States must 
not be caught in the trap of thinking of Israel's response to terrorism 
on its soil as the equivalent of the terrorism itself. There is no 
doubting the difference.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing 
our solidarity with Israel. Just as we have when the terrorist attacks 
were on our soil or against our national interests, we must roundly 
condemn the acts of terrorists in Israel, and we must continue to exert 
pressure on Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen to use very resource 
at his disposal, including force, to root out terrorism and remove it 
as an obstacle to peace. Moreover, we must be unwavering in our support 
for Israel's right to defend and secure herself against such senseless 
violence.
  If the peace process is to succeed, rather than criticizing Israel 
for its efforts to combat terrorism, we must offer our full support and 
take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Israel is free from 
the scourge of terrorism.
  Only then will the Israeli and Palestinian people realize the promise 
of peace embodied in the ``road map.''
  I have no doubt that the Israeli and Palestinian people can live 
side-by-side in peace and prosperity, as so many do even today 
throughout Israel. Yet that goal will likely never be realized unless 
and until terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, 
and others are removed from the equation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the House to express their full 
support for Israel and their continuing commitment to the eradication 
of terrorism wherever it rears it violent and ugly head and to vote for 
this important demonstration of our commitment to peace.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

                              {time}  1545

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this peace belongs to the 
American people. This peace belongs to President William Jefferson 
Clinton as well the present administration. This peace belongs to all 
of us who have worked to ensure a just and sustainable peace. The road 
map must be supported.
  I rise, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to my colleagues that I spent 2 
weekends ago in Oslo, Norway, working with women from Palestine and 
from Israel discussing the issue of peace.

[[Page 16180]]

  I believe we can move forward. I am going to vote for this 
resolution. I believe that we can move forward, but I believe as well 
as we move forward we must accept the view and the understanding that 
as we abolish and get rid of terrorism we all believe and support an 
independent Palestinian State, and so I am going to associate myself 
with the women that I had the pleasure of being with in Oslo, Norway 
and will be writing a resolution to increase the number of women in the 
mideast peace process as we fight to secure a just and sustainable 
peace.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 294, condemning the 
terrorism inflicted on Israel since the Aqaba summit and expressing 
support for the Israeli people.
  The Aqaba summit took place on June 4, 2003. Newly elected 
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas proclaimed, ``our goal is 
clear, and we will implement it firmly and without compromise: a 
complete end to violence and terrorism.'' This is a laudable statement, 
and we are happy to see the Palestinian government taking such strides 
towards democracy and stability for their nation.
  Prime Minister Abbas pledged at the Aqaba summit to establish a 
system based on rule of law and a single political authority. His 
intentions are the beginning steps needed for the Middle East Roadmap 
to Peace.
  The roadmap begins with the assertion that ``a two state solution to 
the Israeli Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end 
to violence and terrorism.'' Prime Minister Abbas' leadership will be 
tested through these turbulent times, as terrorism is still rampant in 
the Middle East, and more people are suffering at the hands of 
violence.
  Since that June 4 summit, less than three weeks have gone by, and 
already 22 Israelis are dead and scores more wounded. There have been 
three separate suicide bombings. When compared with our population, the 
death toll for the Israeli population would be equivalent to the loss 
of 1,100 American lives.
  Palestinians are also victims of this violence as terrorists continue 
their attempts to undermine prospects for a lasting peace in the 
region. I was recently at a conference in Norway where Palestinian and 
Israeli women were joined by other leaders from around the world to 
seek a greater understanding of what must be done to secure peace in 
the region. Some progress was made but I realize that there is much 
that remains to be done.
  Peace will continue to be undermined as long as these terror attacks 
persist. Sadly, anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic groups are driving a 
wedge into the process to peace that many Palestinians and Israelis are 
trying so hard to build.
  This is why I condemn in the harshest terms the recent terrorist 
acts, and express support for a peaceful and secure Israel and 
Palestine. I also offer my sympathy to the families of both the 
Israelis an Palestinians whose lives have been lost.
  The roadmap to peace is a vision, not just for our generation, but 
for the future of Middle East stability. This vision can only be 
realized once terrorism is defeated, so that a new state may be created 
based on rule of law and respect for human rights.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the 
Committee on International Relations, my good friend.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution 
because I support the road map plan for peace. Those of us who care so 
deeply about the State of Israel and its security know that there is no 
alternative to a peace plan led by the United States, but the 
Palestinian people must understand that in order to attain the state 
they justly deserve that their terrorist attacks of Hamas, Islamic 
Jihad, Hezbollah must be defeated, and one of the ways that America 
helps defeat terror is to stand 100 percent behind Israel's right of 
self-defense.
