[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 20 (Monday, February 3, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1529-H1535]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        ISSUES FACING THE NATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Bachmann) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker for allowing 
me this 1 hour to talk on some very important subjects that are facing 
the Nation. We deal with economic issues. We deal with the health care 
crisis in our country. And Americans right now, as they are watching us 
on this floor this evening, wonder if they will have a job tomorrow. So 
many Americans right now are looking at part-time jobs rather than 
full-time jobs. This is changing their lives, and it is changing what 
they thought the future would hold for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the American people that it is not 
over. Hold on. We know that better days could be ahead. Why? Because 
economics can change; economic policies can change. And unfortunately, 
what we have seen coming out of the Obama White House, the economic 
policies have led to Americans not having the number of hours that they 
need to be able to provide for their families. They haven't led to the 
wage increases that they had hoped that they would be able to see.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, very disturbing information has 
come forward that nearly $4,000 in a reduction of income has occurred, 
on average, to American households. From the time President Obama first 
came into office in 2008, the average median household income was 
something like almost $4,000 more in 2007 than it is today in 2014.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how anyone could see that that is good 
news or that that is a good deal because with inflation and 
inflationary values--we all know, Mr. Speaker, that people pay more for 
gasoline today in 2014 than they did back in 2007. We know that people 
pay far more today for groceries, Mr. Speaker, in 2014 than they did in 
2007. So what the American people need is relief, relief from these 
inflation-pushed high prices on the American people.
  That is why the report that came out on Friday regarding the Keystone 
pipeline was so important. It confirmed what numerous other studies had 
already told us before, and it is this:
  The Keystone pipeline will not increase carbon emissions here in the 
United States. It is completely safe. And for the good of the United 
States of America, for the good of our environment, for the good of job 
creation, for the good of wage increases in the United States, we 
should have built Keystone and the pipeline and increased American 
energy production years ago.
  We have the chance now. And so, Mr. Speaker, I call on the Obama 
administration to implement what the recent State Department report 
issued on Friday, and it is this: that we can safely go ahead and build 
the Keystone pipeline.
  But I think we need to go much further than that, Mr. Speaker. I 
think that it would behoove not only this House of Representatives but 
also the United States Senate and the President of the United States to 
unify and agree on something that would be so good for all Americans--
young and old, rich and poor, Black and White, Latinos--all elements of 
the United States. We should unite on growing our economy and growing 
prosperity for the average American. And we can do this, Mr. Speaker, 
by engaging in an all-of-the-above energy policy whereby we legalize 
all forms of energy and, in fact, encourage exploration and growth, 
because we have reports that are issued every single year that come to 
the same conclusion year after year after year: of all the countries in 
the world--there are well over 100 countries in the world, and of all 
the countries in the world, our own government tells us every year in a 
report that it is the United States of America that has been singularly 
blessed.
  Blessed how, Mr. Speaker? Blessed with an abundance of natural energy 
resources. Whether it is oil--the United States is blessed with more 
oil than Saudi Arabia--or whether it is natural gas--the United States 
of America is blessed with trillions of cubic square feet of natural 
gas--every day, Mr. Speaker, our scientists and our explorers find more 
and more of these wonderful natural resources: oil, natural

[[Page H1530]]

gas, and coal. And because of the genius of the scientists in the 
United States, we have cleaner options than ever before to use this 
fundamental source of energy which is the number one source of energy 
in the United States, and that is coal.
  In my home State of Minnesota, we see that there is a propane crisis. 
The people in my district are severely curtailed from using this energy 
resource. And there is also a scarcity of the product as well. I spoke 
with one individual today on the plane when I was coming in who told me 
that he was so happy. His mother locked in at about $1.30 a gallon on 
propane, and he said there are reports propane could go up to over $6 a 
gallon, perhaps even $7, before the harshest winter in decades in 
Minnesota and other parts of America, as well, is over.
  Let's help the American people's lives, Mr. Speaker. Let's not make 
life more difficult for the average American. Let's make life better. 
And we can do that very simply by engaging in an all-of-the-above 
American energy strategy, whereby, literally millions of high-paying 
jobs would come online.
  Since President Obama came into office, we have seen the average 
median household income go down, not freeze or stay the same, but 
actually go down, go down by nearly $4,000. And, in fact, the average 
median income of the average American, they now see that their income 
is 8 percent less today than it was 7 years ago. Rather than that being 
our story, let's change the narrative, Mr. Speaker. Let's change it for 
a positive, happy ending for the American people so that when they go 
to their local gas stations, rather than gas being in excess of $3 a 
gallon or in some parts of this country over $4 a gallon, let's bring 
that price down, Mr. Speaker, so that it could be $2 a gallon again. I 
know that is entirely possible and within our grasp.
  But what would be even better is to see the average American's 
income, including senior citizens on fixed income, to see their incomes 
go up--their rate of return on their savings, the rate of return on 
their dividends, their investments that they have tied up, after a 
lifetime of labor, after a lifetime of doing the right thing, taking 
their hard-earned money, putting it into savings, putting it into 
investments, putting it into, for many Americans what is their number 
one investment, which is their home, seeing Americans' home values 
rise. Why? Because of having a go-go economy, a growth-based economy, 
an economy that is growing because, rather than being a consumer of 
energy from foreign nations, we are, instead, the world's leading 
supplier of energy resources across the rest of the world.
  I know this is possible, Mr. Speaker, and I know that we can unify on 
this issue--not only fossil fuels but also nuclear reactors.

