[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10434-10445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1730
REAFFIRMING COMMITMENT TO NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT OF ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN 
                                CONFLICT

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
agree to the resolution (H. Res. 268) reaffirming the United States 
commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 268

       Whereas the policy of the United States since 2002 has been 
     to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli 
     conflict;

[[Page 10435]]

       Whereas a true and lasting peace between Israel and the 
     Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations 
     between the parties and acceptance of each other's right to 
     exist;
       Whereas Palestine Liberation Organization Chair Yassir 
     Arafat pledged in a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak 
     Rabin on September 9, 1993, that ``all outstanding issues 
     relating to permanent status will be resolved through 
     negotiations'' a pledge that served as a critical basis for 
     the Israeli-PLO Declaration of Principles signed 4 days 
     later;
       Whereas the unity agreement signed by Fatah and Hamas on 
     May 4, 2011, was reached without Hamas being required to 
     renounce violence, accept Israel's right to exist, and accept 
     prior agreements made by the Palestinians (the ``Quartet 
     conditions'');
       Whereas Hamas, an organization responsible for the death of 
     more than 500 innocent civilians, including 24 United States 
     citizens, has been designated by the United States Government 
     as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and a specially 
     designated terrorist organization;
       Whereas Hamas kidnapped and has held Israeli sergeant Gilad 
     Shalit in captivity in violation of international norms since 
     June 25, 2006;
       Whereas Hamas continues to forcefully reject the 
     possibility of peace with Israel;
       Whereas Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has 
     accepted a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
     conflict and has consistently advocated for immediate direct 
     negotiations with the Palestinians, who, in turn, have 
     prevented negotiations by insisting on unprecedented pre-
     conditions;
       Whereas, on April 22, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary 
     Rodham Clinton stated, ``We will not deal with nor in any way 
     fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and 
     until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and 
     agreed to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian 
     Authority'';
       Whereas United States Ambassador to the United Nations, 
     Susan Rice, stated on February 18, 2011, that it was 
     ``unwise'' for the United Nations to attempt to resolve key 
     issues between the Israelis and Palestinians;
       Whereas Palestinian leaders are pursuing a coordinated 
     strategy to seek recognition of a Palestinian state within 
     the United Nations and directly from foreign governments;
       Whereas, on December 15, 2010, the House adopted House 
     Resolution 1765, which reaffirmed that the House of 
     Representatives supports a negotiated solution to the 
     Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a 
     democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic 
     Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, 
     and mutual recognition and opposes any attempt to establish 
     or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside of an 
     agreement negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians;
       Whereas current United States law precludes assistance to a 
     Palestinian Authority which shares power with Hamas unless 
     that Authority publicly accepts Israel's right to exist and 
     adheres to all prior agreements and understandings with the 
     United States and Israel;
       Whereas the United States annually provides more than $550 
     million annually and has provided more than $3.5 billion 
     cumulatively in direct bilateral assistance to the 
     Palestinians, who are among the world's largest recipients of 
     foreign aid per capita;
       Whereas United States aid to the Palestinians is predicated 
     on a good faith commitment from the Palestinians to the peace 
     process including direct negotiations with Israel;
       Whereas Palestinian abandonment of the Quartet conditions 
     and inclusion of Hamas in a government would jeopardize the 
     positive steps the Palestinian Authority has taken in 
     building institutions and improving security in the West Bank 
     in recent years; and
       Whereas efforts to form a unity government without 
     accepting the Quartet conditions, to bypass negotiations and 
     unilaterally declare a Palestinian state, or to appeal to the 
     United Nations or other international forums, or directly to 
     foreign governments for recognition of a Palestinian state, 
     violate the underlying principles of the Oslo Accords, the 
     Road Map, and other relevant Middle East peace process 
     agreements, all of which require resolution of the Israeli-
     Palestinian conflict through direct negotiations only: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) reaffirms its strong support for a negotiated solution 
     to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, 
     a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic 
     Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, 
     and mutual recognition;
       (2) states its firm belief that any Palestinian unity 
     government must publicly and formally forswear terrorism, 
     accept Israel's right to exist, and reaffirm previous 
     agreements made with Israel;
       (3) reiterates its strong opposition to any attempt to 
     establish or seek recognition of a Palestinian state outside 
     of an agreement negotiated between Israel and the 
     Palestinians;
       (4) urges Palestinian leaders to--
       (A) ensure that any Palestinian government will seek peace 
     with Israel;
       (B) cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation 
     process, including through a unilateral declaration of 
     statehood or by seeking recognition of a Palestinian state 
     from other nations or the United Nations;
       (C) resume direct negotiations with Israel immediately and 
     without preconditions; and
       (D) take appropriate measures to counter incitement to 
     violence and fulfill all prior Palestinian commitments, 
     including dismantling the terrorist infrastructure embodied 
     in Hamas;
       (5) supports the Administration's opposition to a 
     unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state and its use of 
     the veto at the United Nations Security Council on February 
     18, 2011, the most recent example of a longstanding United 
     States policy of vetoing unbalanced United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Israel and the Israeli-
     Palestinian peace process;
       (6) calls upon the Administration to announce that it will 
     veto any resolution on Palestinian statehood that comes 
     before the United Nations Security Council which is not a 
     result of agreements reached between Israel and the 
     Palestinians;
       (7) calls upon the Administration to lead a diplomatic 
     effort to oppose a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian 
     state and to oppose recognition of a Palestinian state by 
     other nations, within the United Nations, and in other 
     international forums prior to achievement of a final 
     agreement between Israel and the Palestinians;
       (8) affirms that Palestinian efforts to circumvent direct 
     negotiations and pursue recognition of statehood prior to 
     agreement with Israel will harm United States-Palestinian 
     relations and will have serious implications for the United 
     States assistance programs for the Palestinians and the 
     Palestinians Authority;
       (9) supports the position taken by Secretary of State 
     Hillary Rodham Clinton on April 22, 2009, that the United 
     States ``will not deal with or in any way fund a Palestinian 
     government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has 
     renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow 
     the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority.'';
       (10) urges the administration to consider suspending 
     assistance to the Palestinian Authority pending a review of 
     the unity agreement; and
       (11) reaffirms the United States statutory requirement 
     precluding assistance to a Palestinian Authority that 
     includes Hamas unless that Authority and all its ministers 
     publicly accept Israel's right to exist and all prior 
     agreements and understandings with the United States and 
     Israel.

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


                             General Leave

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on House Resolution 268.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 268, 
sponsored by Majority Leader Cantor and Minority Whip Hoyer, and would 
like to thank them for their leadership in bringing this important 
resolution to the floor today.
  We face a perilous juncture in the history of the Middle East. Our 
adversaries are far from dormant, and are focused on an international 
effort to isolate and demonize Israel. That is why it is all the more 
important for the United States to stand by our democratic ally at this 
critical time. So let's get the facts straight, Madam Speaker.
  As even Secretary Clinton noted, this Israeli Government has made 
unprecedented concessions in pursuit of peace. Israel has always been 
willing and able to make the tough sacrifices. Israel has proven its 
commitment to peace. Unfortunately, Israel does not have a partner for 
peace and security as the Palestinian leadership continues to never 
miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
  Abu Mazen can utter all the right words to the Obama administration 
and the Europeans, who appear gullible enough to believe him; but the 
problem is, whenever the Palestinian leadership, past and present, has 
actually

[[Page 10436]]