  The President was mistaken last week when he condemned Israel's right 
of self-defense in effect, and he made a distinguishing mark between 
the way the United States acts and the way Israel acts.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my friend and distinguished 
colleague.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, those who have opposed this resolution have 
opposed it for what it does not say, not for what it does.
  The United States can be an honest broker and should be between 
Palestinians who want peace such as perhaps Abu Mazen, whose sincerity 
is still subject to proof, but it cannot be an honest broker with Hamas 
and other terrorist groups who desire genocide.
  This resolution supports the road map by supporting the first 
preconditions for it, the disarmament of the terrorist groups, by 
agreement if possible, by force if necessary.
  Finally, there is no equivalence between Israeli victims of 
premeditated murder and Palestinian victims who either were terrorists 
or were victims of warfare unleashed by Palestinian terrorists. This 
resolution strikes a proper balance, and I strongly support it.
  Mr. LANTOS. May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lantos) has 1\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are passionately committed to 
peace, and all of us in this House are passionately committed to 
justice. The Palestinian people are certainly entitled to an infinitely 
better life than what they have had for many years. The blame clearly 
lies with the surrounding Arab states which failed to allow them to 
establish civilized communities or to absorb them.
  Other societies have done that. The Greeks of Cyprus absorbed the 
Greeks from northern Cyprus, and the people of Israel absorbed millions 
of their fellow nationals from all over the world.
  There was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the misery of the 
Palestinians in refugee camps. Hopefully, with the President's vision, 
we will now see an end to this long, painful, tragic, misery-filled 
process.
  To embark on that road, we must see the end of terrorism. There is no 
road map unless terrorism ceases, and if it does, the road map, in 
fact, will be implemented.
  I congratulate the President for having the vision of recognizing 
that two states can live side by side in peace, with mutual respect and 
prosperity, but only if terrorism ends.
  Abu Mazen, the new Prime Minister, has repeatedly indicated his 
opposition to terrorism. We have to help him to put an end to 
terrorism. He must gain control of the territory in Gaza, first in the 
north, then in central Gaza, then in southern Gaza and then on the West 
Bank, town by town, and as he does so, we will move towards peace, and 
the Israeli and the Palestinian people at long last will live in a 
civilized region.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This has been a good debate, a very healthy debate. There is no doubt 
that security cooperation needs to be restored between the Palestinians 
and Israelis. It has worked in the past. The road map now is the way to 
do it. Several of the speakers today have risen in support of the road 
map, and they will support this resolution. I cannot even find the word 
``road map'' mentioned in this resolution, and that is a major, major 
problem with it.
  The economies of both Israelis and the Palestinians are in dire 
shape. There is no question about it, and this road map, for which I 
have already commended and continue to salute the President for 
presenting it, is the way out.
  Confidence building measures by both sides, coupled with stability 
and economic development, must occur, and it will help bring back the 
necessary hope that both sides so desperately need and the trust in one 
another that is so lacking at the current time.
  There are obligations of both parties under the road map. This 
resolution, unfortunately, points only to obligations of Palestinians 
and insinuates they are not fulfilling those obligations. There are 
obligations by the Israelis as well that are very clear. Yet they are 
not stated in this resolution.
  We must give Prime Minister Abu Mazen, a good friend with whom I have 
met, the help he needs to fight terrorism and we must not allow civil 
war

[[Page 16181]]

among Palestinians to occur. The road map is the way to do that. It 
will take time.
  I salute President Bush for his personal involvement, for Secretary 
of State Powell's involvement, for Condoleezza Rice's involvement via 
her trip to the region any day now, and I salute our security people, 
the United States security people, our CIA and others that are on the 
scene in an effort to help the Palestinians restore security. That 
takes time. That takes patience and that takes an opportunity, that we 
must give and Israelis must give the Palestinians to create that 
security that is so vital to bring peace to this area.
  I am not going to urge my colleagues to vote one way or another on 
this resolution. They can make up their own minds, but each colleague I 
would say has to look in his or her conscience and has to determine in 
their best opinion what is in the United States' best interests in 
promoting the road map to peace in the Middle East.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has 30 
seconds left.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is about two subjects--
violence and peace.