                              {time}  1930

  Just this last week, I spoke with an individual who is an expert in 
the field of nuclear reactors. Before, in the United States, we relied 
on large nuclear reactors. In my home State of Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, 
we have two nuclear reactors in my State that supply somewhere between 
20 and 25 percent of all the electricity needs in Minnesota. We are 
grateful that we have these two reactors that provide emission-free 
power in our State, but we have a new generation of nuclear reactors 
that could come online and be available for people all across the 
United States. Think, in a rural area, where perhaps it is just a few 
thousand people who perhaps wouldn't have access to nuclear-generated 
energy, they could have access to new, small, nuclear modules that are 
effectively able to be put in very unique locations, completely safe, 
almost--almost--waste-free.
  This new generation of nuclear reactors, in my opinion, should be 
studied and put online in the near future so that we could have yet one 
more tool in America's energy toolkit. As a matter of fact, the United 
States could be, again, the leading supplier of this newest generation 
of modular nuclear reactors to be used and deployed across the world 
where they are safe, where they can't be compromised, and where very, 
very little nuclear waste comes forward.
  You see, it is exciting, Mr. Speaker, to look at the future when so 
many of my constituents that I speak to today are worried and nervous 
about the future. They literally tell me, Congresswoman, I have no idea 
if my children will be as well off in their future as I am today. Every 
generation of Americans has been hopeful and optimistic, Mr. Speaker, 
because they have assumed and taken for granted that their children 
would be better off economically than they are today. That is all of 
our hope. I know I feel that for my biological children, and that is my 
hope and my prayer for our foster children. We want every generation to 
not only have what we had but to exceed it and shoot for the stars with 
their ambition, their goals, their dreams and their plans. Isn't that 
America? Isn't that what defines us, to build the next generation of 
the next mousetrap, to benefit not only us, not only our children, but 
to benefit and lift up those among us in the United States who seek to 
move up the next economic ladder?
  You see, that is what can happen with innovation. Pull out a 
smartphone, if you have a smartphone, and you think of what was 
available to only the wealthiest among us, you now see in the hands of 
people at the bottom level of the economic ladder. Yet how much 
improved are our lives because we have smartphones today that are 
available to us? Think of the applications, the apps, if you will, that 
are on smartphones, and how those apps can be used to increase 
productivity in the United States, can be used, for instance, on health 
care to connect us more quickly with a doctor or a nurse or a pharmacy 
so we can realize the requirements that we need to become healthier 
individuals.
  There are so many great innovations that are just waiting around the 
corner if we only legalize them, if we only open them up, and if we 
reject this very heavy hand of government that wants to bureaucratize 
nearly every element of our lives and cause different aspects of our 
lives to be far more expensive and have less of an ability to access 
the newest innovations. Instead, we in the United States need to be 
what we were for the first several hundred years of our existence, and 
it is this: nimble--nimble and able to capitalize on the intellect, the 
raw ideas and the talents that are in the United States. Legal 
immigration has benefited this country immeasurably, and we embrace 
with both arms legal immigration and all that has meant for our 
country. These are just a few of the things that we have to be hopeful 
about and optimistic about as we go forward in our country.
  There are other issues, as well, besides economics, that we grapple 
with here in the United States. One of those deals with foreign policy, 
another deals with national security, and another deals with how the 
United States is viewed across the world. I have spent time with my 
colleagues, many of whom this last week were across the world trying to 
meet with world leaders and find out what the concerns are and how we 
in the United States can advance our mutual interests.
  I was privileged to be able to go on a fact-finding trip recently 
with one of my Democrat colleagues, a wonderful man from Rhode Island, 
Representative Jim Langevin. Jim is a quadriplegic, and he and I had 
the privilege of traveling both to Australia and to New Zealand, where 
we met with our counterparts and also where we could talk about mutual 
areas where we could work together.
  We see the rise in Asia of a new and aggressive China, a China who, 
for all practical purposes, has been engaging in what some would call 
cyber espionage and cyber warfare against nations all across the 
world--not just the United States but against many nations. How can we 
cooperate, then, with our allies to counter very aggressive steps that 
could be taken by, for instance, the Chinese or perhaps the Russians or 
perhaps the Iranians or other nations, North Korea, for instance, who 
may not have the United States' best interest at heart, who may, in 
fact, through the use of the Internet, through cyber espionage or 
through hacking in government computers, be, in essence, stealing some 
of the United States' most sensitive secrets, secrets that we would not 
want our adversaries to have? This is a very real issue, Mr. Speaker, 
and one that needs to be addressed.

