Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding fighting terror and embracing efforts to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, who played a critical role in the drafting of this important resolution.

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

I want to thank the distinguished Democratic whip for his powerful and eloquent statement.

I rise in strong support of this historic resolution, Mr. Speaker. Our resolution represents a unique, bipartisan effort to demonstrate congressional support for the State of Israel and for Middle East peace by endorsing Prime Minister Sharon's bold disengagement plan.

Even before this resolution was introduced, expressions of bipartisan resolve regarding its core principles were already well on their way. President Bush warmly welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's plan and reaffirmed this Nation's strong support for Israel and for Middle East peace in his letter of April 14. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for President, in turn endorsed both Prime Minister Sharon's proposal and the content of the President's letter.

In setting out some of the principles of peace such as those relating to territory and refugees, the President was clearly inspired by ideas presented during the Camp David negotiations in the summer of 2000 and by President Clinton's so-called ``Parameters'' of December, 2000. Thus like President Bush's April 14 letter, the resolution now before us distills the ideas of some of our Nation's most respected figures in both the Democratic and Republican parties.

Many of the principles in the resolution have been endorsed previously, some of them repeatedly by the Congress. All of them are crucial to achieving Middle East peace.

Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Sharon has taken a bold risk and shown great courage in pursuing his plan for unilateral withdrawal from all of Gaza and parts of the West Bank. He did so because he believed it was the only way to break a deadlock in the peace process and to forge a historic path towards the separation of the Palestinian and Israeli peoples which is the prerequisite for a two-state solution. The prime minister decided that Middle East peace could no longer be held hostage to the failure of Palestinian leadership.

Prime Minister Sharon has pursued his plan despite repeated political obstacles. The Israeli people as a whole overwhelmingly embrace his initiative, but many of his traditional allies do not. In fact, Mr. Sharon's plan was defeated in a referendum of his own Likud parties membership. He has been forced to fire some members of his cabinet in order to assure cabinet support for the plan. Other ministers have resigned in protest. Mr. Sharon has lost his once formidable parliamentary majority and now leads a minority government. Perhaps most painfully for him, he has parted ways with a settlement movement that he once unofficially led. As one senior U.S. official recently expressed it to me, ``A year ago we would have been shocked and pleased if Sharon had decided to dismantle one single settlement. Now he insists on dismantling two dozen.''

Mr. Speaker, I met with Prime Minister Sharon in his office in Jerusalem a month ago. As critics were pronouncing his plan finished, he was buoyantly optimistic and firmly committed to overcoming opposition to his plan. He told me he would prevail in the cabinet, and now he has. There are more steps required before implementation, but Mr. Sharon is committed to the battle, and, in my view, he is fully up to the task.

Mr. Speaker, the Israeli people have endured considerable heartbreak in the peace process. They were stunned and many still are, as are we, that an inexcusable Palestinian intifada erupted 4 years ago in the wake of an incredibly generous Israeli peace offer. That intifada, with its repeated suicide bombings, has claimed nearly 1,000 innocent Israeli lives. Proportional to the U.S. population, that would be 50,000 lives lost at the hands of domestic terrorism.

Nevertheless, another Israeli leader has embarked on yet another bold and politically precarious peace initiative. That initiative deserves the support of the Congress. So does the vast majority of the Israeli people who, polls show, support the Sharon plan. And the Palestinian people deserve this body's support. They have endured all kinds of hardships, including incompetent, cynical, and violent leadership that has led them to the edge of the abyss.

Mr. Speaker, what we will do here today will reverberate throughout the Middle East. By strongly supporting Israeli security and this new initiative, we will embolden Israeli leaders to take further key and courageous steps toward the Middle East peace all sides desire, even in the face of spirited domestic opposition. And hopefully moderate Palestinians will be encouraged to push aside their failed authoritarian leadership and take control of their own lives.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of a secure Israel, increased hope for Palestinians, and the all-important peace in the Middle East, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my friend from Indiana for his powerful and eloquent statement, and let me yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), one of our great Democratic leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate on this resolution be extended for 20 minutes, to be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend and fellow Californian, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, before recognizing my friend from New York, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the Republican leader for his extraordinary efforts on behalf of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), my good friend and a distinguished member of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for her usual courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, before yielding time, I yield myself such time as I may consume, because I would just would like to remind my colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia, that there may not have been any successful suicide attempts in some time; there are weekly suicide attempts which are thwarted by the vigilance of the Israeli Defense Force. So the fact that suicide bombers do not succeed in blowing up additional groups of innocent civilians is not an indication that the attempts at suicide bombings have come to an end.