  On point one, the Congress cannot be equivocal in condemning 
terrorism. On point two, this resolution unequivocally commends the 
President for a vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side 
by side in peace and security.
  This is the first President to assert legitimacy of a Palestinian 
state, and this resolution not only implicitly endorses the President's 
road map for peace but breaks affirmative ground in a congressional 
resolution on the Palestinian legitimacy issue.
  Peace is the goal. Diplomacy, not violence, must be the means. On 
this basis, I urge this resolution's passage.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of security for 
Israel and in utter condemnation of terrorism. I cannot, however, vote 
for a resolution that I believe fails to advance the Middle East peace 
process, and it undermines hope for the Roadmap.
  On May 8, 2003, I wrote President Bush commending him for his efforts 
to help the parties find a way out of their ongoing tragedy. This 
letter read in part: ``I wanted to take this opportunity to applaud 
your efforts to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The 
`Roadmap to Peace,' presented by the Quartet to the Israeli Government 
and Palestinian Authority, represents a welcome and desperately needed 
opportunity to work toward a lasting two-state solution that offers the 
prospect for an ordinary peace between current adversaries and with 
that peace, the promise of stability for the region. Such a solution is 
very much in our own national interest as well.''
  I believe the principles laid out in the Roadmap, including its 
emphasis on reciprocity, must continue to guide us. Ending terror is 
imperative, and I absolutely agree with the sentiments in this 
resolution decrying terror and expressing sympathy for the loss of so 
many lives, Israeli and Palestinian, in this conflict. However, at this 
critical juncture, the resolution I wish that we were voting on was one 
that expressed those principles while at the same time voicing 
solidarity toward Israel by endorsing the Roadmap as our best chance to 
reach the much desired destination of peace and security. This 
resolution fails to reflect the reciprocity that is the hallmark of the 
Roadmap.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution.
  The Aqaba Summit presented one of the most promising moments in years 
of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. At that summit, Prime 
Minister Abbas pledged his commitment to a complete end to the violence 
and terrorism that has devastated the region. Prime Minister Abbas and 
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon also took the first bold step on the 
Roadmap to Peace by recognizing the right of one another to exist in 
peace.
  Mr. Abbas and Sharon had just returned from Aqaba, however, when 
violence once again flared. There is no way the peace process can 
continue while terrorist organization such as Hamas continue to act 
with impunity in the West Bank and Gaza.
  Prime Minister Abbas maintains that terror can only be stopped on 
moral and political grounds. He remains unwilling to use force to 
dismantle terrorist organizations. Under current circumstances, 
however, Mr. Abbas doesn't have the ability to forcefully dismantle 
such organizations. It is critically important that the United States, 
Europe, Russia, the United Nations and the Arab League renew their 
commitment to cut terrorism at its roots, and provide Mr. Abbas the 
support he needs.
  International support means denying the flow of dollars to Hamas. I 
am a cosponsor of House Resolution 285, which urges the European Union 
to classify all of Hamas as a terrorist organization, and not just its 
military wing. I find it astonishing that a distinction would be made 
between the political and armed divisions of a terrorist organization.
  The Arab League must also commit itself to peace in Israel by denying 
Yasser Arafat the funding and support he needs to maintain control over 
security forces in the Palestinian territories.
  I continue to support an active U.S. role in the Middle East peace 
process because the suffering of people--destined to live on the same 
piece of land--is too great, and the stakes for them too high.
  I support this resolution's condemnation of the recent terrorist 
violence that victimized innocent Israelis, as well as its expression 
of sympathy to the families of both Israelis and Palestinians who have 
lost their lives. I urge its adoption and thank the gentleman from 
California, Mr. Lantos, for bringing it to the floor.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 294, 
condemning the terrorism inflicted on Israel, expressing solidarity 
with the Israeli people, and calling on the Palestinian Authority to 
take immediate and effective steps to dismantle the terrorist 
infrastructure on the West Bank and Gaza. I also rise today to express 
my solidarity with all those who support the efforts towards peace 
between Israelis and Palestinians.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the comments of the 
gentlewoman from California, Representative Capps. I wish to echo her 
reservations about this bill. The introduction of this resolution 
should have provided us the opportunity to restate the United States' 
commitment to peace, and our commitment to the President's roadmap, 
which lays out responsibilities for both the Israelis and the 
Palestinians in the pursuit of peace. The roadmap, like any negotiated 
plan, is imperfect. But it is supported by the President, it is 
supported by Israel, it is supported by the Palestinian Authority. It 
is the best plan that we have right now.