[[Page H1531]]

  That isn't the only form of warfare. There is also economic warfare, 
where our private businesses, through their own expenditure of funds on 
research and development, have come up with innovative new products and 
have, in effect, had the plans, the designs and the processes for those 
products literally stolen by adversaries--again not with our best 
interest at heart here in the United States. That information has been 
taken, and in some cases, we are told, a country like China has built a 
factory in China or in some other location where all they had to do was 
steal the raw data from an American company and they could go to work 
once they had that intellectual property and put to work perhaps a new 
line of paint, perhaps a new product that was being made in the United 
States and now is being made more cheaply in China and is undercutting 
the patents, the protections and the intellectual property that we have 
in the United States.
  Do you see, Mr. Speaker, it is a brave new world that we live in. 
That is why national security matters, and it is why foreign policy 
matters. It is why this last weekend at the Munich conference it was 
very important that we in the United States listened to and paid 
attention to what it was we were hearing from our foreign partners in 
the world. We have to recognize the reality of our world. Not everyone 
has America's best interest at heart. Not all foreign powers want to 
make sure that it is America's children who will grow up to be the 
economic and military powerhouse leaders of the world.
  You see, many foreign nations would like to see the United States cut 
down, reduced down, so that we are no longer an economic leader or a 
military leader. I believe that the United States has been a strong 
partner in keeping peace across the world for decades. We are not a 
perfect country. We haven't done everything right. We get that. We 
recognize that. But I believe that our world has been better off when 
the United States has been that economic leader and that military 
leader.

  If the United States isn't the leader in the world, who should be? 
What would peace be like in the world if Vladimir Putin and the Russian 
Government were the leader holding together world powers? Just imagine 
for a moment what that would be like. Or imagine, Mr. Speaker, what 
would it be like if China was the leader holding together world powers? 
We know what they have done before. By stealing secrets from our 
government and stealing secrets from private industry, we know what 
that has done. What would that be like if China was the leading 
military or economic superpower?
  We can't think that this is some far-off future scenario that could 
never happen. We need to open our eyes, and I think one place that we 
can open our eyes is listening to what foreign leaders are telling us. 
What some of my colleagues have told me even as recently as today from 
some of their travels, foreign travels across the world, is that they 
have never heard before foreign leaders say to them what they are 
saying now. Foreign leaders are saying, look, we don't get the United 
States anymore. We don't understand your foreign policy. We don't 
understand your national security, because we don't understand who the 
friends of the United States are anymore. We don't understand who your 
adversaries are anymore. In fact, we can receive communications from 
the State Department or the Defense Department or an intelligence 
department, and we can get three different pictures of the same 
scenario. Which one should we believe?
  There is a problem--and we didn't hear this just once. We have heard 
this from multiple regions in the world and from multiple world leaders 
who were scratching their heads, even including former Polish President 
Lech Walesa, who had said the United States is no longer the political 
and moral power in the world.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, other nations across the world want the United 
States, a responsible holder of power, to maintain that sense of 
decency and rule of law and adherence to a common goal of mankind, to 
prefer peace over war. Sometimes the United States has had to go to 
war. We have had to go to war in order to stand face to face and toe to 
toe with some of the most maniacal dictators that have ever been known 
in human history. That would include a Stalin of Russia, that would 
include a Mao Tse-tung of China, and that would include an Adolf Hitler 
of Germany. These maniacal rulers have served to hurt the chances for 
peace in the world, and yet it is the United States that has chosen to 
put on the line treasure and blood time after time after time. Once war 
has ensued--no one wants war, no one prefers war--but once that has 
ensued, it is the United States through the Marshall Plan that did, in 
fact, rebuild Europe and feed millions who were starving. It was the 
United States after World War II, after dropping the bombs in Japan, 
that went in and helped to rebuild that war-torn country and the 
difficulty that had ensued.
  These aren't easy issues. There is no clean line here of right and 
wrong. There are difficulties that we grapple with. We get that. But, 
Mr. Speaker, one thing that we should agree on is that the policies of 
the United States shouldn't hurt the American people, and they 
shouldn't hurt people in other countries. Our policies should be ones 
that help the American people and help to bring about peace with other 
nations of the world. That should be easy.
  That is why this last weekend at the Munich conference I was 
particularly concerned with our Secretary of State's comments. There 
was an article that had come out just this weekend regarding our 
Secretary of State, and I wanted to quote from it. I wanted to be able 
to speak a little bit, also, about some other issues that have been in 
the news. The American people continue to ask me about Benghazi: When 
are we ever going to get the truth about Benghazi? Just over a week 
ago, there was an article by the second-in-command in Benghazi who 
wanted to straighten up the facts and put his view on paper.
  That is all very interesting. We want to be able to have time to talk 
about that, but I think it is also very important that we talk about 
and listen to America's greatest ally in the world. There is an ally 
that felt very disrespected and even used the word ``offended'' after 
comments that were made at the Munich conference this week by our 
Secretary of State. Now, in deference to our Secretary of State, 
followup responses have been that he didn't mean to say what was 
reported in the media, but I think it is very important that we look at 
our ally--and this is Israel--and what Israel's response is. Again, I 
think, Mr. Speaker, we need to look at the context of the remarks that 
were made by our Secretary of State. Because, you see, if you speak 
with the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, as I have done 
numerous times in the last few months, and if you speak to the Foreign 
Minister of Israel, as I have been privileged to do, to the defense 
secretary in Israel, as I have been privileged to do, and to the 
intelligence secretary in Israel, as I have been privileged to do, they 
have been very strong and united in their view of the greatest 
existential threat that Israel faces today.

