Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I would like to say to my friend from Georgia, when he is talking about past Vice President Dan Quayle, what he needed to do was know how to spell potato.

Madam Speaker, last week President Bush was asked what distinguishes Vice President Dick Cheney from Senator John Edwards, John Kerry's Vice Presidential running mate. Mr. Bush's haughty reply was, ``Dick Cheney can be President.''

This implied criticism of Senator Edwards, who happens to sit on the prominent Senate Intelligence Committee. And this is quite laughable because Senator Edwards actually has more experience than George W. Bush did at the time he ran for office in the year 2000.

The appalling part of this comment is that not only could Dick Cheney be President, he has performed the functions of the Presidency. Since day one, Dick Cheney has wheeled, dealed and cajoled his way to accomplish his dangerous, self-serving, neo-conservative agenda.

Dick Cheney has chomped at the bit to finish the job he started in 1991 as Secretary of Defense when the United States first went to war with Iraq. In the year 2003 when President Bush needed to make the case for going to war with Iraq, it was Dick Cheney who met with the intelligence analysts at the CIA to determine whether Iraq possessed nuclear weapons.

Vice President Cheney claims that he did not strong-arm these analysts into adopting his view that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Despite what I am sure were Cheney's best and most benevolent intentions, the Vice President of the United States probably registered quite a bit of influence with a bunch of career CIA analysts who were likely to give him the evidence he wanted, whether it was true or not. And it was Vice President Cheney, not President Bush, the Commander in Chief, who gave the unsuccessful order to shoot down the hijacked planes on September 11. At a time when America was being attacked, it was Vice President Cheney who made the important decisions.

By now this pattern should be quite clear. Vice President Cheney does the real work of the administration, making the key decisions in our times of greatest need.

When George Bush says that Dick Cheney can be President, he is right, but that says more about President Bush's own failure of leadership than it says anything about Vice President Cheney's abilities.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. They deserve better than a man-behind-the-man presidency. Senator John Edwards will not be the kind of Vice President who will falsify intelligence for the purposes of sending our young men and women to war. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he knows better.

We need leaders who will not abdicate the Constitution in the name of political opportunism, a Presidential team that will pursue smarter policies than those of the current administration.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392, the SMART security resolution, which provides a much smarter national security platform than the one we currently have. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART security means confronting the threat of terrorism not by creating more terrorism, as the Bush administration has done in Iraq, but by striking at the very heart of the real terror networks.

SMART would cut off financing for terrorist groups and would break up of their organizations around the world, engaging the international community in this process, the same international community the Bush administration so callously disregarded in its march to war.

SMART security provides a better path for America than the one we are currently on. Could Dick Cheney be President? Sure, if you do not mind the fact that the real President is asleep at the wheel, but John Edwards, who could step in for John Kerry on a moment's notice, will not be a shadow President because John Kerry will lead this country on a truly smart path.

The voters will decide in November what they want: an administration that unnecessarily sent American troops into a war that has cost the lives of thousands, or a Kerry-Edwards administration that will be smart about America's national security.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the freedom to read, and Americans' right to read and purchase books without fear of Government monitoring. This freedom has been wiped out, it has been erased, it has been undone by the passage of the PATRIOT Act. Congress must repeal this unconstitutional provision. By yesterday's tampering with the important vote to give back freedoms, the majority leadership's abuse of power stepped in and forced their members to change their votes . . . to deny the majority vote the right to prevail.

The PATRIOT Act forces library users to self-censor their reading choices out of fear. Mr. Speaker, censorship is not what America is about. The existing law would make one believe that by reading a book, the 9/11 terrorists came into existence. The existing law would lead one to believe that books are the enemy. Let us not forget the book burnings in Germany. Books are only the enemy if we do not want our population to be educated.

The majority leadership has spoken. They have prevented a true bi- partisan decision to protect America's right to democracy.