  Having said that, I am pleased that this resolution recognizes the 
plight of innocent Palestinians who have been caught in a cycle of 
terrorist attacks and government reprisals. It also recognizes the 
aspiration of Palestinians to create their own state, which will live 
in peace and prosperity with its neighbor Israel.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress, with 
the Administration and with the communities in the Middle East to 
foster a true and lasting peace in the Middle East. I believe that 
peace must be the ultimate goal of the United States policy towards the 
region. Peace is in the national interest of Israel, the future 
security of a Palestinian state, and in the national security interest 
of the American government and its people.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 294. I am 
deeply saddened by the loss of lives at the hands of terrorists, and it 
is of great disappointment to me that the terror has escalated since 
the Aqaba summit. As the violence continues, even in the face of 
efforts by all sides to bring peace to the region, the United States 
must show nothing short of steadfast support for Israel as it continues 
to bear the entire burden of ending the violence.
  The U.S. and Israel both agree that Prime Minister Abbas is the 
legitimate alternative to Yassir Arafat as leader of the Palestinian 
people. We welcome his statements acknowledging the need to stop terror 
both on moral and political grounds. However, the terrorist 
infrastructure is committed to the undermining of Prime Minister Abbas 
and the peace process.
  Earlier this month, 22 innocent Israelis were killed and many others 
have been injured in continuous suicide bombings. Among the obligations 
in the roadmap is the responsibility of the Palestinians to stop all 
terror and violence against Israel. Merely negotiating a cease-fire 
with the terrorist groups is not sufficient. Terrorist groups can 
simply use this time to rearm and plan future attacks against innocent 
civilians. Militants must be arrested and arms collected to dismantle 
the terrorist infrastructure.
  As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go after the 
terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has the sole 
responsibility of protecting its citizens against further terrorist 
attacks. Israel has an obligation to safeguard its citizens and like 
every other sovereign nation, Israel has the same right to self-
defense. If the Palestinian Authority does not act against terrorism, 
Israel must.
  U.S. policy needs to be supportive of Israel in its fight against 
terror. Just as the U.S. has

[[Page 16182]]

the right to send soldiers around the world to fight terrorists, Israel 
has the same right to fight terrorism in its own neighborhood and its 
own capitol.
  The people of Israel are confronted with the grim realities of 
terrorism on a daily basis. Yet the darker reality is that were it not 
for the successful actions Israel takes in defense of its people, 
terrorism against them would increase tenfold. As Israel embarks on the 
difficult path to peace, it is essential that her efforts to quell acts 
of senseless terror have the full support of the United States.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H. Res. 294, a 
measure expressing solidarity with the people of Israel and condemning 
the terrorist attacks inflicted on them since the Aqaba Summit. The 
timing could not be any more ironic. Today as we consider this one-
sided resolution on the Mideast, there are reports of a ceasefire 
taking hold that underlines the need for America to find a way to 
condemn violence in a way that does not favor one set of innocent 
victims over another. Unfortunately, this resolution does not meet this 
standard. Instead, this resolution, in its present form, will do more 
to take us away from peace than to bring us closer to an agreement that 
serves the needs and desires of all people in the Middle East.
  That is not to say that I disagree with the text of this resolution: 
I condemn, in the strongest terms, all terrorist attacks against 
Israelis and remain committed to Israel's security and the well-being 
of Israeli citizens. Brutal attacks against civilians are always 
unacceptable and as a sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend 
itself from these kinds of attacks. But, this resolution, which does 
not address the losses on both sides, sends the wrong message to 
Israelis, Palestinians, and the world community.
  My concern is also that this resolution does not endorse the 
``roadmap'' for peace, nor does it recognize the commitments and 
obligations that Israel must implement for the peace process to move 
forward. Furthermore,, it does not recognize the terrible pain and 
suffering that Israeli occupation and crackdown has caused in the 
disputed territories. We need to condemn Palestinian terrorists, but 
acknowledge the honorable goals of peace-loving Palestinians that want 
nothing more than a better life. This Congress should recognize the 
pain of every mother that has lost an innocent child because of 
violence in the Mideast, not only Israeli mothers.
