Reaffirming the United States' commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding, and before I talk about these issues, let me first compliment the gentleman from Florida. He hasn't been in Congress very long, but he certainly made his mark very strongly, particularly on the U.S.-Israel relationship. He has been a stalwart supporter and a very articulate spokesperson for the U.S.-Israel relationship. I know that Mr. Deutch has been very, very effective, and it is an honor to do this Special Order with him this evening.

Madam Speaker, I agree with everything that every one of my colleagues said. Let me first say, because we are Democrats having this Special Order, there has been a lot of fighting in Congress, but one thing we don't fight about, Democrats and Republicans, we agree that the U.S.-Israel relationship must remain strong. If there is one thing that unites this Congress and unites Democrats and Republicans, it's strong support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Many of my colleagues have made very, very good points, many of which I want to reiterate, but I think the most important thing to reiterate is this: If there is a dispute anywhere around the world, the only way you can resolve that dispute is getting the two adversaries face to face in direct negotiations to hammer out all of the areas of disagreement and hopefully come to a peace agreement.

That happened in Ireland, in Northern Ireland, a place that we never thought would get peace but did, because both sides made the commitment that they preferred peace over war and over misery that had gone on for far too long. So they sat down face to face, with a little prodding from other countries, including the United States, and were able to hash out an agreement. That, I'm convinced, is the way that the Middle East difficulties will come to fruition, only by face-to-face negotiations.

The Palestinians, in my estimation, have attempted to throw so many preconditions at Israel before they will even sit down and negotiate that it has made it impossible for Israel to be able to sit down and talk with them. Boundaries like 1967 boundaries or settlements or expansion of neighborhoods, all these are final status issues. These are not issues where one side says to the other side, you have to unilaterally agree with our position before we will even sit down and negotiate with you. That makes no sense whatsoever. So face-to-face negotiations are the only way that we can have peace.

I would argue that going to the United Nations by the Palestinians actually sets back the cause of peace because if the United Nations were to declare a Palestinian state, say on the basis of the 1967 lines, which is what the Palestinians want, well, that is a guarantee that there can never be peace with an agreement like that. First of all, if the United Nations were to agree to that, no Palestinian leader in the future could ever accept anything less. And the Israelis can never accept, and will never accept, a return to the 1967 borders, which were indefensible. Israel fought wars because those 1967 borders were not defensible. And so these preconditions, and this going to the United Nations, actually sets back the cause of peace.

Now I just think a little bit of history is important because it's so easy to go on college campuses or to try to delegitimize Israel and the United Nations or to have statements that aren't really true. The fact of the matter is that Israel has always been prepared to make painful concessions for peace. I was in this Congress during 2000-2001 when President Clinton helped negotiate what we thought was a peace, the Oslo Accords, and what we thought was a peace between Israel and the Palestinians. I remember in 1993 on the White House lawn with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands. I remember being there with my 8-month pregnant wife in 95-degree weather, and we all had such high hopes.

But what has happened? Abba Eban used to say the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And there have been many opportunities for peace. In 2000-2001, Israel agreed to a peace. Arafat, who was the Palestinian leader, said no. And what did Arafat turn down at that time? He turned down a Palestinian state, part of Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and billions and billions of dollars of aid. Israel said yes. He said no. I think it's important to put that in perspective.

Then the Palestinians talk about the right of return. They want to flood Israel with Palestinian refugees--not refugees that left in 1948, when Israel was founded--but their descendants. And that's a pipe dream because that could never happen. It would undermine the essence of a Jewish State of Israel.

So if there is going to be peace in the Middle East, we need to go back to what the partition of Palestine in 1948, the original resolution, said in the U.N. It said Palestine is to be partitioned into an Arab state and a Jewish state. And here we are, some 63 years later, and the Palestinians and most of the Arab world won't even recognize Israel as a Jewish state. That's where the problem lies, not with Israel. And the attempt to go to the United Nations and sort of do an end game around Israel will not work.

