Objecting to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace, and for other purposes.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of a two-state solution, as a Jewish Member of Congress and as someone who has been to Israel and has seen the settlements firsthand, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.

Settlements are an impediment to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. This resolution only provides ammunition to those who oppose a two-state solution--the approach that is our only hope for lasting peace. We all agree that the incitement of violence and terrorism must end, which U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 discusses. But as Secretary Kerry so eloquently stated in his speech on December 28:

Some seem to believe that the U.S.' friendship means the

U.S. must accept any policy regardless of our own interests,

our own positions, our own words, our own principles--even

after urging again and again that the policy must change.

Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and

friendships require mutual respect.

Well, my friends, Israel must end settlement expansion, close their outposts, and get to the negotiating table. Prime Minister Netanyahu has not treated the Obama administration with respect, and this resolution does not offer the American people the honest, true debate we should be having about this critically important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Obama administration, especially Secretary of State Kerry, for their dedication in trying to find a path forward for a two-state solution. It is my hope that the principles laid out in Secretary Kerry's December 28, 2016 speech will help guide serious negotiations in the days ahead. To ensure that his remarks are a part of this debate, I will now read his entire statement.

Secretary Kerry said: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. (Coughs.) Excuse me. Thank you for your patience, all of you. For those of you who celebrated Christmas, I hope you had a wonderful Christmas. Happy Chanukah. And to everybody here, I know it's the middle of a holiday week. I understand. (Laughter.) But I wish you all a very, very productive and Happy New Year.

Today, I want to share candid thoughts about an issue which for decades has animated the foreign policy dialogue here and around the world--the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Throughout his Administration, President Obama has been deeply committed to Israel and its security, and that commitment has guided his pursuit of peace in the Middle East. This is an issue which, all of you know, I have worked on intensively during my time as Secretary of State for one simple reason: because the two-state solution is the only way to achieve a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It is the only way to ensure Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living in peace and security with its neighbors. It is the only way to ensure a future of freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. And it is an important way of advancing United States interests in the region.

Now, I'd like to explain why that future is now in jeopardy, and provide some context for why we could not, in good conscience, stand in the way of a resolution at the United Nations that makes clear that both sides must act now to preserve the possibility of peace.

I'm also here to share my conviction that there is still a way forward if the responsible parties are willing to act. And I want to share practical suggestions for how to preserve and advance the prospects for the just and lasting peace that both sides deserve.

So it is vital that we have an honest, clear-eyed conversation about the uncomfortable truths and difficult choices, because the alternative that is fast becoming the reality on the ground is in nobody's interest--not the Israelis, not the Palestinians, not the region--and not the United States.

Now, I want to stress that there is an important point here: My job, above all, is to defend the United States of America--to stand up for and defend our values and our interests in the world. And if we were to stand idly by and know that in doing so we are allowing a dangerous dynamic to take hold which promises greater conflict and instability to a region in which we have vital interests, we would be derelict in our own responsibilities.

Regrettably, some seem to believe that the U.S. friendship means the U.S. must accept any policy, regardless of our own interests, our own positions, our own words, our own principles--even after urging again and again that the policy must change. Friends need to tell each other the hard truths, and friendships require mutual respect.

Israel's permanent representative to the United Nations, who does not support a two-state solution, said after the vote last week, quote, ``It was to be expected that Israel's greatest ally would act in accordance with the values that we share,'' and veto this resolution. I am compelled to respond today that the

United States did, in fact, vote in accordance with our values, just as previous U.S. administrations have done at the Security Council before us.

They fail to recognize that this friend, the United States of America, that has done more to support Israel than any other country, this friend that has blocked countless efforts to delegitimize Israel, cannot be true to our own values--or even the stated democratic values of Israel--and we cannot properly defend and protect Israel if we allow a viable two-state solution to be destroyed before our own eyes.

And that's the bottom line: the vote in the United Nations was about preserving the two-state solution. That's what we were standing up for: Israel's future as a Jewish and democratic state, living side by side in peace and security with its neighbors. That's what we are trying to preserve for our sake and for theirs.

In fact, this Administration has been Israel's greatest friend and supporter, with an absolutely unwavering commitment to advancing Israel's security and protecting its legitimacy.

On this point, I want to be very clear: No American administration has done more for Israel's security than Barack Obama's. The Israeli prime minister himself has noted our, quote, ``unprecedented'' military and intelligence cooperation. Our military exercises are more advanced than ever. Our assistance for Iron Dome has saved countless Israeli lives. We have consistently supported Israel's right to defend itself, by itself, including during actions in Gaza that sparked great controversy.

Time and again we have demonstrated that we have Israel's back. We have strongly opposed boycotts, divestment campaigns, and sanctions targeting Israel in international fora, whenever and wherever its legitimacy was attacked, and we have fought for its inclusion across the UN system. In the midst of our own financial crisis and budget deficits, we repeatedly increased funding to support Israel. In fact, more than one-half of our entire global Foreign Military Financing goes to Israel. And this fall, we concluded an historic $38 billion memorandum of understanding that exceeds any military assistance package the United States has provided to any country, at any time, and that will invest in cutting-edge missile defense and sustain Israel's qualitative military edge for years to come. That's the measure of our support.

This commitment to Israel's security is actually very personal for me. On my first trip to Israel as a young senator in 1986, I was captivated by a special country, one that I immediately admired and soon grew to love. Over the years, like so many others who are drawn to this extraordinary place, I have climbed Masada, swum in the Dead Sea, driven from one Biblical city to another. I've also seen the dark side of Hizballah's rocket storage facilities just across the border in Lebanon, walked through exhibits of the hell of the Holocaust at Yad Vashem, stood on the Golan Heights, and piloted an Israeli jet over the tiny airspace of Israel, which would make anyone understand the importance of security to Israelis. Out of those experiences came a steadfast commitment to Israel's security that has never wavered for a single minute in my 28 years in the Senate or my four years as Secretary.

I have also often visited West Bank communities, where I met Palestinians struggling for basic freedom and dignity amidst the occupation, passed by military checkpoints that can make even the most routine daily trips to work or school an ordeal, and heard from business leaders who could not get the permits that they needed to get their products to the market and families who have struggled to secure permission just to travel for needed medical care.

And I have witnessed firsthand the ravages of a conflict that has gone on for far too long. I've seen Israeli children in Sderot whose playgrounds had been hit by Katyusha rockets. I've visited shelters next to schools in Kiryat Shmona that kids had 15 seconds to get to after a warning siren went off. I've also seen the devastation of war in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian girls in Izbet Abed Rabo played in the rubble of a bombed-out building.

No children--Israeli or Palestinian--should have to live like that.

So, despite the obvious difficulties that I understood when I became Secretary of State, I knew that I had to do everything in my power to help end this conflict. And I was grateful to be working for President Obama, who was prepared to take risks for peace and was deeply committed to that effort.

Like previous U.S. administrations, we have committed our influence and our resources to trying to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict because, yes, it would serve American interests to stabilize a volatile region and fulfill America's commitment to the survival, security and well-being of an Israel at peace with its Arab neighbors.

Despite our best efforts over the years, the two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy.

The truth is that trends on the ground--violence, terrorism, incitement, settlement expansion and the seemingly endless occupation-- they are combining to destroy hopes for peace on both sides and increasingly cementing an irreversible one-state reality that most people do not actually want.

Today, there are a number--there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic-- it cannot be both--and it won't ever really be at peace. Moreover, the Palestinians will never fully realize their vast potential in a homeland of their own with a one-state solution.

Now, most on both sides understand this basic choice, and that is why it is important that polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that there is still strong support for the two-state solution--in theory. They just don't believe that it can happen.

After decades of conflict, many no longer see the other side as people, only as threats and enemies. Both sides continue to push a narrative that plays to people's fears and reinforces the worst stereotypes rather than working to change perceptions and build up belief in the possibility of peace.

And the truth is the extraordinary polarization in this conflict extends beyond Israelis and Palestinians. Allies of both sides are content to reinforce this with an us or--``you're with us or against us'' mentality where too often anyone who questions Palestinian actions is an apologist for the occupation and anyone who disagrees with Israel policy is cast as anti-Israel or even anti-Semitic.

That's one of the most striking realties about the current situation: This critical decision about the future--one state or two states--is effectively being made on the ground every single day, despite the expressed opinion of the majority of the people.

The status quo is leading towards one state and perpetual occupation, but most of the public either ignores it or has given up hope that anything can be done to change it. And with this passive resignation, the problem only gets worse, the risks get greater and the choices are narrowed.

This sense of hopelessness among Israelis is exacerbated by the continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians and incitement, which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace.

Let me say it again: There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, and there never will be.

And the most recent wave of Palestinian violence has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year, including stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks and bombings, many by individuals who have been radicalized by social media. Yet the murderers of innocents are still glorified on Fatah websites, including showing attackers next to Palestinian leaders following attacks. And despite statements by President Abbas and his party's leaders making clear their opposition to violence, too often they send a different message by failing to condemn specific terrorist attacks and naming public squares, streets and schools after terrorists.

President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned violence and terrorism, and even condemned the Palestinian leadership for not condemning it.

Far too often, the Palestinians have pursued efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora. We have strongly opposed these initiatives, including the recent wholly unbalanced and inflammatory UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem. And we have made clear our strong opposition to Palestinian efforts against Israel at the ICC, which only sets back the prospects for peace.

And we all understand that the Palestinian Authority has a lot more to do to strengthen its institutions and improve governance.