  Mr. Speaker I share the anger and sadness of my colleagues who have 
brought this resolution regarding the Mideast to the floor. But, I am 
convinced that this resolution will not advance the prospects for the 
lasting peace that we all want, which, is why I will vote against it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this measure. Of 
course we all deplore terrorism and violence that any innocents are 
forced to suffer. There is, sadly, plenty of this in the world today. 
But there is more to this resolution than just condemning the violence 
in the Middle East. I have a problem with most resolutions like this 
because they have the appearance of taking one side or the other in a 
conflict that has nothing to do with the United States. Our 
responsibility is to the American people and to the Constitution, not 
to adjudicate age-old conflicts half-way around the world.
  When we take sides in these far off conflicts, we serve to antagonize 
the people affected and end up no closer to peace than when we started. 
This bill makes reference to the need to have solidarity with Israel. 
Elsewhere people say we should have solidarity with the Palestinians 
and the Arabs. So, as I have said before when bills such as this are on 
the floor, it is sort of a contest: Should we be pro-Israel or pro-
Arab, or anti-Israel or anti-Arab, and how are we perceived in doing 
this? It is pretty important.
  But I still believe, through all these bills attempting to intervene 
in the Middle East, that there is a third option to this that we so 
often forget about. Why can we not be pro-American? What is in the best 
interests of the United States? We do not hear much talk of that, 
unfortunately.
  As I keep saying when votes such as this come to the floor, the best 
foreign policy for the United States is noninterventionism. It is a 
policy that puts American interests first, costs must less money, and 
is in keeping with a long American tradition so eloquently described by 
our Founders.
  I hope the peoples of the Middle East are able to resolve their 
differences, but because whether they decide or not is not our business 
I urge a no vote on this resolution.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, even though I agree 
in principle on the intent of the resolution, I believe it could have 
been drafted differently. I intend to vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 294.
  All of us who support the Middle East peace process are aware of the 
fragile relationship between Israelis and Palestinians. I believe that 
future progress toward peace will require a real commitment on the part 
of Israel and the Palestinians, and the active participation of the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Israel, but I also strongly support 
efforts to bring about peace in the region, which will allow the 
Israeli and Palestinian people to live together side by side without 
having to endure this type of violence.
  All sides of this conflict have responsibilities. Israel must take 
tangible steps now to ease the suffering of Palestinians and to show 
respect for their dignity. As progress is made toward peace, Israel 
must stop settlement activity in the occupied territories. Arab nations 
must fight terror in all forms, and recognize and state the obvious 
once and for all: Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state at 
peace with its neighbors.
  There is no excuse for terrorist acts. I want to save the lives of 
Israelis, and I want to save the lives of Palestinians. Both are 
equally precious, both deserve to live in peace and security.
  It is in that spirit, and with that faith, that I will continue to 
work with the Administration to ensure the United States remains firm 
in its commitment to the principles necessary to guarantee the success 
of the Arab-Israeli peace process.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, 
which condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses 
solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.
  On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for 
bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must 
develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel 
and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the 
United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.
  Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new 
leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian 
Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat. Since 
assuming office, Abu Mazen has refused, however, to take concrete steps 
to rein in the terrorists in any way. And despite the change in 
leadership, Yasser Arafat maintains a high degree of control, including 
authority over major elements of the Palestinian security apparatus.
  And I am pleased to hear that, just this morning Hamas, Islamic Jihad 
and Al Asqa have agreed to a 3-month cessation of attacks against 
Israelis. That is a very positive step. But as we have seen many times 
before, the proof will be borne out over time. Also just this morning, 
the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in northern Israel. So 
clearly, the vigilance for peace and security will continue.
  I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve 
lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the 
President last June, particularly the necessity of combating terrorism 
as the first of a sequence of events.
  Since the Aqaba summit earlier this month, 22 Israeli civilians have 
been killed and many others have been injured in three separate suicide 
bombings. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to 
self-defense. Israel must act against terrorism if the Palestinian 
Authority does not. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively 
go after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has a 
responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist 
attacks. I believe U.S. policy must be supportive of Israel in its 
fight against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and 
able to assume this responsibility.
  We must also wholly reject the concept of a ``cycle of violence.'' 
Use of that term implies a moral equivalence between those who commit 
terrorist acts and their victims. Israel's targeting of terrorist 
leaders is not the moral equivalent of targeting of innocent civilians, 
including women and children.