Secondly, may I remind my friend that innocent civilians are killed in ways other than through suicide bombing. A pregnant mother and four of her young daughters were killed in cold blood just this past month. A pregnant woman with four small daughters in her car, all six of them were killed just this past month.

So I do not think it is accurate to portray a picture which would indicate that the attempts at extremist violent terrorism is over. The attempts are less successful than they were at a time when Israel was less prepared to deal with it.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), my dear friend and good colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished Democratic Leader for her powerful and eloquent statement.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) who, in this very brief time with us has made a notable contributions to the work of his body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield a minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a historic resolution. It recognizes the security needs of the State of Israel. It holds out the hope for peaceful negotiations once a negotiating partner is found on the Palestinian side, and it underscores bipartisan American support for peace, tranquility, progress, and security in the region.

I am delighted that we are endorsing both the President's position and Senator Kerry's position, which on this issue are identical. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

If I might be permitted, I would like to express our appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) for his extraordinary work in bringing this resolution before the body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 460) regarding the security of Israel and the principles of peace in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 460, regarding the security of Israel and the principles of Middle East peace.

I want to thank the gentleman from Texas, our majority leader, for his unwavering commitment to the State of Israel and stability in the region, and commend him, as well as the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, for their efforts in drafting this measure. It is a resolution that supports the principles outlined in the President's April 14 letter, and in doing so it articulates our own vision of the path toward a lasting peace. It has long been our enduring hope that Israel's neighbors would see the wisdom of laying down their arms and negotiating in earnest, instead of killing. Egypt and Jordan arrived at this point and have found peace with Israel. There are others, however, who murder and employ terror against innocent civilians to achieve their political ends.

The people of Israel have done their part toward peace and have made terrible sacrifices in human and material terms for this effort, yet they continue in their search for closure to this long battle. Yasser Arafat, on the other hand, lacks the will to fulfill the commitments required of Palestinian officials. Arafat seems more intent on enriching himself and his cronies and in accommodating Hamas than he is in achieving peace with Israel so that his own people can reap the political and economic benefits that would come from that peace.

As the President noted in his recent letter, the United States stands ready to lead efforts to help achieve the goal of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, working with Egypt and Jordan to build the capacity and the will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism and bring a permanent end to such violence.

However, we have been down this road before. Arafat promises, but Arafat never delivers. The suicide bombings continue, and the death toll rises without so much as a modicum of effort from Arafat- controlled security forces to prevent it. He promises to disarm the radicals, to arrest them; but he does neither. Instead, he has acted as a revolving door for the terrorists that he pretends to arrest. He swore to end terrorism only to carry out a massive campaign of murder against innocent Israelis riding on school buses, shopping in open-air malls, and simply going about their daily lives. He has failed completely in his commitments, and he has brought only misery to a people seeking a peaceful existence.

As underscored in this resolution and articulated by the President, Israel has a sovereign and undeniable right to protect herself and her people, including taking actions against terrorist organizations. In the same vein, we remain strongly committed to Israel's security and well-being as a Jewish state.

The President has clearly laid out his vision and has pursued it on multiple fronts. Through this resolution, we again declare our support for Israel for the great sacrifices she has made, and we congratulate the President for recognizing those sacrifices and the importance of Israel's commitment to peace.

We also call on the Palestinians to help build a peace that is mutual and lasting and not one of fleeting adherence and rhetorical assurances to score political points. Their adherence to peace must be real, and it must be enduring. For the welfare and security of the people of the State of Israel and for the future of the Palestinian people, Arafat and the Palestinian leadership must come to the realization that it is in their best interests to build the institutions necessary to fight and defeat terrorism in order to live side by side in peace together with Israel.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses our support for principles that are crucial to Middle East peace, and it reflects the current reality on the ground. These principles are consistent with U.S. policy priorities, and I ask my colleagues to render their strong support for this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), our distinguished majority leader and the author and prime sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), and I ask unanimous consent that he may be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute from our time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) so that he can control it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) from our time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close with the remainder of the time that I have.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for always being a leader on the human rights front and always being a strong supporter of peace in the Middle East, and I would like to highlight some of the more critical principles that are outlined in the resolution that is before us.

I want to read just four of the ``whereas'' clauses. It says, ``Whereas in the April 14, 2004, letter the President stated that in light of new realities on the ground in Israel, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations between Israel and the

Palestinians will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.''