Most troubling of all, Hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda: they refuse to accept Israel's very right to exist. They have a one- state vision of their own: all of the land is Palestine. Hamas and other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit forms of incitement to violence, and many of the images that they use are truly appalling. And they are willing to kill innocents in Israel and put the people of Gaza at risk in order to advance that agenda.

Compounding this, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, exacerbated by the closings of the crossings, is dire. Gaza is home to one of the world's densest concentrations of people enduring extreme hardships with few opportunities. 1.3 million people out of Gaza's population of 1.8 million are in need of daily assistance--food and shelter. Most have electricity less than half the time and only 5 percent of the water is safe to drink. And yet despite the urgency of these needs, Hamas and other militant groups continue to re-arm and divert reconstruction materials to build tunnels, threatening more attacks on Israeli civilians that no government can tolerate.

Now, at the same time, we have to be clear about what is happening in the West Bank. The Israeli prime minister publicly supports a two-state solution, but his current coalition is the most right wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by the most extreme elements. The result is that policies of this government, which the prime minister himself just described as ``more committed to settlements than any in Israel's history,'' are leading in the opposite direction. They're leading towards one state. In fact, Israel has increasingly consolidated control over much of the West Bank for its own purposes, effectively reversing the transitions to greater Palestinian civil authority that were called for by the Oslo Accords.

I don't think most people in Israel, and certainly in the world, have any idea how broad and systematic the process has become. But the facts speak for themselves. The number of settlers in the roughly 130 Israeli settlements east of the 1967 lines has steadily grown. The settler population in the West Bank alone, not including East Jerusalem, has increased by nearly 270,000 since Oslo, including 100,000 just since 2009, when President Obama's term began.

There's no point in pretending that these are just in large settlement blocks. Nearly 90,000 settlers are living east of the separation barrier that was created by Israel itself in the middle of what, by any reasonable definition, would be the future Palestinian state. And the population of these distant settlements has grown by 20,000 just since 2009. In fact, just recently the government approved a significant new settlement well east of the barrier, closer to Jordan than to Israel. What does that say to Palestinians in particular--but also to the United States and the world--about Israel's intentions?

Let me emphasize, this is not to say that the settlements are the whole or even the primary cause of this conflict. Of course they are not. Nor can you say that if the settlements were suddenly removed, you'd have peace. Without a broader agreement, you would not. And we understand that in a final status agreement, certain settlements would become part of Israel to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 49 years--we understand that--including the new democratic demographic realities that exist on the ground. They would have to be factored in. But if more and more settlers are moving into the middle of Palestinian areas, it's going to be just that much harder to separate, that much harder to imagine transferring sovereignty, and that is exactly the outcome that some are purposefully accelerating.

Let's be clear: Settlement expansion has nothing to do with Israel's security. Many settlements actually increase the security burden on the Israeli Defense Forces. And leaders of the settler movement are motivated by ideological imperatives that entirely ignore legitimate Palestinian aspirations.

Among the most troubling illustrations of this point has been the proliferation of settler outposts that are illegal under Israel's own laws. They're often located on private Palestinian land and strategically placed in locations that make two states impossible. There are over 100 of these outposts. And since 2011, nearly one-third of them have been or are being legalized, despite pledges by past Israeli governments to dismantle many of them.

Now leaders of the settler movement have advanced unprecedented new legislation that would legalize most of those outposts. For the first time, it would apply Israeli domestic law to the West Bank rather than military law, which is a major step towards the process of annexation. When the law passed the first reading in the Israeli parliament, in the Knesset, one of the chief proponents said proudly--and I quote-- ``Today, the Israeli Knesset moved from heading towards establishing a Palestinian state towards Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.'' Even the Israeli attorney general has said that the draft law is unconstitutional and a violation of international law.

Now, you may hear from advocates that the settlements are not an obstacle to peace because the settlers who don't want to leave can just stay in Palestine, like the Arab Israelis who live in Israel. But that misses a critical point, my friends. The Arab Israelis are citizens of Israel, subject to Israel's law. Does anyone here really believe that the settlers will agree to submit to Palestinian law in Palestine?

Likewise, some supporters of the settlements argue that the settlers could just stay in their settlements and remain as Israeli citizens in their separate enclaves in the middle of Palestine, protected by the IDF. Well, there are over 80 settlements east of the separation barrier, many located in places that would make a continuous--a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Does anyone seriously think that if they just stay where they are you could still have a viable Palestinian state?

Now, some have asked, ``Why can't we build in the blocs which everyone knows will eventually be part of Israel?'' Well, the reason building there or anywhere else in the West Bank now results in such pushback is that the decision of what constitutes a bloc is being made unilaterally by the Israeli Government, without consultation, without the consent of the Palestinians, and without granting the Palestinians a reciprocal right to build in what will be, by most accounts, part of Palestine. Bottom line--without agreement or mutuality, the unilateral choices become a major point of contention, and that is part of why we are here where we are.

You may hear that these remote settlements aren't a problem because they only take up a very small percentage of the land. Well, again and again we have made it clear, it's not just a question of the overall amount of land available in the West Bank. It's whether the land can be connected or it's broken up into small parcels, like a Swiss cheese, that could never constitute a real state. The more outposts that are built, the more the settlements expand, the less possible it is to create a contiguous state. So in the end, a settlement is not just the land that it's on, it's also what the location does to the movement of people, what it does to the ability of a road to connect people, one community to another, what it does to the sense of statehood that is chipped away with each new construction. No one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of what the settlements pose to that peace.

But the problem, obviously, goes well beyond settlements. Trends indicate a comprehensive effort to take the West Bank land for Israel and prevent any Palestinian development there. Today, the 60 percent of the West Bank known as Area C--much of which was supposed to be transferred to Palestinian control long ago under the Oslo Accords-- much of it is effectively off limits to Palestinian development. Most today has essentially been taken for exclusive use by Israel simply by unilaterally designating it as ``state land'' or including it within the jurisdiction of regional settlement councils. Israeli farms flourish in the Jordan River Valley, and Israeli resorts line the shores of the Dead Sea--a lot of people don't realize this--they line the shore of the Dead Sea, where Palestinian development is not allowed. In fact, almost no private Palestinian building is approved in Area C at all. Only one permit was issued by Israel in all of 2014 and 2015, while approvals for hundreds of settlement units were advanced during that same period.

Moreover, Palestinian structures in Area C that do not have a permit from the Israeli military are potentially subject to demolition. And they are currently being demolished at an historically high rate. Over 1,300 Palestinians, including over 600 children, have been displaced by demolitions in 2016 alone--more than any previous year.

So the settler agenda is defining the future of Israel. And their stated purpose is clear. They believe in one state: greater Israel. In fact, one prominent minister, who heads a pro-settler party, declared just after the U.S. election--and I quote--``the era of the two-state solution is over,'' end quote. And many other coalition ministers publicly reject a Palestinian state. And they are increasingly getting their way, with plans for hundreds of new units in East Jerusalem recently announced and talk of a major new settlement building effort in the West Bank to follow.

So why are we so concerned? Why does this matter? Well, ask yourself these questions: What happens if that agenda succeeds? Where does that lead?

There are currently about 2.75 million Palestinians living under military occupation in the West Bank, most of them in Areas A and B--40 percent of the West Bank--where they have limited autonomy. They are restricted in their daily movements by a web of checkpoints and unable to travel into or out of the West Bank without a permit from the Israelis.

So if there is only one state, you would have millions of Palestinians permanently living in segregated enclaves in the middle of the West Bank, with no real political rights, separate legal, education, and transportation systems, vast income disparities, under a permanent military occupation that deprives them of the most basic freedoms. Separate and unequal is what you would have. And nobody can explain how that works. Would an Israeli accept living that way? Would an American accept living that way? Will the world accept it?

If the occupation becomes permanent, over the time the Palestinian Authority could simply dissolve, turn over all the administrative and security responsibilities to the Israelis. What would happen then? Who would administer the schools and hospitals and on what basis? Does Israel want to pay for the billions of dollars of lost international assistance that the Palestinian Authority now receives? Would the Israel Defense Force police the streets of every single Palestinian city and town?

How would Israel respond to a growing civil rights movement from Palestinians, demanding a right to vote, or widespread protests and unrest across the West Bank? How does Israel reconcile a permanent occupation with

its democratic ideals? How does the U.S. continue to defend that and still live up to our own democratic ideals?

Nobody has ever provided good answers to those questions because there aren't any. And there would be an increasing risk of more intense violence between Palestinians and settlers, and complete despair among Palestinians that would create very fertile ground for extremists.

With all the external threats that Israel faces today, which we are very cognizant of and working with them to deal with, does it really want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank? How does that help Israel's security? How does that help the region?

The answer is it doesn't, which is precisely why so many senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders, past and present, believe the two-state solution is the only real answer for Israel's long term security.

Now, one thing we do know: if Israel goes down the one state path, it will never have true peace with the rest of the Arab world, and I can say that with certainty. The Arab countries have made clear that they will not make peace with Israel without resolving the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. That's not where their loyalties lie. That's not where their politics are.

But there is something new here. Common interests in countering Iran's destabilizing activities, and fighting extremists, as well as diversifying their economies have created real possibilities for something different if Israel takes advantage of the opportunities for peace. I have spent a great deal of time with key Arab leaders exploring this, and there is no doubt that they are prepared to have a fundamentally different relationship with Israel. That was stated in the Arab Peace Initiative, years ago. And in all my recent conversations, Arab leaders have confirmed their readiness, in the context of Israeli-Palestinian peace, not just to normalize relations but to work openly on securing that peace with significant regional security cooperation. It's waiting. It's right there.