  Like my colleagues here this morning, I welcome the positive steps 
the Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to 
dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Without such action, the Road 
Map or any other effort, however well intentioned, will fail.
  The Palestinian people deserve a leadership that looks beyond the 
narrow goal of nationalism and works toward bettering the lives of its 
people. Regrettably, the current leadership has shown no signs of 
embracing those goals. As Americans, we understand the fight against 
those who seek our destruction. We stand shoulder to shoulder with 
Israel in their fight against those who oppose their existence.
  The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to 
support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to 
provide safety and stability for its people.

[[Page 16183]]


  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, as we are hearing all too 
frequently about continued violence in Israel, I rise in support of H. 
Con. Res. 294, expressing solidarity with Israel.
  For me, terrorism has hit close to home on too many occasions. Just 
last Friday, Eugene and Lorraine Goldstein, an elderly couple from 
Plainview, which is on Long Island, were visiting their son in Israel. 
It was supposed to be a time of joy for the family, but became a matter 
of grief.
  Eugene and Lorraine Goldstein, and their son and daughter-in-law were 
on their way to a wedding dinner for a grandson at the Holyland Hotel, 
and also celebrating their son and daughter-in-law's 27th wedding 
anniversary. The family was traveling along Route 60, a West Bank 
highway.
  During the drive, the Goldstein's happy day was shattered by the 
bullets of terrorists. The Goldsteins were shot in an attack that the 
Palestinian group Hamas has admitted carrying out. Within minutes 
Eugene and Lorraine's son was dead, their daughter-in-law was injured, 
and they were severely wounded, taken to a Jerusalem hospital.
  Eugene Goldstein is a watch salesman at the Fortunoff store in 
Westbury, also in my district. Fortunoff calls Eugene a ``superstar 
with a big wave and a big grin,'' and their family, friends and 
neighbors know the Goldsteins as good people. The family is in great 
shock, just one more family with lives destroyed from terrorism. I am 
praying that the Goldsteins recover quickly and fully, and my 
condolences go to their family for their loss.
  Today, Israel finds herself in an unbearable situation. Despite 
Israeli trust, Yasser Arafat has allowed terrorism to pervade Israeli 
society. Prime Minister ``Ma-Mood'' Abbas must keep his pledge for a 
``complete end to violence and terrorism.'' Until that happens, Israel 
has every right to enter Palestinian cities and refugee camps to root 
out terror. We cannot expect Israel to sit by and watch her country 
crumble, and her people be murdered in groups of 20 while they ride 
buses.
  As a Member of Congress, I will support Israel's decisions regarding 
security and self-defense in any way possible.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise concerns with House 
Resolution 294, Condemning The Terrorism Inflicted On Israel And 
Expressing Solidarity With The Israeli People.
  I am greatly troubled by the violence between Palestinians and 
Israelis over the last two weeks. It poses a great threat to the road 
map toward peace before it has had a chance to progress. I am outraged 
by extremists on both sides who continue to frustrate and delay the 
peace process. For the sake of the Israeli and Palestinian people, this 
process must be allowed to succeed.
  While I join my colleagues in denouncing all acts of terrorism, this 
resolution unfairly places blame on one side in the ongoing cycle of 
violence between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States 
should always act as a fair and impartial broker in the peace process. 
This resolution violates that responsibility.
  Let me be clear. I condemn the recent bus bombings and other acts of 
terrorism carried out by Hamas just as I believe Israel must halt its 
policy of assassinations. The day after Israel attempted to kill a 
senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed seventeen innocent people 
aboard a bus in Jerusalem. The cycle of violence being perpetuated by 
both sides must end, but this resolution does nothing constructive to 
further that goal.
  It is only right that Congress call upon the new government of Prime 
Minister Abbas to take more effective measures in controlling Hamas and 
ending violence. But we should also ask the government of Prime 
Minister Sharon to do the same. We should sponsor impartial legislation 
supporting continued dialogue to end the violence in the Middle East--
protecting the human rights of the innocent involved in the cross fire. 
We must balance our demands on both of these governments.
  Both sides have crossed the line--it is time to get back to the 
negotiating table. We are not aiding this already volatile situation by 
giving our weighted support to one side in this conflict. For that 
reason, I must abstain on this resolution.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution, H. Res. 294.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________