been asked to sign a peace agreement with Israel, it has always 
refused. Abu Mazen also continues to refuse to recognize Israel as a 
Jewish state, yet demands that Israel recognize a Palestinian state; 
and the media he controls through the Palestinian Authority publishes a 
nonstop barrage of anti-Semitic propaganda.
  The Palestinian Authority has rejected every offer of peace from 
Israel. The PA has refused to negotiate directly with Israel. The PA 
has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. It 
has failed to crack down on violent extremism and anti-Israel 
incitement. Indeed, it has even tolerated and encouraged such behavior. 
It has also supported boycotts of Israeli goods, and the Palestinian 
Authority Prime Minister, whom some consider to be a moderate, even 
participated in a mass burning of such goods.
  Instead of negotiating directly with Israel, the Palestinian 
Authority is pursuing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, 
from various foreign governments, with an eye to recognition of such a 
state by the U.N. this fall. Palestinian leaders also keep threatening 
violence to extract concessions.
  Abu Mazen has not only failed to recognize Israel's right to exist as 
a Jewish state, but recently signed a coalition agreement with Hamas, 
which is committed to Israel's destruction.
  To demonstrate that they are true partners for peace, what 
Palestinian leaders must do is simple, Madam Speaker--the opposite of 
what they have been doing: sit down and negotiate directly with Israel, 
without preconditions; encourage Palestinians to accept Israel instead 
of tolerating and encouraging violent extremism and anti-Israel 
incitement; and recognize Israel's right to exist as a democratic 
Jewish state.
  We must no longer demand that Israel take actions or make additional 
unilateral concessions that would compromise our democratic ally's 
safety and security.
  Recent calls for Israel to return to the 1967 borders are 
unacceptable and dangerous. Continuing to provide assistance to the 
Palestinians--assistance amounting to $2.5 billion in the last 5 years 
alone--is certainly not the answer. Congress must not agree to the 
administration's 2012 budget request, which would provide yet another 
$400 million bailout to the West Bank and Gaza, including another $200 
million directly to the PA.
  There are also many other steps that Congress and the administration 
can and must take to support our ally Israel and to encourage the 
advancement of peace and security in the region:
  The U.S. could show its support for the Jewish state's sovereignty 
and right to exist by moving our Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel's eternal 
and undivided capital. We should demand that the United Nations stop 
its relentless activities to demonize Israel and the Jewish people, and 
put our money where our mouth is.
  The most recent example of this bias is a cartoon posted by Richard 
Falk, which was apparently taken down just minutes ago. The U.N. Human 
Rights Council has appointed Mr. Falk as an ``expert'' to investigate 
and condemn Israel. I'm sure that the viewers could see or they could 
pull it up on the Internet what this cartoon depicts. It depicts 
Americans and Jews as bloodthirsty dogs.
  This is not the first time that Mr. Falk has spread such venom. He 
has compared Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust, 
and has questioned the veracity of the 9/11 attacks, but he continues 
to work for the U.N. Human Rights Council, with over 20 percent of his 
expenses and staff support paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
  Has the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights ever condemned Falk 
and demanded that he resign his U.N. post? Never. To the contrary, her 
office has published an attack by Falk on his critics. I understand 
that he says now that his account was hacked into and that he has taken 
that drawing down, but I say enough is enough.
  The administration should withdraw from the biased Human Rights 
Council, and Congress should withhold funding from the council and 
other U.N. bodies that do not advance our national security interests 
and condition U.S. contributions on real reforms. What a concept.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, instead of dealing directly with the Muslim 
Brotherhood, which seeks Israel's destruction and condemned the killing 
of bin Laden, the U.S. should deny all legitimacy to that group no 
matter what fake name or label it now uses as it tries to camouflage 
itself into a legitimate political party in Egypt.
  I am glad that this body is doing the right thing today, Madam 
Speaker. We have much more to do to defend our national security 
interests and our indispensable ally, Israel.
  I thank the gentleman from Virginia, our distinguished majority 
leader, for authoring this important resolution.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. I rise in strong support of H. Res. 268, the Cantor-Hoyer 
resolution, and I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I believe negotiations are the only path to a two-
state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For this reason, 
the United States Congress has every reason to be concerned about 
efforts by the Palestinian Authority leadership to attain recognition 
of statehood while bypassing the accepted negotiation process. These 
efforts run counter to the Palestinians' own internationally witnessed 
commitments at the 1991 Madrid Conference and under the 1993 Oslo 
agreement and the 2003 Roadmap.
  That is but one reason I am deeply disappointed by the Palestinian 
leadership's recent push to seek recognition of an independent state at 
the United Nations. Indeed, even some Palestinian officials have 
acknowledged that such U.N. recognition of statehood gives the 
Palestinians nothing but an empty symbolic victory.
  One thing is clear: There will be no recognition of Palestinian 
statehood by the Security Council, where I feel confident that the 
United States would use its veto, just as it has in the past, to 
prevent the passage of an unbalanced, anti-Israel resolution.
  And what exactly would the U.N. General Assembly recognition of a 
Palestinian state do for the Palestinians? Absolutely nothing. It would 
not solve the Palestinians' need for recognized borders nor would it 
solve sensitive issues like the status of Jerusalem, water rights, or 
Palestinian refugees.

                              {time}  1740

  It would not enhance their prospect for successful negotiations. In 
fact, it would be seen by Israel and many others as an act of bad 
faith, creating yet another obstacle to successful talks.
  As President Obama said in May, ``For the Palestinians, efforts to 
delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate 
Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent 
state.'' A glance at recent history shows that he's right. In 1988, 
Yasser Arafat declared a state and garnered recognition from more than 
100 nations. Now, 23 years later, there is still no Palestinian state. 
The Palestinian people don't want a bunch of declarations of statehood; 
they want a state--and they should have one through the only means 
possible for attaining one, negotiations with Israel.
  I believe that Palestinian Authority President Abbas and Prime 
Minister Fayyad are committed to a peaceful resolution of their 
conflict with Israel. So I hope they will return to the negotiating 
table and abandon their flawed U.N. strategy.
  The Congress has been very generous in its support of the Palestinian 
Authority's worthy efforts to build institutions and the economy in the 
West Bank. In fact, I believe we are the most generous nation in the 
world in that regard. So I think our Palestinian friends should 
understand that if they persist in pursuing a unilateralist path, 
inevitably, and however regrettably, there will be consequences for 
U.S.-Palestinian relationships.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this 
important pro-negotiations, pro-peace resolution.

[[Page 10437]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am so pleased to yield 1 minute to 
our esteemed majority leader and coauthor of this resolution, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady, the chairman of the Foreign 
Affairs Committee, and I thank the leadership of the gentleman from 
California as well in support of this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, we call today on Hamas and the Palestinian Authority 
to renounce the path they have set in planning to announce statehood in 
the upcoming United Nations session. By threatening to sidestep the 
principles of the Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority is beginning 
to dismantle the framework of future peace process agreements.
  We have seen the death and destruction that Hamas perpetrated against 
both Israeli civilians and the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, 
yet Hamas refuses to accept responsibility for its actions or rein in 
terrorists called to strike at the heart of the Israeli people.
  Today, we ask and call upon the Palestinian Authority to return to 
the negotiating table and join the Israelis in direct discussions to 
end this conflict. Furthermore, we call on the leadership of the 
Palestinian Authority to renounce the violence Hamas condones and 
teaches to its followers.
  This resolution, Madam Speaker, directs the Palestinian Authority to 
be responsible actors on the world stage and to return to negotiations. 
For far too long, the Palestinian Authority has not acted on behalf of 
its people. Corruption has caused many to discredit its legitimacy. The 
people of the region deserve an honest broker that accepts and respects 
the state of Israel.
  Israel has stood by America in its fights against extremist ideology. 
Madam Speaker, we stand by Israel as our most valued ally in a region 
in need of more who respect freedom of speech and the free assembly of 
people, a region that, frankly, must follow the example set by Israel 
in its work in promotion of human progress.
  It is time for the Palestinian Authority to accept a peaceful 
solution to this conflict and teach their children that violence is 
never the answer to their problems. The Palestinian Authority must 
understand that peace is only achievable when they are willing to 
recognize the legitimacy of Israel to exist as a Jewish state. And they 
must understand that the solution to this conflict will only come 
through direct negotiations with the Israelis, and not by circumventing 
the peace process through international parliamentary gimmickry.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank Mr. Berman for yielding. I thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen 
for bringing this resolution to the floor. And I am pleased to join my 
colleague and friend, Mr. Cantor, in strong support of this resolution.
  I believe there is only one lasting solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, a future of two states for two peoples living in 
security and peace with one another. Such a solution is in the best 
interests of regional peace and in the best interests of both parties. 
That is why I strongly believe that ensuring the long-term viability of 
the Jewish democratic State of Israel also requires supporting a 
homeland for the Palestinian people.
  History teaches us that in conflicts such as this, one peace must be 
negotiated. It cannot and will not be imposed from outside or else it 
will rest on an unstable and temporary foundation. That is why I 
strongly oppose Palestinian efforts to impose a solution to the 
conflict at the United Nations, as well as Palestinian efforts to 
unilaterally declare statehood. I am concerned that a unilateral 
declaration will only encourage both sides to dig in and put a lasting 
negotiated peace further at risk.
  As President Obama said, and as Mr. Berman has quoted--and I want to 
quote a little more of the President's remarks, but I will repeat some 
of what Mr. Berman said because I think it is relevant--I quote the 
President of the United States: ``For the Palestinians, efforts to 
delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate 
Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent 
state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if 
Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will 
never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to 
exist.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. I believe the President is absolutely correct. By passing 
this resolution, the House will make it clear that it agrees that a 
real peace can only come through negotiations between the two sides. 
That peace will only last if both sides buy into it. We all know that 
those negotiations have been and are now relatively nonexistent, and 
they will be difficult even having been entered into. They will be 
painful. They will require courage and sacrifice on both sides. But the 
hard way is also the right way. And if there is to be any hope of 
peace, as surely all of us pray there is, both sides must return to the 
table without preconditions.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And I will continue 
to urge America's allies to stand against quick, unilateral, and 
ultimately unstable solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  I thank the gentleman and the chair for bringing this resolution to 
the floor.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am so honored to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is also the 
chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Middle East and South 
Asia.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the distinguished chair for yielding. Israel has 
no greater friend than Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida.
  Despite some progress that has been made toward ensuring Israel's 
continued security, critical challenges still exist. Rejectionist 
elements within the Palestinian leadership still refuse to sit and 
negotiate in good faith even as Israel repeatedly expresses its 
commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. These elements 
spurn Israeli overtures and seek to establish a Palestinian state 
unilaterally through a vote of the U.N. General Assembly.
  Although short-term security may be achievable unilaterally, peace is 
not. Palestinian rejectionism, whether by Hamas or Fatah, must be 
abandoned. U.S. taxpayer money should, under no circumstances, go to 
the Palestinian government, whose members do not all abide by the Three 
Quartet principles: recognizing the state of Israel's right to exist; 
renouncing terrorism; and abiding by previous agreements.

