Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Transportation Security Administration should, in accordance with existing law, enhance security against terrorist attack and other security threats to our Nation's rail and mass transit systems and other modes of surface transportation; and for other purposes.

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.

Madam Speaker, I do not intend to oppose this measure because I agree with its basic premise: that the United States Congress strongly supports a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and opposes any action that will make such an outcome harder to achieve.

However, I have serious reservations about several of the assertions this resolution makes--as well as those it doesn't make--about recent developments in, and U.S. policy toward, Israel and the Palestinian territories. These concerns are more than abstract: at a time of generational change in the Middle East, the positions that this Congress takes on an issue of such vital importance will have lasting implications for our nation's goals and interests in the region.

For two decades, irrespective of which party has controlled the White House or Congress,

the central aim of U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been to encourage a negotiated resolution based on the principle of a democratic, Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable, democratic Palestinian state. Republican and Democratic presidents alike have affirmed that such an outcome will only be achieved through direct negotiations between the two parties, and have opposed any action by either side that undermines or diminishes the prospects for a negotiated peace.

To be sure, the Palestinian leadership's intent to pursue diplomatic recognition at the United Nations qualifies as such an action, and on this point I agree with the sponsors of this resolution. I also share their concerns about the prospect of a Palestinian unity government that does not recognize Israel's right to exist or renounce violence against innocent civilians. Either development would represent a major setback for the peace process as we know it, and Congress is right to warn Palestinian leaders about the consequences of their course of action.

But as usual, the resolution before us today tells only half the story. It says nothing about Israel's responsibility to act as a serious negotiating partner and abide by its previous commitments under the Road Map and other agreements. It says nothing about Israel's refusal to halt settlement construction in order to allow direct negotiations to resume--even when the Obama Administration offered a lavish package of aid and assurances for Israel to do something that was manifestly in its own interest to begin with. It condemns the Palestinian president for his unilateral actions while failing to comprehend that it has been Israel's intransigence that has led him to view the United Nations as his only recourse. And as usual, the resolution has been rushed to the floor without any serious debate or any opportunity for input from the many members of this body who care about this critical issue.

This resolution is also being considered at a pivotal moment in the history of the peace process, as well as the history of the broader Middle East. After years of false starts and broken promises, the prospects for a negotiated peace appear as dim today as at any time in recent memory, and may grow dimmer still as the political winds in the Arab world shift in unpredictable ways. Now, perhaps more than ever before, strong and decisive U.S. leadership is needed to persuade both sides of the urgency of the moment and bring them back to the negotiating table. It is only a matter of time before there is no table left around which to negotiate.

Yet instead of urging the President to redouble his commitment to the pursuit of peace, we are urging him to lead a diplomatic initiative to oppose Palestinian recognition. Instead of encouraging him to bring the full weight of American ideas, influence, and resources to bear on this critical issue, we are asking him to suspend U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority--the very assistance that has been so essential to laying the foundations for a future Palestinian state. Instead of congratulating him for his efforts to revive the stalled negotiations by outlining his ideas for the boundaries of a future Palestinian state, too many of my colleagues seem more interested in manufacturing a controversy for political gain. Unfortunately, the current Israeli prime minister seems all too willing to play along, despite the fact that the two previous U.S. presidents--not to mention at least two former Israeli prime ministers--have advocated positions nearly identical to that outlined by President Obama.

So while I will cast my vote in favor of H. Res. 28, I am reminded of the story of Nero playing the fiddle as Rome burns. The Middle East is transforming before our eyes, and the window of opportunity for the United States to achieve a just and lasting resolution to this age-old conflict may be closing rapidly. We should seize this moment of opportunity and recommit ourselves to the pursuit of peace before it is too late.

I thank my very good friend from California for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, the Middle East peace process is at risk of collapse, and I believe that only American leadership can save it. Both sides can and should do more to restart negotiations.

House Resolution 268, despite the fact that it has virtually unanimous support from this body and includes a laudable reaffirmation of the United States' commitment to a negotiated solution to the conflict, in fact falls short of the kind of leadership that I believe is needed. This resolution chastises the Palestinians for seeking to bridge the divide in their own community and for pursuing recognition of their state at the United Nations.

On the first point, I think we should give the Palestinian Authority, which has done an impressive job of developing institutions and its economy in the West Bank, some credit. They have tried to provide the leadership to pursue the goals that we have encouraged them to do; and they have, I think, done so in terms of developing democratic institutions in a way that we should be proud of because we had a role in that, a major role.

There is no indication they have any inclination to allow Hamas to jeopardize those gains that have been achieved in the West Bank. And thus far the reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah has yet to yield any progress on a unity government. In fact, at this point it is unclear that it really will. So in many ways, the purpose for bringing forth this resolution is moot.

Should Hamas be invited to join a Palestinian unity government without accepting the conditions of The Quartet, the European Union, the United Nations, United States, Russia, those are the internationally designated bodies that have come forward with an agreement we have agreed to, if they invite Hamas to join a coalition government without accepting the conditions that we insist upon, it will have very serious implications for our relationship. And that should be the reason why we should cut off financial aid.

In 2006, Palestinian elections, which in fact were advanced by the Bush administration, are what brought Hamas into power. In reaction, the United States, as well as The International Quartet, suspended assistance to the Palestinian Authority. And the Obama administration is continuing that policy. There is no aid going to Gaza.

We need to recognize that Palestinian unity is crucial to a long-term peace. Gaza's separation from the West Bank, though, has made it impossible to advance meaningful negotiations with Israel.

Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other argument.

Madam Speaker, there is insufficient time to lay out the other side to what has been presented. I don't particularly have strong disagreement with many of the points that have been made, but I do think there is another perspective to this. It ought to be advanced in this body.

I thank my good friend for yielding me the time.

I thank Mr. Berman for yielding. I thank Ms. Ros-Lehtinen for bringing this resolution to the floor. And I am pleased to join my colleague and friend, Mr. Cantor, in strong support of this resolution.

I believe there is only one lasting solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, a future of two states for two peoples living in security and peace with one another. Such a solution is in the best interests of regional peace and in the best interests of both parties. That is why I strongly believe that ensuring the long-term viability of the Jewish democratic State of Israel also requires supporting a homeland for the Palestinian people.

History teaches us that in conflicts such as this, one peace must be negotiated. It cannot and will not be imposed from outside or else it will rest on an unstable and temporary foundation. That is why I strongly oppose Palestinian efforts to impose a solution to the conflict at the United Nations, as well as Palestinian efforts to unilaterally declare statehood. I am concerned that a unilateral declaration will only encourage both sides to dig in and put a lasting negotiated peace further at risk.

As President Obama said, and as Mr. Berman has quoted--and I want to quote a little more of the President's remarks, but I will repeat some of what Mr. Berman said because I think it is relevant--I quote the President of the United States: ``For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end

in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.''

I believe the President is absolutely correct. By passing this resolution, the House will make it clear that it agrees that a real peace can only come through negotiations between the two sides. That peace will only last if both sides buy into it. We all know that those negotiations have been and are now relatively nonexistent, and they will be difficult even having been entered into. They will be painful. They will require courage and sacrifice on both sides. But the hard way is also the right way. And if there is to be any hope of peace, as surely all of us pray there is, both sides must return to the table without preconditions.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. And I will continue to urge America's allies to stand against quick, unilateral, and ultimately unstable solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I thank the gentleman and the chair for bringing this resolution to the floor.