                              {time}  1945

  That threat isn't new; it is one that Israel has faced for the last 
recent years. And it is this: it is Iran with a nuclear weapon, because 
Iran has stated unequivocally, once they gain access to a nuclear 
weapon, and potentially the missile means to deliver that weapon, they 
have announced they will use that weapon against Israel. They will use 
that weapon against Israel, Israel being about the size of New Jersey. 
The largest city, Tel Aviv, and the surrounding area provides 
employment to approximately 80 percent of the Israeli population. So it 
doesn't take a lot of imagination, Mr. Speaker, to see that it may be 
the game plan of a nuclear weaponized Iran to drop a nuclear weapon on 
Tel Aviv and effectively wipe out the Jewish State of Israel in one 
fell swoop.
  If that would happen, we should not kid ourselves, that capability 
and capacity, I believe, could just as easily be used against our 
Western partners and allies in the European region. It could be used 
against Australia, our great ally and friend, and also against New 
Zealand, our great ally and friend. And it could even be used here in 
the United States of America.
  The rhetoric that has come out of Iran is nothing less than 
outrageous,

[[Page H1532]]

but intentional. The regime has stated, they haven't deviated one iota 
from their nuclear goals and ambitions--not one iota.
  What would that mean for the world if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon? 
You see, this is a very dangerous, dangerous game that we are playing 
with Iran.
  I absolutely disagree fundamentally with the President's decision 
under the P5+1 agreement to allow Iran to continue to spin centrifuges 
and continue to enrich uranium which could be used as a fuel for a 
nuclear weapon. Iran has not complied with the U.N. resolutions, not at 
all. They have not.
  What is different today under the P5+1? Not much, I would submit. So 
the worst nightmare for Israel has been realized in that exactly when 
Iran was being squeezed with economic sanctions, when they were in a 
position where they were starting to yell ``ouch,'' that is exactly 
when the United States and the P5+1 pulled back the pressure and 
allowed Iran to have some breathing space, breathing space to the tune 
of billions of dollars of access to grow and prop up Iran's failing 
economy. This was not the time to give balance to Iran. This was the 
time to demand cooperation from Iran.
  And so what is happening now is that we see people from all over the 
world--China, Russia, various nations--are all buying plane tickets to 
run to Iran to conduct economic deals because, you see, under the 
previous sanction's regime, nations were prevented from constructing 
economic deals because it would help build up Iran. Now, it is an open-
court press to engage in economic commerce with Iran. That is building 
up Iran, and it is causing Iran to have less incentive to come to the 
table and stop their program of enriching uranium, of spinning 
centrifuges, and they are not in any way dismantling their current 
nuclear program.
  As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, it is his worst day in 10 years. He 
said this is the deal of the century for Iran.
  Why is it we would fail to listen to our number one ally in the 
world, Israel, on this topic of a nuclear weaponized Iran? Why wouldn't 
we listen to their concerns? Why--Israel, which is far more vulnerable 
to Iran with a nuclear weapon--wouldn't we take those concerns into 
account?
  Well, I think it is revealing what happened this last weekend at the 
Munich conference because you see, Mr. Speaker, one government minister 
in Israel called Secretary of State Kerry's statements ``offensive.'' 
At the conference the Secretary said, and I quote from the article that 
was published this weekend:

       You see, for Israel, there is an increasing 
     delegitimization campaign that has been building up.

  In other words, there is an effort to delegitimize Israel. People are 
very sensitive to it. There are talks of boycotts and other kinds of 
things. Are we all going to be better off with all of that? The 
Intelligence Minister, Steinitz, in Israel yesterday morning said:

       Israel cannot be pressured to negotiate with a gun against 
     its head.