Furthermore, it says, ``Whereas, the President acknowledged that any agreed, just, fair and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a permanent alternative and the settling of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.''

And, ``Whereas, the principles expressed in President Bush's letter will enhance the security of Israel and advance the cause of peace in the Middle East.''

Whereas, there will be no security for Israelis or Palestinians until Israel and the Palestinians, and all countries in the region and throughout the world, join together to fight terrorism and dismantle terrorist organizations.''

And, ``Whereas, the United States remains committed to the security of Israel, including secure, recognized and defensible borders, and to preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat.''

And I think that on that wording, we can all come to agreement, because this resolution is in keeping with our national and international antiterrorism goals, our hopes for a lasting and profound peace and for a region of freedom-loving nations based on the rule of law, respect for human rights, and fundamental freedoms; and it shows a unity of purpose.

It sends a message to the world that the policies relating to Israel's security and existence as a Jewish state, relating to peace for Israel and the Palestinians and relating to combating terrorism are not just the President's policies or the position of the U.S. Congress but of the United States Government as a whole.

The path outlined in this resolution is clear. And what awaits us at the end of the road? Peace and stability. So let us join together and vote overwhelmingly for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 460, which endorses President Bush's April 14, 2004 letter embracing the disengagement plan proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

Critics have expressed concern that President Bush's letter prejudges the final outcome of negotiations on sensitive issues like borders

and refugees. However, the President and Secretary of State have indicated that it does not undermine the fundamental requirement that all issues be mutually agreed upon in final status negotiations.

The problem right now is that Israel has no reliable Palestinian partner capable of negotiating a final status agreement. Israel's disengagement plan responds to the void left by the failure of the current Palestinian leadership to lead. I would also suggest that the Israeli disengagement initiative is in the interests of Israelis and Palestinians alike. It will help Palestinians to take concrete moves to establish a democratic state, and it will help preserve both the Jewish and democratic character of Israel over the long term while contributing to its security.

It is also important to remember that policy articulated in the President's letter is consistent with the peace negotiations initiated by President Clinton at Camp David. Those negotiations took into account the fact that the Palestinian claim to an open-ended right of return would be demographically untenable for Israel's future as a Jewish state. The Clinton negotiations also operated on the premise that the final settlement negotiated in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338 would involve mutually agreed-upon adjustments to the 1949 armistice lines to provide Israel with secure, recognized, and defensible borders that reflect demographic realities and to provide the Palestinians with territory for their own state.

By passing this resolution today and expressing its support for the April 14 letter and the disengagement plan, I believe Congress can help show its support for an enduring and sustainable peace settlement in the Middle East.

Months of cooperation and shuttle diplomacy between Washington and Jerusalem led to a White House meeting on April 14th, 2004 and an historic agreement between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon on some of the most important issues in the conflict. That agreement was included in a letter the President sent to Prime Minister Sharon, enunciating a number of principles that are specifically referenced in the resolution before this House today, among them: The need for Israel to have defensible borders that reflect demographic realities; the need for Palestinian refugees to understand that they will not be returning to Israel; the need for Palestinians to end their campaign of terror and for Israel to have the ability to defend itself against that terror.

H. Con. Res. 460 strongly endorses the principles articulated in the April 14th letter and sends a strong, bipartisan show of support for that agreement.

These principles are clearly framed as subject to future negotiations between the parties. They lay out basic parameters that reflect the reality of the Middle East today and, as such, could play a useful role in helping promote realistic peace negotiations.

The resolution also expresses support for ``efforts to continue working with others in the international community to build the capacity and will of the Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat to the security of Israel.''

Such efforts are desperately needed, as it will not be possible to reach a comprehensive solution to the conflict in the Middle East until the Palestinians renounce the use of terror and return to the negotiating table. Today, for example, we know that Palestinian terrorists are continuing to smuggle guns and explosives from Egypt into Gaza. Recent press reports indicated that the terrorists are now using an elaborate network of tunnels to carry out such smuggling. For example, a May 16, 2004 article that appeared in the Jerusalem Post reported that:

A short list of items smuggled via the tunnels to

terrorists in the Gaza Strip includes Katyusha rockets,

mortars, shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles, antitank

grenades, large amounts of explosives, ammunition, and

rifles. The arms come from Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, and Libya. The

underground smuggling is necessary because the navy has

successfully blocked attempts by Palestinians to smuggle

weapons into Gaza via the sea.