Many have shown a willingness to support serious Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and to take steps on the path to normalization to relations, including public meetings, providing there is a meaningful progress towards a two-state solution. My friends, that is a real opportunity that we should not allow to be missed.

And that raises one final question: Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish democratic state of Israel living in peace and security with its neighbors? Because that is really what is at stake.

Now, that is what informed our vote at the Security Council last week--the need to preserve the two-state solution--and both sides in this conflict must take responsibility to do that. We have repeatedly and emphatically stressed to the Palestinians that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned all violence and terrorism, and we have strongly opposed unilateral efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora.

We've made countless public and private exhortations to the Israelis to stop the march of settlements. In literally hundreds of conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I have made clear that continued settlement activity would only increase pressure for an international response. We have all known for some time that the Palestinians were intent on moving forward in the UN with a settlements resolution, and I advised the prime minister repeatedly that further settlement activity only invited UN action.

Yet the settlement activity just increased, including advancing the unprecedented legislation to legalize settler outposts that the prime minister himself reportedly warned could expose Israel to action at the Security Council and even international prosecution before deciding to support it.

In the end, we could not in good conscience protect the most extreme elements of the settler movement as it tries to destroy the two-state solution. We could not in good conscience turn a blind eye to Palestinian actions that fan hatred and violence. It is not in U.S. interest to help anyone on either side create a unitary state. And we may not be able to stop them, but we cannot be expected to defend them. And it is certainly not the role of any country to vote against its own policies.

That is why we decided not to block the UN resolution that makes clear both sides have to take steps to save the two-state solution while there is still time. And we did not take this decision lightly. The Obama Administration has always defended Israel against any effort at the UN and any international fora or biased and one-sided resolutions that seek to undermine its legitimacy or security, and that has not changed. It didn't change with this vote.

But remember it's important to note that every United States administration, Republican and Democratic, has opposed settlements as contrary to the prospects for peace, and action at the UN Security Council is far from unprecedented. In fact, previous administrations of both political parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of Israel to pass, including on settlements. On dozens of occasions under George W. Bush alone, the council passed six resolutions that Israel opposed, including one that endorsed a plan calling for a complete freeze on settlements, including natural growth.

Let me read you the lead paragraph from a New York Times story dated December 23rd. I quote: ``With the United States abstaining, the Security Council adopted a resolution today strongly deploring Israel's handling of the disturbances in the occupied territories, which the resolution defined as, including Jerusalem. All of the 14 other Security Council members voted in favor.'' My friends, that story was not written last week. It was written December 23rd, 1987, 26 years to the day that we voted last week, when Ronald Reagan was president.

Yet despite growing pressure, the Obama Administration held a strong line against UN action, any UN action, we were the only administration since 1967 that had not allowed any resolution to pass that Israel opposed. In fact, the only time in eight years the Obama Administration exercised its veto at the United Nations was against a one-sided settlements resolution in 2011. And that resolution did not mention incitement or violence.

Now let's look at what's happened since then. Since then, there have been over 30,000 settlement units advanced through some stage of the planning process. That's right--over 30,000 settlement units advanced notwithstanding the positions of the United States and other countries. And if we had vetoed this resolution just the other day, the United States would have been giving license to further unfettered settlement construction that we fundamentally oppose.

So we reject the criticism that this vote abandons Israel. On the contrary, it is not this resolution that is isolating Israel; it is the permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace impossible. And virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements. That includes many of the friends of Israel, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia--all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed, and again this year along with every other member of the council.

In fact, this resolution simply reaffirms statements made by the Security Council on the legality of settlements over several decades. It does not break new ground. In 1978, the State Department Legal Adviser advised the Congress on his conclusion that Israel's government, the Israeli Government's program of establishing civilian settlements in the occupied territory is inconsistent with international law, and we see no change since then to affect that fundamental conclusion.

Now, you may have heard that some criticized this resolution for calling East Jerusalem occupied territory. But to be clear, there was absolutely nothing new in last week's resolution on that issue. It was one of a long line of Security Council resolutions that included East Jerusalem as part of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and that includes resolutions passed by the Security Council under President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush. And remember that every U.S. administration since 1967, along with the entire international community, has recognized East Jerusalem as among the territories that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War.

Now, I want to stress this point: We fully respect Israel's profound historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites. We've never questioned that. This resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on East Jerusalem, which must, of course, reflect those historic ties and the realities on the ground. That's our position. We still support it.

We also strongly reject the notion that somehow the United States was the driving force behind this resolution. The Egyptians and Palestinians had long made clear to all of us--to all of the international community--their intention to bring a resolution to a vote before the end of the year, and we communicated that to the Israelis and they knew it anyway. The United States did not draft or originate this resolution, nor did we put it forward. It was drafted by Egypt--it was drafted and I think introduced by Egypt, which is one of Israel's closest friends in the region, in coordination with the Palestinians and others.

And during the time of the process as it went out, we made clear to others, including those on the Security Council, that it was possible that if the resolution were to be balanced and it were to include references to incitement and to terrorism, that it was possible the United States would then not block it, that--if it was balanced and fair. That's a standard practice with resolutions at the Security Council. The Egyptians and the Palestinians and many others understood that if the text were more balanced, it was possible we wouldn't block it. But we also made crystal clear that the President of the United States would not make a final decision about our own position until we saw the final text.

In the end, we did not agree with every word in this resolution. There are important

issues that are not sufficiently addressed or even addressed at all. But we could not in good conscience veto a resolution that condemns violence and incitement and reiterates what has been for a long time the overwhelming consensus and international view on settlements and calls for the parties to start taking constructive steps to advance the two-state solution on the ground.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Israeli people to decide whether the unusually heated attacks that Israeli officials have directed towards this Administration best serve Israel's national interests and its relationship with an ally that has been steadfast in its support, as I described. Those attacks, alongside allegations of U.S.-led conspiracy and other manufactured claims, distract attention from what the substance of this vote was really all about.

And we all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, often referencing what's happened with Gaza, and we understand that and we believe there are ways to meet those needs of security. And Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to legitimize their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist. But this vote was not about that. It was about actions that Israelis and Palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now--it was about making sure that peace with the Palestinians will be possible in the future.

Now, we all understand that Israel faces extraordinary, serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. And Israelis are very correct in making sure that there's not a terrorist haven right on their border.

But this vote--I can't emphasize enough--is not about the possibility of arriving at an agreement that's going to resolve that overnight or in one year or two years. This is about a longer process. This is about how we make peace with the Palestinians in the future but preserve the capacity to do so.

So how do we get there? How do we get there, to that peace?

Since the parties have not yet been able to resume talks, the U.S. and the Middle East Quartet have repeatedly called on both sides to independently demonstrate a genuine commitment to the two-state solution--not just with words, but with real actions and policies--to create the conditions for meaningful negotiations.

We've called for both sides to take significant steps on the ground to reverse current trends and send a different message--a clear message--that they are prepared to fundamentally change the equation without waiting for the other side to act.

We have pushed them to comply with their basic commitments under their own prior agreements in order to advance a two-state reality on the ground.

We have called for the Palestinians to do everything in their power to stop violence and incitement, including publicly and consistently condemning acts of terrorism and stopping the glorification of violence.

And we have called on them to continue efforts to strengthen their own institutions and to improve governance, transparency, and accountability.

And we have stressed that the Hamas arms buildup and militant activities in Gaza must stop.

Along with our Quartet partners, we have called on Israel to end the policy of settlement construction and expansion, of taking land for exclusive Israeli use and denying Palestinian development.

To reverse the current process, the U.S. and our partners have encouraged Israel to resume the transfer of greater civil authority to the Palestinians in Area C, consistent with the transition that was called for by Oslo. And we have made clear that significant progress across a range of sectors, including housing, agriculture, and natural resources, can be made without negatively impacting Israel's legitimate security needs. And we've called for significantly easing the movement and access restrictions to and from Gaza, with due consideration for Israel's need to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks.

So let me stress here again: None of the steps that I just talked about would negatively impact Israel's security.

Let me also emphasize this is not about offering limited economic measures that perpetuate the status quo. We're talking about significant steps that would signal real progress towards creating two states.

That's the bottom line: If we're serious about the two-state solution, it's time to start implementing it now. Advancing the process of separation now, in a serious way, could make a significant difference in saving the two-state solution and in building confidence in the citizens of both sides that peace is, indeed, possible. And much progress can be made in advance of negotiations that can lay the foundation for negotiations, as contemplated by the Oslo process. In fact, these steps will help create the conditions for successful talks.

Now, in the end, we all understand that a final status agreement can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. We've said that again and again. We cannot impose the peace.

There are other countries in the UN who believe it is our job to dictate the terms of a solution in the Security Council. Others want us to simply recognize a Palestinian state, absent an agreement. But I want to make clear today, these are not the choices that we will make.

We choose instead to draw on the experiences of the last eight years, to provide a way forward when the parties are ready for serious negotiations. In a place where the narratives from the past powerfully inform and mold the present, it's important to understand the history. We mark this year and next a series of milestones that I believe both illustrate the two sides of the conflict and form the basis for its resolution. It's worth touching on them briefly.