Finally, and then I'd be happy to discuss this further with my colleague from Florida (Mr. Deutch), let me just say this, and we have heard some rumblings about it with some of our colleagues here. This Congress will not continue to fund the Palestinian Authority. It's not going to be a blank check. If the Palestinian Authority doesn't want peace and doesn't show that it wants peace, we are not going to continue to fund them.

I introduced a resolution in the Foreign Affairs Committee which came before the State Department markup which passed unanimously on a roll call vote withholding money, ending money to the Palestinian Authority if they come to the United Nations for a vote. It passed unanimously-- every Democrat, every Republican. And so this Congress is not going to be a fool. Either the Palestinians want peace or they don't. But they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they want peace and refuse to sit down and talk to Israel face to face at a negotiating table.

So, Mr. Deutch, I want to thank you for doing this. I think it is very, very important that all people of good will, Democrats and Republicans, stand together in support of Israel. I think the President's speech today at the United Nations was a very good speech where he talked about the bond is unbreakable between the United States and Israel.

And we have to make sure that the Palestinians live up to their commitment. Israel is willing to live up to its commitments. Israel wants to live in peace. We're now waiting to see what the Palestinian and the Arab states want to do.

Finally, let me say this. There are two factions in the Palestinians: One is Fatah, which is Abbas' faction, and one is Hamas. Hamas controls Gaza. Hamas is a terrorist group. Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist. Hamas certainly doesn't recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist. How can we expect our ally Israel to sit, negotiate, and make peace with an entity that denies its very right to exist and an entity whose whole reason for being is to destroy the Jewish state?

We wouldn't ask that of ourselves. We shouldn't ask that of Israel.

Thank you, Mr. Deutch for pointing that out because, unfortunately, I said before that the U.N. had been a kangaroo court against Israel time and time again. Israel cannot get a fair shake in the United Nations. I do hope that we are able to block the votes in the Security Council where the United States, the Obama administration, has said that the President will do a veto of any kind of resolution, and I hope that it won't even come to that because I hope that they do not get the requisite number of votes to even pass it.

And then the Palestinians might then go to the General Assembly. They say they are going to do that. And while the General Assembly cannot admit a Palestinian state, it can upgrade their status, which would allow them to run around and harass Israeli leaders in the different international courts.

I just think the U.N. better be careful. It sits in my hometown of New York, and we have always been proud that the U.N. is in New York. But I think the U.N. is on the verge of discrediting itself very, very badly.

There was resolution 242, which talked about land for peace in the Middle East. I would say that the Palestinians, by trying to get recognition unilaterally in the U.N., they are repudiating the land for peace. They're certainly repudiating the Oslo Accords,

which said that both states have to sit down, the Palestinians and the Israelis have to sit down and hammer out an agreement. As I mentioned before, it even repudiates the very basis of the initial partition of Palestine in 1947 and '48 into a Jewish state and an Arab state.

And we talk about the Palestinian refugees. They have been used as pawns by the Palestinian leadership--and frankly by all the other Arab states in the world. And we ought to mention this because it's very, very important. Jewish refugees from North Africa and all over the world, from Europe, from all over the world, came to Israel and were integrated into Israeli society through the years. The Palestinian refugees could have and should have been integrated in the various Arab countries, but the Arab leaders decided to leave them in these horrendous conditions in these camps, to use the Palestinian refugees as pawns in the Palestinian camps.

It wasn't done by the Israelis. It was done by the Palestinians themselves and by the Arab nations themselves to use them as political pawns. So I think we should look at the people who are really suffering here and say why they're suffering. They're suffering because they've had a leadership that has failed them for more than 60 years.

So I'm very proud of the United States of America. I'm proud of our country for standing up for freedom. I'm proud of our country for standing with Israel. I'm proud that the President said the bond between Israel is unbreakable. We have to understand that this is not a fight between two groups that are sort of equal in being concerned about democracy. Israel shares our values. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. What's important to Israel is important to the United States. That's why we have to stand with Israel because if we don't do it, nobody else will. We've shown time and time and time again that the international community, particularly the United Nations, is biased against Israel; and unless the United States stands squarely with Israel, Israel will never get a fair shake.