The army frequently conducts operations along the

Philadelphi Route and in the outskirts of Rafah in an attempt

to uncover and destroy the tunnels. One of the painstaking

tasks is similar to that in which the five soldiers died on

Wednesday evening: boring holes meters under the ground,

placing explosives to blow up tunnels.

The IDF has uncovered and destroyed 11 tunnels this year--

and close to 100 during the past three and a half years.

As Israel proceeds to withdraw from Gaza, the Bush Administration needs to put pressure on the Egyptian government to shut down these terrorist smuggling tunnels. Egypt is a substantial recipient of U.S. economic aid and an ally of the U.S., and it has a responsibility to ensure that its borders are not being used by terrorist organizations seeking to smuggle weapons into Gaza for use in terrorist attacks against Israel. The President and Secretary of State Colin Powell need to take forceful action now to convince Egypt to shut down all of these smuggling tunnels at once.

In closing, I believe that this resolution reflects the strong bipartisan support which exists in the Congress for Israel's security, and for the conclusion of a Middle East Peace agreement that is consistent with the protection of Israel's security and self determination for the Palestinian people, including a Palestinian state.

I urge adoption of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for obtaining the extra time, as well as the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding that extra time to this side.

Mr. Speaker, I do want to state in the beginning, as one who has rather regularly opposed what in the past have traditionally been grossly one-sided resolutions, inappropriate, in this gentleman's opinion, for U.S. best interests in the Middle East, I do find the current resolution a minute, itsy bitsy, tiny bit headed in the right direction. And I do say that, taking into perspective what I view is in America's best interests in this region.

Mr. Speaker, it has well been documented, and many in this body have always pointed out, how U.S. credibility and morality across the world is at an all-time low today. I do not think there are many countries that would doubt that statement; and it is due to many, many factors: our go-it-alone approach to the war in Iraq, unprovoked attacks, an in- your-face type of attitude to our allies, many of whom we badly need at this point in time. There were no weapons of mass destruction found, false reliance upon the neoconservatives, bosom buddy, Ahmed Chalabi who gave us shabby information; an insurgency in Iraq that was more vigorous than even the neo-cons in the Pentagon could ever imagine, far from the statement that Americans would be greeted as liberators. We found no direct involvement of Saddam Hussein on 9/11, and I could go on and on.

But there is one particular false perception we were lead to believe that is tied directly into this resolution today. We were told by the administration that the victory over Saddam Hussein would lead to a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We are still looking for that statement to be proven correct. And, indeed, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is linked to our actions in Iraq, linked to the view of Americans around the world, linked to our morality and credibility. It is all linked together.

Peace on the Palestinian-Israeli front I hope and pray is near; and perhaps in secret channels that may be the case. We have not had any suicide attacks, for example, in the last 3 or 4 months. There has not been, thank God, in this period an Israeli to lose his or her life in these horrendous, condemnable suicidal bombs that go off.

So now we come forth with this resolution from the U.S. Congress: ``Regarding the Security of Israel and the Principles For Peace in the Middle East.'' I agree. Except I would add one word in that title, and that is Regarding the Security of Israel ``and Palestinians'' and the Principles of Peace in the Middle East.

The resolution goes on to state: ``whereas, President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have subsequently engaged in dialogue with respect to this initiative.'' My question would be, where were the Palestinians in this dialogue? Is it not their future at stake as well? Where were the Palestinians in this dialogue?

The response will come back, of course, that there is no credible Palestinian with whom to negotiate. There are credible Palestinians and moderate Palestinians and those who condemn suicidal bombings and terrorism as much as me and any other Member of this body. And they are the ones we should be reaching out to involve in these negotiations.

Continuing further to quote from the resolution, on the second page, second whereas clause: ``but realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.'' Again I ask, where are the Palestinians in discussions about these ``mutually agreed upon'' efforts?

The very next paragraph: ``any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a permanent alternative and settlement of Palestinian refugees there rather than in Israel.'' True. I would not dispute that. But where is that permanent alternative? Again, where are the Palestinians involved in discussions upon the no- return issue? Is their future not at stake here? Should they not be involved in the negotiations?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with paragraphs in this resolution. On page 3, the second and third paragraphs, yes: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security; and in the next paragraph, yes: all Arab states must oppose terrorism, support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine.

But there is a disconnect between those whereas clauses and the first paragraph of the resolved clause: stating the security and well being of the State of Israel, and again I would say the words ``and Palestine'' should be inserted therein.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I would respond to the gentleman that I condemn those attacks as well, and I would say that there have been attempts thwarted by the Israeli security forces.

Mr. Speaker, the Israelis have not done that alone, they have had a great deal of information submitted to them from a lot of other countries, and from moderate Palestinians, working within whatever security apparatus they have left. The Palestinians who truly want to see peace and recognize how horrendous these actions are want to help stop terrorism.

In addition, let us not forget innocent Palestinians. I am sure the gentleman would agree there have been a number of those that have lost their lives since the Intifada and many other skirmishes.

I would say to the gentleman as well, I am sure he recognizes that under this administration, there have been over 900 Israelis and foreigners who have lost their lives during the last 3 or 4 years, which is 10 times more than the number of Israelis and foreigners that lost their lives under the Clinton administration.

So let us help this President take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to him to achieve a breakthrough in the region. I hope and pray to God such may be on the table today being worked through back channels.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, for yielding me time.

I want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida, obviously the gentleman from California, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and certainly the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) for bringing this resolution before the floor of the House at this particular time.

I have to say that, first, I think all of us acknowledge, particularly with what has been going on today in the Middle East, and Iraq in particular, that the whole issue of Israel's importance to the United States could not be more clear. Israel is important for the strategic defense of the United States in the free world. Given, as I said, the fact that it is the only democracy in that region, it is absolutely critical that Americans understand and this country understands the importance of Israel from our strategic perspective.

Secondly, there is no question that Israel has the absolute right to defend itself from terrorist activities, and this resolution will go a long way in fulfilling those two principles.

Certainly the negotiation process has broken down. When Prime Minister Barak was negotiating with Mr. Arafat with the help of Mr. Clinton, it was obvious Mr. Arafat was not able or willing to actually engage in an actual agreement. That being the case, the Palestinian Authority at this time has no one in charge to negotiate, and that is why the whole issue of the disengagement policy is the correct policy.

Our resolution today, with great support from both Democrats and Republicans on a bipartisan basis in the House of Representatives, would go a long way in at least trying to find some leader in the Palestinian Authority to stand up and say let us begin to talk, to negotiate, because obviously the status quo is unacceptable.

This resolution, to a large extent, just basically puts together what is a reality. It puts together the point of the fact that obviously the whole issue of the Palestinian refugee situation will be actually resolved once there is a Palestinian state. So I urge the adoption of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution affirms Congress's bipartisan support for the principles outlined by President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon regarding Israel's proposed disengagement plan. Congressional support for the disengagement from Gaza and removal of settlements is a positive step toward reducing tensions with the Palestinians and could help revitalize the stalled Mideast peace process.

Our nation's support for Israel is of the utmost importance and could not be clearer. We stand firmly in support of Israel in the fight against terrorism. We must acknowledge the strategic importance of Israel as the only democracy in the region and, above all, Israel's absolute right of self-defense. We will continue to offer our steadfast support as Israel faces the ongoing threat of terrorism.

In 2000, then Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Authority Chairman Arafat were close to forging an accord on final status issues, but Arafat walked away. There is no doubt that Arafat is not capable of negotiating a peace agreement. At this time, Israel lacks a viable Palestinian partner to negotiate a peace agreement, yet the people of Israel continue to face the daily threat of suicide bombers. This status quo is unacceptable. The framework laid out by Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush provides a sound basis for Israelis to live their lives with a decreased threat of terror until a viable Palestinian partner emerges.

This resolution goes a long way toward acknowledging the realities on the ground today and the impact they will have on final status negotiations. It recognizes that the Palestinian claim to a right of return beyond the borders of a future Palestinian state is demographically untenable for Israel's future as a Jewish state. As such, negotiations must ensure that Israel can live as an independent state within secure, recognized and defensible borders that reflect this reality. At the same time, we recognize the importance and support the establishment of a separate Palestinian state that can live in peace with its neighbor, Israel.

Recently, Israel has been waging a significant campaign to eliminate the terrorist threat, resulting in a three-month period of calm despite terrorist groups' intent to continue violent

attacks on Israelis. This period of calm combined with the steps taken in Sharon's disengagement plan could provide an opportunity to reassess of the status of peace negotiations and get the discussions back on track.

It is our hope that the Israeli and Palestinian people ultimately live as independent nations in peace and security. I sincerely hope these new efforts will revitalize the stalled Mideast peace process and bring all parties back to the negotiating table. Until those negotiations restart, the agreement reached by the President and Prime Minister Sharon will promote Israel's continuing efforts to defend itself from terrorism, and Congress fully supports this agreement.