A hundred and twenty years ago, the First Zionist Congress was convened in Basel by a group of Jewish visionaries, who decided that the only effective response to the waves of anti-Semitic horrors sweeping across Europe was to create a state in the historic home of the Jewish people, where their ties to the land went back centuries--a state that could defend its borders, protect its people, and live in peace with its neighbors. That was the vision. That was the modern beginning, and it remains the dream of Israel today.

Nearly 70 years ago, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 finally paved the way to making the State of Israel a reality. The concept was simple: to create two states for two peoples--one Jewish, one Arab--to realize the national aspirations of both Jews and Palestinians. And both Israel and the PLO referenced Resolution 181 in their respective declarations of independence.

The United States recognized Israel seven minutes after its creation. But the Palestinians and the Arab world did not, and from its birth, Israel had to fight for its life. Palestinians also suffered terribly in the 1948 war, including many who had lived for generations in a land that had long been their home too. And when Israel celebrates its 70th anniversary in 2018, the Palestinians will mark a very different anniversary: 70 years since what they call the Nakba, or catastrophe.

Next year will also mark 50 years since the end of the Six-Day War, when Israel again fought for its survival. And Palestinians will again mark just the opposite: 50 years of military occupation. Both sides have accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242, which called for the withdrawal of Israel from territory that it occupied in 1967 in return for peace and secure borders, as the basis for ending the conflict.

It has been more than 20 years since Israel and the PLO signed their first agreement--the Oslo Accords--and the PLO formally recognized Israel. Both sides committed to a plan to transition much of the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinian control during permanent status negotiations that would put an end to their conflict. Unfortunately, neither the transition nor the final agreement came about, and both sides bear responsibility for that.

Finally, some 15 years ago, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia came out with the historic Arab Peace Initiative, which offered fully normalized relations with Israel when it made peace--an enormous opportunity then and now, which has never been fully been embraced.

That history was critical to our approach to trying to find a way to resolve the conflict. And based on my experience with both sides over the last four years, including the nine months of formal negotiations, the core issues can be resolved if there is leadership on both sides committed to finding a solution.

In the end, I believe the negotiations did not fail because the gaps were too wide, but because the level of trust was too low. Both sides were concerned that any concessions would not be reciprocated and would come at too great a political cost. And the deep public skepticism only made it more difficult for them to be able to take risks.

In the countless hours that we spent working on a detailed framework, we worked through numerous formulations and developed specific bridging proposals, and we came away with a clear understanding of the fundamental needs of both sides. In the past two and a half years, I have tested ideas with regional and international stakeholders, including our Quartet partners. And I believe what has emerged from all of that is a broad consensus on balanced principles that would satisfy the core needs of both sides.

President Clinton deserves great credit for laying out extensive parameters designed to bridge gaps in advanced final status negotiations 16 years ago. Today, with mistrust too high to even start talks, we're at the opposite end of the spectrum. Neither side is willing to even risk acknowledging the other's bottom

line, and more negotiations that do not produce progress will only reinforce the worst fears.

Now, everyone understands that negotiations would be complex and difficult, and nobody can be expected to agree on the final result in advance. But if the parties could at least demonstrate that they understand the other side's most basic needs--and are potentially willing to meet them if theirs are also met at the end of comprehensive negotiations--perhaps then enough trust could be established to enable a meaningful process to begin.

It is in that spirit that we offer the following principles--not to prejudge or impose an outcome, but to provide a possible basis for serious negotiations when the parties are ready. Now, individual countries may have more detailed policies on these issues--as we do, by the way--but I believe there is a broad consensus that a final status agreement that could meet the needs of both sides would do the following.

Principle number one: Provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine, negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps.

Resolution 242, which has been enshrined in international law for 50 years, provides for the withdrawal of Israel from territory it occupied in 1967 in return for peace with its neighbors and secure and recognized borders. It has long been accepted by both sides, and it remains the basis for an agreement today.

As Secretary, one of the first issues that I worked out with the Arab League was their agreement that the reference in the Arab Peace Initiative to the 1967 lines would from now on include the concept of land swaps, which the Palestinians have acknowledged. And this is necessary to reflect practical realities on the ground, and mutually agreed equivalent swaps that will ensure that the agreement is fair to both sides.

There is also broad recognition of Israel's need to ensure that the borders are secure and defensible, and that the territory of Palestine is viable and contiguous. Virtually everyone that I have spoken to has been clear on this principle as well: No changes by Israel to the 1967 lines will be recognized by the international community unless agreed to by both sides.

Principle two: Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.

This has been the fundamental--the foundational principle of the two- state solution from the beginning: creating a state for the Jewish people and a state for the Palestinian people, where each can achieve their national aspirations. And Resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents of both the Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for years, and based on my conversations in these last months, I am absolutely convinced that many others are now prepared to accept it as well--provided the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.

We also know that there are some 1.7 million Arab citizens who call Israel their home and must now and always be able to live as equal citizens, which makes this a difficult issue for Palestinians and others in the Arab world. That's why it is so important that in recognizing each other's homeland--Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people--both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens.

Principle number three: Provide for a just, agreed, fair, and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue, with international assistance, that includes compensation, options and assistance in finding permanent homes, acknowledgment of suffering, and other measures necessary for a comprehensive resolution consistent with two states for two peoples.

The plight of many Palestinian refugees is heartbreaking, and all agree that their needs have to be addressed. As part of a comprehensive resolution, they must be provided with compensation, their suffering must be acknowledged, and there will be a need to have options and assistance in finding permanent homes. The international community can provide significant support and assistance. I know we are prepared to do that, including in raising money to help ensure the compensation and other needs of the refugees are met, and many have expressed a willingness to contribute to that effort, particularly if it brings peace. But there is a general recognition that the solution must be consistent with two states for two peoples, and cannot affect the fundamental character of Israel.

Principle four: Provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.

Now, Jerusalem is the most sensitive issue for both sides, and the solution will have to meet the needs not only of the parties, but of all three monotheistic faiths. That is why the holy sites that are sacred to billions of people around the world must be protected and remain accessible and the established status quo maintained. Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 1967, and we believe that. At the same time, there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.

Principle five: Satisfy Israel's security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state.

Security is the fundamental issue for Israel together with a couple of others I've mentioned, but security is critical. Everyone understands that no Israeli Government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs or that risk creating an enduring security threat like Gaza transferred to the West Bank. And Israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against terrorism and other regional threats. In fact, there is a real willingness by Egypt, Jordan, and others to work together with Israel on meeting key security challenges. And I believe that those collective efforts, including close coordination on border security, intelligence- sharing, joint cooperations--joint operation, can all play a critical role in securing the peace.

At the same time, fully ending the occupation is the fundamental issue for the Palestinians. They need to know that the military occupation itself will really end after an agreed transitional process. They need to know they can live in freedom and dignity in a sovereign state while providing security for their population even without a military of their own. This is widely accepted as well. And it is important to understand there are many different ways without occupation for Israel and Palestine and Jordan and Egypt and the United States and others to cooperate in providing that security.

Now, balancing those requirements was among the most important challenges that we faced in the negotiations, but it was one where the United States has the ability to provide the most assistance. And that is why a team that was led by General John Allen, who is here, for whom I am very grateful for his many hours of effort, along with--he is one of our foremost military minds, and dozens of experts from the Department of Defense and other agencies, all of them engaged extensively with the Israeli Defense Force on trying to find solutions that could help Israel address its legitimate security needs.

They developed innovative approaches to creating unprecedented, multi-layered border security; enhancing Palestinian capacity; enabling Israel to retain the ability to address threats by itself even when the occupation had ended. General Allen and his team were not suggesting one particular outcome or one particular timeline, nor were they suggesting that technology alone would resolve these problems. They were simply working on ways to support whatever the negotiators agreed to. And they did some very impressive work that gives me total confidence that Israel's security requirements can be met.

Principle six: End the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisaged by the Arab Peace Initiative. It is essential for both sides that the final status agreement resolves all the outstanding issues and finally brings closure to this conflict, so that everyone can move ahead to a new era of peaceful coexistence and cooperation. For Israel, this must also bring broader peace with all of its Arab neighbors. That is the fundamental promise of the Arab Peace Initiative, which key Arab leaders have affirmed in these most recent days.

The Arab Peace Initiative also envisions enhanced security for all of the region. It envisages Israel being a partner in those efforts when peace is made. This is the area where Israel and the Arab world are looking at perhaps the greatest moment of potential transformation in the Middle East since Israel's creation in 1948. The Arab world faces its own set of security challenges. With Israeli-Palestinian peace, Israel, the United States, Jordan, Egypt--together with the GCC countries--would be ready and willing to define a new security partnership for the region that would be absolutely groundbreaking.

So ladies and gentlemen, that's why it is vital that we all work to keep open the possibility of peace, that we not lose hope in the two- state solution, no matter how difficult it may seem--because there really is no viable alternative.

Now, we all know that a speech alone won't produce peace. But based on over 30 years of experience and the lessons from the past 4 years, I have suggested, I believe, and President Obama has signed on to and believes in

a path that the parties could take: realistic steps on the ground now, consistent with the parties' own prior commitments, that will begin the process of separating into two states; a political horizon to work towards to create the conditions for a successful final status talk; and a basis for negotiations that the parties could accept to demonstrate that they are serious about making peace.