Mr. Chairman, we have lost over 2.5 million jobs, manufacturing jobs, under this administration. Actually, we have lost 2.7 million jobs. I guess we should not be surprised, considering that the President's economic report suggested fixing the job-loss problem by reclassifying fast-food jobs as manufacturing jobs and by nominating the exporter of U.S. jobs, Anthony Raimondo, as the new manufacturing czar. And he just did that 4 months ago.

Obviously, this administration does not get it, and neither does the leadership in the House. Why else would Republicans bring up a bill that would increase tax breaks for multinational corporations that ship jobs abroad? And why else would the President's chief economist endorse outsourcing as a long-term benefit for jobless Americans?

Well, obviously I believe that we need to be doing a lot more to encourage an increase in the number of manufacturing jobs in our country, but I am glad that after ignoring the country's manufacturing crisis for the last 3 years, we are here today taking a small step forward to reauthorize the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. I am just sorry that we are not doing more.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in the freedom to read, and Americans' right to read and purchase books without fear of government monitoring has been wiped out, it has been erased, it has been undone by the passage of the PATRIOT Act. Congress must repeal this unconstitutional provision, and we must do it today with this amendment.

The PATRIOT Act forces library users to self-censor their reading choices out of fear. Mr. Chairman, censorship is not what America is about. The existing law would make one believe that by reading a book, the 9/11 terrorists came into existence. The existing law would lead one to believe that books are the enemy. Let us not forget the book burnings in Germany. Books are only the enemy if we do not want our population to be educated.

Madam Speaker, the administration's war in Iraq has failed. It has failed to make the world a safer place. In fact, I fear that we are actually less safe from terrorism than we were. The world has actually been made less safe and more susceptible to acts of terror.

Who should be held accountable for this mess? The war is not going too well. Nearly 900 brave American soldiers have already lost their lives as a result of this deadly conflict, not to mention the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that have been killed. Worse, as many as 25,000 American troops have been evacuated from Iraq for medical reasons, 25,000. That is one-sixth of the number of troops currently stationed in Iraq.

This speaks to a systematic failure of leadership, and, sadly, examples of this failure are widespread and easily recalled: the failure to secure Iraq's borders, the failure to prevent postwar looting, and the failure to provide the security necessary for reconstruction. In fact, the abuse of POWs at the Abu Ghraib prison is yet another example of failed leadership by the Bush administration. And it is also an example of failed leadership in planning for the war and postwar reconstruction in Iraq.

But the most shameful aspect of our involvement in Iraq, our greatest failure of all, is our failure to provide adequately for our soldiers when it comes to equipment, the guidance, and the leadership they need to ensure their survival in Iraq and the success that they need to complete their stay in that country.

We failed to immediately provide our soldiers with the essential tools for their survival, body armor capable of stopping bullets, armor for tanks that would help prevent the destruction of U.S. military convoys, and the necessary water equipment to keep them hydrated in the desert heat. This issue is one that should have been accounted for during the planning phases of the war, not as an afterthought when our troops were stationed halfway across the world.

I ask my colleagues again who should be held accountable for this mess? Should it be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whom President Bush claimed was doing a ``superb job,'' and whom Vice President Cheney, in an absurd statement, called the best Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history? If Rumsfeld is doing a superb job, if he is the best Defense Secretary in history, then I really want to know who is the worst and what is a bad job.

Rumsfeld's consistent failure to adequately plan for the war in Iraq and the postwar phase, during which the lives of far more American soldiers have been lost than during the war itself, Donald Rumsfeld should resign his post with the best interests of the Nation in mind.

But we must also take heed of the quote made famous by President Harry S. Truman: ``The buck stops here.'' President Bush would be well served to embrace this policy, a policy that served President Truman and our Nation well during an earlier wartime. Secretary Rumsfeld must not be used as a scapegoat for the President's failures.

I have introduced legislation to create a SMART security platform for the 21st century, H. Con. Res. 392. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. Three wonderful organizations, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Friends Committee on National Legislation, and Women's Action for New Directions, helped in writing this legislation.

