Addressing the decision by OPEC countries to decrease oil production.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) opposed to the resolution?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I deplore the bus bombings and other acts of terrorism against innocent civilians wherever heinous acts of violence occur. The violence must stop. President Bush's vision of a two-state solution, two states living side by side in the Holy Land, must be implemented. I support the road map whole heartily.

Mr. Speaker, it was just a very short time ago this year that this body passed a resolution commending Israel and condemning the Palestinian Authority and calling upon the Palestinians to elect new leadership. Now the Palestinians have done just that. They have elected their new prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas. He has been in office for less than 2 months now, and now this body all of a sudden expects him to stop the violence that has raged out of hand for close to 3 years in such a short time. Prime Minister Abbas is trying very hard to negotiate an understanding among the militant groups that will end all acts of violence against Israelis. And as we speak, as we speak, a cease-fire appears to be taking hold. There appears to be such an agreement.

This process going on in the Middle East as we speak certainly needs no help from this body with this type of one-sided, inflammatory resolution for which this body is so well noted. Prime Minister Abbas must be given the time, he must be given the space, he must be given the opportunity to assert his authority and that of his new security chief Mohammad Dakhlan, with whom our own CIA and Israeli security forces have worked very well in the past, and can do so again.

Let us attempt some objectivity here, Mr. Speaker, if we are to remain the responsible super power that we are. The single most important step that the Israelis could undertake is to stop its policy of political assassinations of Palestinians unless they are proven to be ticking time bombs. Tom Friedman said in a recent column that both sides have crossed the line where self-defense has turned into self- destruction.

Is Israel better off or worse off after carrying out these assassinations? The day after it tried unsuccessfully to kill a senior Hamas leader, a suicide bomber killed 17 innocent people aboard a bus in Jerusalem, these acts occurring since the Aqaba Summit. The bomber said this act was in retaliation for the assassination attempt the previous week. Clearly the people of Israel are questioning this policy. In a poll last week by a leading Israeli newspaper, 58 percent of the Israelis polled supported ending this type of assassination policy and cooperating with the new Palestinian government to end all violence.

The fact is, the only time the Israelis have enjoyed extended periods of peace in the last decade is when the Palestinian Security Service, under Mr. Dakhlan, have cooperated with Israel and both sides spent their energy, successfully, I might note, in preventing acts of violence.

We are right today to call upon Prime Minister Abbas and his government to make greater and more efficient efforts to control the militant groups and end violence, but we also have a responsibility in order to be objective and even-handed, to ask the government of Prime Minister Sharon in this same resolution whether these policies are making Mr. Abbas's tasks easier or harder.

The people of Israel is asking this question, so should the Congress of the United States. Let us have a little balance here. Let us have a little balance

here. Let us call on the Palestinian Authority to make greater and more effective efforts against terrorists; but also, let us call on the Israeli Government to stop making Mr. Abbas's tasks more difficult. It is also time for Israel to reassess and hopefully end this process of political assassinations. We cannot allow the extremists on either side to sabotage the peace process. We cannot allow terrorists to torpedo the peace process. Let us look at some objectivity before we pass, once again, another resolution of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished dean of the House the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, do I understand the gentleman correctly that it would be split as it was originally split, 10 minutes and 10 minutes on his side?

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his reservation?

I think for once the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and I totally agree on this particular issue. I agree with what he just said about the importance of it. I agree to the extension of time as he has requested.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, let me correct something in which I may have misspoke earlier when we were talking about an extension of time on all sides and I said that perhaps that was the only area in which the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), my good friend, and I agreed. That is not the case. It was a misstatement on my part, and I do correct it, because as he has stated and as we have discussed on numerous occasions throughout our careers in this body, we perhaps see eye-to-eye on 95 percent of the issues involved in this particular area and in the Middle East. We certainly agree on the need to stop the violence. We agree on the need to end the terrorism. We agree on the strong Israeli- U.S. relationship that must always be maintained. And we certainly agree on the need for peace for all people in the region.

I must respond to some comments that were made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House. He spoke quite eloquently about all of the Israeli deaths, as does this resolution refer to those numbers as well. But I never once heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) mention any type of sympathy for the innocent Palestinian deaths that have occurred since the Aqaba summit alone. The resolution mentions the 22 Israelis killed, but fails to mention the 55 Palestinians killed, the 258 Palestinians injured just since the Aqaba summit.