We can only encourage them to take this path; we cannot walk down it for them. But if they take these steps, peace would bring extraordinary benefits in enhancing the security and the stability and the prosperity of Israelis, Palestinians, all of the nations of the region. The Palestinian economy has amazing potential in the context of independence, with major private sector investment possibilities and a talented, hungry, eager-to-work young workforce. Israel's economy could enjoy unprecedented growth as it becomes a regional economic powerhouse, taking advantage of the unparalleled culture of innovation and trading opportunities with new Arab partners. Meanwhile, security challenges could be addressed by an entirely new security arrangement, in which Israel cooperates openly with key Arab states. That is the future that everybody should be working for.

President Obama and I know that the incoming administration has signaled that they may take a different path, and even suggested breaking from the longstanding U.S. policies on settlements, Jerusalem, and the possibility of a two-state solution. That is for them to decide. That's how we work. But we cannot--in good conscience--do nothing, and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away.

This is a time to stand up for what is right. We have long known what two states living side by side in peace and security looks like. We should not be afraid to say so.

Now, I really began to reflect on what we have learned--and the way ahead--when I recently joined President Obama in Jerusalem for the state funeral for Shimon Peres. Shimon was one of the founding fathers of Israel who became one of the world's great elder statesmen--a beautiful man. I was proud to call him my friend, and I know that President Obama was as well.

And I remembered the first time that I saw Shimon in person--standing on the White House lawn for the signing the historic Oslo Accords. And I thought about the last time, at an intimate one-on-one Shabbat dinner just a few months before he died, when we toasted together to the future of Israel and to the peace that he still so passionately believed in for his people.

He summed it up simply and eloquently, as only Shimon could, quote, ``The original mandate gave the Palestinians 48 percent, now it's down to 22 percent. I think 78 percent is enough for us.''

As we laid Shimon to rest that day, many of us couldn't help but wonder if peace between Israelis and Palestinians might also be buried along with one of its most eloquent champions. We cannot let that happen. There is simply too much at stake--for future generations of Israelis and Palestinians--to give in to pessimism, especially when peace is, in fact, still possible.

We must not lose hope in the possibility of peace. We must not give in to those who say what is now must always be, that there is no chance for a better future. It is up to Israelis and Palestinians to make the difficult choices for peace, but we can all help. And for the sake of future generations of Israelis and Palestinians, for all the people of the region, for the United States, for all those around the world who have prayed for and worked for peace for generations, let's hope that we are all prepared--and particularly Israelis and Palestinians--to make those choices now.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) for yielding the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak on today's legislation, I want to take a moment to express my continued deep concern and uneasiness about the Russian hacking in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election and the deeply troublesome response from our President-elect.

American democracy was attacked, in 2016, by Russian hackers who sought to tip our Presidential election in favor of Donald Trump. That is not I who is speaking--that is the CIA, the FBI, and 14 other United States intelligence agencies that have reached a clear consensus on this matter. Yet, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence, President-elect Trump has continued to sow seeds of confusion by publicly attacking and trying to discredit our country's intelligence agencies and the brave men and women who risk their lives every day to keep us safe.

Today, intelligence officials are testifying before the Senate on this matter. In one of his most alarming actions yet, President-elect Trump has said that he would rather trust the words of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange--an accused sex offender, who is holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in the U.K.--than the consensus of the Directors of the U.S. intelligence agencies. When Speaker Ryan was asked about Julian Assange, he called him a sycophant for Russia who leaks, steals data, and compromises national security. Yet, America's next President puts more faith in him than in the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that he will soon oversee.

This is not normal behavior by a President-elect, let alone by a President, and we cannot allow it to become normal. I appeal to my fellow Members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats--and especially the Republican leadership--to reach out to the President- elect and ensure that there is a clear understanding about how damaging these statements and actions are to America's credibility, to our national security, and to the morale and responsibilities of our intelligence agencies. I appeal to my colleagues to get him help now.

America faces serious threats across the globe, and we cannot afford to have a Commander in Chief at war with the very intelligence agencies that are responsible for keeping our country safe. Whatever his motivation, President-elect Trump must clearly and unequivocally join Republicans and Democrats who seek answers. We need a bipartisan, independent commission to uncover the truth about Russian hacking, and we need all of our leaders to support it.

It is time Mr. Trump's Twitter sideshow comes to an end. It only confirms what many of us feared during the campaign--that he is temperamentally unfit to be President. We must be united in protecting the integrity of our elections against Russians and all foreign influence.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me get to the underlying bills.

I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 26, the REINS Act, under a structured process, and for H. Res. 11, a resolution objecting to a recent United Nations Security Council resolution on Israel, under a completely closed process.

Before I get into discussing the merits of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to first express some serious concern with the process used to rush this legislation to the floor. The deadline for amendments to be submitted to the Rules Committee was 10 a.m. on Tuesday. That is 2 hours before Members were sworn in and before the 115th Congress officially began. Now, it is true that some of the amendments that were received after the deadline were made in order for consideration on the floor. But, really, is this the way we want to begin the consideration of legislation in this session of Congress? All Members should have had the opportunity to review the legislation and offer thoughtful amendments to the REINS Act. Wouldn't it have been something to have considered this bill under an open process? If you hadn't wanted to have done that, maybe you could have waited a couple of days before you brought it to the floor so that everybody, especially the freshmen,

would have had an opportunity to evaluate it, and maybe they would have had some good ideas that they would have wanted to offer. But, here we are, right out of the gate, limiting the process and prohibiting Members from offering their ideas on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, we have a process for reviewing rules promulgated by the executive branch. Congress should--and, indeed, can--examine regulations. Not all regulations are perfect. There are such things as bad regulations, and we should get rid of the ones that don't work. There is no debate on that. We have the ability to override regulations with new laws, and we have reauthorizations, appropriations, spending limitations, oversight hearings, investigations, GAO audits and studies, and the Congressional Review Act, just to name a few. We have a process that can and should work, but, because my Republican friends don't always get what they want, they want to undermine that process.

I don't think my Republican colleagues are really interested in a thoughtful review of these regulations. In fact, I find it hard to believe that this Republican Congress even has the capacity to utilize the process that is outlined in this bill so as to consider the 100 or so regulations--some of which are highly technical and would require experts in specialized fields to analyze--that could come up in any given year; but I guess that is the point. This bill would make it nearly impossible to implement much-needed regulations that ensure consumer health and product safety, environmental protections, workplace safety, and financial protections, just to name a few.

It would be a dream come true for industry and the wealthy, well- connected Republican donor class who, for example, are interested in blocking all attempts to rein in Wall Street, to combat climate change, or to protect workers and their public health. One simply needs to look at the intensive lobbying that has gone into fighting these regulations and supporting antiregulation legislation like the REINS Act--groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Koch brothers, the American Petroleum Institute, just to name a few.

Industry groups already use their seemingly unlimited resources to delay and prevent commonsense regulations from taking effect by tying rules up in court. This bill is just one additional tool for the wealthy and powerful to delay and destroy commonsense consumer protections.

In short, this bill is not about creating jobs, so nobody should be fooled. It is about rewarding special interests, plain and simple. It is about making it more difficult to rein in Wall Street, to control polluters, or to protect workers. But this is in keeping with the philosophy of the Republican majority, so no one should be surprised. I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this effort.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me just say a few words about the closed rule on H. Res. 11, the resolution condemning U.S. abstention on Israel at the U.N. Security Council.

The peace and security of the State of Israel are priorities for every Member of Congress. Let us not try to obscure or confuse that truth. I can't think of any Member of this House who doesn't support peace in the Middle East and a safe and secure Israel. We may disagree about how to achieve those goals. Most of us believe that a two-state solution that provides peace, security, and prosperity to all of the peoples of the region--Israeli, Palestinian, and their Arab neighbors-- is the best option to securing a just, lasting, and durable peace.

I have always voted in support of economic and military aid for Israel, but this does not mean that I always agree with the policies of a particular government in Tel Aviv. Sometimes I have been critical of the Israeli Government just as I am often critical of my own government and of other governments in the region.

For the past four decades or more, the United States, under Republican and Democratic Presidents alike, has strongly opposed the expansion of settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes. This has been a bipartisan consensus. We oppose the settlements as a violation of basic human rights; we oppose them as creating obstacles to a lasting two-state solution; and we oppose their rapid expansion as potentially creating a reality on the ground that, therefore, closes any possibility of a two-state solution.

Since 1967, under Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, the United States has voted in favor or has abstained on more than 50 U.N. Security Council resolutions that are critical of Israel, including resolutions on settlements or the demolition of Palestinian homes. Of the more than 30 abstentions that have been cast by the U.S. over nearly five decades, only one was cast by the Obama administration-- just one.

H. Res. 11 does not precisely express that fact accurately. It implies that the U.S. always opposes or vetoes such regulations when that is hardly the case, nor does U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 impose a solution on Israel outside of direct bilateral negotiations to end the conflict. Some of us who are strong supporters of Israel have difficulties with some of the wording in H. Res. 11 on a straightforward factual basis.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to allow this House to debate a substitute offered by our colleagues, Congressman David Price, Congressman Eliot Engel, who is a cosponsor of H. Res. 11, and Congressman Gerry Connolly. The Price-Engel-Connolly amendment expresses the House's strong support for Israel, a two-state solution, and direct negotiations between the parties to the conflict. It is reasonable and balanced and is very much deserving of debate and this House's attention.

