General Leave
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ZELDIN.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 326.
I have great respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), who has been a long-time champion of the U.S.-Israel relationship. And as I was listening to his opening remarks, there is a lot that he said that I strongly agreed with. And it kind of pained me realizing that he didn't write this actual resolution that is before us, because I know it would have been worded differently and it would have received support.
Unfortunately, many of the opening remarks which I strongly agreed with are deliberately not in this resolution. It is a great opening for another resolution, not this one.
Last summer we came to the House floor and we almost unanimously passed a resolution to strongly oppose BDS. That resolution included a lot of what this resolution tries to do. It is a watered-down version of what we did last summer. When we woke up the next day, many Members in this House said, okay, now what are we going to do about it?
S. 1 was a bill that passed at the beginning of this year in the Senate with strong bipartisan support with under 80 Senators voting for it. It has a companion bill, H.R. 336, by lead Republican Michael McCaul of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. There is a discharge petition that has almost 200 signatures on it led by Congressman Brian Mast to bring S. 1-H.R. 336 to the floor.
So we made a strong statement last summer, and we woke up the next day, and are motivated to do something about it. We can actually, right now, with this time that we are debating and with the vote that we are about to have, we can actually be passing a bill with teeth that would go to the President's desk and would be signed into law.
And that is where our focus should have been. This resolution before us today is deeply flawed, it is highly partisan, it is ill-timed, and it is poorly crafted.
In the last 2 years, Israel has been hit by over 2,600 rockets and mortars. In the past year alone, 1,500 of those rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
Filing this resolution squarely into the category of worst timing possible, H. Res. 326 comes to the floor just 1 week after Israel was bombarded with over 450 rockets. In all of the pages of this resolution, guess where it mentions Palestinian terrorism? Nowhere.
This resolution fails to not only recognize these latest attacks, but all of the persistent assaults on innocent Israelis by Palestinian terrorists.
Guess what else this resolution fails to mention? It is silent on fundamental facts that shape the way Israel has dealt with a constant threat on its border, as the chair so eloquently observed when he referenced Hamas rockets raining into Israel and Palestinians paying off terrorists, and the need for a Jewish and democratic state. It makes no reference to Hamas firing rockets. It makes no reference to Palestinians paying off terrorists. It makes no reference to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.
During the March of Return, every single week protestors gather along the border of Israel in Gaza to throw Molotov cocktails and burning tires at IDF soldiers. Just this week, Hamas passed out leaflets calling on the public to join these protests in response to Israel defending itself against the Palestinian Islamic jihad. You won't find this in this resolution. Or that Hamas uses innocent women as human shields, that they call jihad an obligation, inciting violence. And that list goes on.
And maybe worst of all, this resolution completely fails to mention that Israel has made repeated attempts to offer peace proposals to the Palestinian Authority. After the Camp David talks in 2000, Israel offered to withdraw from 90 percent of Judea and Samaria, parts of East Jerusalem and Gaza. That same year, though, the Palestinians started the Second Intifada, and more than 1,000 innocent Israeli civilians were killed in a Palestinian campaign of suicide bombings and shootings.
In 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 93 percent of Judea and Samaria, but time and again, the Palestinian Authority rejected peace proposals while continuing to refuse to this day, both publicly and privately, to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
In this vein, the Palestinian Authority continues to incite violence and financially rewards terrorism through its Pay for Slay program, which included the murder of an American, United States military academy graduate, Army veteran Taylor Force.
Yet, House Democrats added language to this resolution at the last minute to support the Palestinians, despite the fact that the Palestinian Authority refuses to suspend this Pay for Slay program to this day.
This resolution imposes a solution for Israel, stating specific Palestinian Authority demands and deliberately leaving out critical Israeli preconditions necessary to maintain security.
If you are going to engage in naming specific preconditions like the way this resolution puts those preconditions on Israel, the Palestinian Authority demands, well then try to balance it all out, but this resolution doesn't even make any reference to Palestinian terrorism. It is silent about providing assurances for Israel's safety and security through a demilitarized zone, but that didn't stop the resolution's authors from including Palestinian demands of Israel.
The timing of this vote is no coincidence either. This resolution, by the authors' own admission, is a clear rebuke to the Trump administration's recent reversal of the Obama administration's targeting of Israel with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. The timing is no coincidence.
The resolution references President Obama's policy toward Israel after the November 2016 election, but does not mention the Trump administration's efforts. One of the worst lines in this resolution references support for ``the principles set forth by President Obama in December 2016.'' After the Obama administration abstained from U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, the House, along with many of my Democratic colleagues here today, voted in favor of a resolution to forcefully condemn U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.
This resolution, H. Res. 326, is a reversal on that point, pointing to that December 2016 moment in time as if it was something that should be applauded. This resolution chooses to reference President Obama's policy while intentionally leaving out the Trump administration's policy, ensuring a partisan outcome to this resolution.