  In other words, economic boycotts from the European Union, from 
sanctions, and also from divestment campaigns.
  Now, let's just think about this for a moment. Boycotts, boycotting 
Israel's products. Approximately 30 percent, I am told, of economic 
trade that Israel engages in comes from Europe. If there is a boycott 
that comes from the EU, this will severely handicap Israel's economy, 
and yet it seems Secretary of State Kerry was threatening Israel with 
an economic boycott.
  What about sanctions? Sanctions. Isn't it the mother of all ironies 
that sanctions, by agreement of the United States, have been lifted 
from what arguably is the United States' greatest adversary, a nuclear 
weaponized Iran, and also Israel's greatest adversary, a nuclear 
weaponized Iran? We would lift sanctions, ironically, against a rogue 
regime with announced intentions to annihilate people across the world, 
the Jewish State of Israel, the United States of America; the Jewish 
State of Israel being the little Satan and the United States of America 
being denominated the great Satan. So we would lift sanctions on this 
maniacal nation, a nuclear Iran, and yet we would threaten sanctions or 
the possibility of sanctions from the EU against America's greatest 
ally, Israel? Isn't that one of the most severe ironies of all time? 
This being the greatest existential threat to the world, Iran with a 
nuclear weapon. How could it be that our Secretary of State could bring 
this up to the world at the Munich conference this last weekend, the 
specter of a boycott against Israel, sanctions against Israel, and the 
potential of a divestment campaign analogous to South Africa which 
actually engaged in apartheid.
  And yet in Israel, what is the so-called apartheid when the 
Palestinians can work in the State of Israel? Palestinians are allowed 
to live in the Jewish State of Israel. There is an effort of 
coexistence from the Jewish State of Israel. And yet what has the 
Palestinian Authority done? They have thumbed their nose at the Oslo 
Accord. They have thumbed their nose. Have they fulfilled the 
requirements on the Palestinians? No, they have not.
  What did Israel do? Israel took land in the Gaza area, which is on 
the Mediterranean Sea. They withdrew Israeli settlers from Gaza and 
gave the land over to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for peace. 
What sort of peace did Israel realize by actually giving up that land 
to the Palestinian Authority? They were met with rockets fired in the 
region near Beersheba and Sderot. Those areas continue to have 
thousands of rockets pointed at them.
  Who, I ask, Mr. Speaker, is the aggressor in this situation? Who, I 
ask, Mr. Speaker, should be the one to receive economic boycotts or 
sanctions or divestment? Would it be Israel, which is not being the 
aggressor with rockets against Gaza, or should it be Gaza?
  You see, these rockets are hidden in neighborhoods. They are hidden 
in nursing homes by the Palestinians. They are hidden in areas where 
civilians are kept. And these rockets are not fired at military 
targets, Mr. Speaker, by the Palestinians. They are specifically 
targeted at elementary schools, at nursing homes in Israel, and at 
innocent human life. Think of this.

  And our Secretary of State this weekend, in effect, threatened Israel 
with boycotts, economic sanctions, and divestment. No wonder the 
Israelis were so extremely upset with our Secretary of State. Even the 
economic minister, Naftali Bennett, whom I had the privilege of meeting 
on one of my recent trips, had a message for all of the advice givers:

       Never has a nation abandoned their land because of economic 
     threats. We are no different.

  In other words, be warned, Israel will not give up further land no 
matter what the threats are. And the United States, which purports to 
be Israel's best friend, should not be the one rattling the saber with 
economic threats.
  Naftali Bennett went on to say:

       Only security will ensure economic stability, not a 
     terrorist state next to Ben Gurion Airport. We expect our 
     friends around the world to stand beside us and against anti-
     Semitic efforts targeting Israel, and not for them to be 
     their amplifier.

  That is how those words were received in this very volatile part of 
the world. Even Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu weighed in on our 
Secretary of State's boycott threats, primarily coming from Europe, 
during his Cabinet meeting. According to a transcript of the Prime 
Minister's remarks on the Prime Minister's Web site, he called any 
attempts to boycott Israel ``immoral and unjust.''
  ``They will not achieve their goal,'' the Prime Minister said. 
``First, they cause the Palestinians to adhere to their intransigent 
positions, and thus push peace further away.''
  You see, these are not big asks for reasonable people to consider. 
You see, the Palestinian Authority is being asked to recognize the 
right to exist for the Jewish State of Israel--the right to exist. They 
don't even want to accept that the Jewish State of Israel has the right 
to exist. That is number one. Number two, does the Jewish State of 
Israel have the right to defend herself from aggression? They won't 
even admit that she has the right to defend herself from aggression.
  Maybe it would help if Hamas, which is the ruling authority over 
Gaza, maybe it would help if they remove article 7 from their charter, 
which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish people, the 
extermination of the Jewish people. There isn't much difference between 
the call in the Hamas charter,

