[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]]
____________________