Regrettably, the Republican majority on the House Rules Committee rejected allowing that amendment to be brought before the House and debated. Instead, it decided to begin this new year and this new Congress with yet another closed rule--in fact, the second closed rule this week with no debate, with no thoughtful alternatives, and with no ability of the Members of this body to deliberate such serious issues and choose between alternative proposals--just politics, politics, politics, politics as usual.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and to please send a clear message to House leaders that we would like to be able to debate reasonable alternatives and amendments to bills, like the Price-Engel- Connolly amendment. If we don't start out the year demanding fairness and openness in our debates of important issues then I don't want to even speculate as to what the rest of the year will look like.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I hope that my colleague from Alabama uses some of that passion to convince the President-elect to stop cozying up to Vladimir Putin, who is no friend of democracy, no friend of Israel, and no friend of human rights.

All we are trying to do here, Mr. Speaker, is to have a little democracy on the House floor. People can vote whichever way they want to vote. But the Rules Committee last night, staying true to form, actually denied us the ability to bring to the floor and debate an alternative, which we think is, quite frankly, more appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order H. Res. 23, the David Price-Eliot Engel-Gerry Connolly resolution, to provide an alternative viewpoint.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution again was blocked by the Rules Committee, right along party line. Republicans said ``no'' to an open debate, even though it complies with all the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss the proposal, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said that the American people don't want business as usual. Yet, here we are on this opening week and what we see is business as usual, more Putin-like, closed rules coming to the floor. The 113th and the 114th Congresses were the two most closed Congresses in the history of the United States. Here we are beginning the new session with, again, this closed process.

The Speaker, on opening day, made a promise to uphold the rights of the minority.

Well, you know what?

That means that the minority ought to be able to be heard on the House floor, that we ought to be able to bring amendments and substitutes to the floor. Yet, we get rejected time and time again.

This is not the way the most deliberative body in the world should be run. This is not the way Congress should be run. By closing down this process the way the majority does, it does a great disservice to the American people

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. It is not fair. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that Mr. Price, Mr. Engel, and Mr. Connolly can bring up their alternative to H. Res. 11.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, finally, that I am deeply concerned that the institution of Congress has been undermined time and time again by this tendency to be overly restrictive and outright closed. We are supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world, but the problem is we don't deliberate very much. Everything that is brought to this floor tends to be a press release substituting for legislation.

There is no bipartisanship. There is none. There is no working together. There is none. And that is unfortunate. I think one of the messages of this last election for the American people was they want to see things happen here. Not just whatever the Republicans want or whatever the Democrats want, they want us to see us working together.

I served here as a staffer during a time when there was collegiality, when Republicans and Democrats came together and passed appropriations bills and authorization bills and passed major reform bills. That doesn't happen anymore.

On the issue of regulatory reform, I think you can actually get a consensus on regulatory reform. There is nobody in this House that thinks the regulatory process is perfect. The problem is, when you bring a bill to the floor that is so one-sided, that is poorly written, that is impractical, we can't support it.

On the issue of Israel, we could have come to a consensus, I think, and spoken with one voice to show our unwavering support for the State of Israel. But instead, we have a bill that comes to the floor that is politically charged--I think that is very clear, based on the tone of some of the speeches here today--but also has factual errors in it.

The frustration level has grown to the point where some of us in the minority have taken to protesting. We had a sit-in in response to the fact that we couldn't get legislation to the floor that said if you are on a terrorist list, you can't fly, then you can't buy a gun, and a bill that called for universal background checks.

We thought we had a promise to be able to bring some of this to the floor. My friends could have voted against it. But we were told, no, you don't even have the right to debate these bills.

I am going to say to my colleagues sincerely that, unless things change, you are going to see the discord, the anger, and the frustration build on this side of the aisle, and you are going to see it build throughout the country.

There is a reason why people hold Congress in such disdain. It is because they see this place not as an institution where we can solve problems but as a place where it is all about obstruction or ``my way or the highway.''

This is a lousy way to start the new year. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today we took up what was intended to be a very noble action on H. Res. 11 to rein in the out-of-control and outrageous actions of so many despots that occupy positions of authority in the United Nations. The United Nations, whether you go back to Libya being in charge of human rights, you have U.N. troops molesting so many females. There are all kinds of problems that have been wrought, and yet the U.N. has the gall to continually show how bigoted it is and how anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli that it is.

It is easy to find, if anyone bothers to check, that the United Nations never asked once for any other country to pony up land, much less demand that other countries like Jordan, who is a good friend of the United States, but the U.N. never said: Look, you are occupying this land that they call Palestine, so you have to give it up. They never did until it was controlled by the Israeli people, thus making clear this is really a bigoted move by the U.N. to constantly slander and slam the nation of Israel.

Also, if one wants to conduct another test to check to see how bigoted, if it is, the U.N. is, you could check on the condemnations by the U.N. for activities of Israel. Compare the facts of those activities and self-defense efforts by Israel and compare them to acts of other nations--the genocide, for example, that even Secretary Kerry, as tough as it was for him to finally admit that there was a genocide of Christians going on in the Middle East.

Is there any outrage by the U.N.? No. In fact, the U.N. head of the refugees who is now the U.N. General Secretary made clear about over a year and a half ago or so that the reason that they weren't helping Christians to the extent that they were helping Muslim refugees is because of the historic importance Christians have in staying where they were--that means where they are being murdered, where they are having their throats slashed, being crucified, tortured, raped, incinerated. The U.N. General Secretary, when he was in charge of the refugee program, thought it was very important to leave Christians in the Middle East so they can be murdered in some of the most heinous and egregious fashions imaginable.

So it was just and proper, to borrow from history, that we condemn the United Nations Resolution 2334 as being an obstacle to peace in Israel. Palestinians have made clear they don't want peace with Israel. They want it eliminated from the map. They name holidays, squares, and all kinds of things for people who go out and kill innocent Jewish children and others just for being Jewish. They reward the families of those who go and blow themselves up, killing, in atrocious fashions, innocent Israeli people. The United Nations turns a blind eye to it since the U.N. has become so racist, so bigoted, and so anti-Israel, the most antiterrorist country in all of the Middle East, including north Africa--although Egypt is of great help in that regard these days, and there are those in Libya who would like to. But after President Obama helped turn Libya into absolute anarchy and chaos, then Egypt is having their problems even coming from Libya.

What has the U.N. had to say about all that? Not really anything because if the Muslim Brotherhood supports it, so does, basically, the U.N., and far too often so has the Obama administration.

That is why, I guess, Israel got the lecture from Secretary John Kerry. Secretary Kerry, even in the days when he talked about the heinous acts of Genghis Khan, never bothered to mention the plight of the poor Palestinians before 1967 when they were under control of the most non-Israeli people you could imagine. There has been no discussion about that, only leveling really bigoted allegations at Israel.

So we have H. Res. 11 today, and I was thrilled because it meant that I was going to be able to come to the floor and vote to condemn the U.N. passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334.

Unfortunately, as some of my friends here in Congress have pointed out, I am a bit anal at times. I actually want to read the things that we are going to vote on. So I got my copy of H. Res. 11, immediately noting that, in the very first whereas, it says the United States has long supported a two-state solution. It does say ``sustainable two- state solution.'' It says: ``Whereas since 1993, the United States has facilitated direct, bilateral negotiations between both parties toward achieving a two-state solution . . . .''

Well, it is the truth that President Clinton twisted the arm of the Israeli Prime Minister and convinced him to basically give Arafat almost everything he wanted. Now, if you believe what Scripture says about Moses going and pleading to Pharaoh to let the Jewish people, the children of Israel, go, we are told that God hardens Pharaoh's heart so that He could make a big demonstration of His power and glory down the road. Although there was suffering that came--great suffering--ultimately, incredible miracles were performed as a result of his hardened heart.

I think it is likely that when Arafat got everything he wanted-- almost everything he wanted--in the offer from Israel, I thank God that Arafat turned him down. For anybody that has been in the military and goes to Israel, you can see readily, if Arafat had accepted what the Prime Minister of Israel had been willing, finally, to offer, it would have virtually made Israel indefensible unless they were using nuclear weapons or the threat of nuclear weapons.

Israel needs to be able to defend itself. King David was ruling from Hebron in the year around 1020 B.C. to around 1012 B.C. Then he moved, and he was ruling over Israel. What is now called the West Bank was actually called Israel--I mean, it was part of the nation of Israel. Solomon had control, but he did so from the City of David because that is where, up to Jerusalem, that David had moved the capital from Hebron, which is also where Abraham and Sarah are buried.

I have also visited the tomb of David's father, Jesse, that is there in Hebron. To be told: Oh, no, this needs to be Palestinian lands. The reason some of us think that Hebron, Judea, and Samaria should be Palestinian lands is because 1,600 years after David ruled from Hebron and then Jerusalem, Mohammed came along. Some say it was a vision, some say a dream. Some say he actually, during one night, was taken by a winged horse or donkey and flown to Jerusalem. Some say he actually got there and back to bed before morning. Whatever the case, 1,600 years before that did or didn't happen, David was ruling over that whole country.

There is no one alive today descended from any occupants of the Promised Land, the land of Israel, descended from people who lived in that land predating King David and King Saul before him, King Solomon after him--nobody. Nobody alive today has a prior claim. There is nobody, no country, from whom the United Nations has demanded a secession of land back to people that attacked that country and the land was taken back in a defensive mode in protection from the attack.

So at page 3 of our H. Res. 11, it points out that the U.N. resolution is a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-state solution. At the bottom of page 5, it says: ``A durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through direct bilateral negotiations between the parties resulting in a Jewish, democratic state living side-by-side next to a demilitarized Palestinian state in peace and security.''