[[Page H1533]]

which is the final solution, the riddance of the Jewish people in the 
Jewish State of Israel, there isn't much difference between that and 
what a maniacal leader tried to accomplish during World War II. And yet 
these same terrorists are being given deference in the Palestinian-
Israeli negotiations.
  It is bizarre to think that the United States and the policy of the 
United States since 2008 has included calling on Israel to retreat and 
give up even more land to the Palestinians, which have repeatedly 
called for the annihilation of the Jewish state. It is amazing that the 
United States and our President has called on Israel to withdraw to the 
pre-1967 borders, which would be a suicide mission.
  You see, Mr. Speaker, I have been to Israel. I have literally stood 
in an apartment building where I can look out the front window of the 
apartment and see the Mediterranean Sea and the border of Israel on the 
west, and look out the window in the rear of the apartment and see 
Israel's border on the east with the Golan Heights, about a 9-mile 
width.

                              {time}  2000

  What country could defend itself, especially when the call is that 
the Palestinian Authority seeks to unite both the area of Judea and 
Samaria with Gaza, and they want a highway to do that? In other words, 
Israel is being called upon to cut herself in two. If she cuts herself 
in two, just like any human body, she couldn't go on, she couldn't 
survive, she couldn't live.
  So these requests that are coming--in fact, those demands that are 
coming from the Palestinian Authority--should be shut down by the 
United States of America. That is where the delegitimization should 
come, Mr. Speaker, not delegitimizing Israel because she has a goal of 
the existence of the Jewish state. Shouldn't Israel have that right to 
continue and preserve itself as the Jewish State of Israel? Isn't that 
a worthy goal? Should we agree with that?
  Why should we be undercutting that goal when the so-called partner in 
peace, the Palestinian Authority, is unwilling to even work with step 
one? I understand the response from leaders in Israel this weekend--I 
understand it--because, in effect, what they are saying is they no 
longer recognize the United States of America as its friend.
  Isn't it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that parallels what many Members 
of Congress have been hearing from various leaders across the world: We 
no longer recognize the United States of America; we no longer 
recognize your foreign policy. Behind closed doors they are telling us 
they want us to succeed. They want us to remain the world's superpower 
because we provide literally defense across the world to keep world 
order. If we are not here as a force for good, then what, then who, 
then what is the next step? So you see these are not comments made by 
our ally Israel and those leaders without cause and without reason.
  The Prime Minister said: ``They will not achieve their goal''--
meaning the boycott and the sanctions and the divestment. ``First, they 
cause the Palestinians to adhere to their intransigent positions and 
thus push peace further away.'' True. ``Second, no pressure will cause 
me to concede the vital interests of the State of Israel, especially 
the security of Israel citizens.''
  Make no mistake about it: Israel won't give up, Israel is going to 
stand, Israel is going to be there. So the last nation to put 
roadblocks in Israel's way should be the United States of America.

       Secretary Kerry has a proud record of over three decades of 
     steadfast support for Israel's security.

  That is the statement that was released. But the Secretary's words 
don't add up.
  At the conference, Kerry said of the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

       Today's status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise 
     you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It's not sustainable. 
     It's illusory. There's a momentary prosperity, there's a 
     momentary peace.