                              {time}  1750

  And just as the U.S. should not support a Palestinian government 
whose very composition is anathema to peace, so, too, should it not 
support an institution that offers an easy alternative to genuine peace 
through negotiations. That is why I recently introduced a resolution 
calling on the administration to cut all funding to the U.N. General 
Assembly should it vote to recognize a Palestinian state in direct 
defiance of the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. Charter. True 
Israeli-Palestinian peace will only be made between two peoples, 
Israelis and Palestinians, and not the 191 other members of the General 
Assembly.
  Israel, like the United States, welcomes those who would make peace 
even as it fights those who would make war. Time and again, Israel has 
demonstrated its commitment to a Palestinian state living as its 
neighbor in peace and security, but there are no shortcuts on the path 
to this outcome, and there is no getting around the hard concessions 
that will have to be made. The U.S. must now stand with Israel and 
against those who would obstruct rather than advance the cause of 
peace.
  I urge the adoption of this resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

[[Page 10438]]


  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which reaffirms 
support for a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict reached 
through negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis, and our 
opposition to any unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, or 
recognition of such a declaration by the United Nations.
  How can a dispute between two peoples ever be resolved by the 
unilateral decision of one? The path to peace has been clear for many 
years, and provided for by Security Council resolutions and by the 1993 
Oslo Accords signed by the Israelis and the Palestinians. All these 
agreements provide for settlement negotiated between the parties, a 
settlement that will result in two states, a Jewish state of Israel and 
a state of Palestine.
  Unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state is a way of avoiding 
negotiations on the tough issues: final borders, secure borders, 
Jerusalem, and the status of the Palestinian refugees of 1948 and their 
descendants. It is an attempt by the Palestinians to de-legitimize 
Israel, to impose indefensible borders unilaterally, and to get their 
state while retaining the ability to keep fighting Israel and to use 
the refugees' alleged ``right of return'' to undermine the survival of 
Israel as Jewish state.
  The Palestinian Authority should instead explain to its people that a 
Palestinian state can be achieved only by conceding the right of a 
Jewish state to live in peace and security next door. And, for that to 
happen, there must be a negotiated agreement recognizing two states for 
two peoples. Evading a negotiated agreement is a formula for future 
war.
  I urge all Members to support this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who is also the chairman of 
the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human 
Rights.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 268, and 
deeply appreciate Majority Leader Cantor; Steny Hoyer; obviously the 
chairwoman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; and Mr. Berman, the ranking member, 
for authoring this resolution reaffirming the U.S. commitment to a 
negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through 
direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
  H. Res. 268 speaks in very clear, unambiguous language about what 
this means: It means settlement through direct Israeli-Palestinian 
negotiations rather than through a highly misguided, counterproductive, 
unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, or by Palestinians 
seeking recognition from other states or through the United Nations, 
sadly, the latter, a haven of anti-Israel and even sometimes anti-
Semitic activity.
  Direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been a keystone of U.S. 
and Israeli policy toward the region for decades, and even PLO Chair 
Yasser Arafat pledged to accept this way back in 1993. Unfortunately, 
Hamas in its 2011 unity agreement with Fatah did not accept this 
commitment, nor did it renounce violence.
  Madam Speaker, H. Res. 268 also outlines what a negotiated settlement 
should entail: negotiations in which each accepts the other's right to 
exist, and which are aimed at a two-state solution. Again, these have 
been key points of U.S. and Israeli policy, but Hamas, a State 
Department foreign terrorist organization, has rejected them.
  The fact is, Madam Speaker, that U.S. law precludes foreign 
assistance to a P.A. which shares power with Hamas unless the P.A. 
publicly accepts Israel's right to exist and adheres to all prior 
agreements between Israel and the PLO. The U.S. Government has been 
extremely generous to the P.A., providing over $550 million annually.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. So the resolution wisely reaffirms this law 
and urges the administration to consider suspending assistance to the 
P.A. pending a review of the unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas.
  It is our policy, and it is Israel's policy, Madam Speaker, to 
promote a realistic, sustainable peace process, one that entails 
negotiations between the two parties to the conflict, represented by 
groups that seek a two-state solution, and renounces violence. Hamas 
has shown none of that.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 268.
  This important resolution reaffirms our Nation's unwavering 
commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israel-Palestinian 
conflict, which can only be achieved through direct Israeli-Palestinian 
peace talks.
  Since 1948, when the United States became the first country to 
recognize the Jewish State of Israel, we have always stood by her side 
as a strong ally and friend. This resolution is no exception. As each 
day brings a new set of complex changes to the Middle East, it is more 
vital than ever that we protect and strengthen that friendship. From 
insisting that Hamas reject terrorism and accept Israel's right to 
exist, to supporting the Obama administration's opposition to the 
unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, H. Res. 268 reaffirms 
the sense of the Congress and the Obama administration that we must 
continue to stand strong with our democratic ally against hostile 
enemies and attempts at de-legitimization.
  In doing so, we continue to demonstrate our stalwart support that we 
have provided as a country for more than six decades.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honor to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague, Colonel West, an 
American hero.
  Mr. WEST. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I stand today in support of House Resolution 268, 
which does reaffirm the strong support of this body politic to a 
negotiated solution for Israel and Palestine.
  The important thing that we have to see happen, though, is to urge 
the Palestinian leaders to first and foremost ensure that any 
Palestinian government will seek peace with Israel, as we sat here and 
listened to Prime Minister Netanyahu say, ``There will not be peace 
until we have a dedicated peace partner.''
  The second thing, we must make sure that the leaders of the 
Palestinian people cease all efforts at circumventing the negotiation 
process, including through a unilateral declaration of statehood or by 
seeking recognition of a Palestinian state from other nations or the 
United Nations.
  But third, and probably most important, that the Palestinian leaders 
must take appropriate measures to counter the incitement to violence 
and fulfill all prior Palestinian commitments, including dismantling 
the terrorist infrastructure that is embodied with Hamas.
  Israel is a bright and shining beacon which is in a sea of despots, 
dictators, theocrats, and autocrats. The Palestinian leaders can choose 
to be a part of this light.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member 
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the ranking member.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 268 that affirms the 
United States' support for a negotiated solution to the Israel-
Palestinian conflict.
  Setting preconditions on negotiations is just an excuse to maintain 
the status quo. If President Abbas is serious about peace, then he 
should focus all of his energies and all the energies of his people on 
negotiations with Israel. An agreement won't be easy, but the outlines 
of an agreement are well-known. All that is really necessary now is 
leadership from both sides.

[[Page 10439]]

  So this leadership sets firmly U.S. policy. We are a rock solid 
friend of Israel, and anyone else who seeks peace with them. But this 
also means that we stand against those who seek to circumvent the peace 
process by running to the U.N. General Assembly for a declaration that 
may score political points but is going to set back the peace process 
for years.
  Now more than ever, Madam Speaker, with turmoil on every border of 
Israel, we need to stand with them as an ally. We want peace. Israel 
wants peace. Peace can only happen with negotiations. All we are 
missing is a true Palestinian partner.