Mr. Speaker, there cannot be peace and security in the Middle East when a people are allowed to occupy an area, and those people continue, with the encouragement of the United Nations, with John Kerry and this President, to conduct intensive terrorism on the people of Israel and we continue to condemn the victims of that terrorism.

You can't have peace in a land where the most powerful nation-- possibly the most powerful nation up to now. We were at one time. Our Navy is down, I think, to pre-World War I standards, and our troops are down below pre-World War II. But at one time, we were the most powerful nation. The most powerful or near most powerful nation is taking up for the victims and encouraging that the victims give away more of the land that they have already given so much of to those who are inflicting terror upon them. It is like my friends on the far left, constantly complaining about bullies, who never had been bullied like I was as a small child because I was very small in elementary school.

I got beat up a lot, and I defended myself, but it didn't matter. When people are coming after you that are a foot and a half taller than you are and they flunked two grades, you are not going to come out well.

My fifth grade teacher, after I got beat up trying to get back my football I got for Christmas, took me up in front of the class. My nose is still bleeding, dripping down my shirt. She said: I want everybody to see what happens when the little boys try to play with the big boys.

She always took up for the bullies. And that is what this administration has been doing and this is what this United Nations has been doing: taking up for the terrorist bullies.

I am amazed that the nation of Israel has held back all hell breaking loose on the Gaza Strip because of the continued assaults day after day, sending rockets into Israel, Israel spending millions of dollars to protect themselves against the constant attack from the Gaza Strip.

And what happens?

They try to protect themselves with a legitimate blockade to make sure nobody is taking rockets in, and the U.N. and world opinion goes nuts over that.

Page 6 of our resolution we voted on today goes on to say that the House of Representatives calls for United Nations Security Council 2334 to be repealed or fundamentally altered so that it is no longer one- sided and anti-Israel.

Here is my problem again. B, it allows all final status issues toward a two-state solution be resolved and have direct negotiations between the parties.

Nobody at the U.N., if we are a part of it, and nobody in the United States administration should even mention the little phrase ``two-state solution.'' This body should not even mention in a resolution that we are in any way endorsing a two-state solution.

I know there are a lot of Christians that aren't as familiar with the Bible, perhaps, as they will be one day, but my friend, Joel Rosenberg, pointed out numerous times in the book of Joel, chapter 3:

For look. In those days and at that time I will return the

exiles to Judah and Jerusalem. Then I will gather all the

nations. I will bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.

I will enter into judgment against them there concerning my

people Israel, who are my inheritance, whom they scattered

among the nations.

Then it lists the number one grievance that the God of the Bible, the God I believe in, had against those nations he is going to rain down only hell judgment on. The number one grievance is: they partitioned my land. They divided my land, the promised land.

When the United States Congress embraces, demands that Israel be divided into separate states instead of being able to live in, peacefully, the land that was occupied and promised over 3,000 years ago, I think we are making a big mistake. That is why I had to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Now just as our leadership rushed this resolution to the floor, I am hopeful they will rush H. Res. 311 to the floor. I filed it today, this afternoon. H. Res. 311 is very basic. It says:

``To withhold United States assessed and voluntary contributions to the United Nations, and for other purposes.

``Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

``Section 1. Short title.

``This Act may be cited as the `Refusing to Assist Paying for United Nations Actions Against Israel Act' ''.

United States assessed involuntary contributions to the United Nations. That is section 2. And the operative wording says:

``No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission, treaty or treaty body, or other affiliated body of the United Nations . . . `'

It goes on: `` . . . until such time as United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, regarding Israel's Settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is repealed in its entirety.''

Then, section 3 says: ``No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to pay interest on assessed or voluntary contributions that are withheld under this Act.''

So the purpose of that is I am hoping and praying that this body will not just pay lip service to a U.N. resolution, and actually embrace, as John Kerry, apparently, was saying that day, not much difference between AIPAC's position in supporting this resolution. He may not have mentioned they would support the resolution, but AIPAC's position and John Kerry's position. If you look at what is in the resolution, he may have something there.

This would actually put some teeth into it. This is something that would send a message to the United Nations and the nations around the world that if you are going to continue to be so anti-Israel, so bigoted, so racist, so anti-Jewish, then the United States is not going to continue to fund your outrageous, bigoted activities, your lush, lavish lifestyle.

I would think if we could pass this, the United Nations delayed in withdrawing that resolution or rescinding it, then that should ultimately lead to our denial of any visas to diplomats of the United Nations. Then, once that occurs, apparently under the deed to the United Nations, it was only for such time as the headquarters in New York--is the main headquarters of the United Nations. So if they can't get diplomats there, they will have to move the headquarters elsewhere and that land would be ceded back to the foundation.

Hopefully, if we will go ahead and do something that has teeth in it and not embrace language that will be fatal to this nation of Israel, we can make a difference. That can bring peace in the world. Terrorists only understand power, and sometimes power is conveyed in the way of money.

We should not be funding a United Nations that is so bigoted and so hateful to the nation of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 22 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on House Resolution 22, currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H. Res. 11, a resolution regarding United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334. It provides for 1 hour of debate on H. Res. 11, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Additionally, this rule provides for consideration of legislation that I introduced, H.R. 26, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act. It makes in order 12 amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader.

Yesterday, the Rules Committee received testimony from the Judiciary and Foreign Affairs Committees.

Mr. Speaker, the beginning of this new Congress is a time of hope and a time to establish clear priorities and goals. This is a time to show the American people that we, as their elected representatives, will have the courage to stand on principles that made us worthy of their trust. This rule provides for two pieces of legislation that represent our commitment to the integrity and transparency of this institution.

H. Res. 11, introduced by Chairman Royce and cosponsored by Ranking Member Engel, objects to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 as an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace. It calls for the resolution's repeal and makes clear that the current administration's failure to veto the U.N. resolution violated longstanding U.S. policy to protect Israel from such counterproductive U.N. resolutions. Importantly, it also provides a foundation for the next administration to take action to counteract the damaging effects of the U.N. Security Council resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I support H. Res. 11, yet it shouldn't be necessary. President Obama's refusal to veto the U.N. Security Council's resolution was a radical and dangerous departure from U.S. precedent.

Prior to this most recent Security Council resolution, President Obama has exercised the veto power of the United States on every resolution relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His failure to do so this time jeopardizes and undermines our relationship with our strongest ally in the Middle East, and it has the potential to undercut the peace process.

I stood in this Chamber numerous times before and demanded support for Israel, and I am going to do so here again today. I refuse to sit idly by and watch misguided anti-Israel policies take root.

We have to take a stand. The administration's failure to act, to even participate in the vote, was an act of cowardice. It can't be erased, and we must take steps to address it. This resolution is a step in the right direction.

As a new President is sworn in this month, I am hopeful that we, as the House of Representatives, and the United States will reaffirm our support

of Israel and return to policies that strengthen the relationships between our two nations.

Mr. Speaker, as the new Congress starts, we also must look at domestic policies and how to grow our economy. We are going to do that right here in the House by taking the lead on regulatory reform to help lift the burden of an intrusive government by jump-starting the economy.

As part of this effort, I introduced H.R. 26, the REINS Act. This bill was originally authored and introduced by former Congressman Geoff Davis in 2009. Last Congress, now-Senator Todd Young introduced the bill in the House. This Congress, I am proud to carry the torch for this commonsense legislation. I also thank Chairman Goodlatte and his staff for all of their hard work on this bill.

Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution grants legislative powers to Congress--we read about that right here on the floor this morning--but, for too long, Congress has ceded that power to the executive branch, which has resulted in an onslaught of regulation. This is a problem that we have seen under the administrations of both parties, and Members on both sides of the aisle should be concerned.

In recent years, this problem has exploded. In 2015 alone, the executive branch issued over 3,000 rules and regulations, and 76 of these regulations were major regulations. Let me explain that. Unelected bureaucrats, without input from the American people or their Representatives in Congress, issued 76 major regulations that would impact our economy by more than $100 million each in 1 year alone. The consequences of these rules are massive. Even worse, we have seen this administration promote regulations with burdens that far outweigh their benefits. The REINS Act would require Federal agencies to submit major rules to Congress for approval. Under this bill, major rules would have to be accepted by both Chambers and signed by the President to become effective.

This bill restores accountability to the legislative process and ensures that lawmakers, not nameless bureaucrats, are the ones making the laws, just like our Constitution outlines. We have seen the harm that can come from an out-of-control regulatory regime. Right now, hardworking Americans across the country are paying the price. In fact, on average, each U.S. household is bearing an annual economic weight of $15,000 in regulatory burdens. The oppressive costs of regulation, coupled with the impact on jobs, demand action.

One regulation, put forth by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2015, would have cost my home State of Georgia over 11,000 jobs; and we are all familiar with the waters of the United States rule, which, essentially, asserted authority over all groundwater in the country. If you have been to northeast Georgia, you know that water collects in pools and puddles and streams at certain times of the year. If all of that were to be regulated under this rule, it would be a disaster for not only my district but for all of the country, but that is what this administration has tried to do. That rule has been halted by a court, but were it to go into effect, it would cut farmers, ranchers, Realtors, and small businesses off at the knees.