  In other words, Secretary Kerry is putting pressure on Israel to make 
a change, and to make a change whereby putting her sovereignty on the 
line.
  The question is: Will the United States continue to press Israel to 
withdraw from Judea and Samaria, the Biblical homeland of the Jewish 
State of Israel?
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why in the world would the United States ask 
Israel to withdraw from the very location where, according to Biblical 
and Torah documents, the Jewish State of Israel was begun; where 
Abraham, the originator of the Jewish State of Israel, where the Jewish 
people had their origin. Why would Judea and Samaria be that area that 
is the area that we would expect would be given back to the Palestinian 
Authority when there has been virtually continuous presence of the 
Jewish people in that region, albeit to varying degrees?
  I had the privilege of standing at Shiloh--or what some people 
pronounce Shiloh--where the tent of meeting was moved in the interim 
period between the First Temple period and the Second Temple period on 
the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The temple was in a tent at Shiloh.
  There are artifacts yet today being found, shards of pottery that 
prove that this location in Judea and Samaria was where the Jewish 
people had their most holy site, where the Holy of Holies, the Ark of 
the Covenant, was kept with the tents built around, where worship was 
conducted for over 350 years by the Jewish people. Yet the Jewish 
people are told they have to leave that land, the land of their 
origins, the land of worship for over 3,500 years--they have to leave? 
It is incredible, it is impossible, it will never be.
  One thing that needs to be understood, Mr. Speaker, is the tenacity 
and determination and decision of the Jewish people. You see, Mr. 
Speaker, they have given up before. They have given land for peace. 
They have given one concession after another. But what they have told 
me in my visits to Judea and Samaria, no more the people who live there 
are temporary settlers. They are residents, this is their home, and 
they have no intention of leaving, and they will fight to the death for 
their land and for their people and for their ancestors and forebears 
and, yes, for their children and for the future of the Jewish State of 
Israel.
  You see the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stood in this Chamber 
right behind me and stood, Mr. Speaker, at the lectern, and he told a 
joint session of Congress very clearly that Israel isn't what's wrong 
with the Middle East; Israel is what is right with the Middle East.
  I know from experience. The very first time I was privileged to 
travel to the Jewish State of Israel was the day after I graduated from 
high school. It was in 1974. I spent my summer in Israel. It was a very 
different place back then. It was a Third World country. The modern 
State of Israel was established in 1948 under extremely severe adverse 
conditions, and they continued to fight for the maintenance of their 
sovereignty. Why? Because they were continually attacked by their Arab 
neighbors and continue to remain so to this day.
  There is only one Jewish state in the world. There are multiple Arab 
nations, multiple Muslim nations across the world, as it should be. We 
recognize the right to exist of Muslim nations. We recognize Iran's 
right to exist.
  Why is it that only the Jewish State of Israel has to struggle for 
the world to recognize its right to exist? Why is it the only nation in 
the world that has to struggle to have recognition of its designated 
capital--Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the eternal undivided city and the 
undivided capital of the Jewish State of Israel. Yet that appears, once 
again, to be the bone of contention for the world, Jerusalem. Even so 
much so that the United States, which is supposed to be Israel's ally 
and we are supposed to have Israel's back, our Embassy remains in Tel 
Aviv rather than in Jerusalem.
  There are efforts to have our Embassy moved, and I call upon our 
government, Mr. Speaker, I call upon our President, to demonstrate to 
Israel that we do have your back, we are your greatest ally, and have 
the United States move our Embassy into Jerusalem and do it in a 
fortnight and make it happen and show the world that we literally do 
have their back.
  If we can't do that, Mr. Speaker, I will call upon our administration 
to at minimum change the State Department's Web site, which, if you 
look at the map of Israel and if you look at the capital 
Jerusalem, Jerusalem is not designated Israel; it is considered an 
international up-for-grabs area. Really?

[[Page H1534]]

  Jerusalem is contiguously surrounded by the Jewish State of Israel. 
How could this not be the very navel of the Jewish State of Israel? You 
see if the United States makes a decision to abandon Israel, as many 
nations of the world have done, as many nations are crying out for an 
economic boycott of Israel, economic sanctions against Israel, economic 
divestment against Israel, as though Israel were a criminal--if the 
United States, Mr. Speaker, chooses to join that extremely misguided, 
wrongheaded void of all facts, then I make a prediction, Mr. Speaker: 
that the United States will be adversely affected economically, and I 
believe that we could see adversity militarily against the United 
States as well.
  There has always been one great defender of the Jewish state and of 
the Jewish people. That defender has been listed throughout antiquity, 
and Israel has had her back held by a force stronger than the United 
States. That strong right arm will remain for Israel. That defender 
will remain. The question is what will be the destiny of the United 
States? Will our destiny be one of blessing or will our destiny be one 
of adversity?
  I think we need to be very clear and very careful in how we deal with 
the Jewish State of Israel. Israel must never be betrayed, and the 
United States must not put pressure on the Jewish State of Israel.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to go over just a brief timeline that I put 
together of Jewish and Israeli concessions and foreign demands that 
have been put on the Jewish State of Israel.
  You can go back to 1917 with the Balfour Declaration.
  Go back to 1920. There were Arab attacks on peaceful Jewish 
settlements in the northern part of the British-controlled Palestine, 
where seven Jews were killed. The British military administration urged 
the disbanding of the Zionist commission, created to assist the British 
authorities in giving effect to the Balfour Declaration, promising the 
upbuilding of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The British military 
administration was replaced by a League of Nations mandate. It was 
Israel that was betrayed.
  In 1921, anti-Jewish riots occurred in Jaffa on the Mediterranean, 
orchestrated by the British-installed Mufti of Jerusalem by the head of 
the Muslim community. They took the lives of 43 Jews in that effort in 
1921. The British temporarily suspended Jewish immigration into Israel.
  In 1922, Britain removed all of Palestine east of the Jordan. 
Seventy-eight percent of Palestine was removed from the territory of 
the League of Nations mandate for Palestine and power transferred to 
Emir Abdullah, who established the Emirate, later called Transjordan.
  In 1929, a campaign of false rumor and propaganda, orchestrated by 
the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj-Amin el-Husseini, alleged that Jews 
demonstrated at the Western Wall to curse Mohammed. Never happened. 
That mosques had been attacked by Jews. Never happened. That others 
would soon be attacked. A massive anti-Jewish pogrom convulsed 
Palestine in which 133 Jews were murdered by Arab mobs. The British 
suppressed the assaults, they killed 110 Palestinian Arabs. The British 
Shaw Commission ignored evidence of the Mufti's orchestration of the 
violence and recommended reducing Jewish immigration, and blamed the 
Jews for the murderous violence against them.
  In 1939, a commission that investigated the Arab Revolt recommend 
creating a Jewish state in 20 percent of the British Mandate, with 80 
percent of the mandate to be placed under Arab control and incorporated 
into the Transjordan. The Arab world rejected that--in other words, the 
Palestinian homeland rejected it--and the Arab Revolt continued.
  In 1939, the St. James Conference was attended by the Zionist and 
Palestinian Arab leadership. Again, the Arab parties refused to sit in 
the same room with the Zionist representatives. No solution was 
reached. A paper was written. Further Jewish immigration would have to 
be dependent upon Arab approval.

