[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16451-16452]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      OPPOSITION TO UNESCO FUNDING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from

[[Page 16452]]

Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against a push by the 
administration and its allies here in Congress to ignore U.S. law--this 
time, to ignore the legal prohibition on using U.S. taxpayer dollars to 
fund UNESCO.
  Frankly, it is an indictment against the administration and some of 
our colleagues that we have to go through this song and dance every 
year or whenever a funding measure is set to come to the floor; yet 
here we are again, as some in Congress want to help President Obama 
circumvent and undermine U.S. law and restore at least partial funding 
for UNESCO, so that that body can continue to push its anti-U.S./anti-
Israel agenda.
  Time and again, the President has taken unilateral action meant to 
get around congressional opposition and has openly stated that he will 
continue to do so.
  Since 1990, U.S. law has prohibited any funding to the U.N. or to any 
U.N. agency that gives the PLO membership status and recognizes the 
nonexistent State of Palestine.
  UNESCO was well aware of our laws when its members voted to include 
this so-called Palestine among its ranks, triggering the U.S. funding 
prohibition. President Obama knew this when we cut off UNESCO's funding 
in response because it is the law; however, since then, he has sought 
ways to undermine and circumvent this law to not only restore funding 
to UNESCO, but to also pay dues in arrears which now would amount to 
over $300 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars.
  This is the very same body that allows the likes of Cuba--the 
antithesis of freedom and the respect for human rights and the rule of 
law--on its executive board. When UNESCO admitted a nonexistent 
Palestine, it undermined the peace process and only emboldened Abu 
Mazen even further to move forward with his unilateral push for 
statehood at the U.N.
  There cannot be a legitimate Palestinian state unless it comes about 
as the result of direct negotiations between the Israelis and the 
Palestinians. This unilateral scheme by Abu Mazen is a way for him to 
use that U.N. body to gain de facto statehood without having to first 
come to an agreement with Israel.
  If President Obama and his enablers in Congress have their way and 
U.S. funding for UNESCO is restored, it will signal that the U.S. 
supports this unilateral push for statehood, and we will have sold out 
our closest friend and ally: the democratic Jewish State of Israel.
  We must make it clear to the administration in no uncertain terms 
that Congress will not allow it to continue to circumvent and undermine 
congressional authority or the law and that we will not allow it once 
again to fund UNESCO.
  Giving the administration the authority it seeks to fund UNESCO would 
not only set a dangerous precedent by showing those with an anti-Israel 
agenda at the U.N. that the U.S. does not have the courage of its 
convictions or the fortitude to enforce our own laws, but it would also 
give the green light to the rest of the bodies at the U.N. to follow 
UNESCO's lead and also admit Palestine.
  Abu Mazen has already signaled that he will seek further recognition 
at the U.N., and unless we make it absolutely certain to the entire 
U.N. system that admitting Palestine has very real and tangible 
negative consequences, the bodies at the U.N. will fall in line with 
this dangerous scheme, and that would cause irreparable harm to the 
peace process.
  Instead of President Obama's looking for ways to spend hundreds of 
millions of taxpayer dollars at an anti-U.S./anti-Israel body at the 
U.N., which is in violation of U.S. law, the President should perhaps 
instead focus on institutions at the U.N. that do work and that are 
effective.
  This month, for example, the World Food Programme, WFP, was forced to 
suspend its assistance to millions of refugees who fled the crisis in 
Syria and went to Jordan, to Lebanon, to Iraq, to Turkey; as a result, 
millions could go hungry as they are set to face the harsh winter.
  Our money would be better spent helping an institution we know works 
because it relies on voluntary contributions only, and we should be 
doing more to ensure that the WFP, the World Food Programme, can 
continue its good work to assist these millions of refugees around the 
world.

                          ____________________