So I am proud that we are doing that now at the United Nations. I am proud that we have taken a stand. I am proud of this Congress, on a bipartisan basis, for taking a pro-Israel stand. The United States--and I would say this to the people of Israel--will always stand with our friends and allies, Israel, who care for the basic human rights and concerns and democracy and democratic values that we care about as well.

So as we see this unfolding, I would just say to the Palestinians, if you really want your state, if you really want a two-state solution-- which I believe you are entitled to--then sit down with Israel face to face across the negotiating table, no preconditions, and talk peace. The Israelis are ready to do it. We're still waiting for the Palestinians.

Thank you, Mr. Deutch.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here following those series of speeches delivered that lead perfectly into the discussion that we're here to have.

This is a crucial moment for the State of Israel, for the United States, for the relationship that binds us together. This is an important moment for those who believe in democracy and for those who believe in peace. We will all be watching what transpires at the United Nations in the coming days as the Palestinians continue to move forward with an ill-fated attempt to create a state that can only be created by negotiation.

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a discussion with some of my colleagues, and I would like to start by recognizing my neighbor and my friend, the gentlelady from Florida, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz.

Thank you very much. The same to you.

I would note the President also spoke today at some length about the need to recognize Israel's security interests. The fact that Israel is a country that is surrounded by enemies, that has faced rocket attacks, barrages, at times on a regular basis, that it is imperative that all of our allies around the world who understand the security threats that Israel faces, that they understand that it is in Israel's interest to take the action necessary to defend herself even as they move toward the negotiations with the Palestinians. That's something that every nation would understand.

I appreciate your bringing that up today.

It is my pleasure and my honor to yield time to the impressive and wonderful former chair and now the impressive and wonderful ranking member of the State, Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Lowey from Westchester.

Thank you, Congresswoman Lowey.

There are few in this body who understand as well as you the importance of weighing the decisions to allocate United States' foreign aid and where that money goes. You have been such a vocal and passionate supporter of aid to Israel in order to give Israel the ability to defend herself. I think you spoke eloquently about the questions that will be raised if the P.A. continues to move forward on this gambit at the United Nations, calling into question their commitment to negotiation and ultimately raising the reevaluation of aid to the Palestinians.

I thank you very much for sharing that with us.

I thank the gentlelady from New York.

It is now my honor to yield such time as she may consume to a colleague and friend who has often been described as the great pro- Israel Member of the United States House of Representatives, the Representative from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.

Thank you very much, Representative Berkley.

If there is going to be peace, you are absolutely right: that is peace that will come through negotiations. And I am not sure what type of negotiating tactic it is to, on the one hand, say that there is a commitment to negotiating, but at the same time to run to the United Nations to unilaterally declare a state in a way that only seeks to delegitimize your so-called peace partner.

Israel is committed to peace. We've seen that time and time again. Prime Minister Netanyahu is set, ready to negotiate. It is time that the P.A. moves forward with negotiations. I appreciate your insight and your commentary.

I would tell that you that as you spoke about Hamas, the P.A. made a decision also to move into a partnership with that terrorist organization, a terrorist organization that still holds Gilad Shalit captive and refuses to let the world see him, meet with him. He should be released.

This is a message that was given to Hamas, to the P.A. directly, in a meeting that I was privileged to participate in on a bipartisan trip to Israel some months back. I was pleased to be on that trip with our friend from California, Representative Cardoza.

I am pleased to yield the gentleman as much time as he desires.

I thank my friend from California.

There are a lot of opportunities that we as Members have to participate in the process and to see the impact of the decisions that we make.

The opportunity that we had to spend some time in the community that had just been attacked with that rocket fire reminds us of what we are doing here this evening, what President Obama did at the United Nations earlier today, and what our allies throughout the world hopefully will do in standing up to support the one great democratic nation in the Middle East, why that is so vitally important.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Cardoza.

It is my pleasure and honor to yield as much time as he may choose to utilize to my good friend from New York, Representative Joe Crowley.

I thank you, Mr. Crowley.

The most important point to make right now in listening to you and listening to Mr. Cardoza and listening to the gentleman from California who spoke earlier from the other side, this is not a partisan issue. This is not a religious issue. This is a question of whether we stand together in support of democratic ideals, in support of the safety and security of our ally. That's what is at stake here, and I thank you for coming to so eloquently and passionately speak to that issue.

I thank the gentleman. Efforts to delegitimize the State of Israel at the United Nations must be opposed at every capital in this world. I thank you very much.

It is my pleasure to recognize my friend and colleague, a passionate supporter of the State of Israel who hails from a community in Illinois with an equally passionate zeal for the safety and security of the State of Israel, Representative Schakowsky.

And I thank you, Congresswoman Schakowsky. Your talk about the President's statement today is important. Equally important is what the administration has been doing leading up to that speech today, in the way that the U.N. Ambassador has continued to press our allies, in the way that this administration has been clear throughout that if this movement goes forward, if the Palestinians continue to go to the Security Council, that the United States will veto that resolution because it is not a way to achieve peace. I appreciate your sharing those thoughts and raising those issues with us.

It is a great privilege for me now to turn over the floor and yield to my friend, who is one of the fiercest defenders of the U.S.-Israel relationship, one of the most outspoken Members of this body when it comes to standing up for the safety and security of the State of Israel and someone who has steadfastly remained engaged in this issue, even traveling to New York, before coming back to Washington, to speak directly to those who will be making decisions at the United Nations, a good friend and a great colleague, Eliot Engel.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Engel, if the Palestinians were serious about peace, they would abandon their unity with Hamas. They would abandon this plan to move forward at the United Nations, and they would return to the negotiating table. But this doesn't seem to be the case, as we've discussed here tonight. They seem intent on, in fact, making a mockery of the United Nations by using it as a platform to delegitimize Israel. But we will stand up to that effort. We'll stand up against it. The fact is from the vile ``Zionism is Racism'' resolution of the 1970s to the biased and misleading Goldstone Report, the United States has, time and time again, stood up against such delegitimization efforts, loudly voicing our opposition and declaring that we won't tolerate such bogus and malicious accusations. And we'll stand up again for Israel this week in New York, but not just today and Friday.

I would like to take a moment to talk about what is going to be happening tomorrow. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brings his campaign of hatred to the United Nations General Assembly, as he stands just miles from Ground Zero a mere 3 weeks after the 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks and blasphemously declares that the U.S. Government orchestrated the attacks to reverse the declining American economy, as he did last year, we will stand up for those brave men and women who lost their lives that day and every day since fighting for freedom. And when he stands at the U.N. and celebrates the 10th anniversary of the Durban hatefest that was an anti-Semitic rant against Israel, we will stand up for the freedom and democracy that Israel represents, the freedom and democracy that Ahmadinejad so brutally represses in his own country. That's going to be our role just tomorrow. And I know that you will look forward to standing in strong opposition to those statements from one who wishes to see Israel wiped off the map, one who could probably be tried for incitement to genocide for his statements, you will stand with me, as you always have, in opposition to the rhetoric, the hateful rhetoric, that we will be forced to listen to tomorrow.

I thank you very much, Mr. Engel, for your passionate words.

I think it's important, as we wrap this up, to think about why it is and to remind our colleagues and the American people why it is that we are so committed to this bond with Israel, and we do it because the bond with Israel runs deeper than our interests in Middle East affairs. It runs deeper than mutual security interests. Our bond is born out of the values that our two nations share, the values of freedom, of respect, of human rights. We as Americans share those values with the people of Israel. They are universal values, American values. They span religious and political parties. They bring people together from all walks of life. They are the things that some of Israel's neighbors are losing their lives fighting for, the values that Israel holds dear as a great democracy in the Middle East and in the world.

Israel faces one of its greatest challenges, a worldwide campaign to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state. The United States must continue to remind the world why it is that we stand in solidarity with Israel.

I urge our allies around the world to stand with us now in urging the Palestinians to abandon this misguided and dangerous quest. If Mr. Abbas seeks a state where the Palestinian people can truly prosper, a peaceful state, then he will look to Israel as a partner. He will understand why negotiations provide the only path to peace; and he will take his seat at the negotiating table.

To our whip, Steny Hoyer, who helped us arrange this hour, and to my colleagues who participated, and to everyone who has tuned in even for a moment, I want to say thank you, thank you for giving us the opportunity to stand up at this most difficult and crucial moment in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship and remind our allies from around the world--and every nation from around the world--just how strong and unbreakable the bond between our two nations is.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to join with so many Members of the House to express our profound concern, and strenuous opposition, to the impending request by the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, to seek a unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations later this week.

The Palestinian leadership says it wants peace with Israel, but their actions and words contradict their assertions. It is not at all clear President Abbas is even capable of making peace with Israel. He refused to enter direct negotiations last year even when Israel agreed to a settlement freeze. He refuses to accept a simple statement that he accepts Israel as a Jewish state. And, as a prelude to his bid for statehood from the United Nations, he wrote in the New York Times last May: ``Palestine's admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one.'' Recognition of statehood by the United Nations, in other words, is simply another front in the conflict--and not a settlement of the conflict.

Any move towards statehood for Palestine in the United Nations is gravely flawed.

First, a unilateral declaration of statehood, by the Palestinians themselves or through the United Nations, constitutes a unilateral repudiation of the peace process. A Palestinian state can only emerge at the conclusion of a peace treaty with Israel. As President Obama told the assembled leaders of the world today at the United Nations: ``There is no short cut to the end of a conflict that has endured for decades. Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations.''

Second, a unilateral declaration by the Palestinians will not bring a State of Palestine into existence. Without agreed borders, there is no agreed state. Without an agreed state, there is no lawfully constituted government of the state of Palestine.

Third, such action at the United Nations may well provoke violence in the West Bank and Gaza and possibly across the region. Excessive expectations among the Palestinians have been induced by the public campaign of the Palestinian Authority to seek statehood through the U.N. Reality cannot and will not meet those expectations--leading to immense frustration for Palestinians in the West Bank and elsewhere. In the past, this has led to successive uprisings targeting Israel. Such violence has been vicious and inhumane, with

immense loss of life--and it serves no purpose. It brings neither peace nor statehood any closer. But the threat of violence overhangs the Palestinian maneuvers at the U.N.

Fourth, unilateral action at the United Nations will be a major setback of incalculable duration to any meaningful resolution of the issues if there is to be a just and lasting peace with Israel, and the establishment of a Palestinian state. If the Palestinians seek to act on their own, what is there to negotiate with Israel? Where is the dialogue? What can possibly be the prospects for a meeting of the minds and a resolution of the issues of borders, security, Jerusalem, and refugees? A unilateral declaration of statehood is not a substitute for the peace process; it is a repudiation of the peace process. And that means the end to the peace process.

Fifth, a recognition of Palestine by the United Nations will lead to great legal vulnerability to Israel and its government's leaders by giving Palestine standing in several international institutions, such as the International Court of Justice. No settlement of any issues or grievances between the parties can be advanced by legal harassment of Israel in international organizations.

For all these reasons, I believe it is imperative that the United Nations reject any unilateral bid for statehood for Palestine.

The member states of the United Nations must understand that a vote against a resolution in the General Assembly is not a vote against a Palestinian State--it is a vote to get the parties into direct negotiations so that a Palestinian State can truly and successfully and legitimately arise.

As President Obama said today: ``We will only succeed in that effort if we can encourage the parties to sit down together, to listen to each other, and to understand each other's hopes and fears. That is the project to which America is committed, and that is what the United Nations should be focused on in the weeks and months to come.''

Last week, I was pleased to join with dozens of Members of the House in correspondence directed to several dozen foreign heads of state, in which we urged that their governments reject a unilateral declaration of statehood for Palestine by the United Nations.

I commend our correspondence to all our colleagues. We will continue our efforts at the United Nations and redouble our commitment to the re-commencement of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians leading to a peace agreement between them.

House of Representatives,

September 15, 2011.

We write on a matter of great urgency, on the eve of the

United Nations General Assembly meeting. It is our

understanding that the leadership of the Palestinian

Authority will pursue a resolution at the United Nations--in

either or both the Security Council and the General

Assembly--to grant the Palestinians the equivalent of

statehood and/or prejudge final issues, including borders and

the status of Jerusalem. One of the major goals of this

effort is for the Palestinians to better position themselves

to petition the International Criminal Court, very possibly

bogging down the court for the foreseeable future.

It is our strong belief that such unilateral action would

have devastating consequences for the peace process and the

Palestinians themselves. Accordingly, we urge you in the

strongest terms not to support this effort.

We believe that the only way to achieve a two-state

solution is through direct negotiations leading to a peace

treaty fully accepted by both governments and by both

peoples. A just and lasting peace cannot and must not be

imposed on the parties. If the Palestinians pursue such a

unilateral approach, it violates the letter and spirit of the

Oslo Accords and will deal a significant blow to future

negotiations. Given the expectations gap among the

Palestinian public, such action could lead to widespread

violence on the ground, jeopardizing the West Bank's

impressive economic and security gains over recent years.

There is also a substantial risk of more broadly inflaming

the region and increasing violence at a time of already great

instability. Finally, the United States will reconsider its

assistance program for the Palestinian Authority and other

aspects of U.S.-Palestinian relations if they choose to

pursue such a unilateral effort.

We are confident that your government shares the United

States' commitment to a comprehensive resolution of the

conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That

outcome can only be achieved through direct negotiations. A

vote on a unilateral UN resolution will likely set prospects

for peace back years.

Our bilateral relationship is based on certain fundamental

values. We urge you to vote those values, and to stand with

the United States in not supporting unilateral action at the

UN that would impede the peace we all seek.

Thank you for your consideration of our views.

Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer; Democratic Leader Nancy

Pelosi; Rep. Gary Ackerman; Rep. Joe Baca; Rep. Shelley

Berkley; Rep. Howard Berman; Rep. Madeleine Bordallo;

Rep. Leonard Boswell; Rep. Dennis Cardoza; Rep. Russ

Carnahan; Rep. David Cicilline; Rep. Emanuel Cleaver;

Rep. Gerry Connolly; Rep. Jim Costa; Rep. Jerry

Costello; Rep. Mark Critz; Rep. Joseph Crowley; Rep.

Susan Davis; Rep. Rosa DeLauro; Rep. Ted Deutch.

Rep. Eliot Engel; Rep. Charlie Gonzalez; Rep. Gene Green;

Rep. Janice Hahn; Rep. Brian Higgins; Rep. Kathy

Hochul; Rep. Tim Holden; Rep. Steve Israel; Rep.

William Keating; Rep. Larry Kissell; Rep. James

Langevin; Rep. John Larson; Rep. Sander Levin; Rep. Dan

Lipinski; Rep. Nita Lowey; Rep. Carolyn Maloney; Rep.

James McGovern; Rep. Gregory Meeks; Rep. Michael

Michaud; Rep. Chris Murphy.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler; Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton; Rep.

Bill Owens; Rep. Gary Peters; Rep. Steven Rothman; Rep.

C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger; Rep. John Sarbanes; Rep.

Janice Schakowsky; Rep. Adam Schiff; Rep. Allyson

Schwartz; Rep. David Scott; Rep. Brad Sherman; Rep.

Heath Shuler; Rep. Albio Sires; Rep. Betty Sutton; Rep.

Edolphus Towns; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Rep.

Henry Waxman.

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honor to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida, my colleague, Colonel West, an American hero.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to another Florida colleague (Mrs. Adams), a veteran of the U.S. Air Force.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I am very pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

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.

Madam Speaker, may I ask for the time remaining on each side.

I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Mr. Deutch.

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).

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.

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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.