                              {time}  2015

  In 1947, the United Nations proposed partitioning the British 
mandate. The plan was accepted by the Zionist movement. It was rejected 
by all Arab parties. Again, 6,000 Jews--1 percent of the Israeli 
population--were killed in a war in May of 1948 when Israel declared 
herself the Jewish state. That was her entree into statehood and 
sovereignty. Israel has fought for her sovereignty ever since and has 
been under attack by our Arab neighbors ever since.
  In 1949, Arab belligerents other than Iraq signed an armistice 
agreement with Israel. All refused to recognize Israel. All refused to 
negotiate a solution to the Palestinian-Arab refugee problem created by 
the first Arab-Israeli war that was launched by the Arab States. The 
Arab war on Israel created 700,000 Palestinian-Arab refugees. Most were 
confined to Palestinian refugee camps in neighboring Arab States, and 
50,000 remain alive today--only 50,000. The oft-heard figure of 4 or 5 
million Palestinian refugees includes, contrary to any other refugee 
case in the world, not only the actual refugees but generations of 
their offspring. Today, we have refugees from the Syrian conflict. Only 
the current refugees are included, not multiple generations. This is 
not true with the Palestinians. The U.N. called on Resolution 194, 
calling for returning refugees between the context of an Israeli-Arab 
peace, and all Arabs opposed that resolution.
  On and on we go, Mr. Speaker, to the present time, including the most 
recent demand by Secretary of State Kerry against the Israelis that the 
Israelis had to release over 100 terrorists, many of whom were 
murderers, who had killed innocent Israelis, including an American 
citizen. The United States Government put pressure on the Israeli 
Government to release known murderous terrorists and thugs in exchange 
for--what?--other Israeli prisoners to be returned to Israel? No, Mr. 
Speaker. It was in return for the Palestinians to sit down at the 
negotiating table, and they did.
  Once again, Israel disadvantaged herself and released murderous 
terrorists in order to get the Palestinian Authority to just come to 
the table. What has been the goal of the Palestinian Authority? Delay, 
wait, change the terms, move the goalpost, never getting to a point of 
actually coming to an agreement.
  We have the instance in '47-'50 of Jews in Arab lands being told that 
they had to flee violence and persecution.
  In 1956, Israel captured the Sinai and then later returned it to 
Egypt. In 1957, Israel withdrew from all of the Sinai. In '67, Egyptian 
demands were met, and that is when Israel returned that land to Egypt. 
1973 was the Yom Kippur war. Egypt attacked Israel. Syria attacked 
Israel. Israel turned the tide with a miracle, and a ceasefire came 
about. In '79, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty with Egypt, and 
Israel dismantled 5,000 communities.
  In 1993 were the Oslo Accords. To this day, they have not been met by 
the Palestinian partners. In 1994, Israel and the PLO signed the Gaza-
Jericho Agreement. Again, the Palestinian Authority repudiated that 
agreement. In 1995, the Oslo II agreement was, again, repudiated. In 
1997, Israel and the PA signed the Hebron agreement. Again, there was 
no peace, and it was undercut. In 1998, the Wye River Memorandum--
undercut. In 1999, the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement--again, undercut.
  In 2000-2001, with the Camp David negotiations, again, Israel came in 
good faith--again, undercut. In 2003, the Roadmap for peace did not 
call for terrorism-free Palestinian leadership, and terrorists remain 
in that leadership today. In 2005, as I said earlier, Israel withdrew 
unilaterally from Gaza and northern Samaria, and 8,000 rockets have 
attacked Israel in that time. In 2008, Israel made another peace offer 
to the PA that covered 94 percent of the West Bank. Again, it wasn't 
enough. The PA wouldn't accept the offer, and it made no counteroffer. 
You see, the PA is unwilling to say ``yes.''
  That is why this last weekend was so important, Mr. Speaker, and why 
Secretary of State Kerry's words fell on incredulous ears. In spite of 
the nuclear agreement with Iran and now with the words that were said 
this last weekend, we need to make it unmistakable that I as a Member 
of Congress stand with Israel, as do my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H1535]]



                          ____________________