SMART treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And it aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations with an emphasis on women's health and women's education.

The Bush doctrine of unilateralism has been tried, and it has failed. It is time for a new national security strategy based on our commitment to peace, our commitment to freedom, our compassion for the people of the world, and our capacity for multilateral leadership. Let us be smart about our future. SMART security, H. Res. 392, is tough, is pragmatic, is patriotic, and it will keep America safe.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment because my mother had glaucoma and we bought her marijuana because it was a relief, and that was before this bill was passed in the State of California.

I support this amendment because it respects State authority, because the people in our State believe medical marijuana is a way to relieve those suffering from cancer, from glaucoma, from AIDS, from spastic disorders and other debilitating diseases.

This amendment will do only one thing: It will stop the Justice Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State laws. It changes no law.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, support this amendment so that those who suffer from debilitating diseases can get the relief that they need, and they can get it without fear of the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of last month, the United States Government handed control of Iraq ``back to its people.'' And everyone I know who is being at all intellectually honest believes that the choice of a June 30 deadline was driven more by the political calendar than anything else.

The Bush administration wants to have it both ways. They want to go before the voters with ``clean hands'' in the fall to say that the job has been completed just as they tried to declare ``mission accomplished'' a year ago, but at the same time remaining in charge of this occupation, while even after the handover, U.S. troops and other officials will enjoy full immunity if they should destroy property or kill Iraqi citizens.

Coming on the heels of the Abu Ghraib revelations, this arrogance and lack of accountability is absolutely staggering. The war in Iraq has already cost lives of hundreds of American soldiers, 25,000 being injured, the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and billions of dollars that should have been invested right here at home.

This war has diverted resources from the struggle against al Qaeda, the group actually responsible for the atrocities of 9/11. Now al Qaeda has regrouped and poses as great a strength and threat as ever.

This case for war was built on dubious intelligence and outright deceptions. The 9/11 Commission recently announced that it had access to all the same information as Vice President Cheney; yet there is ``no credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with al Qaeda.

Our presence in Iraq has been met not with gratitude but resentment. Instead of throwing flowers at American troops, Iraqis now throw torches at Humvees.

Mr. Speaker, our current national security approach is an unmitigated disaster, but do not take my word for it. Listen to the statement issued in mid-June by a group of 27 former senior diplomats and military officials. They said the Bush administration ``has failed in the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and providing world leadership.'' They went on to say: ``Instead of building upon America's great economic and moral strength to address the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which exit is uncertain.''

It is clearly time for a new national security policy, Mr. Speaker. And I have introduced H. Con. Resolution 392 to create a SMART security platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. SMART security treats war as an absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART security invests in the development of impoverished nations to prevent terrorism from taking root in the first place. SMART security is about preventing war as opposed to preemptive war. It emphasizes brains over brawn. It is tough, but diplomatic; aggressive, but peaceful; pragmatic, but idealistic.

President Bush loves to think that those who support his efforts in Iraq are patriotic and those who think there is a better way are unpatriotic, or worse, un-American. But I can think of nothing more patriotic than pursuing a national security policy that protects America by relying on the noblest of American values, our capacity for global leadership, our compassion for the people of the world, our commitment to peace and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to nuclear weapons, the policy of this administration looks like it was just pulled out of a 20-year-old time capsule. More than a decade after the fall of Soviet communism, President Bush and his national security team are still fighting the Cold War. Their budget called for more than $100 million for research and testing of new nuclear weapons, including the robust nuclear earth penetrator and a so-called low yield nuclear weapons program.

Fortunately, the Subcommittee on Energy and Water of the Committee on Appropriations lives in the year 2004 with the rest of us, and initially has rejected these requests.