With the number of major rules this administration has propagated, I could far exceed my time in just illustrating the problems these regulations can create; but, with the REINS Act, we have a chance to carve out a better way in going forward. The American people elected us, in this body, to represent them. The REINS Act allows their voices to be heard more clearly.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't matter what party is in the executive branch because the legislative branch is the one that makes and accepts the bills, not the unelected bureaucrats. This bill creates a sensible way to move forward with legislative business while better protecting our economy from suffocating regulations that Americans never voted to enact.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague's concerns. I think it is interesting to note, though, that, if he were concerned about a closed rule, there were many of us who were very concerned about a closed voice from America at the U.N. Security Council in not defending Israel.

Also, on the other subject here, when we look at this going forward, there was a substitute that was actually offered in support of a resolution that does take a stand against what happened. It was not even mentioned in the substitute resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the gentlewoman just got a chance to debate herself on the floor and to use that freedom of speech. That is what this floor is for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), who is a great new Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth), who is another freshman that we welcome to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz), who is another new face that is looking forward to making a difference here.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who is the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

It is amazing to me some of the stuff that I have just heard, Mr. Speaker, just in the last few minutes. And I appreciate my friend across the aisle, but the debate that we have been having here is amazing. So that is something I want to talk about, but also something that came up, just to take a few steps down the road.

It had been mentioned many times here on the floor today that a unanimous vote by the Security Council in some way implies that it was right or that it was proper. I am sorry, the groupthink of the United Nations Security Council on this issue was wrong.

The one that was left silent was the beacon of freedom to the world, the United States, and instead of engaging, instead of working as we have in the past abstained or voted against, there have been times when we actually, as my friend said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, worked together. When that did happen in the past, there were times in which Israel and the U.S. worked together to soften or change, and we had, at that point in time, something that--not liked, but something that could be lived with. In this case, it was nothing Israel said. This is bad. America turned its back.

Where was the voice? It was silent. Where was the voice? We voted absent. That is not what the leader of the free world should do. That is not what the leader of the free world should do to his closest ally in the Middle East. That is why we are talking about this.

There are other things we can discuss today. There are other discussions on two-state solutions on another case on the settlement, but the bottom line here is that it goes deeper than the other issues. The deeper part here is that we simply sat silent while the world mocked and criticized our strongest ally, Mr. Speaker.

So don't talk to me about working together. I get it. But where was the working together on this? It was absent. A unanimous vote, especially of the United Nations Security Council, using that as your justification, I think we need to talk.

But also, Mr. Speaker, when we come to the end, regulatory environment, the REINS Act is simply saying: Congress, do what Congress is supposed to do. Congress, work as the voice of the American people. Work for the voice of helping companies start and create jobs. Work with the American people to relegate them forward instead of moving backward.

The REINS Act simply says: let's do our job here. Not the ones who are closed off from input but the folks who are elected to come to this place, to come to these hallowed halls and debate what we are talking about today: debate the regulatory environment, debate the environment. When we do that, then that is what we need to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding and for offering this important resolution, along with the ranking member, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.

President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to the historical record.

The egregiously flawed U.N. text says that all Israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and West Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.

The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations, not one-sided, anti-Israel U.N. resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, the U.N. resolution could open Israeli leaders and even average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the International Criminal Court for construction activities, even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to Israeli law.

A few hours ago, the European Jewish press reported that ``Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an `ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast conference--scheduled for January 15.''

I hope that we will also call upon our government not to go to this right before a transition of the White House and the Presidency and mischief that could be forthcoming from that.

They pointed out in their statement that ``Israel has long sought direct talks'' and ``it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace''--and that is a negotiated settlement.

Nathan Diament of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America pointed out that the U.N. has a long-established bias against Israel. As my good friend from Florida said a moment ago, 20 anti- Israel resolutions against just 4 in 2016--a bias and a discrimination against Israel.

President Obama's decision to abstain and not veto Security Council Resolution 2334 seriously undermines the peace process, abandons Israel at a critical hour in its life as a nation, and does serious injury to the historical record.

The egregiously flawed UN text says that all Israeli settlements after the 1949 armistice line including East Jerusalem and the West Bank have no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.

The pending House resolution repudiates 2334 and makes clear that a durable and sustainable peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians will only come through direct bilateral negotiations not one-sided anti-Israel UN resolutions.

With over three thousand years of Jewish history bound up in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, it is preposterous to assert that Israel has no legitimacy in defending its connections to this extraordinary heritage. Sadly, these kinds of prejudiced and revisionist claims are all too common in the United Nations where UNESCO voted just a couple months ago on measures that excise any mention of Judaism and Christianity's ancient ties to East Jerusalem.

Mr. Speaker, the UN Resolution could open Israeli leaders and even average Israeli settlers to criminal prosecution. Israel's enemies are likely to exploit 2334 by seeking prosecutions in venues like the International Criminal Court (ICC) for construction activities, even though the vast majority of this activity takes place legally, pursuant to Israeli law.

By calling on countries to distinguish between the State of Israel and Israeli settlements, 2334 enables the narrative of the anti-Semitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, or BDS movement, that is aimed at delegitimizing Israel.

And in mere days, the error of 2334 could be further compounded.

A few hours ago the European Jewish Press reported that ``Leaders of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations called for France to cancel or, at least, postpone what they called an `ill-conceived, poorly timed and damaging' event--the Paris Mideast conference--scheduled for January 15th.''

``The international community should not plunge forward with the ill- conceired and poorly timed Paris conference,'' CPMAJO Chairman Stephen M. Greenberg and Vice Chairman and CEO Malcolm Hoenlein said in a statement . . . According to the Conference of Presidents, there are a number of compelling reasons to postpone the Paris event, including the impending transition to the Trump administration, just five days later. ``It makes no sense that the next administration is precluded from participating in a discussion of an essential component of U.S. foreign policy with which it will be engaged,'' they explained.

`` `Israel has long sought direct talks, it is time for the Palestinian leaders to stop evading their responsibility and seeking to use international fora to avoid the only true path to a lasting peace,' they added. Hoenlein cautioned it was possible the Obama administration could--following the recent passage of the anti-Israeli settlement Security Council resolution--take a `further damaging step against the Jewish state before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.' ''

Nathan Diament, Executive Director of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, wrote me a letter today and said, ``On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.''

``Unfortunately the UN has a long and established bias against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of `mental, physical and environmental health,' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the world's only violator of women's rights. The International Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were silent on the issue of human rights violations in China, Libya, or the Congo.''

``Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to U.S. support for Israel's security was `unshakeable.' By allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between the United States and Israel.''

``Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the

115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message to the world that the United States stands with Israel and will continue to support our common goals.''

Mr. Speaker, before concluding, I would like to note that many of us in Congress have been warning about these kinds of reckless gambits for months. Three-hundred and eighty of us in the House signed a letter in April to President Obama specifically calling on him to veto any one- sided resolution like 2443 if it were raised in the Security Council. In late November, the House voted overwhelmingly for H. Con. Res. 165 further stressing the need for the United States to stand by Israel and veto biased Security Council measures.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 11 to denounce this dangerous Security Council action. I look forward to working with President-elect Trump to align U.S. policy with the overwhelming consensus in Congress: that we are and remain committed to Israel's sovereignty and security.

OU Advocacy Center,

Washington, DC, January 5, 2017.

Hon. Chris Smith,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Smith: On behalf of the Union of

Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union)--

the nation's largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization--

please accept our gratitude for your support of today's

resolution opposing UN Security Council Resolution 2334, and

thank you for submitting this letter to the official record

of the House of Representatives.

On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed

Resolution 2334, a blatantly anti-Israel resolution

condemning Israel's building of settlements in the West Bank

and East Jerusalem. It has long been U.S. policy that any

progress toward an agreement in the region must be based on

direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders,

not a vote of third-party nations at the UN.

Unfortunately, the UN has a long and established bias

against Israel. In 2016 alone, the UN General Assembly

adopted 20 anti-Israel resolutions and just four against

other countries: North Korea, Syria, Iran and Russia. The

World Health Organization condemned Israel as the world's

only violator of ``mental, physical and environmental

health,'' while the U.N. Women condemned Israel as the

world's only violator of women's rights. The International

Labor Organization condemned Israel as the world's only

violator of labor rights. These same UN committees were

silent on the issue of human rights violations in China,

Libya, or the Congo.

Clearly, the UN has an agenda to undermine and delegitimize

the state of Israel, and in that regard UN support for

Resolution 2334 was not surprising. What was surprising--and

deeply concerning--was the silence of the United States on

this issue. Rather than exercising its veto power, the United

States chose to abstain from voting, and thereby threatened

the trust and support Israel has long placed in its most

important ally. Over the course of his presidency, Mr. Obama

has repeatedly assured American Jews and others concerned

about Israel's security and welfare that his commitment to

U.S. support for Israel's security was ``unshakeable.'' By

allowing the UN Security Council's resolution to pass in the

final weeks of his Administration, President Obama undermined

his legacy and threatened the longstanding alliance between

the United States and Israel.

Whether the abstaining vote was a parting statement from

the Obama Administration or the influence of anti-Israeli

forces at the UN, the incoming Trump Administration and the

115th Congress must make the United States' support of Israel

and our common goals of peace, democracy, and fighting

terrorism--a pillar of its foreign policy. Today's resolution

condemning UN Resolution 2334 will send an important message

to the world that the United States stands with Israel and

will continue to support our common goals.

Again, thank you for your support of Israel and today's

resolution. I urge all members of the United States Congress

to stand with Israel and vote in favor of the McCarthy-Royce

resolution.

Best Regards,

Nathan Diament,

Executive Director.