The resolution doesn't mention the long list of victories that we have had in this administration to strengthen our support and security and stability of Israel, to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship, like moving our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, to signing the Taylor Force Act, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
This partisan resolution creates a totally unnecessary schism in what has otherwise been a longstanding history of strong, bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel relationship, which included the resolution that passed last summer.
There are other great bipartisan bills that support Israel and fight anti-Semitism at home. We should be spending our time debating and passing bills like S. 1 and H.R. 336 sponsored by Michael McCaul, the Never Again Education Act or the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act.
The House already passed, almost unanimously, that resolution, H. Res. 246, last summer that opposed BDS and supported peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Now, we are bringing a watered-down, partisan, and weakened version of what has already passed in the House.
House Democrats should bring bipartisan legislation forward with teeth that will support Israel and fight the BDS movement. But rather than move forward and build on our longstanding history of bipartisan support of the U.S.-Israeli alliance, House Democrats have decided to play partisan politics with what is a powder keg.
Mr. Speaker, one point to clarify about this resolution, as the bill's author, my friend from Queens, we should say, even though he has a new district these days, talks about this not being a partisan resolution, this debate and this vote, the reality is this resolution is going to end up being, and is, the most partisan resolution that this House has ever taken up on Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to an opportunity to work with the bill's author. I believe strongly in the need to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship. I also feel strongly in my opposition to this bill, as many of my colleagues do as well, but it actually is quite partisan with regard to the text, the debate, and the ultimate vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, for the sake of time, I will save some of my thoughts on what was just said. That was a very alternate version of reality that we look forward to addressing over the course of this debate. Hopefully, my friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly) sticks around.
Foxx).
Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin) very much for yielding, and I very much appreciate his work on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Republican Foreign Affairs Committee staff and Ranking Member McCaul for their tireless defense of Israel.
Furthermore, I want to state that I have a long history of working in a bipartisan fashion with my dear friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Eliot Engel. That is why it pains me to be here today debating a partisan resolution, a resolution that purports to defend a negotiated two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that is simply not what this resolution is about. If it were, it would be bipartisan.
This is a partisan resolution because it makes pointed criticisms of the Israeli Government on delicate, divisive, internal issues. It does so at a time when our Israeli counterparts struggle through the democratic process of forming a new government.
House Democrats would only move this unconstructive resolution to the floor if it achieved aims of radical leftists in scoring points against the Trump administration.
But, Mr. Speaker, I ask this majority, at what cost? At what cost are we voting on this?
Moving forward to this vote risks the bipartisan support that a negotiated settlement leading to a sustainable two-state solution has enjoyed for decades.
That is why I offered an alternative resolution at the Rules Committee, one that would support the peace process without alienating our major strategic partner and ally of the United States, the nation of Israel.
If there is any imperative for Congress, it should be to hold the Palestinian Authority to account for its efforts to bypass negotiations and unilaterally declare a Palestinian state.
For decades, the Palestinian Authority has undermined the peace process by appealing to the United Nations and other international organizations to impose its own solution and impose parameters for negotiations with Israel.
In 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected it.
If there is any story that deserves more attention from this Congress, it is that Israel has made numerous concessions in the pursuit of peace while seeking only the right to exist, and this despite the continued efforts by Palestinian leadership to evade direct negotiations for peace.
That is the story this House should be telling, and that is why I oppose this partisan resolution that politicizes and, therefore, jeopardizes the sacred issue of Congress' support for Israel.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. Speaker, as I am listening to different colleagues on the other side of the aisle speaking about this resolution, some are claiming that this is not partisan and that the timing doesn't have anything to do with the Trump administration, and then others are coming and speaking that this is about rebuking the Trump administration. So I am unclear as far as that messaging.
I do know that there have been multiple quotes that have been put out by Democrats in this Chamber that the timing is no coincidence. This was brought up after an announcement was made recently by Secretary Pompeo with regards to reversing President Obama's policy that was announced after the November 2016 election.
So, where my friends on the other side of the aisle speak about longstanding U.S. policy, I guess it is important for a quick recap of that longstanding U.S. policy over recent years.
At the end of 2016, after the November 2016 election, the Obama administration helped get through the United Nations U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 with regards to the view of activity in Judea, Samaria, and parts of east Jerusalem; and, for the first time, the U.N. Security Council was saying that that was a violation of international law.
This Chamber, with more Democrats voting in favor of the resolution than against, voted for a resolution to condemn U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334. This Chamber had a problem on a large, bipartisan basis and came together to condemn U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.
That is what this resolution specifically references when it says the Obama administration's policy from December 2016. That was great when we all came together like that because we had a problem with reversing longstanding U.S. policy with that U.N. Security Council resolution.