Even India and Pakistan, two nations mired in generations of conflict, whose shared border has been called the world's most dangerous nuclear flashpoint, were recently able to reach a bilateral confidence building agreement on nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Bush administration enthusiastically jumps into the nuclear arms race. They believe the only good defense is a buildup of new nuclear weapons, which happens to violate the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that the United States signed in 1970.

They believe that the only good defense is a gigantic offense. But just how strong does our Nation need to be? We already have 9,000 strategic nuclear warheads. How many of these weapons of last resort do we require in order to be secure; how much money do we need to spend; how much money do we need to spend on nuclear weapons; how much more dangerous must we make the world; and how many domestic priorities must we neglect before we decide that enough is finally enough?

There has to be a better way, a more sensible way, an approach that, to use Abraham Lincoln's words, calls on the better angels of our nature, Mr. Speaker, there is.

I have introduced H. Con. Res. 392 to create a SMART Security Platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible, Multilateral, American Response to Terrorism. SMART treats war as the absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence and multilateral partnerships. It aggressively invests in the development of impoverished nations. It controls the spread of weapons of mass destruction, with a renewed commitment to nonproliferation. And instead of saber rattling, instead of employing irresponsible rhetoric, like ``axis of evil,'' the SMART nonproliferation approach calls for aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security arrangements and vigorous inspection regimes.

SMART security means the United States will set an example for the rest of the world by renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons and the development of new nuclear weapons. SMART security requires that the United States honor its multilateral nonproliferation commitments. If we are going to throw our weight around, demanding that other nations cease their weapons programs, we had better make sure we are meeting our obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Under SMART, we would invest fully in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, the CTR, an innovative partnership in which the Pentagon is working with the former Soviet Union to dismantle the nuclear weapons that were once aimed at our cities. CTR is critical to controlling the loose nuclear materials that are scattered throughout the former Soviet Union, keeping them from falling into the hands of rogue nations or terrorist groups.

Think about the price we have already paid to control weapons of mass

destruction in Iraq, weapons that do not even exist: Hundreds of American lives lost, thousands of Iraqi lives lost, thousands and thousands, in fact over 25,000 American soldiers injured, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent. Should we not be investing in eliminating a genuine nuclear threat? And we ought to be applying the lessons of CTR's success in Russia to dealing with Iran and North Korea.

Mr. Speaker, SMART security is an example. It is tough, but it is diplomatic; it is aggressive, but peaceful; it is pragmatic, but idealistic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule but only the rule, because I certainly support the underlying legislation. I do not support the rule because it does nothing to help Californians who have been bilked out of at least a billion dollars by Enron. It is unbelievable to me that the California members on the Committee on Rules would not make this issue that is so important to California part of today's debate.

During the 2001 energy crisis, Californians begged the President for relief, but the President did nothing. Each week, $50 million was drained from the pockets of Californians by Texas-based energy producers. The President actually called this supply and demand. Californians, however, called it highway robbery. As it turns out, while this was happening, Enron traders were laughing about sticking it to Gramma Millie in California.

It has taken a small utility in Washington State to do what this administration has refused to do: Bring to light the callous manipulation that harmed millions of Californians and West Coasters. Enron fleeced more than $1.1 billion from consumers while literally laughing all of the way to the bank. And even with the evidence brought out by the Enron tapes, the leadership of this House once again leaves millions of California consumers in the dark. I guess they want to hide what they have done to help Enron behind closed doors, much like the Bush administration has been working in the shadows with its energy plan for the Nation. Maybe they will not be happy until they have turned out the lights on all Americans. This bill does nothing to help California and the other western States get their retribution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent Brian Brady who is retiring as Chief of Police of Novato, California. He has served in this capacity since 1992, undertaking many innovative projects in the city and earning the respect of the community.