Five ambulances have been destroyed; 33 houses have been demolished and 236 damaged; 7,116 trees uprooted; 328,000 meters of cultivated land have been destroyed; 500,000 meters of land confiscated for illegal settlement; 67 private businesses destroyed; water and irrigation pipes destroyed; homes demolished; people detained, as we saw in this morning's press.

All of these actions have occurred since the Aqaba Summit against innocent Palestinians, so it is that perspective that this resolution so much fails to mention.

I would say as well in calling upon both sides to agree with what they set upon at the Aqaba Summit, yes, there have been some illegal outposts, perhaps a flag here or a pole here that has been dismantled by the Israelis. But according to Israeli sources and journalists, 12 new outposts have been constructed since the Aqaba Summit, and there are rumored to have been five additional ones yet to be discovered. This has happened since the Aqaba Summit.

I would remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that a recent poll of Christian conservatives here in the United States found that 78 percent of the Christian conservatives in this country support President Bush's vision for Middle East peace.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of areas in which all the speakers today have agreed. And certainly that makes some points of this resolution commendable.

But, again, in looking at its totality, the resolution lacks in its objectivity. It lacks, Mr. Speaker, in what I term the United States' best interest first. A lot of parallels have been draw today between the Israeli responses to terrorism and Israel's right to defend itself and the United States' global war against terrorism and our fight against al Qaeda. I would say the main question that needs to be asked here is does the Israeli assassination policy, when there is no proven link that those assassinated are ticking time bombs, where there has been nothing judicial pending against them, there has been nothing but allegations of terrorist activity, in those type of assassinations, is that fairness? Does it promote what is justice in the region. Does it promote the United States' best interest in fairness when it is done with what is perceived to be United States approval?

Maybe there are some in the Sharon government that compare this to our fight against al Qaeda. But those educated and those that will profess some sense of fairness will view this in a different light and see that that comparison is disingenuous to say the least. Certainly, Israel has the right to defend itself against those ticking time bombs and to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring. The United States has that right to fight the global war on terrorism, to fight al Qaeda whenever and wherever we can.

But to make the comparisons between what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza by these Islamic militant groups, to compare them with al Qaeda is stretching it a bit in this gentleman's estimation. We must realize what are the true roots of the al Qaeda and the true roots of why they hate us in the Arab world. Let us look at that response before we determine if we can compare the Israeli fight against terrorism with the United States' fight against al Qaeda.

There are many countries in the world that help us in the fight against the true terrorists, which is the al Qaeda network; and it is those countries that we will continue to need their help in our coalition fight against al Qaeda.

Mr. Speaker, I do say to all those who are participating in this debate, it has been healthy. It has been what we have needed in this Congress for some time, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to debate this issue many more times. I have demonstrated during this debate the question that many Israelis have about the policies of their government in regard to fighting terrorism, and I think it is just as worthy a debate here in this country as it is in the country of Israel. We have that right in our democratic system. We also have the responsibility in this country to look at actions that we take as Members of Congress and resolutions we pass, to ask first and foremost what is in the best interest of the United States of America.

I referred earlier to the cease-fire that has just been announced today and appears to have taken hold. While this resolution does not have the force of law, we must, and we know as Members of this body that every word we utter and every resolution we pass has profound impact across this world. Whether they are actually the words of the law or not, they do send a message. I think this is the wrong message that the United States should be sending at this particular time, this precarious time in the Middle East. Some say this cease-fire is only temporary and it would give the militant a chance to rearm during a 3- month cease-fire. This is the time that the new prime minister with whom the United States has built a relationship, with whom the Israelis have built a relationship, for the newly installed Prime Minister Abu Mazen, who has been in office for less than 2 months, this is the time he needs to gain the political credibility, to gain the support among his own people, to further crack down on the militants without creating a civil war among the Palestinians.

Now, perhaps that is the goal of some on the other side, but that is not the goal of the United States; and it should not be the goal of the United States. But, rather, we should give the newly created prime minister, the newly installed prime minister in the Palestinian territories the time, the space, and the opportunity he needs to gather the support he needs to crack down and, indeed, make this cease-fire, however temporary in nature, of a permanent nature.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that my colleagues look carefully and hard at this resolution before making up their minds and cast their votes in what in their good conscience they deem to be in the United States' best interest and in the interest of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time I yielded back.