                              {time}  1800

  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I would like to yield 2 minutes to another Florida 
colleague (Mrs. Adams), a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.
  Mrs. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 268, 
which would reaffirm America's commitment to a negotiated solution to 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states: a democratic 
Jewish State of Israel and a democratic Palestinian state living in 
peace and mutual recognition.
  For six decades, throughout 12 American Presidents and 12 Israeli 
Prime Ministers, Israel has stood as a beacon of democracy in an 
unstable region and has remained a loyal and committed friend to the 
United States. As Americans, we must continue to honor the promise of 
democracy and liberty around the world--we owe no less than that to our 
closest friend in the Middle East. This is why we'll continue to stand 
with Israel, continue to honor our friendship, and to continue my 
commitment to encouraging a negotiated peace that both the Israelis and 
the Palestinians have agreed to--not one that is imposed upon them.
  The United States should not and cannot dictate how peace can be 
reached with the Palestinians, especially when they are willing to 
allow Hamas, a terrorist organization, to participate in any of their 
elections. This is why I strongly disagree with the President's 
strategy to force Israel into a peace they have not negotiated.
  Again, I want to rise in support of H. Res. 268. I believe that the 
only peace will be a negotiated peace between Israel and the 
Palestinians without any influence of terrorists.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend and 
partner in so many of these efforts, the gentlelady from New York, the 
ranking member of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee of 
Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
resolution, and I thank the ranking member for his leadership, and the 
chair.
  Last week I traveled to Israel, where I saw the determination, 
ingenuity, and resourcefulness of that young nation. In a volatile 
region, Israel is a strong democracy. Despite many setbacks, the 
country still longs for peace. Yet unilateral actions by the 
Palestinian Authority diminish prospects for negotiations and threaten 
progress.
  We must do everything within our power to stand by our ally Israel, 
to persuade the Palestinians to abandon their efforts in the U.N., 
break with the terrorist group Hamas, and return to the negotiating 
table with Israel without preconditions. This resolution is a strong 
statement in support of peace. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House 
Resolution 268.
  This resolution reaffirms congressional support for direct 
negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in an effort to 
achieve peace in this over six-decade-long struggle.
  While the Palestinian pursuit of a state is understandable, the 
attempt to bypass the peace process by going first to the United 
Nations is inappropriate. It is a disgrace and an offense to the U.N 
Charter and all acceptable norms of international law to create or 
recognize a state that itself will not first forsake terrorism, 
violence, ethnic hatred, and genocide.
  If a vote for Palestinian statehood comes to the U.N. Security 
Council, the U.S. must veto and do so until a peace agreement is 
achieved and maintained between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
  Now is not the time for either party to remove themselves from the 
negotiating table. Peace will not be attained with only one side 
seeking it. I urge my colleagues to reassert American commitment to 
direct negotiations by supporting H. Res. 268.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, may I ask for the time remaining on each 
side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Florida has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BERMAN. I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. 
Deutch.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank the ranking member from California, and I thank 
the chair of the committee.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to support House Resolution 268, reaffirming 
our Nation's unyielding support for our great ally Israel. Madam 
Speaker, the lack of progress in the peace process thus far stems from 
the Palestinians' refusal to negotiate despite historic Israeli 
concessions. They could choose dialogue, they could choose peace--
instead they have chosen violence and hatred by partnering with Hamas.
  Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with an organization that 
refuses to accept the internationally recognized Quartet principles, 
continues to murder innocent Israelis, and refuses to free Israeli 
soldier Gilad Shalit.
  This resolution comes to us as the PA pursues plans to avoid direct 
negotiations altogether and unilaterally declare statehood at the 
United Nations.
  Madam Speaker, just weeks ago here in this Chamber, Israeli Prime 
Minister Netanyahu reminded us what we clearly already know--that peace 
cannot be imposed; peace must be negotiated. By passing this 
resolution, Congress will uphold this principle, will reaffirm our 
commitment to Israel's security, and will express our unyielding 
support for the Israeli people in their quest for a true and lasting 
peace. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished member of our committee, the ranking member of the 
Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I rise in strong support of the resolution.
  I come from the premise that if you want to work out a disagreement, 
you sit face to face at the negotiating table and negotiate. That's 
what happened in Ireland, and it should happen in the Middle East.
  But the Palestinians are playing their cute little games. They want 
to establish a lot of preconditions, they want to make excuses not to 
sit and talk with Israel, and they think they can impose this at the 
U.N. and impose statehood without face-to-face negotiations.
  So I say ``no'' to excuses, ``no'' to 1967 lines, ``no'' to all kinds 
of preconditions before Palestinians will even sit down and talk.
  The only way, if the Palestinians are truly wanting peace, they have 
a willing partner in Israel. As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, There is 
no Palestinian state not because we don't support one; it's because the 
Palestinians won't recognize the Jewish State.
  So I believe in two states side by side: a Jewish State of Israel and 
an Arab-Palestinian state. And, again, that can only happen with face-
to-face negotiations. No preconditions. Let the parties sit down and 
talk.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas, a former member of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Mr. Green.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I thank my colleague, the ranking member on

[[Page 10440]]

the Foreign Affairs Committee, for allowing me to speak.
  I rise in strong support of H. Res. 268, a resolution reaffirming our 
Nation's commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
  As cochair of the Democratic Israel Working Group, I would like to 
thank my colleagues, both Republican Leader Eric Cantor and our 
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, for bringing this important bipartisan 
resolution to the floor.
  I have been to Israel and the West Bank on numerous occasions. I can 
personally vouch for the desire of the people of Israel and the 
Palestinian territories to come to a peaceful settlement that will end 
decades of discord and violence.
  A negotiated two-state settlement between the Israelis and 
Palestinians is the keystone of the peace process. It is the official 
policy of the U.S. government, the Israeli government, and, until 
recently, the Palestinian Authority.
  Only through direct negotiations can difficult compromises be reached 
on core issues like borders, water, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, 
and security. Attempts to bypass direct negotiations and seek 
recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state by the U.N. 
General Assembly will not help the Palestinian people. Instead, such a 
declaration will undermine the peace process and endanger the security 
and well-being of the very people it claims to support.

                              {time}  1810

  A unilaterally declared Palestinian state will lead to a greater 
height in tensions, turn the region into a powder keg, and invite 
terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah to take advantage. I urge 
my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a member of the 
committee, the ranking member of the Oversight Committee, the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 268 and call 
upon my colleagues to strongly support this resolution.
  It reaffirms the long-held U.S. commitment to Israel and the 
negotiated settlement by and between the Israelis and Palestinians. The 
future of Israel is inextricably linked to that of its neighbors in the 
Middle East and North Africa. With gas prices rising, conflicts in that 
region have a direct impact on Americans here at home.
  I have long supported a two-state solution to the conflict, with 
Israel as the recognized home of the Jewish people and a strong 
Palestinian state to promote the well-being of the Palestinians as 
well.
  The U.S. and our allies must support this process. We must allow the 
two parties to come together and negotiate a settlement. This is the 
best avenue to achieve a lasting peace. I want to say that I strongly 
oppose Palestinian attempts for unilateral recognition through the U.N. 
that would delegitimize this peace process.
  A fellow Missourian, Harry Truman, recognized Israel within minutes 
of its declaration of independence. We must continue this kind of 
support for Israel and for our allies striving for peace together. I 
urge support of this resolution and look forward to working with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this issue in the months 
ahead.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend from California for yielding 
me the time.
  Madam Speaker, the Middle East peace process is at risk of collapse, 
and I believe that only American leadership can save it. Both sides can 
and should do more to restart negotiations.
  House Resolution 268, despite the fact that it has virtually 
unanimous support from this body and includes a laudable reaffirmation 
of the United States' commitment to a negotiated solution to the 
conflict, in fact falls short of the kind of leadership that I believe 
is needed. This resolution chastises the Palestinians for seeking to 
bridge the divide in their own community and for pursuing recognition 
of their state at the United Nations.
  On the first point, I think we should give the Palestinian Authority, 
which has done an impressive job of developing institutions and its 
economy in the West Bank, some credit. They have tried to provide the 
leadership to pursue the goals that we have encouraged them to do; and 
they have, I think, done so in terms of developing democratic 
institutions in a way that we should be proud of because we had a role 
in that, a major role.
  There is no indication they have any inclination to allow Hamas to 
jeopardize those gains that have been achieved in the West Bank. And 
thus far the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah has yet 
to yield any progress on a unity government. In fact, at this point it 
is unclear that it really will. So in many ways, the purpose for 
bringing forth this resolution is moot.
  Should Hamas be invited to join a Palestinian unity government 
without accepting the conditions of The Quartet, the European Union, 
the United Nations, United States, Russia, those are the 
internationally designated bodies that have come forward with an 
agreement we have agreed to, if they invite Hamas to join a coalition 
government without accepting the conditions that we insist upon, it 
will have very serious implications for our relationship. And that 
should be the reason why we should cut off financial aid.
  In 2006, Palestinian elections, which in fact were advanced by the 
Bush administration, are what brought Hamas into power. In reaction, 
the United States, as well as The International Quartet, suspended 
assistance to the Palestinian Authority. And the Obama administration 
is continuing that policy. There is no aid going to Gaza.
  We need to recognize that Palestinian unity is crucial to a long-term 
peace. Gaza's separation from the West Bank, though, has made it 
impossible to advance meaningful negotiations with Israel.
  Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other 
argument.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the 
other side to what has been presented. I don't particularly have strong 
disagreement with many of the points that have been made, but I do 
think there is another perspective to this. It ought to be advanced in 
this body.
  I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 45 seconds.
  Mr. BERMAN. There are two important issues raised by this one 
resolution. One seems a little more distant than it did at the time it 
was introduced, and that was the possibility of a unity government that 
included an organization that is on our terrorist list, that subscribes 
to violence, to the elimination of the State of Israel, and refuses to 
recognize past agreements in a unity government. Hopefully, that 
agreement, the chances of it are diminishing.
  The second point is a strategy which violates the Palestinians' own 
commitments that they made in Madrid, that they made part of the 
roadmap, that were made in the context of the Oslo agreements that they 
will negotiate directly with the Israelis to resolve this conflict. I 
think it is all appropriate to point out that should they pursue that 
course, the assistance that we have very generously given them, that 
they have put to good use, might well be terminated.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on this resolution.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who is also the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia in our Committee on Foreign 
Affairs.