Educated at Golden Gate University and Sonoma State University, Chief Brady served in several cities in California and New Mexico before coming to Novato in 1982 as Captain of both the Operations and Services and Administration Divisions. With a commitment to the principles of Community Policing, he assisted in the development of the city's first Police Advisory and Review Board and the Multi-Cultural Oversight Committee. A broad community collaboration that involved all officers, including service on boards of directors, Community Policing resulted in constant interactions, constructive dialogues and creation of additional successful programs such as:

School Resource Officers project uses uniformed officers on campus as part of the day

to day operations at high schools and middle schools.

Project X is a youth team building project in which officers work with an Auto Shop Class at San Marin High School to build and maintain a drag racing vehicle. It has been painted to look like a police car and has been raced successfully, bringing money back to the program.

Girls Forum, developed after incidents of sexual assault, offers self-defense classes as well as instruction in self-esteem with women officers as role models. It is also supported by Soroptomist and Rotary.

Chief Brady's tenure will be especially remembered for his leadership in confronting hate crimes. I had the privilege of observing his work first hand after the racially motivated stabbing of a young Asian man outside a supermarket in Novato. Under his direction, the Police Department treated the incident as a hate crime from the outset by assigning top staff to the case and comforting the victim. Novato held public meetings to address the crime, resulting in the filming of Not in Our Town II, in which the city's response to hate crime is featured as an example to the nation. He continues to promote the use of diversity materials, including those that deal with lesbians and gays, in local classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, Brian Brady's inclusive vision for police work promotes the best in our communities. It is an honor to consider him a friend and to have shared in some of his inspiration and success.

Mr. Speaker, over 200 years ago, our Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the untested ideas of liberty, equality, and democracy. But today as a new generation of veterans is being created in Iraq and Afghanistan, Republicans are underfunding the programs that are vitally important to our veterans by passing a budget that underfunds veterans health care by $1 billion and rejecting Democratic efforts to fully fund VA health care.

What is even worse is that this will not stop this year because the Bush administration's plan for the 2006 budget includes a $900 million cut in funding for veterans health care. And this will conveniently not come into effect until after the election.

No Republican has come forward and rejected the Bush administration's latest proposals to cut veterans programs. Not one. This is outrageous.

Democrats are fighting to honor veterans by honoring their sacrifices. Why are the Republicans making our sons and daughters fight bravely on the battlefield and come home and fight the government for their benefits?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2507, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. This reauthorizes the Federal child nutrition programs, one of the most important bills I think that we consider here in the House of Representatives. This has become, through considerable effort on all sides, a bipartisan, bicameral bill. And I thank my colleagues and staff on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers who have worked so hard and in such good faith.

A lot of positive compromises were made to get to this point. I think that every Member who was involved in the negotiations, and even some who were not, gave up something while gaining in the long run. But we were determined all through the effort that the Federal child nutrition programs would continue to provide nutritious food for low-income infants and children at home, in child care centers, in family day care homes, at school, and when school is out for the day or the year. And that is what this bill before us today does.

While I would have liked to include a full expansion of the Free Breakfast Program for all kids and tighter restrictions on the junk food that is sold in schools, the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act does improve the Federal child nutrition programs in many ways, and I am not going to list all those ways because we have other people that would like to speak. But I want the Members to know that those of us that are here support exactly what is in this bill, and we are glad that we are able to support it. What I hope and what I expect is that one of the most significant benefits to hungry children since the first Federal school lunch, and that is the pilot program that will allow five States to examine the impact of eliminating the reduced/free category in school meals, that this will be a huge success supported around the Nation so we will prove that children who have a nutritious meal, a nutritious breakfast learn better, they have better attendance, they have better scores on their tests, and they behave better in school. So that we will have learned something very significant by the end of this reauthorization. Our children will get nutritious meals. They will get snacks. They will develop better eating habits as a result of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, once again this House has passed a resolution celebrating the manner in which the war in Iraq has been fought, and the burgeoning democracy it has ostensibly established. In reality, H. Res. 691 speaks to the profound failure of the Bush Administration's Iraq policies and the lack of an appropriate rationale for invading another country: The war was fought because President Bush's desire to take down Saddam Hussein, not out of a desire to fight global terror; it was about a highly ideological plan to extend America's reach in the Middle East, not about ridding the world of nuclear weapons. In short, the war was about the Bush Administration's priorities--not Iraq's.