Mr. Speaker, I do that in keeping with what I said earlier was an important debate and I believe that all Members who wish to speak on this should be heard.

Mr. Speaker, I yield half of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This has been a good debate, a very healthy debate. There is no doubt that security cooperation needs to be restored between the Palestinians and Israelis. It has worked in the past. The road map now is the way to do it. Several of the speakers today have risen in support of the road map, and they will support this resolution. I cannot even find the word ``road map'' mentioned in this resolution, and that is a major, major problem with it.

The economies of both Israelis and the Palestinians are in dire shape. There is no question about it, and this road map, for which I have already commended and continue to salute the President for presenting it, is the way out.

Confidence building measures by both sides, coupled with stability and economic development, must occur, and it will help bring back the necessary hope that both sides so desperately need and the trust in one another that is so lacking at the current time.

There are obligations of both parties under the road map. This resolution, unfortunately, points only to obligations of Palestinians and insinuates they are not fulfilling those obligations. There are obligations by the Israelis as well that are very clear. Yet they are not stated in this resolution.

We must give Prime Minister Abu Mazen, a good friend with whom I have met, the help he needs to fight terrorism and we must not allow civil war among Palestinians to occur. The road map is the way to do that. It will take time.

I salute President Bush for his personal involvement, for Secretary of State Powell's involvement, for Condoleezza Rice's involvement via her trip to the region any day now, and I salute our security people, the United States security people, our CIA and others that are on the scene in an effort to help the Palestinians restore security. That takes time. That takes patience and that takes an opportunity, that we must give and Israelis must give the Palestinians to create that security that is so vital to bring peace to this area.

I am not going to urge my colleagues to vote one way or another on this resolution. They can make up their own minds, but each colleague I would say has to look in his or her conscience and has to determine in their best opinion what is in the United States' best interests in promoting the road map to peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my resolution; and I strongly support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution which condemns the recent wave of terrorism inflicted on Israel and expresses solidarity with the people of Israel in their heroic fight against terrorism.

First, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for the gentleman's cooperation in bringing this resolution to the floor. I also want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the Republican leader, for his principled support, and to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader, for her valued cosponsorship. The fact that these three leaders of the House have cosponsored my resolution is a powerful indication that it has strong bipartisan support.

Mr. Speaker, I introduced this resolution with one basic conviction, that Israel has as much right to fight against suicide bombers and ruthless terrorists as any other free and democratic nation. At the recent Aqaba Summit, the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Sharon, made some extraordinary and historic statements. He called for a democratic state living at peace with Israel with mutual respect and shared prosperity.

In less than a week of the Prime Minister's landmark speech, 22 innocent Israeli men, women and children fell victim to suicide bombings and over 100 were wounded. Israel's response to this unprovoked carnage was the only response a self-respecting democratic state could offer. When Israel responds with counterterrorist operations against suicide bombers, some criticize it for provoking a cycle of violence.

This is an absurd and sinister argument. Let us be clear about one thing. As our resolution states, Israel would not conduct counterterrorist operations if Palestinian counterterrorism would cease. The bloodshed, the violence, the tragedy would end.

The term ``cycle of violence'' must be permanently retired from the lexicon of Middle East politics since it preposterously implies moral equivalence between suicide bombers and the justified response of a free and democratic nation.

Based on comparative populations, the 22 Israelis who were murdered in the days following the Aqaba Summit are the equivalent of 1,100 Americans. Were al Qaeda again to murder over a thousand Americans, we would demand that our government take strong measures to eliminate the threat they pose. None of us would tolerate our government waiting while someone pleads with the terrorists for a temporary cease-fire.

In my recent meeting with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen in Ramallah, he told me that he is opposed to terrorism. Subsequently he repeated his statement to President Bush and many others, but Abu Mazen's effectiveness as a leader will not be judged by his words, but by his deeds. Abu Mazen's political situation is unquestionably complex; but if he continues to refuse to use force against murderous terrorists, he will soon become irrelevant and his political demise will be sure to follow.

But should he choose to take bold action against terrorism, he will deserve and he will receive the support of this body and the American people.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution underscores the obvious. Israel's fight against terrorism is one of the front lines of the global war against terrorism. Israel's enemies are motivated by a hate-filled, sick, totalitarian ideology, as are our terrorist foes. Israel's enemies are ruthless and bloodthirsty, just like ours. If the Palestinian Authority will not or cannot destroy and defeat Palestinian terrorist groups, Israel has no choice but to take matters into its own hands. We are fighting our enemies relentlessly. Israel, under infinitely less favorable circumstances, can do nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, it is universally accepted that it is the right of all states, including the democratic state of Israel, to make the defense of its citizens its number one priority. This is the bedrock of my resolution. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), the ranking Democrat on the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, since there are colleagues on various sides of this issue who wish to speak and, given the time limits, they no longer would have the opportunity, I ask unanimous consent that each side be given an additional 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important debate. A good number of colleagues wish to speak on it. We waste so much time in this body on so many unimportant issues, I think an additional 20 minutes for each side is not an unreasonable request.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman consult with the leadership while we take up the next 10 minutes to see if they agree to an additional 10 minutes?

Mr. Speaker, I am making the request that each side be given 10 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), my friend, the distinguished senior member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) of the Committee on International Relations.

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Majette).

(Ms. MAJETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking Democrat on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bell), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

(Mr. BELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).

(Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

(Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations, my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my friend and distinguished colleague.

May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, how much time we have left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\3/4\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House are passionately committed to peace, and all of us in this House are passionately committed to justice. The Palestinian people are certainly entitled to an infinitely better life than what they have had for many years. The blame clearly lies with the surrounding Arab states which failed to allow them to establish civilized communities or to absorb them.

Other societies have done that. The Greeks of Cyprus absorbed the Greeks from northern Cyprus, and the people of Israel absorbed millions of their fellow nationals from all over the world.

There was a cynical attempt to perpetuate the misery of the Palestinians in refugee camps. Hopefully, with the President's vision, we will now see an end to this long, painful, tragic, misery-filled process.

To embark on that road, we must see the end of terrorism. There is no road map unless terrorism ceases, and if it does, the road map, in fact, will be implemented.

I congratulate the President for having the vision of recognizing that two states can live side by side in peace, with mutual respect and prosperity, but only if terrorism ends.

Abu Mazen, the new Prime Minister, has repeatedly indicated his opposition to terrorism. We have to help him to put an end to terrorism. He must gain control of the territory in Gaza, first in the north, then in central Gaza, then in southern Gaza and then on the West Bank, town by town, and as he does so, we will move towards peace, and the Israeli and the Palestinian people at long last will live in a civilized region.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for bringing peace in the Middle East. I support that vision. But that vision is one that we must support through a fairness situation where we do not make equivalency between what has happened by Mr. Sharon going to the Temple Mount and the death and destruction that have been wrapped upon Israel with the terrorist threat. I support the Lantos resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.

On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.

Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat.

And I'm pleased to hear that--just this morning--Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against Israelis. That's a very positive step. But we've heard positive talk many times before. The proof will be borne out over time through deeds. Just this morning, the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in northern Israel. Clearly, the vigil for peace and security will have to be maintained.

I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the President last June; particularly, the necessity of combating terrorism as the first of a sequence of events.

And I believe the U.S. must remain supportive of Israel in its fight against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and able to carry out this responsibility.

Like my colleagues here today, I welcome the positive steps the Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure.

As Americans, we understand the fight against those who seek our destruction. We

stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel in their fight against those who oppose their existence.

The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to provide safety and stability for its people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, which condemns recent terrorist attacks against Israel and expresses solidarity with the citizens of Israel during this turbulent time.

On June 24 of last year, President Bush unveiled a new vision for bringing peace to the Middle East. He stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership, which must be committed to peace with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state.

Since that time, the Palestinians have taken steps to establish a new leadership structure. Abu Mazen was appointed the first Palestinian Prime Minister following a bitter struggle with Yasser Arafat. Since assuming office, Abu Mazen has refused, however, to take concrete steps to rein in the terrorists in any way. And despite the change in leadership, Yasser Arafat maintains a high degree of control, including authority over major elements of the Palestinian security apparatus.

And I am pleased to hear that, just this morning Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Asqa have agreed to 3-month cessation of attacks against Israelis. That is a very positive step. But as we have seen many times before, the proof will be borne out over time. Also just this morning, the Israeli Defense Force disabled a large bomb in northern Israel. So clearly, the vigilance for peace and security will continue.

I believe the key to the ``Road Map'' or any other effort to achieve lasting peace is to stay true to the principles outlined by the President last June, particularly the necessity of combating terrorism as the first of a sequence of events.

