Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam President, tomorrow we will gather in the House
Chamber to listen to an address from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu. I welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu to Capitol Hill and
eagerly await his speech. It is expected that he will paint a very
vivid and very real picture of the danger a nuclear Iran poses not just
to Israel but to the international community as a whole. This threat
seems of little concern to the administration--so little, in fact, that
the President almost immediately dismissed the idea of meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu while he is in Washington. This is
disappointing, to say the least.

Instead of taking the opportunity to join with us to reaffirm our
support for the State of Israel, the administration has chosen to send
the wrong message to our strongest ally in the region. Unfortunately,
this has become a pattern. While the administration's official policy
has been supportive of Israel, actions speak louder than words, and
regrettably this administration's actions are often too quiet. This has
not always been the case. During his first term, President Obama fought
Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel at the U.N. He made clear
that such tactics were counterproductive to the peace process and that
the Palestinians would put their relationship with us in jeopardy if
they sought action against Israel at the International Criminal Court.

Many Israelis are rightfully concerned that we will not have their
backs when the Palestinian Authority becomes a full member of the
International Criminal Court and follows through on this threat. I
raised this issue with Secretary Kerry during an Appropriations
Committee hearing last week, reminding him that the law explicitly
prohibits funding for the Palestinian Authority if they initiate or
actively support an International Criminal Court investigation into
alleged Israeli war crimes. The Secretary said that the Palestinian
Authority's actions amounted to a ``terrible exercise in judgment'' but
stopped short of saying they have violated the law in a way that
triggers the cutoff of aid.

Three-quarters of this body--Republicans and Democrats alike--don't
see it that way. We sent the Israeli people a strong bipartisan message
of support when we called on Secretary Kerry to suspend economic aid
while the State Department reviews the Palestinian Authority's actions.
According to Secretary Kerry's response at the hearing, the State
Department will wait to see what the Palestinians do after the first of
April before making a decision on economic aid. By then it might be too
late.

This is exactly why the people of Israel are uneasy with the ongoing
nuclear negotiations. The same administration that once spoke out
forcefully against these types of tactics now plays a game of wait-and-
see with the Palestinians, somehow expecting them to be an honest
partner this time around.

Israel's lack of confidence in the administration's support is
certainly understandable. Let's not forget that this same
administration employs high-level officials who publicly disrespect our
ally, including at least one willing to use derogatory language to call Prime Minister Netanyahu names during a media interview. Every time that happens, the administration carries on as though these breaches of diplomatic protocol are
irrelevant to the U.S.-Israeli relations. The administration sees these
actions as having no bearing on the deteriorating state of relations
between the two heads of state. Yet, if Prime Minister Netanyahu dares
to speak up, the administration labels Israel a problem child--case in
point: the President's National Security Adviser calling this upcoming
address from Prime Minister Netanyahu ``destructive of the fabric of
the relationship.'' Accepting an invitation from the Speaker of the
House to address Congress on the severity of the nuclear threat posed
by the regime in Tehran is only destructive for U.S.-Israeli relations
in the President's eyes because he wants to keep Congress in the dark
about the ongoing negotiations. This administration seems intent on
doing just that.

Not content with the message the Prime Minister is likely to deliver,
the administration has moved from actively trying to subvert his
address to Congress. According to the Associated Press, the Obama
administration is actively considering ways to undermine the Prime
Minister's visit. Why is that? Could it be that the Prime Minister sees
the flaws of any agreement the Paris talks will yield, and does the
administration want to keep this from Congress?

As the talks extend on and Tehran engages in more delay tactics, it
is apparent that the Obama administration is pursuing a weaker deal
with Iran that will allow the country to continue its illicit nuclear
program. This agreement has become a must-win for President Obama, so
he is willing to concede key requirements that Congress and members of
his administration have previously outlined in order to get the
Iranians to sign on the dotted line. Any agreement will be a victory in
the Obama administration's eyes.

Our longstanding policy that the Iranian regime must abandon its
nuclear ambitions is itself being abandoned. As former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger noted in his recent testimony to the Armed
Services Committee, the Paris talks have long moved from eliminating
Iran's ability to enrich uranium to limiting and monitoring a smaller
program that would be unable to produce the material for a warhead in
less than a year's time. This is a far cry from the starting point
Secretary Kerry once argued when he said: ``No deal is better than a
bad deal'' with Iran. Now we seem to be moving the goalposts from the
dismantling of Iran's nuclear program to containing it. That is not
what the President told us these talks were going to accomplish. That
is not what six U.N. resolutions intended to prevent. That is certainly
not something this Congress should allow to happen without our say.

Nothing short of full elimination of Iran's nuclear program could
honestly be considered a victory. If these talks fail to produce an
agreement that requires that of Iran, Congress must have the authority
to reject it.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source