Then this Chamber came together again this past summer, almost unanimously, passing a resolution--a strong, bipartisan resolution-- strongly condemning BDS and talking about the need for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
This resolution today is, unfortunately, a debate. It is a draft, and it is a vote that is going to be very partisan. But the inconsistency and the arguments on the other side of the aisle--some are saying this has nothing to do with President Trump and his policies and others are saying that it does. And some are saying that timing is no coincidence and others have made specific comments that it is absolutely a result of the Trump administration's recent announcements. Those inconsistencies are being noticed by all.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ZELDIN. The majority are tying themselves up in knots.
With all due respect to the majority leader, who said there was not a departure in policy towards the end of the Obama administration and that I was incorrect; I would like to point him to H. Res. 11 from January 2017, that he voted in favor of as well as most House Democrats, which included: ``Whereas on December 23, 2016, the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations disregarded H.Con. Res. 165 and departed from longstanding United States policy by abstaining and permitting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.''
That is from a resolution that the majority leader voted in favor of, where he personally, and many others in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle, took strong exception with that departure from longstanding U.S. policy with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, now reversing that, once again, with the text of this resolution that is giving a shout-out to that December 2016 Obama administration policy as if it is something to be applauded.
Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it as well.
It is no coincidence that this resolution is being brought now. It is an attempted rebuke of the Trump administration.
I think that this Chamber should be coming together and praising the decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, that this Chamber should be coming together and praising the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. We all should be coming together on a bipartisan basis with regard to the implementation of the Taylor Force Act.
The Palestinian Authority has a policy not just to incite violence but to financially reward terrorism. If you murder an innocent American or Israeli, by policy--this is no secret; it is documented; it is their own admission--they will pay you money.
Now, as far as this Chamber goes, we are stewards of U.S. tax dollars. To send money to the Palestinian Authority, as long as they have a policy where they are going to pay someone for murdering an American, that is something that this Chamber should be coming together on, on a bipartisan basis, with regard to the implementation of the Taylor Force Act and how to do even better.
This resolution attempts to get into that world of what preconditions need to be met in order to have an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. It chooses to stay silent with regard to any of the Israeli preconditions on the Palestinians, but this resolution chooses not to be silent on the preconditions of the Palestinians toward the Israelis. Not just in the text of the resolution but today in the debate, the goal is to place pressure on the Israelis, on what they need to make concessions on, by not saying anything at all with regard to Palestinians committing acts of terror and being financially rewarded for it, saying nothing about Hamas.
Hamas literally put in their charter that jihad is an obligation. I wonder where Hamas stands.
If the Palestinian Authority sat down with Israelis and right now agreed, I don't know if whoever would sign that document on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be assassinated within days. But I will say that he can't in good faith deliver all of his people because not only are the ranks of the Palestinian Authority filled with the likes of terrorist groups like Hamas--and Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization of the United States--not only can they not deliver their people, Hamas doesn't just refute the argument that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, Hamas refutes the argument that Israel has a right to exist.
How are we silent about a resolution? If you want to get into preconditions, how do we not get into any acts of Hamas denying access to humanitarian aid to its own people or the fact that they use women and children as human shields, that Hamas will pay someone to get shot? A kid goes to a checkpoint, gets shot, and gets paid $500.
Right now, as we are here--I mean, literally, as the decision is being made to bring this resolution to the floor, Israel is getting showered by rockets from a terrorist group in Gaza, hundreds of rockets targeting innocent Israelis, kids who are going to school or are worshiping or are at home or are running to bomb shelters because they have rockets being launched at them, trying to kill them.
That is the issue with getting into that world of preconditions, only talking about the preconditions that the Palestinians want to place on the Israelis, and then to double down and triple down during floor debate and to be silent entirely with regard to any of the preconditions toward peace.
December 2016 is specifically referenced in this resolution. This House came together and condemned that December 2016 policy. After the November 2016 election, this House came together in January on a huge bipartisan basis and condemned that change of policy in December 2016.
The reversal here in this resolution is now this resolution is specifically referencing the December 2016 policy as if it is something to be celebrated.
What we should be doing right now is passing legislation with teeth-- by the way, a whole lot of legislation with teeth: passing USMCA; lowering the cost of prescription drugs, a bipartisan agreement that passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; passing S.1/ H.R. 336, legislation with teeth to stop BDS, to help support Israel with teeth; authorizing funding to support Jordan; legislation with teeth to increase sanctions on Assad in Syria.
This bill has already passed the Senate with all of these different Republicans and Democrats, almost 80 Senators passing it.
Bill numbers are set based on what is important. What is important to the Senate? That was S.1.
We made a strong statement last summer, almost unanimously passing a resolution condemning BDS, including language toward peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We should have woken up the next day united to now do something about it.
It is one thing to make a statement about anything that anyone in this Chamber is passionate about, and I respect the different passions and backgrounds of all of my colleagues. There are people who have different opinions on just about anything that comes for a vote in this Chamber.
When we choose to make statements of something that we feel strongly about, it is important to wake up the next day and say: ``Okay, well, what are we going to do about it?'' That is why, while I am so proud of my colleagues for voting almost unanimously for that resolution, we should be passing S.1/H.R. 336.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source