[[Page 10441]]


  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank my chairman for yielding.
  Israel's right to exist, Madam Speaker, should be guaranteed. And 
Israel has tried to work out over the years a peace agreement with the 
Palestinians so that there could be a two-state solution. In fact, 
twice, once during the term of Prime Minister Barak and again during 
the term of Prime Minister Olmert, Israel offered the Palestinians a 
very generous and fair final settlement. Both times those offers were 
flatly rejected and met with violence.
  And what have the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians done 
recently? They went and signed an agreement with Hamas. Hamas is a 
terrorist organization that has been lobbing bombs and missiles into 
Israel, trying to destroy the Israeli state. They are committed to the 
destruction of Israel. And the Palestinians have signed an agreement on 
May 4 of this year to work with them.
  Israel went that extra step when they allowed Gaza to be turned open. 
And what happened right after that took place? Hamas came in there and 
took over and started attacking Israel day after day. Innocent women 
and children were running constantly from bombs being dropped on them 
because Gaza had been set in a position where they could open up to 
Hamas.
  And so you have got a constant demand by the terrorists--Hamas, 
Hezbollah and others--to destroy the State of Israel. And Israel has 
been a great ally of the United States since its inception in 1948.

                              {time}  1820

  We need to send a very strong signal--I think we are doing it right 
now today--a very strong signal that this country, this Congress, and 
the Senate supports the State of Israel and does not want the 
Palestinians to go to the United Nations and try to have a unilateral 
settlement made by that body. This is something that has to be worked 
out at the conference table between Israel and the Palestinians and not 
at the United Nations.
  So I would just like to conclude by saying that Israel is our best 
friend and ally in the Middle East. They are a stable element in the 
Middle East. We need to support them and make absolutely sure that 
Hamas, Hezbollah, and the other terrorist organizations do not have 
their way and destroy the State of Israel.
  We are committed to that, this Congress is committed to that, and 
this whole debate has shown very clearly that almost unanimously the 
people of the United States stand with Israel.
  Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 268, 
reaffirming the United States' commitment to a negotiated settlement of 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian 
negotiations.
  We all know that the only way to achieve a true and lasting peace 
between Israel and the Palestinians is through direct negotiations 
between the parties. But the Palestinians have been refusing to 
negotiate with Israel for over a year, using excuse after excuse to 
stay away from the bargaining table. The Israelis, meanwhile, have 
accepted the principle of a two-state solution and have pushed for 
immediate, direct negotiations with the Palestinians.
  If I were the Palestinian leadership, which claims simply to want an 
independent state, I would be clamoring for immediate, direct 
negotiations. Nothing could stop me from sitting down at the 
negotiating table and finding a lasting settlement to these issues so 
that my people could finally achieve statehood.
  But while Israel waits for a partner at the bargaining table, the 
Palestinians have turned away and instead asked that the United Nations 
prematurely recognize a Palestinian state, though its borders have not 
been determined, the status of Jerusalem has not been settled and the 
Palestinians still insist on an unprecedented ``right of return'' for 
refugees. Further, Israel still faces real threats to its security in 
the form of terror attacks: between April and July of this year alone, 
Israel was on the receiving end of hundreds of missiles fired from 
Gaza. The Palestinians' end-run around the negotiations is just another 
attempt by the Palestinians to gain the upper hand and embarrass Israel 
rather than finding a peaceful solution to this tragic conflict.
  Complicating matters further is the agreement signed between Fatah 
and Hamas, a terrorist organization, to form a unity government within 
the Palestinian Authority. Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with 
terrorists, and no one should ask them to do so. And yet, PA president 
Mahmoud Abbas decided to cast his lot not with the moderates but with 
the extremists and terrorists who seek Israel's destruction, rather 
than a peaceful solution to the conflict.
  The United Nations and the world community must reject Hamas as a 
legitimate representative of the Palestinians and must turn back any 
Palestinian attempts to avoid the negotiating table. We must insist on 
immediate, direct negotiations as the only path to peace. I therefore 
urge strong support for this resolution.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I do not intend to oppose 
this measure because I agree with its basic premise: that the United 
States Congress strongly supports a negotiated two-state solution to 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and opposes any action that will make 
such an outcome harder to achieve.
  However, I have serious reservations about several of the assertions 
this resolution makes--as well as those it doesn't make--about recent 
developments in, and U.S. policy toward, Israel and the Palestinian 
territories. These concerns are more than abstract: at a time of 
generational change in the Middle East, the positions that this 
Congress takes on an issue of such vital importance will have lasting 
implications for our nation's goals and interests in the region.
  For two decades, irrespective of which party has controlled the White 
House or Congress, the central aim of U.S. policy toward the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict has been to encourage a negotiated resolution 
based on the principle of a democratic, Jewish state of Israel living 
side by side in peace and security with a viable, democratic 
Palestinian state. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have 
affirmed that such an outcome will only be achieved through direct 
negotiations between the two parties, and have opposed any action by 
either side that undermines or diminishes the prospects for a 
negotiated peace.
  To be sure, the Palestinian leadership's intent to pursue diplomatic 
recognition at the United Nations qualifies as such an action, and on 
this point I agree with the sponsors of this resolution. I also share 
their concerns about the prospect of a Palestinian unity government 
that does not recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce violence 
against innocent civilians. Either development would represent a major 
setback for the peace process as we know it, and Congress is right to 
warn Palestinian leaders about the consequences of their course of 
action.
  But as usual, the resolution before us today tells only half the 
story. It says nothing about Israel's responsibility to act as a 
serious negotiating partner and abide by its previous commitments under 
the Road Map and other agreements. It says nothing about Israel's 
refusal to halt settlement construction in order to allow direct 
negotiations to resume--even when the Obama Administration offered a 
lavish package of aid and assurances for Israel to do something that 
was manifestly in its own interest to begin with. It condemns the 
Palestinian president for his unilateral actions while failing to 
comprehend that it has been Israel's intransigence that has led him to 
view the United Nations as his only recourse. And as usual, the 
resolution has been rushed to the floor without any serious debate or 
any opportunity for input from the many members of this body who care 
about this critical issue.
  This resolution is also being considered at a pivotal moment in the 
history of the peace process, as well as the history of the broader 
Middle East. After years of false starts and broken promises, the 
prospects for a negotiated peace appear as dim today as at any time in 
recent memory, and may grow dimmer still as the political winds in the 
Arab world shift in unpredictable ways. Now, perhaps more than ever 
before, strong and decisive U.S. leadership is needed to persuade both 
sides of the urgency of the moment and bring them back to the 
negotiating table. It is only a matter of time before there is no table 
left around which to negotiate.
  Yet instead of urging the President to redouble his commitment to the 
pursuit of peace, we are urging him to lead a diplomatic initiative to 
oppose Palestinian recognition. Instead of encouraging him to bring the 
full weight of American ideas, influence, and resources to bear on this 
critical issue, we are asking him to suspend U.S. assistance to the 
Palestinian Authority--the very assistance that has been so essential 
to laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state. Instead of 
congratulating him for his efforts to revive the stalled negotiations 
by outlining his ideas for the boundaries of a future Palestinian 
state, too many of my colleagues seem more interested in manufacturing 
a controversy for political

[[Page 10442]]

gain. Unfortunately, the current Israeli prime minister seems all too 
willing to play along, despite the fact that the two previous U.S. 
presidents--not to mention at least two former Israeli prime 
ministers--have advocated positions nearly identical to that outlined 
by President Obama.
  So while I will cast my vote in favor of H. Res. 28, I am reminded of 
the story of Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burns. The Middle East is 
transforming before our eyes, and the window of opportunity for the 
United States to achieve a just and lasting resolution to this age-old 
conflict may be closing rapidly. We should seize this moment of 
opportunity and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of peace before it is 
too late.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. 
While I certainly share the hope for peace in the Middle East and a 
solution to the ongoing conflict, I do not believe that peace will 
result if we continue to do the same things while hoping for different 
results. The U.S. has been involved in this process for decades, 
spending billions of dollars we do not have, yet we never seem to get 
much closer to a solution. I believe the best solution is to embrace 
non-interventionism, which allows those most directly involved to solve 
their own problems.
  This resolution not only further entangles the U.S. in the Israeli/
Palestinian dispute, but it sets out the kind of outcome the United 
States would accept in advance. While I prefer our disengagement from 
that conflict, I must wonder how the U.S. expects to be seen as an 
``honest broker'' when it dictates the term of a solution in such a 
transparently one-sided manner. In the resolution before us, all 
demands are made of only one side in the conflict. Do supporters of 
this resolution really believe the actors in the Middle East and the 
rest of the world do not notice? We do no favors to the Israelis or to 
the Palestinians when we involve ourselves in such a manner and block 
any negotiations that may take place without U.S. participation. They 
have the incentives to find a way to live in peace and we must allow 
them to find that solution on their own. As always, congressional 
attitudes toward the peace process in the Middle East reveal hubris and 
self-importance. Only those who must live together in the Middle East 
can craft a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor and 
strong supporter of H. Res. 268, which reaffirms our national 
commitment to a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through 
direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
  Madam Speaker, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has persisted for 
generations. It has claimed thousands of lives and has contributed to 
instability in the world's most volatile region. Few things would do 
more to advance the cause of world peace than the achievement of the 
two-state solution which recognizes Israel's right to exist as a Jewish 
state with secure borders and the right of the Palestinians to govern 
themselves in an autonomous state with the resources and factor 
endowments to enable the Palestinian people to live in dignity.
  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a strong and vocal 
advocate for direct negotiations, has already accepted a two-state 
solution, only to be continually rebuffed by the Palestinians at every 
turn.
  Madam Speaker, attempts by Palestinian leadership to circumvent 
direct negotiations with Israel and instead seek direct recognition 
from the United Nations and foreign governments is counter-productive 
and undermines the work that has been done over the last several 
decades to come to a peaceful and mutually beneficial resolution.
  The unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority 
shows a disregard for and violation of the underlying principles of 
Middle East peace agreements, including the Oslo Accords, the Road Map, 
and most recently the Annapolis Conference.
  Madam Speaker, a two-state solution is the only feasible resolution 
to this long-standing conflict. Therefore I strongly applaud the 
Administration for opposing international recognition of a Palestinian 
state that is not reached in direct negotiation with Israel.
  I urge the President to direct the United States Ambassador to the 
U.N. to exercise our veto with respect to any resolution of the United 
Nations Security Council to the contrary and call upon Palestinian 
leaders to return to the negotiation table in a good faith effort to 
reach a mutually acceptable agreement to bring about the two-state 
solution, which is one and sure path to the just and lasting peace we 
all seek.
  For these reasons, I strongly support H. Res. 268 and urge my 
colleagues to join me.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for 
H. Res. 268, reaffirming America's support for direct Palestinian-
Israeli negotiations as the best means to settle the conflict and the 
only path to statehood for the Palestinians.
  A Palestinian state created in the middle of this conflict would be a 
state created to make war.
  Nothing would be more dangerous or more unworkable than for the 
Palestinians to gain the status of statehood without at the same time 
taking on the duties of a responsible state--namely, a commitment to 
peace with its neighbors and basic rights for all of its citizens.
  The United Nations--a body established as a place of peace--should 
not create a state that is committed to destroying its neighbor. And, 
until the Palestinians agree to recognize Israel's right to exist and 
disarm the terrorists, there is no chance that a Palestinian state 
would be committed to peaceful co-existence with its neighbor.
  This resolution is a simple, basic, common-sense restatement of the 
clear fact that the dispute between the Palestinians and the Israelis 
cannot be resolved unilaterally; it cannot be resolved by UN fiat; it 
cannot be resolved by outside forces; it cannot be resolved if the 
Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state; it cannot be 
resolved if Palestinians refuse to forswear terrorism against Israel 
and take actions to dismantle their terrorist infrastructure; it cannot 
be resolved if the Palestinians continue to set preconditions for 
coming to the bargaining table; and, it cannot be resolved unless all 
members of the Palestinian unity government agree to abide by previous 
agreements with the United States and Israel.
  This conflict can only be resolved by both parties sitting down at a 
table and hammering out an agreement on the basic issues that divide 
them.
  The Palestinians must understand that they will only have a state 
once they make peace with Israel.
  I hope the United States would make clear its intention to veto any 
unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations and to 
penalize the Palestinians if they are foolhardy enough to pursue a path 
that will only lead to more conflict and bloodshed.
  That's why I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H. 
Res. 268 and in opposing the Palestinians' dangerous and desperate 
effort to obtain an empty declaration of statehood without peace at the 
United Nations.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I will vote yes on this resolution because 
I oppose a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood in the U.N.
  We all know the status quo in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank is 
unsustainable. It's bad for Israelis, it's bad for Palestinians, and 
it's bad for the United States.
  I believe that a negotiated agreement between both the Israelis and 
Palestinians is the only way to reach a just and lasting peace in the 
region. But peace will never be achieved with senseless terrorism or 
soaring speeches or military might. Only through direct, honest, and 
earnest negotiations will the dream of peace be realized.
  That is why I believe that both sides must put aside their 
preconditions and come to the table immediately.
  As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently wrote, peace will only 
be achieved ``with the courage to take decisions that will change a 
reality which is increasingly creating a substantive threat on the 
State of Israel's stature, on the international support it receives, 
and on its future as a Jewish democratic state.''
  Yet, I'm concerned this resolution--instead of rising to Olmert's 
noble challenge--is yet another missed opportunity for the U.S. to 
advance peace in the region.
  Just last December this House passed unanimously a substantially 
similar resolution opposing the unilateral declaration of Palestinian 
statehood. What are we accomplishing by restating our opposition?
  Madam Speaker, I worry that we have become too engrossed in the 
rhetorical debate of peace and are neglecting to fully pursue it. We 
could easily fill this Chamber with the words spoken over the years 
debating this conflict, but the room filled with actions taken to end 
it would sadly be much, much smaller.
  This is a pivotal moment--a moment that demands bold, courageous 
leadership from Prime Minister Netanyahu, from President Abbas, and 
from President Obama. It is a moment that requires everyone--Israeli 
and Palestinian, friend and foe--to come together and resolve this 
crisis once and for all.
  Congress can and should play a constructive role in this debate. But 
I'm concerned that repeatedly criticizing the Palestinians--and only 
the Palestinians--risks pushing Israelis and Palestinians further apart 
rather than bringing them closer together. Unfortunately, both Israelis 
and Palestinians are engaged in

[[Page 10443]]

activities that are undermining peace efforts, and we must not ignore 
this mutual responsibility for the conflict.
  And I'm also concerned that this resolution further isolates the 
United States and Israel and undermines our credibility as a serious 
broker for peace. There is no denying that both Israel and the United 
States are growing increasingly isolated in the international 
community. As President Obama said, ``the international community is 
tired of an endless process that never procures an outcome.'' This 
resolution does nothing to change that.
  Rather than spending our time reiterating the already established 
position against a unilateral declaration of statehood, we should be 
focusing on concrete measures that advance peace.
  We should be looking for ways to help Israel adapt to the new 
realities of the Arab Spring rather than simply reinforcing the status 
quo.
  And we should be encouraging both the Palestinians and Israelis to 
negotiate rather than just criticizing the Palestinians for not doing 
so.
  At this critical juncture, with so much uncertainty and unrest 
throughout the Middle East, the U.S. needs to engage in constructive 
dialogue with all parties and help them bring this tragic conflict to 
an end. The U.S. cannot make peace in the region, only the parties can. 
But the U.S. has always been an indispensable agent in brokering peace.
  That is why it is imperative that we reclaim that constructive role 
and foster a negotiated settlement that ensures the security of Israel, 
recognizes the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people, and 
promotes U.S. national security interests.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, the effort to 
establish a lasting peace in the Middle East does not lend itself to a 
simple up or down vote on a resolution in Congress, and so I rise to 
offer my thoughts on the resolution before us today.
  While I voted in favor of H. Res. 268, because it reinforces the 
importance of direct talks for a two-state solution, I was disappointed 
with the resolution regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was 
brought to the floor today. The fact is that this resolution was made 
possible because of the absence of a viable peace process.
  I am disappointed with the resolution not so much because of the 
general contents of the resolution, but because this resolution does 
not treat the issue with the serious and careful consideration that it 
deserves. It is simply one in a series of votes in the House that fail 
to address the entirety of the conflict and take instead political 
shots at one side of the conflict.
  Israel is and has always been a close friend and ally of the United 
States, and rightfully so. We share many goals and values, including a 
strong commitment to a vibrant democracy and diverse economy. Too 
often, however, Congress uses resolutions regarding the Middle East as 
referenda on whether or not a particular Member supports or does not 
support Israel, even though such support is not in question. That is 
unfortunate and does a disservice to the effort to establish peace 
between Israel and the Palestinians.
  The Obama Administration, like its predecessors, has been working to 
keep the two parties at the table and to try to ensure that they can 
make the necessary compromises to ensure that type of lasting peace. 
Here in Congress, we should be supporting these important efforts, 
rather than playing political games, given the real-life consequences 
that this conflict is having on millions of people's lives and on our 
own country's security interests.
  I am glad to see that today's resolution encouraged the formation of 
a two-state solution through the process of direct negotiations. I am 
also glad to see that it acknowledges the work that President Obama has 
done to try and ward off unilateral attempts to break out of the 
negotiating process. This resolution also importantly notes the violent 
and harmful actions of Hamas.
  Yet I am disappointed that the resolution specifically criticizes the 
Palestinians for their actions but does not acknowledge that the 
Israeli government has also not always moved productively toward 
peace--in particular, through the ongoing construction of new 
settlements in the West Bank.
  Furthermore, the truth of the matter is that the failure of the peace 
talks has provided the opening for an alliance between the Palestinian 
Authority and Hamas and, in their view, a reason for them to go before 
the United Nations, rather than continue direct talks. I support the 
continuation of direct talks and do not believe this issue should be 
resolved before the U.N. But make no mistake that the failure to 
achieve sufficient progress in talks has provided momentum to this 
latest effort to seek the U.N.'s involvement. That is all the more 
reason why Congress should prioritize real progress over political 
games.
  I am further disappointed that the resolution misstates U.S. law, 
incorrectly claiming that current law precludes the United States from 
providing aid to the Palestinian Authority if it agrees to share power 
with Hamas. Current law rightfully provides an exception to the 
prohibition in order to enhance border security and the peace process.
  In addition, I do not believe it would be beneficial to cut off aid 
to the Palestinian Authority. This aid provides Fatah with negotiating 
leverage among their fellow Palestinians against Hamas. Security 
experts, including Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and others, have 
warned against such a cutoff, since it could destabilize the security 
situation on the West Bank. Fortunately, the language of the resolution 
only asks that the Administration consider withholding such aid, yet 
this is still unwise.
  Congress could--and Congress should--take the peace process in the 
Middle East more seriously than it has with this resolution and similar 
resolutions before it.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
express my concern that H. Res. 268 threatens Palestinians with 
sanctions if they attempt to get UN membership this fall. This 
resolution, which addresses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unfairly 
demands more of the Palestinians than it does of Israel. The United 
States cannot be a force for peace by unfairly singling out one party 
and ignoring the faults of another. While the United States concerns 
about Hamas's inclusion in the Palestinian unity government are valid, 
we should not prematurely pull the rug underneath the feet of the 
Palestinian unity government.
  In an effort to achieve peace, the United States must hold both 
Israeli and Palestinian decision-makers accountable for upholding past 
agreements and negotiating a new one. I urge my colleagues to support 
more balanced policies and actions that seek a solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict.
  As our country continues to help move the peace process forward, I 
remain committed to preserving the peace negotiations between all 
parties. I will continue to work with the Administration in honoring 
our commitment to a peaceful resolution in the Middle East.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I voted for H. Res. 268 because I believe in 
the bill's underlying premise of a negotiated two-state solution to end 
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bring enduring stability to the 
region. I have always used my voice and my vote to promote peace in the 
Middle East. Too many lives have been lost and too much violence has 
been wrought to do anything else. Citizens throughout the region 
deserve better.
  However, my vote is not without reservations about the provisions in 
this resolution. At this moment of incredible regional volatility, we 
should be encouraging the President to deploy America's full diplomatic 
capacity to pursue peace in the region not discourage recognition of a 
Palestinian state, as this resolution does. We should be encouraging 
the promotion of stability and dialogue with all parties involved, not 
discouraging assistance to the Palestinians, as this resolution does. 
And we should be calling on every actor involved to be a serious broker 
for peace.
  I just traveled to the Middle East and saw firsthand the need for a 
sustainable two-state solution. The question I came away with is: What 
can be done to bring a just and lasting peace? While I hope that this 
resolution can bring us closer to a peaceful solution, I fear that it 
leaves too many hard questions unanswered and too many issues 
unaddressed.
  While I voted for this resolution, I will also continue to support a 
constructive dialogue that can bring this conflict to a permanent end. 
The time for peace is now. We cannot wait a moment longer.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to reluctantly support H. Res. 
268. I support the resolution because I strongly agree in principle 
that the Israelis and Palestinians must negotiate a two-state solution.
  H. Res. 268 contains much with which I disagree. We have seen such 
resolutions in the past. Unfortunately, their intent is to advance a 
specific narrative that I believe is at odds with the urgency of a 
negotiated peace. The resolutions are brought to the floor without the 
ability for Members of Congress to provide input at either the 
committee level or during consideration on the House floor. As a strong 
supporter of Israel and her right to self-defense, I take issue with 
this approach.
  My biggest concern with H. Res. 268 is its call to cut aid to the 
Palestinians. Such a move would be at best premature and at worst 
detrimental to the prospects of resuming negotiations. The unity 
agreement between Hamas and Fatah is tenuous and the path forward for a 
potential unity government is unknown. Let me be clear: I would never 
advocate United

[[Page 10444]]

States aid for Hamas or any government that contains Hamas. Hamas' 
charter calls for the destruction of Israel; it has never supported the 
peace process and it sympathizes with America's enemies like al Qaida 
and Iran. But at a time when much of the Middle East is shifting toward 
democracy, it is irresponsible and against our own interests to 
withhold dollars that we know are being used by the Palestinian 
Authority in the West Bank to promote greater economic stability and 
physical security--for both the Israelis and Palestinians. Cutting off 
aid would be a setback for those working toward peace. Indeed, as the 
New York Times argues in its editorial on May 8, 2011, such a move may 
``shift the political balance dangerously toward Hamas.''
  In addition, H. Res. 268 is as egregious for what it includes as what 
it leaves out. The resolution does not suggest that the United States 
should play a strong role in bringing both sides back to the 
negotiating table. It does not say that both sides must continue 
negotiating without preconditions. Nor does it say both the Israelis 
and Palestinians must cease unilateral actions. The omissions raise 
serious questions. How can we as leaders of our nation reaffirm our 
commitment to a lasting two-state solution without acknowledging that 
U.S. leadership is critical to bringing about that solution? How can we 
ask one side and not the other to make difficult concessions?
  The stakes in reaching a negotiated peace agreement are as high as 
ever as the window for a two-state solution narrows. The United States 
must help both sides rejoin negotiations, not pass resolutions laden 
with threats, grandstanding, and obfuscation. As the President stated 
in his speech at the U.S. State Department in May, ``At a time when the 
people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens 
of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and 
resolves all claims is more urgent than ever. That's certainly true for 
the two parties involved.''
  My stance on this conflict is well known. I support a two-state 
solution that results in a Jewish and democratic state of Israel living 
side-by-side in peace and security with a Palestinian state. H. Res. 
268 does nothing to achieve this outcome.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is no region of the world more 
critical to achieving peace and security for Americans than the Middle 
East, yet no series of interconnected issues that has been more complex 
or vexing.
  Since coming to Congress I have been an advocate of stronger United 
States engagement to advance negotiations for a two-state solution and 
for a vision of a secure Israel and an independent Palestinian state 
living side by side.
  I, along with the rest of Congress and the administration, share the 
goal of preventing a vote for Palestinian statehood in the United 
Nations this September. Such a course of action will not hasten the 
creation of an independent Palestine, and will undermine progress.
  Unfortunately, the message delivered by H. Res. 268 was undercut by 
failing to present an evenhanded document. There was no acknowledgement 
of the administration's balanced approach to Middle East policy and the 
Israeli-Palestinian peace process in particular. The policy is 
consistent by political and historical standards--calling for a 
negotiated two-state solution along the 1967 borders with mutually 
agreed land swaps as the starting point in this dialogue. This is the 
language of current and previous U.S. administrations and was employed 
by the Israeli Prime Minister within the last year.
  The resolution would have been more credible by mentioning the unfair 
comments of Benjamin Netanyahu during his recent visit to Washington. A 
mention of U.S. opposition to Israel's unilateral construction of 
settlements would get the attention of the Palestinians, who after all 
we are trying to influence.
  To the extent that Congress is going to opine, it should do so in a 
balanced way. That is how we can move forward.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I have always strongly supported Israel's 
security and rights as a nation, and I continue to support a two-state 
solution that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state, 
which is essential to achieving peaceful reconciliation among Israel, 
the Palestinians and their neighbors in the region. Consistent with 
those principles, yesterday I voted ``present'' on House Resolution 268 
because it did not move the parties forward on negotiations or toward 
these goals. My concern has always been to bring the parties to the 
table so they can resolve their differences.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my support for House 
Resolution 268, which reaffirms the United States' longstanding policy 
of support for Israel and a fair, negotiated conclusion to the ongoing 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This resolution clearly describes the 
final outcome that the United States has envisioned for so long: two 
democratic states--one Israeli, one Palestinian--living side-by-side in 
peace, security, and mutual recognition.
  Attempts by the Palestinians to circumvent direct negotiations 
between the two nations, most recently through attempts to hold a U.N. 
vote on Palestinian statehood, have greatly undermined the peace 
process. The United States must continue to oppose such one-sided 
attempts and work to ensure that the final peace settlement is reached 
through fair negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
  The resolution also confirms the United States' refusal to recognize 
any Palestinian government that has not publicly and formally renounced 
terrorism. This declaration is especially important in the wake of the 
recent union of the Fatah and Hamas factions, the latter of which the 
United States and the European Union deem a terrorist organization. 
Peace talks cannot continue until Palestinian leaders dismantle all 
terrorist infrastructure embodied within Hamas, take all necessary 
steps to counter incitements to violence, and accept Israel's right to 
exist. This position is in keeping with current American policy, 
including statutory requirements for U.S. funding to the Palestinian 
Authority.
  I believe strongly in the need to protect the lives of innocent 
civilians on both sides of the conflict, including the need to 
recognize and promptly address the dire humanitarian needs of 
Palestinians living in the Gaza strip. I strongly condemn the actions 
of Hamas, which has embedded its fighters and leaders in private homes 
and mosques as they use Palestinian civilians as human shields, target 
Israeli civilians, and force Israel to take decisive action in the Gaza 
Strip to protect its population living under the daily threat of rocket 
attacks. The United States should continue to pressure Hamas to abandon 
its reckless endangerment of both the Palestinian and the Israeli 
people, and to fully renounce violence so that humanitarian aid to Gaza 
can continue and true peace talks can proceed. It is only through such 
peace talks that the two countries will be able to reach a negotiated 
settlement that will bring peace, security, and stability to the 
Israelis and Palestinians.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Speaker, as someone who cares deeply about the 
State of Israel and the rights of the Palestinian people, I have 
serious concerns with H. Res. 268. This resolution does not advance 
U.S. interests, fails to contribute constructively to reviving the 
dormant peace process, and ignores the courageous efforts of Israelis 
and Palestinians willing to take the very difficult steps needed to 
achieve peace. Therefore, I cannot endorse a congressional statement 
that does not further the cause of peace and security for Israelis and 
Palestinians.
  Last month, I visited Israel and the West Bank as a member of a fact 
finding mission sponsored by the J Street Education Fund. In every 
meeting I had with Israelis and Palestinians they shared their hopes 
for the future. They expressed their desires for peace. They want to 
live with security. They want the opportunity to make their own 
futures. Everyone I met with, from Israeli government officials to 
regular citizens, from President Abbas to Palestinian civil society 
leaders, said the status quo is unacceptable and a ``two-state 
solution'' is the only outcome that will ensure security and a lasting 
peace.
  Yet, is a ``two-state solution'' achievable? This is increasingly 
unclear as Israel and Palestinians continue to take unilateral steps 
that weaken the prospect for negotiations leading to a comprehensive 
and final peace agreement. This is both disappointing and detrimental 
to the ultimate goal both sides claim they seek.
  For example, the Palestinian Authority's diplomatic quest to seek 
recognition from the United Nations for an independent ``State of 
Palestine'' is a mistake, despite the legitimate and deeply felt 
desires of the Palestinians to live in their own free, independent and 
sovereign state. I told senior Palestinian officials directly when I 
was in the West Bank that such a move is not helpful to their goal or 
U.S. efforts to advance the peace process. Regardless of the outcome of 
any actions taken at the United Nations in September, the only path to 
a legitimate, lasting Palestinian state will be the result of a 
negotiated agreement with Israel. This is the path that both sides must 
continue to pursue.
  With regard to the unity government between Fatah and Hamas, it will 
likely be impossible for a legitimate peace process and final 
negotiated agreement to take place with the Palestinian people governed 
by two distinct political entities. Hamas and Israel are at

[[Page 10445]]

war, thus the term: Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A peace process that 
allows the Palestinians to be fragmented and factionalized will not 
yield peace or security, only lasting conflict--Palestinian against 
Palestinian, as well as Palestinian against Israeli.
  Hamas must agree to the Quartets conditions, but then again there is 
no possibility that Israel would ever negotiate a final agreement 
without such conditions. If in-fact Fatah and Hamas (with the on-going 
help of Egypt) can work together to achieve legitimacy within the 
international community by renouncing terrorism and recognizing the 
State of Israel then there is a real opportunity for a path to peace. 
If this is not possible then I am doubtful the peace process will 
advance to the point where a Palestinian state can be created.
  H. Res. 268 highlights that the U.S. has ``provided more than $3.5 
billion cumulatively in direct bilateral assistance to the 
Palestinians'' and calls for an end of U.S. assistance if the unity 
government does not embrace the Quartets principles. The foreign 
assistance the U.S. provides the Palestinian Authority contributes to 
economic stability, security training, infrastructure development, and 
the building of democratic institutions--the foundation of a future 
Palestinian state. This aid not only benefits the Palestinian people 
and their nascent institutions, but Israel as well. Israel cannot 
negotiate a peace agreement and end the occupation of Palestinian lands 
if a future a Palestinian state is not viable. Cutting off aid would 
harm both Palestinian and Israeli interests.
  If Congress actually were to cut off aid it would also send a signal 
to the entire Arab world that the U.S. has abandoned the Palestinian 
people. The damage to the U.S. status in the Arab and entire Muslim 
world would be incalculable.
  Based on the text of H. Res. 268 it would appear that it is only the 
actions of Palestinians that undermine the possibility of a negotiated 
peace. There is no mention in the resolution of, for example, illegal 
Israeli settlement expansion into Palestinian lands. Obviously illegal 
Israeli settlements and outposts are a contentious and serious obstacle 
to peace. Israeli settlements and their continued expansion have been 
universally condemned by the world community because they make a 
contiguous Palestinian state increasingly impossible to achieve. If a 
``two-state solution'' is ever to be achieved the settlement issue must 
be confronted, not ignored as Congress has chosen to do in this 
resolution.
  The policy realities that must be confronted and resolved to achieve 
a ``two-state solution'' are complex, sometimes painful, and often 
fraught with traps. Yet, for many in Congress, ``two-state solution'' 
has become a phrase that has many different definitions, most of which 
could never result in a peace agreement or the creation of a 
Palestinian state. Member of Congress can utter the phrase ``two-state 
solution'' and then act to make such a solution less possible. This 
resolution is an example of such a proclivity.
  In my estimation achieving a ``two-state solution'' will require the 
U.S. to maintain its traditional role as honest-broker in this decades 
long conflict. During my visit to the region I was constantly surprised 
by both Israelis and Palestinians who innocently and insistently called 
upon the U.S. to resolve the conflict, create the environment for 
negotiations, and achieve the goal of a two-state solution. I reminded 
everyone I encountered that the responsibility and burden of making the 
difficult political choices for peace were theirs and not something the 
U.S. can dictate.
  There is no doubt that the U.S. must maintain and strengthen the 
special relationship we have with the State of Israel. Israel is a 
trusted ally and will remain so long into the future. At the same time 
the U.S. has the opportunity to play a historical role in the creation 
of a new Palestinian state, allowing for the self-determination of the 
Palestinian people and greater security for Israel.
  These relationships provide the U.S. with the opportunity and 
obligation to remain faithful to facilitating negotiations and putting 
the difficult, uncomfortable issues to be resolved on the table with 
the goal of achieving a final peace agreement. President Obama deserves 
credit for holding both sides accountable and for making both sides 
feel uncomfortable. If the U.S. abandons our traditional honest-broker 
role to become an advocate for Israel or Palestinians then this 
conflict will never be resolved, it will likely simmer and boil over 
into a future of violence that we should all fear.
  Israelis and Palestinians--and the Americans who care deeply about 
the future of Israel as well as a future Palestinian state--deserve 
much more than this resolution offers. They deserve an honest, open, 
and constructive debate that advances U.S. interests for peace, 
security, democracy, dignity, freedom, and self-determination 
throughout the Middle East. The future of Israel is at stake. The 
future is at stake for millions of Palestinians seeking a national 
identity and the freedom to make their own state. The American people 
deserve more than what H. Res. 268 offers.
  On H. Res. 268 I will vote present. This resolution is another 
example of U.S. domestic political interests trumping the best 
interests of U.S. foreign policy. If a ``two-state solution'' is to be 
a reality this resolution does not get Israelis or Palestinians one 
inch closer to negotiations. Congress should be investing it time and 
energy as an honest-broker encouraging both sides to end the posturing 
and cease the obstructions to negotiations. Time is running out and we 
should be encouraging a revival of the peace process and focused 
negotiations--before it is too late.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 268.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam 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.

                          ____________________