Since the Aqaba summit earlier this month, 22 Israeli civilians have been killed and many others have been injured in three separate suicide bombings. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to self-defense. Israel must act against terrorism if the Palestinian Authority does not. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has a responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist attacks. I believe U.S. policy must be supportive of Israel in its fight against terror until the Palestinian Authority is willing and able to assume this responsibility.

We must also wholly reject the concept of a ``cycle of violence.'' Use of that term implies a moral equivalence between those who commit terrorist acts and their victims. Israel's targeting of terrorist leaders is not the moral equivalent of targeting of innocent civilians, including women and children.

Like my colleagues here this morning, I welcome the positive steps the Palestinians have taken, but we must also see decisive action to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Without such action, the Road Map or any other effort, however well intentioned, will fail.

The Palestinian people deserve a leadership that looks beyond the narrow goal of nationalism and works toward bettering the lives of its people. Regrettably, the current leadership has shown no signs of embracing those goals. As Americans, we understand the fight against those who seek our destruction. We stand should to shoulder with Israel in their fight against those who oppose their existence.

The citizens of Israel are our allies, and we will continue to support their fight against terrorism and their government's efforts to provide safety and stability for its people.

Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year,President Bush stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership not tainted by support for terror. The new leadership must be committed to peace with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state. Israel is fulfilling its commitment by dismantling unauthorized outposts, releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, and releasing funds out of the treasury.

They cannot be expected to give up counterterror measures so long as Palestinians fail to comply with their road map obligation to stop terror. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to self-defense. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has the responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist attacks.

Merely negotiating a cease-fire is not enough. Terrorism must end. Peace demands it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my firm commitment to the safety and security of Israel and the Israeli people. One year ago, President Bush called upon the Palestinian people to put in place leadership not tainted by support for terrorism. Terrorism is the great scourge of our age, and there is little doubt that it represents an insurmountable threat to peace throughout the world, but most particularly in Israel and in the Middle East.

In order for peace to be realized, terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad must be contained. The Palestinian leadership--with support from the rest of the Arab world--must take a firm stand against the blight of violence and death that terrorists spread wherever they commit their atrocities. The destruction of the terrorist infrastructure that threatens innocent Israelis everyday is a necessary precondition to the success of the peace process and the recognition of a Palestinian state.

While I am encouraged that the Bush administration appears to be re- engaged in the peace process, the fact that 22 innocent Israelis have been killed and many more injured in a serious of suicide bombings since the summit in Aqaba, Jordan, demonstrates clearly the difficult and treacherous road to peace that lies ahead.

The sad fact is that we as a nation have too often overlooked or considered route the terror that daily threatens the peace and security of Israel. So, I ask you to consider a situation that would be better understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy street in New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago or New Orleans; and think about the people who might be on the bus on their way to school or to work; people going about their daily business, shopping for groceries or picking up that last-minute necessity. Now imagine that someone came along with a bomb in one of those cities, or right here in Washington, DC, and created an explosion that killed 7 or 70 or 700 in one fiery blast.

What would the response be in America? We would call out the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the FBI, the police, every agency that could retaliate, whether to capture or kill the responsible person and the leaders of an organization that would seduce a young person to sacrifice his or her life for such a heinous purpose.

Yet, when Israel responded to the murder of 17 innocent Israelis by launching an attack on the leadership of Hamas, the Bush administration criticized the attack as heavy-handed and an unnecessary complication to the peace process.

We would not stand by five minutes and accept such attacks on American civilians. And we should not expect Israel to stand by five minutes and accept it either. We cannot look at the violence on both sides as though it is comparable. It simply is not the same.

Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for violence that radical terrorists--murderers or killers, to use the President's terms--have brought down upon them. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, among others, delight in taking responsibility for a suicide bomber who walks into a cafe or disco and takes 8, 10, 20 or more innocent lives.

Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend itself against the cowardly acts of terrorists. The United States must not be caught in the trap of thinking of Israel's response to terrorism on its soil as the equivalent of the terrorism itself. There is no doubting the difference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing our solidarity with Israel. Just as we have when the terrorist attacks were on our soil or against our national interests, we must roundly condemn the acts of terrorists in Israel, and we must continue to exert pressure on Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen to use very resource at his disposal, including force, to root out terrorism and remove it as an obstacle to peace. Moreover, we must be unwavering in our support for Israel's right to defend and secure herself against such senseless violence.

If the peace process is to succeed, rather than criticizing Israel for its efforts to combat terrorism, we must offer our full support and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Israel is free from the scourge of terrorism.

Only then will the Israeli and Palestinian people realize the promise of peace embodied in the ``road map.''

I have no doubt that the Israeli and Palestinian people can live side-by-side in peace and prosperity, as so many do even today throughout Israel. Yet that goal will likely never be realized unless and until terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others are removed from the equation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the House to express their full support for Israel and their continuing commitment to the eradication of terrorism wherever it rears it violent and ugly head and to vote for this important demonstration of our commitment to peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to violence, killing and to the senseless murders which have been taking place in the Middle East. I also rise in support of peace. I also rise in support of the road map for Middle East peace in the hope that it will be implemented and that the United States will provide the leadership that is needed. I also rise with still some hope in my heart that we could achieve the purposes which we thought were beginning with the summit at the Gulf of Aqaba and to express the hope that we will be able to see a time coming when Israeli, Muslim, Jew, Christian and the Palestinian people can know that there is peace in the Mideast. I also look forward to the leadership of the United States in moving towards achieving the real goal of this Nation, which is peace in the Middle East so that all persons, Israelis, Palestinians and everyone else who is concerned with that area can know that there will be peace there and so that the threat to the United States and the rest of the world of terrorism will suffer a real setback of the kind all of us here hope will be achieved.

George Santayana said something that I thought was very important. He said, ``He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.'' I see that the hope that we had is being diminished both by the killings and by the fact that we are now moving away from what I had hoped would be the role of the United States in the Middle East, and that is the role of an honest broker, of a nation who could appeal to both sides to bring the killing to an end and to achieve a lasting peace negotiated by and between the parties. The Oslo process has collapsed. Eight hundred Israelis have died; 2,000 Palestinians have been killed. Twenty-two Israelis have been killed since the Aqaba summit, but about double that number of Palestinians. This is hardly the basis upon which peace can be achieved. It is also hardly the basis upon which we can say that the United States is providing the strong, the determined and the forceful leadership which is necessary to assure that both

parties do the things that are needed to achieve a real and a lasting peace to the area.

I would point out that if we do not listen to George Santayana, we have the possibility of repeating the mistakes of the past. What is it that we should be directing our attention to? Forceful, forcible, vigorous, strong efforts to achieve peace, to bring the parties together, to see to it that they talk, and to achieve the reputation amongst them of an honest, impartial broker, of a nation that is interested in seeing to it that both parties not only work together but achieve the best result of their negotiation that is possible to achieve. I do not see that in this resolution and that is the vice of this resolution. This resolution takes sides.

I am not prepared to quarrel with any of my colleagues as to who is at fault over in the Mideast. That is not the function of an honest broker. I am prepared to say that our efforts today and that our efforts as a Nation should be directed at one thing, and that is achieving peace on the basis of a reputation of honesty, decency and fairness and upon the basis of the trust of the parties in the area. I do not see this document as stimulating that kind of response. This document is one-sided. It condemns violence on one side. I hear nothing about the need for the United States to, in fact, lead toward peace or that the United States wants a termination of violence by all parties. That is clearly lacking here, but it is desperately needed. Our problem if we seek to be seekers of and builders of peace is to assure that we make possible the trust of all parties, Israelis and of Palestinians, so that we can get them to the table, a difficult task, to talk about peace, about building a peace which will last, which will give justice, equality, comfort and solace to all, men, women, children and also Israelis and Palestinians. That is absent in this resolution. It is something which must not only be in the resolutions of the Congress but it must be in the policies of the United States.

I say that I took great comfort and pleasure and pride when I saw that President Bush was getting the parties together and that he was really going to lead in this undertaking. I urge him to continue that undertaking, because in that is not only the interest of the Palestinians and of the Israelis but also of the United States. And a failure for this country to take a position which achieves the trust, the respect and the support of both parties for the negotiation is assurance that we will not have the success that we want and that we need. It also is assurance that we will not have the kind of security against terrorism which finds its seeds and which finds its roots in the kind of injustice that the people of the Mideast on both sides feel exists.

I urge us, then, to be honest brokers. I urge us, then, to strive for peace and for the trust of all persons over there who seek that peace. And I urge us to take the steps that are necessary. This resolution is not one of those steps. I urge my colleagues to reject it.