This resolution also expresses unequivocal support for our Armed Forces. We must be sure to honor the brave men and women who put themselves in harm's way; already 833 American soldiers who have died during the course of this conflict. Accordingly, I hope we will honor future veterans when they return home, as thousands of them will require prosthetic arms and legs, physical therapy, and years of health care for injuries incurred during the war.

H. Res. 691 is not without its merits. This resolution contains important language expressing condolences to the families of the innocent Iraqis who have been killed or wounded during the conflict. In fact, an estimated 12,000-14,000 unarmed, innocent Iraqi civilians have died since the United States invaded the country last year.

However, while I support many parts of this resolution, I am disappointed that the House Republican leadership has once again pushed for passage of a resolution the contents of which are either inaccurate or downright wrong.

An entire clause of this resolution is devoted to the claim that Iraq has been transformed ``into a safe secure, stable, sovereign, democratic state that serves the interests of the Iraqi people.'' Secure? Stable? Sovereign? Iraq is none of these things, and it still won't be any of these things when the United States transfers authority back to the Iraqi people on June 30th. The Bush Administration needs to realize and admit to the American people that Iraq is neither secure nor stable, and will not be either of these things for a great many years. The Administration's policies in Iraq have been a colossal failure.

The fact is, President Bush and his Administration want to have it both ways. They want to appear to have finished up work in Iraq in time for the November elections, while at the same time maintaining over 100,000 soldiers there to ensure they maintain a high degree of control over the country's fate. Not to mention the new American Embassy overseen by the controversial John Negroponte will be the largest in the world.

Instead of continuing to pass resolutions of inaction, Congress should be pressing the administration to truly engage the international community to stabilize an insecure Iraq--particularly in light of the recent resolution endorsing the turnover of power back to the Iraqi people that was passed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council. We've already entered into a fight that has diverted resources from the real fight against terrorism and from important domestic programs. Now is the time for taking measures so that we do not repeat our mistakes. Now is the time we must invest in an international coalition before the international will to endorse our efforts in Iraq runs dry.

Mr. Speaker, today this House passed a resolution expressing support for Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, expressing support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and insisting that the Palestinians and all Arab states create and utilize the capacity to dismantle terrorist organizations and fight terrorism. These are all things we should and must support.

But once again, this House has missed an opportunity to express support not only for Israel's withdrawal from settlements in the Palestinian territories, but also support for the rebuilding of infrastructure in a future democratic Palestine.

This conflict isn't about who has the stronger military, and it's not about lines in the sand. It's about people's lives, and it's about the notion that we humans are better than all the death and destruction that's become so commonplace. There are channels in place to achieve peace; we must utilize them. I oppose unilateral action in peace just as I oppose unilateral action during war. Unilateralism may work in the short term, but it is unsustainable in the long term. That's why the U.S., the world's largest democracy, must provide leadership to both the Israelis and the Palestinians to take steps towards peace.

In 2002, President Bush established what he called the ``Road Map'' to Peace in the Middle East. This Road Map established bilateral, incremental steps that Israel and the Palestinians must take to attain peace. The Quartet--composed of the U.N., the U.S., the EU, and Russia--was intended to be the group overseeing this process. But the Bush Administration has chosen rhetoric over action, letters over deeds, meetings over negotiations.

President Bush's letter to Ariel Sharon--the principles of which this resolution endorses--is not suitable compensation for neglecting to sit down with leaders on both sides to work out a peaceful resolution of this long-standing crisis.

This House must stop passing strongly-worded resolutions on behalf of a President who is unwilling to fully support those statements through diplomatic means in the Middle East. To achieve a real and lasting peace, we must instead engage in balanced efforts to re-establish trust, respect and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians.