Reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist.

Mr. Speaker, and still I rise; and I rise as a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid. I rise in the spirit of Shirley Chisholm, who coined the notion of being unbought, unbossed, and unafraid. I rise as a proud scion of the enslaved Africans whose lives were sacrificed for more than 240 years to make America great.

Their lives were sacrificed because America at that time desired to have a caste system, a system wherein persons were born into this caste, would live, die, and be buried as a part of the caste. Not a class. Caste is hereditary. A class is a socioeconomic circumstance.

There was this desire to have persons be a part of the caste, and persons of African ancestry were selected because they were identifiable, and they wanted an identifiable caste. They wanted this caste to be subservient, immediately agreeing to whatever the master said, and they wanted them to be powerless. They were exactly that: A powerless, subservient, identifiable caste for more than 240 years.

Mr. Speaker, I still love my country, notwithstanding its history. I love it because I believe in the ideals that have been expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Those ideals give me hope. I believe that America still has much to achieve, but I believe that America can still dream big and accomplish great things. It is my hope that we will at some point achieve the ideals extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance--liberty and justice for all; the ideal of government by the people for the people; the notion that we can have a country wherein all persons are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. These are the things that I believe we can achieve.

I believe that we ought to honor the persons who were enslaved. I honor victims of great, horrific tragedies. I honor the victims of the Holocaust. There is nothing to be compared to the Holocaust. There is nothing to be compared to the enslavement of millions of people for 240 years. These are two horrific incidents in history, two circumstances.

I believe that we ought to respect and acknowledge that the Holocaust occurred and that it has had an impact not only on the people of that time but on the people of this time.

I also believe we ought to acknowledge that enslavement occurred. There are people who don't want to acknowledge slavery in this country. They want to say that it was involuntary relocation. This is a fact. Well, it wasn't. It was murder. It was rape. It was robbery. It was kidnapping. It was all of these horrific things, including lynching. It was an horrific, horrible circumstance that was imposed upon people.

I think we should honor both the Holocaust and what we call slavery, the enslavement of persons of African ancestry, because these persons of African ancestry built the Capitol. We know of the great things that they did: built the roads, the bridges, planted the crops, harvested the crops, fed the Nation.

They were the economic foundational mothers and fathers of the country. Why wouldn't we honor them, given the role that they played in making America great? For some reason, we can't find it in our hearts, it seems, to honor them; but we can find it within our hearts, as I have found it within my heart, to honor the victims of the Holocaust.

Some people would ask why. Here is the reason why. I am glad you asked. It is easy to look through the window of life into someone else's horrific circumstances and condemn what happened. However, it is very difficult to look into the mirror of life, into our own circumstances, and acknowledge what happened. It is difficult for people who have suffered to do it.

You would think that people who have suffered would be among the first to say we need to have a Slavery Remembrance Day, ought to be among the first to say, well, to give a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslaved persons, just as we have given a Congressional Gold Medal to the enslavers.

In 1956, this Congress of the United States of America that accorded a Congressional Gold Medal to Confederate soldiers won't do such a thing. This Congress will not honor the victims of slavery the same as we have honored Confederate soldiers who were the enslavers.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to look into the mirror of life, but that is why I am here. I am here to help you see what you choose not to see and to do what you choose not to do. You may not do it today, but it will happen. It is just a matter of time. There will be more like me to require you to see what you choose not to see. It is just a matter of time.

So, I am a proud scion. That means that I am a descendant of these people who had the injustice of enslavement perpetrated upon them and perpetuated for some 240 years. I am a descendant, but I like saying that I am a scion because it has more of a regal connotation. It says you are proud to be associated with your ancestors. It says you recognize what your ancestors have accomplished. It recognizes the greatness of your ancestors.

Yes, I am a scion, but I am also the progenitor of August 20 as Slavery Remembrance Day. August 20 is the date that the White Lion docked at a place that we now call Norfolk, Virginia, near there, in Point Comfort. It had 20 persons of African ancestry on board, who were traded to the Colonies.

This was the genesis of slavery in the Colonies. There had been slavery before that, but this was the genesis of slavery in the Colonies, which became a part of America.

So, I am the progenitor of making Slavery Remembrance Day a day that is commemorated to the same extent that we commemorate the Holocaust-- two separate incidents, two separate circumstances, and two separate horrific occurrences in history. One we commemorate, and I do so proudly. The other, we would like to forget. We would like to just set it aside and not give those enslaved persons the just treatment that we would accord others.

I want to see Slavery Remembrance Day commemorated across the length and breadth of this country, a day set aside to commemorate the more than 10 million lives that were forced into slavery, had it perpetrated upon them and perpetuated for some 240-plus years.

We ought to commemorate their lives; therefore, I contend, we have and must have Slavery Remembrance Day.

Now, President Biden has agreed with me and Senator Elizabeth Warren. The two of us have been working together. We had Slavery Remembrance Day pass in the House of Representatives. It hasn't passed in the Senate, but it passed in the House of Representatives.

I will always say thanks to Mr. Steny Hoyer, who was at that time in a position to make a difference, and he did. Many people are in a position to make a difference, and they don't. Mr. Hoyer made a difference. I imagine he has been criticized for it.

Mr. Hoyer, wherever you are, I assure you that posterity will see the kindness and the understanding that had to envelop you for you to do this, and I commend you for what you did. I know that history is going to be kind to you.

The President acknowledged Slavery Remembrance Day with a communique, a press statement, if you will, and I am proud to know that he would do so. This President is a President whom I have great respect for, and I commend him for many things that he has done.

Today, I want to commend him for his comments about the Palestinians and the suffering--the suffering--that is taking place in Palestine-- Gaza, if you will--but in Palestine to this very second as I am speaking now.

I commend the President for having the courage. It takes courage to do what he did. It takes courage in an environment where Palestinians are not appreciated, not celebrated.

In this House, we have passed resolutions, several of them, that have done things that I think should have been done related to what happened on October 7, what happened to persons who were living in Israel. I commend and appreciate the passage of those resolutions. I voted for resolutions to deal with the circumstances that occurred on October 7 when the dastardly deeds were perpetrated by Hamas.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Hamas did things that we really don't care to talk about or discuss, but we have to acknowledge that there was murder, that there was rape, and that there were decapitations that took place. We have to acknowledge the truth. It happened by Hamas, so I have no kind things to say about Hamas. I have things to say about Israel, the Palestinians, and the President.

Mr. President, I thank you for what you said. You said you wanted to help with the humanitarian crisis. You said that there would be a pier constructed such that food could be brought in to the Palestinians.

I commend you for this, Mr. President. I think we should do this.

Mr. President and Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a resolution affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. I filed this resolution because a resolution was filed, H. Res. 888, reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist. Israel has a right to exist. This is where I stand. I also stand on the solid, firm conviction that the state of Palestine has a right to exist.

Yes, I said ``state.'' I know it is not a state currently by our traditional definition, but I believe that it has a right to exist as a state, and I have introduced a resolution affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist.

I did it because I believe there ought to be some balance in the House of Representatives. I believe that there ought to be some people with the courage to say, ``I support the Palestinians,'' with the courage to say, ``Killing babies, knowingly killing babies, knowingly killing hundreds and thousands of babies, is an injustice.''

You have to have the courage to say committing an injustice in the name of justice is still an injustice.

Sometimes, you have to stand alone, but I have been taught and believe that, on some questions, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all. Hence, we have H. Res. 902, affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist.

Mr. President, I believe a picture is worth a thousand words, and I want people to just see what we have as evidence of the suffering that is taking place in Palestine. This is a picture, an actual representation, of people in Palestine. You have two adults and two children. You see the babies.

If you only see Palestinian babies, I would beg that you would open your eyes a little wider, clear your vision, and assume that these babies are babies from your hometown. Assume that these babies are babies from your neighborhood. Assume that these are Israelis. How would you feel if you saw this circumstance existing for Israelis?

These circumstances are circumstances that are horrific. Babies and innocent people ought not be killed in the numbers that are being killed. It is an injustice. You cannot, in the name of justice, create an injustice. It still becomes and is an injustice.

Here is another example of the horrific circumstances of devastation and destruction that exist. I just don't know that you can see enough of it to completely comprehend what has been destroyed. There are many estimates as to how much of Gaza has been destroyed. The pictures speak louder than the numbers. I called the numbers to our attention before.

Here is a baby. This baby is a victim of the war in Gaza. This baby cannot be blamed for anything that Hamas has done. You can't allege that this baby is somehow associated with Hamas.

Killing innocent babies is unacceptable. I refuse to allow people to convince me that you can kill babies and somehow conclude that it is okay because the babies were in the way. I refuse to accept it. Those who do, I would hope that you would understand that there are some of us who can't.

Another picture is a depiction of Palestinians having to move out of harm's way and having to do so with what appears to be their belongings. There are children and a donkey-drawn, if you will, cart of some sort. There is no car, and they have to move from one end to another.

Those living conditions are horrible. We have to do something about it, and I will tell you why in just a moment.

Another picture, the final picture, is of a baby, another child. This child, hopefully, will grow up and, hopefully, will get the necessary help in terms of physical aid as well as mental aid. This child is going to need help, and I would hope that this child will get help.

I would hope that this child doesn't become the next generation of persons who will find themselves at odds with the State of Israel. My hope is that there can be peace and two countries living together. That is my hope, and that is my prayer.

To this end, I have written a letter to the President. It is a letter that I will share with you now that I sent to the President some time ago, on February 29.

This is a letter to the President of the United States. The reference in the letter is: ``Justice and Mercy for Palestinians.''

This letter is a letter that I put my thoughts into. I say this because I write my speeches. I write my letters of this magnitude. I don't want people blaming my staff for the things that I do. My staff are great people, and they assist, but these are my ideas and my thoughts.

This is the letter:

``Justice and Mercy for Palestinians.''

``Dear President Biden, I pen this communique driven by the dictates of conscience and with a heavy heart--saddened by the deaths in Palestine and Israel, compounded by Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent indications that Israel will continue to oppose the unilateral recognition of a Palestinian

state and continue maintaining control over stateless Palestinians in lands intended for a Palestinian state. He further indicated that the recognition of a Palestinian state will be reached only through direct negotiations between the parties.''

Mr. Netanyahu, Prime Minister--I rarely say Netanyahu--I respect the position that he holds. He is a Prime Minister, a person with great authority, and his position seems to be that there has to be a negotiated recognition of a Palestinian state, that Israel and the Palestinians will have to negotiate and, once they come to a conclusion that there should be a Palestinian state, then we can recognize it.

Then he goes on to say that the parties have to negotiate this, and it cannot be done unilaterally.

Well, here is what I say to the President:

``Mr. President, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman became the first world leader to recognize Israel as a state within Palestine. . . . `'

Some things bear repeating, phraseology that I use quite regularly because many things bear repeating:

``Mr. President, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman became the first world leader to recognize Israel as a state within Palestine, effectuating an imbalance of political influence for Israel.''

Again, some things bear repeating:

`` . . . effectuating an imbalance of political influence for Israel. This was done unilaterally. . . . `' That is what is in my letter. ``This was done unilaterally without the consent of defiantly disapproving Palestinians. . . . `'

The Palestinians did not approve of Israel becoming a state. It was done over their disapproval, many of whom were forcefully relocated.

I go on to say:

``Mr. President, just as the Palestinians of 1948 were not allowed to thwart Israeli statehood, in the name of justice we should not allow Israel to thwart Palestinian statehood.''

Sometimes silence can help us to collect our thoughts.

Just as Palestinians of 1948 were not allowed to thwart

Israeli statehood, in the name of justice, Mr. President, we

should not allow Israel to thwart Palestinian statehood.

Now we get to some very substantive commentary:

This is particularly salient given that Prime Minister

Netanyahu obliquely opposed a two-state solution long before

October 7, 2023, long before the killing of innocent Israeli

men, women, and especially children.

It is not in the letter, but as an aside, which was a horrific event, a day that will live in infamy along with other days that live in infamy.

I go on to say:

``For years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has condoned Hamas' control of Gaza to maintain a foil for a lack of a negotiating partner. . . . `'

By the way, this is no--this is not news. It has been reported on major networks that this occurred.

``For years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has condoned Hamas' control of Gaza to maintain a foil for a lack of a negotiating partner who recognized Israel's right to exist.''

Mr. Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu, is a person that I respect in the sense that he is the leader of a nation. Prime Minister Netanyahu benefited from having Hamas in control of Gaza because he didn't have to negotiate a two-state solution. It was a means by which he could say the words two-state solution, but he didn't mean it. He didn't.

The evidence is there for those who would see. However, there is a notion that there are some who are so blind, not because they cannot see, but because they choose not to see.

Therefore, if you choose not to see, no one can make you see. You can remain in your state of darkness, but this is the truth. It has been widely reported.

``With Hamas,'' I go on to say, ``as a foil, Prime Minister Netanyahu feigned support for a two-state solution while enabling Israeli settlers to lay claim to land intended for a Palestinian state.''

My God.

Feigning, pretending to want to support a two-state solution while all along the way allowing, enabling settlers to lay claim to land intended for a Palestinian state.

``Mr. President, what President Truman did for Israel unilaterally in 1948--'' I emphasize unilaterally because, remember, President Netanyahu says it can't be unilateral. Israel has to agree for the Palestinians to have a state. Israel has a state and has had a state since 1948. Palestinians are stateless.

``Mr. President, what President Truman--'' that first Mr. President is President Biden, if I may just substitute.

President Biden, what President Truman did for Israel

unilaterally in 1948, we can do unilaterally for

Palestinians.

Now, I am an avant-garde personality. I am usually out ahead of the rest of the pack. This is going to come to fruition. It is just a matter of time.

When it does, the memory of this message will be clouded because there will be people chosen to bring the message when it is thought to be safe to bring the message. They will wait to see how safe it is for us to say these words and to come forth publicly and proclaim that there can be unilateral recognition.

They have to wait, so I am the canary in the coal mine, and they will be waiting to see how I am reacted to, and that is being kind.

I continue by saying:

``We should not allow a party feigning,'' pretending--that is parenthetically said.

``We should not allow a party feigning to negotiate in good faith to prevent our good faith, unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state.''

If we are acting in good faith, if we know that the Palestinians deserve a state, yes, there will be an interregnum. While we are in that interregnum, there ought to be negotiations between people of good will who believe that there ought to be a Palestinian state, that the genesis of it is, to a certain extent, now, but that, when the full- blown interregnum occurs, then we ought to make sure that we are on the right side, not just of history.

It is a wonderful thing to be on the right side of history, but it is a better thing to be on the right side of righteousness, on the right side of saying: You don't kill babies in the tens of thousands and think you are doing the right thing.

The right side of righteousness, you don't just decimate the homes and schools and churches, synagogues, and/or properties of people, mosques, if you will. You don't just decimate those things and say: We did it because it was a just thing to do.

An injustice in the name of justice is still an injustice, so be on the right side of righteousness. Act in good faith, and let's develop a Palestinian state.

Additionally, we don't have to do it with the consent of Prime Minister Netanyahu. We don't have to do it with his consent. President Truman didn't have anybody's consent. He was the President of the United States of America.

Mr. President, I don't have to remind you who you are. You know. However, as the President of the United States of America, you don't need anybody's permission to recognize a Palestinian state, and you sure should not rely on the permission of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has been feigning, pretending to want a two-state solution while enabling Hamas. There is a lot more to be said about that, and I will get to that in another message.

I indicate in my letter to the President, lastly, in the name of mercy--mercy--I believe we must send tens of billions, not millions, of dollars in humanitarian aid to Palestine, to Gaza, to the West Bank. I believe we ought to send tens of billions, and I believe we have to be proud to say we are sending the money in humanitarian aid to people who need tens of billions in humanitarian aid.

Now, pay particular attention to the words I am about to say--to people who need tens of billions of dollars in humanitarian aid because our fingerprints are all over what you have seen in these pictures. Our fingerprints are all over this. Our money has made this possible.

We have a debt to righteousness. We ought to pay our debt to righteousness. Send tens of billions and be proud. It doesn't have to be hidden in some bill. You don't have to announce: Well, we are going to send money to Ukraine, which I supported; we are going to send money to Taiwan and the people in that area, Pacific Islanders, which I supported, but never say: We are going to send money to the Palestinians. We are going to send money to Israel, which I have supported.

As a matter of fact, the number exceeds $50 billion that I have supported to Israel.

Therefore, if we are going to say: We are going to send money to Ukraine and to Taiwan and to Israel, why can't we say: We want to send money to the people who are suffering this injustice, perpetrated by the Prime Minister of Israel, with dollars, tax dollars--tax dollars from American citizens and other persons in this country who pay taxes--sales taxes, gasoline taxes.

These tax dollars--these tax dollars--I know it makes you uncomfortable, and you ought to be uncomfortable. These tax dollars have created this circumstance.

Someone will say: Well, no, those tax dollars weren't used for that. They were used for other purposes. However, as my colleagues across the aisle like to remind me, there is something called fungibility.

These dollars are fungible. They make it possible if you have these dollars for one thing, then you can use your own dollars for other things.

Hamas was wrong. They shouldn't have done what they did. They ought to be punished for what they did. They are being punished for what they did, but it is wrong for Mr. Netanyahu to kill tens of thousands-- babies, innocent men, women, and children, an injustice of horrific proportions.

Some would say: Well, why wouldn't you expect Israel to do what it is doing? After all, Hamas did a dastardly thing.

Well, I am one of those people who believes that Israel is special. I don't expect people who have suffered the Holocaust to impose this. I don't expect it. I expect them to understand that you don't do this. That is my expectation.

I believe that we have a duty to ourselves to speak truth not only to power but about power. It is easy to speak truth to power.

You say: Power, there is a problem. We need to solve it. It is difficult to say to power when you are speaking truth about it: Power, there is a problem, and you are it.

Mr. Netanyahu, Prime Minister, there is a problem, and you are it. You have got to stop killing these babies. Silence can help you collect your thoughts. Stop it. Now.

Lastly, I say in the name of mercy, I believe we must send tens of billions--not millions--of dollars in humanitarian aid to Palestine as our largesse to Israel has enabled the decimation of Gaza, as well as the estimated deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women, and especially children.

Now, if you can live with yourself and the knowledge that tens of thousands of innocent people are being killed, allow me to live with myself believing that it is an injustice. It is an injustice to do what is being done in the name of justice.

I go on to close by saying in closing, I respectfully and kindly make this appeal in the name of justice and mercy for the thousands of innocent Palestinian men, women, and especially children who have been injured, killed, or had their homes destroyed with munitions bearing our fingerprints.

This is my letter that I have sent to the President of the United States. I signed it as a Member of Congress, as the progenitor of August 20 as Slavery Remembrance Day, as a scion of the enslaved Africans sacrificed to make America great.

I believe that the greatness of America will not be measured by the number of battleships that we have, the number of bombers, high-flying stealth technology.

It won't be measured by the number of billionaires we produce. The greatness of America won't be measured by how we treat people who live in the suites of life and places where all is well.

Dr. King mentioned to us--and I am paraphrasing--the truest measure of a person, and I would now add truest measure of a country, Dr. King, but he said: The truest measure of a person is not where you stand in times of comfort and convenience.

He didn't say what I am about to say now. When all is well with you, when you are the leading country in the world, when you have billionaires and persons of great opulence doing well, it won't be measured by where you stand in times of comfort.

The question that Dr. King mentions in his statement is: Where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy?

His statement was: The truest measure of a person is not where do you stand in times of comfort and convenience, but where do you stand in times of challenge and controversy?

In these times of challenge and controversy, the United States of America ought to stand for justice for all. That would include this baby.

The United States of America ought to stand for liberty for all-- liberty and justice for all. That would include the Palestinian people.

The truest measure of a Nation is not about the height of our buildings, not about the billionaires, but about where we stand when we have the opportunity to stand for righteousness--not just justice by righteousness.

Here is our righteous call to the United States of America. This is it. Do not, do not, do not allow yourselves to succumb to the notion that the killing of these babies is a form of justice.

It was my honor to be present last night when the President delivered his State of the Union Address. He said many things, but I have spoken to you about the thing that was important today.

It doesn't mean that all of the other things that he said were not important. It does mean that I singled out something to talk about today, and I thank the President for what he said and for his belief that a two-state solution is the means by which we can achieve the ultimate peace that we seek in the area that we call Palestine wherein Israel now exists. By the way, I have said Israel has the right to exist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time. I want to do what I customarily do when finish this, for those who are new to hearing Al Green speak and noticing.

I always go over and shake the Speaker's hand. There is something to be said when you express your appreciation. I shall do so.

I thank all of you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you. An injustice in the name of justice is still an injustice.

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

And still I rise, Mr. Speaker, proud to be an American. Why shouldn't I? My foreparents suffered 240-plus years of slavery to make it great. I am proud to stand in the House of Representatives today as a liberated Democrat, unbought, unbossed, and unafraid.

Today, as a liberated Democrat, I will address two issues. Both relate to votes that I have taken. The first issue that I will address deals with affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. The second issue that I will address will deal with my having voted ``present'' in the case of the expulsion of Mr. Santos.

With reference to the state of Palestine's right to exist, I am proud to tell you that on Tuesday of this week, we took a vote. Mr. Speaker, that vote on Tuesday of this week related to the State of Israel's right to exist. I believe that Israel has a right to exist. I believe in and support Israel's right to exist. I support Israel. I have done so since I have been in this Congress. Since I have been here, we have voted on more than $50 billion in support to Israel. You will find that I have voted for all the help to Israel.

I have spoken on the floor in support of Israel, and I think that my record is very clear on where I stand when it comes to the State of Israel and its right to exist. I voted for the resolution. It was reaffirming Israel's right to exist. I voted for it. I, in voting for it, realized that it did not have something that I thought we ought to have, and that is a statement indicating that Palestine has a right to exist.

Palestine has been there, the inhabitants. In 1948, when the U.N. decided that it would, by way of resolution, recognize two states in the area, the area referred to was Palestine. I believe that Palestine, with Palestinians, has a right to exist, as well.

Today, I will file the resolution that I shall read. This resolution is one that affirms the state of Palestine's right to exist.

Now, I understand that Palestine is not a state currently, and I address that in the resolution. This is not calling for an immediate styling or having Palestine become a state. That is not what the resolution is about. It is recognizing the right to become a state.

In this Congress, we have said that there should be a solution to the concerns related to Israel and Palestine, and it is a two-state solution that we have talked about.

The President of the United States has said that there should be a two-state solution. I believe that there should be a two-state solution. If there is going to be a two-state solution, and if we are going to fund Palestine and Israel as we have--we have sent many dollars in humanitarian aid to Palestine--and if we are going to continue

to do this, and if I am going to continue to vote for these funds, I want Congress to be on record saying that there ought to be a State of Israel and that we can have a state for Palestinians, as well.

I shall file the resolution, and I shall file it immediately after I finish this statement about Palestine as well as about my vote of ``present'' on Mr. Santos for his expulsion.

First, let's talk about Palestine. Here is a resolution. It reads:

Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. In the House of Representatives, Mr. Green of Texas submitted the following resolution, which was referred to a proper committee.

The resolution itself reads:

Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist.

Whereas, this resolution may be cited as the original resolution affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist;

Whereas, the people, the Palestinian people, are inhabitants of the land of Palestine;

Whereas, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states.

I may have said 1948 earlier. This corrects my earlier statement.

Whereas, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement recognizing Israel as an independent state; and

Whereas, on November 28, 2023, the House of Representatives agreed to H. Res. 888 reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist by a vote of 412 ``yeas,'' 1 ``nay,'' and 1 ``present.''

I voted for the resolution. I believe Israel has a right to exist. I believe that the House of Representatives should be on record indicating that Israel has a right to exist.

Continuing: Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time--important words, ``and at a future time''--to become a nation- state.

Some things bear repeating: Resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become a nation-state.

If we believe in a two-state solution, then we want to have this resolution approved by the House of Representatives. We believe that Israel has a right to exist as a nation-state. We say we want a two- state solution. This but only codifies what we say.

The President of the United States has said there should be a two- state solution. You can't have a two-state solution without at some point recognizing the fact that Palestine has to be one of the two states.

Again: Resolved that the House of Representatives affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become a nation-state.

That was number one.

Number two: Recognizes the two-state solution as the only solution that will secure a lasting peace in the region.

Number three: Rejects calls for Palestine's destruction.

Just as we reject calls to have Israel destroyed, we should reject calls to have Palestine destroyed or the notion of a Palestinian state to become a nonexistent notion.

I believe this resolution is going to make a difference. I am going to file this resolution. I believe that the resolution ought to go to the proper committee. I will ask the chairperson of the proper committee to bring the resolution to a vote within the committee or to process it out of the committee. I will leave it to the chair and the ranking member to make the decisions as to how this will work.

I want it to come to the floor for a vote. I would like to see it have the opportunity to come to the floor for a vote with the same level of expediency that the resolution supporting Israel's right to exist had in coming to the floor to a vote. There was expediency exerted. There was expediency that allowed that resolution to get to the floor not within months, not within weeks, but within days. I ask that this resolution receive the same level of respect.

We have to respect Israel's right to exist, and we have to respect Palestine's right to exist. Both have the right to exist. The resolution makes it possible for the Congress to go on record.

I also believe this. Aside from filing the resolution, I believe that there are three things that have to happen for Palestine to become a state. The first thing that has to happen is there has to be a recognition that Palestine is a state, obviously, but by the House of Representatives, that it should become a state by the House of Representatives. Number one, Palestine has to become a state, and the House of Representatives has to recognize this right for Palestine to become a state.

Number two, I think that the Israelis should recognize Palestine's right to become a state, but I don't think that we have to allow them to determine whether Palestine should become a state. I think that Palestinians have the right to have statehood without having the Israelis determine that they should become a state.

Number three, just as in 1948 when President Truman recognized Israel as a state without the consent of the Palestinians, I believe that a President of the United States can recognize Palestine as a state without the consent of Israel. I don't think Israel has to give its consent for Palestine to become a state. Just as we recognized Israel without Palestinians giving their consent, we can do the same thing for Palestine without Israel giving its consent. I believe that Palestine has a right to become a state, and I don't believe that Israel has the right to veto the Palestinian's right to become a state.

I will file this resolution, which will put the House on record. If the House goes on record, I will continue my efforts to push for a two- state solution as a resolution to the concerns between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

On the Matter of the Expulsion of George Santos

Mr. Speaker, now, to my second point, the issue related to Mr. Santos.

I voted ``present'' today. Let's look at what the vote count was. The vote count was 311 ``yeas,'' 114 ``nays,'' 2 ``present,'' and 8 persons not voting.

I am proud of my vote. I am proud to say that I voted ``present.''

It is not unusual for me to stand alone. I know that it takes a certain type of courage to stand alone. I pray that I will continue to have that type of courage because I believe that the House has made a mistake today in going on record and expelling Mr. Santos from Congress.

I believe it was a mistake because I believe that the process itself will now lend itself to whatever 290 persons believe to be a reason to expel a person, that becomes a reason for a person to be expelled. Whatever 290 persons can agree on, you can now expel a person. I don't think that that process is a fair and just process.

Let me continue by saying this. Yes, the House had every right to do what it did. Yes, constitutionally, the House had the right to do what it did. Constitutionally, it did, yes.

Yes. So it is not about whether I differ with the Constitution or differ with whether the House had a right to do this. I believe that we have the right to do things, but I believe also that there are better ways to do things, and there are some ways that we should not do things.

Prior to today, it has been said many times, that five persons have been expelled--two for having committed crimes and three for having been associated with the Confederacy and its rebellion against the Union, the United States.

I think that what we have done today opens ourselves up to having persons expelled for things that a good many people are not going to agree with. Let me explain.

To expel a person without a bifurcated system, in my opinion, is a mistake. Impeachment has a bifurcated system. The House indicts by way of impeaching, and then after impeaching, the Senate has the trial to convict or not. Impeachment itself is not bifurcated, the process to remove the President from office is bifurcated. Impeachment is one part of that process. That is the function of the House.

The process then provides that if you want to continue and remove, you have to get the consent of the Senate. That is the bifurcated process to remove a President from office.

I think we ought to have a bifurcated process--notwithstanding our right not to. I think we ought to have a bifurcated process to remove a person from Congress.

There is only one way for a person to get to the Congress of the United States of America, unlike the Senate, where you can get appointed. With the Congress, you have to be voted in by the people. That is why this is the people's House. This House belongs to the people of the United States of America, and membership herein belongs to the people of the United States of America.

In the infinite wisdom of those who were the codifiers and the writers of the Constitution, they have given us the authority to remove people. We can do it. I just happen to disagree with the way we are doing it. By doing it this way, without having the actual House of Representatives give some deference to the judicial system, we no longer have another party in the process.

We, in fact, now have become the investigators, the judges, the jury, and the prosecutors. We have every right to do that. I don't quarrel with anyone who would say to me, as a retort, well, we have the right to do it. We have every right to do it.

The question is: should we do this?

I don't think so. I think it was a mistake. I think that at some point in the future we are going to see the error of our ways. This decision is going to haunt us. You cannot appeal a decision of the House of Representatives, which is why we ought to have the judicial system involved.

If a person commits a crime, it is brought to our attention, there is a conviction, it comes from the judiciary, and we then act on that conviction. We have now a second party involved in the process such that that party can deliberate and make a decision without the House of Representatives having influenced that decision. I think that is a fair way to remove people from the House of Representatives.

I don't think that we should do it with the House being the investigators, the judge, the jury, and the prosecutor. I believe that justice itself would be better served if we used the system that we have been using. Utilizing the system that we have put into place today I think is going to create some serious concerns for us in the future.

What can we do?

We can impose sanctions. We can remove persons from their committee assignments. We can publish our findings. We can allow the citizens-- which every 2 years they have the opportunity to determine who will serve them--allow them to have the vote and let them determine whether or not they want a person--that I might deem unfit to serve--give them the opportunity to do so.

I think that a bifurcated system works better than the system that we have now installed in the House of Representatives.

I believe, given the history of my country that I love--again, I love it because my foreparents suffered for 240 years as enslaved persons. We built it. We made it great with the economic foundation of mothers and fathers. Yes, I love my country.

I also understand that my country is not always fair to people of color. It hasn't been. To this day there are times when it still is not. I think people of color are going to regret having cast that vote because we are the most vulnerable--we are the most vulnerable in this country.

Let me say this: we are among the most vulnerable because I recognize that there are other persons who are vulnerable, as well. We are among the most vulnerable in this country. Among the most vulnerable. There are others who are vulnerable, as well. I don't want to disrespect the truth.

I know that we suffer because I understand how we got here and why we were brought here. We were brought here to be permanent--240 years of slavery is evidence of the desire to have permanency. We were brought here to be permanent subservient--with no power. Subservient. Having the mindset of a person who wants to serve and wants to please.

A permanent subservient. Powerless. There was a desire that we never have the power that we have today. I am grateful for the way the country has metamorphosed to this point. I am sorry it took so long. I regret that there was ever an institution of slavery. A permanent, subservient, powerless cast of people.

I would also add this: identifiable. Identifiable, permanent, subservient, powerless cast of people. Identifiable. There is your evidence. Identifiable. Subservient--240 years, plus, of slavery. A powerless, subservient cast.

Born into slavery. Died as a slave. That 240 years has not been erased. No, we don't have slavery in the country today, but we still have some minds that have not metamorphosed into the future. We have some people who still disrespect people of African ancestry.

They disrespect people of African ancestry as evidenced by certain things they do or choose not to do. Disrespect. Disrespect because they will respect people who rebelled against the country, who fought to maintain slavery, who were in the Confederacy, they respect them.

In 1956, this Congress gave them a Congressional Gold Medal, the enslavers, the Confederate soldiers. To this day, the Congress doesn't have the respect that it should have for the enslaved. No Congressional Gold Medal for the enslaved. The Congressional Gold Medal is for the enslavers.

The Russell Senate Office Building is Disrespectful to People of Color

Mr. Speaker, persons of color suffer greatly in this country. Disrespect. Disrespect because right across the street there is a building, the Russell Senate Office Building, that disrespects people of color.

Richard Russell was a self-proclaimed white supremacist. He was a Senator who fought the Voting Rights Act and voting rights in general. He was a Senator who was a coauthor of the Southern Manifesto. He was a racist and a bigot.

His name is on the building. We have been asking now for a long time that his name be removed from the building. We find that the Senate, in its wisdom, has not done so. That is disrespecting people of color. Yes, we are among the most disrespected in this country.

There is evidence and the Senate could remove Russell's name from that building tomorrow if they wanted to. It is not a question of whether there is a way, it is a question of whether they have the will. I marvel at how Senators' offices are in a building named after a racist and a bigot. I don't go into the Russell Senate Office Building. I respect myself enough to stay out of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Those Senators, they decide the timeline. Until they decide that it should be removed, it won't be removed. It will be removed. When it is removed, I am going to acknowledge it and be grateful for it. I will tell them that it took too long. It is just taking too long. Why?

They claim they can't remove a racist's name from a building paid for by taxpayer dollars because they can't agree on a new name. We have solved that problem. Simply call it what it was before it became the Russell Senate Office Building, and that was the Old Senate Office Building.

Let it become the Old Senate Office Building. Then take as much time as you like to conclude that it should have some worthy person's name. I have no name to offer. I only want that you do justice by Black people the same way you do justice by other people.

The same way you make an issue of an injustice against others. Make the same about television time available to criticize the Richard Russell Office Building and the name being on it. It is a symbol of national shame.

Why is it that CNN, MSNBC, FOX, all of them, why have they not made a big to-do of it?

One of the reasons may be because they report the news from the Russell Senate Office Building. Yes, they are all located right there near the rotunda where Richard Russell has a statue in his honor.

The Richard Russell Office Building is a symbol of national shame, and the news outlets ought to be ashamed of themselves to tolerate it and then participate in it--to participate in the perpetuation of the maintenance of the name on the building. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Yes, people of color are among the most disrespected. Yes, we are.

That is why I am concerned about this vote that we have taken today. It is because we are among the most disrespected that I am not sure our transgressions are going to be judged the same as the transgression of a person of a different hue. I believe that a

person of a different hue can get a better decision than a person of color in this country.

We see it all the time in the courts of the country. I was a judge of a small claims court for one-quarter of a century. I was a litigator. I saw the injustices as they took place that I could do nothing about. This is an injustice that is in its infancy.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I warn you that you are going to see the injustice take place. You will see it. Maybe what I am saying today will help to prevent it. I doubt it. I doubt it.

There are some Members that I am very much concerned about now that this vote has been taken. I am very much concerned about them because there are people here who would want to remove them from office if they could without having committed a crime because of positions that they have taken, policy positions. That would be an injustice.

So, I am proud of my vote. I voted the way I voted for reasons that I have called to your attention, Mr. Speaker, but a review does not hurt.

One, Mr. Speaker, the only way you get here is if the people elect you. You can't be appointed to the House of Representatives. It is the people's House. The people send us, and the people ought to remove us unless we have committed a crime and been adjudicated as such by a proper court.

Two, the decisions are not appealable. There is no appeal from our decision.

Three, the process itself is not bifurcated any longer when it comes to removal from the House of Representatives. Prior to today, it was bifurcated, and the judicial system would have the opportunity to judge a person and determine whether the person was guilty of a crime. Finding such, that could then be used by the House of Representatives to expel the person.

We have taken the judicial system completely out of the process. We have become judge, jury, prosecutors, and investigators.

The truth is, whatever 290 of us can agree on, then that is a reason to expel a person. If 290 of us can agree on a reason, then that is it. Given the way we have entrenched ourselves now into teams, I don't favor the consequences that I can foresee.

We have allowed ourselves now to become, unfortunately, a House of Representatives where this discord is no longer just a difference of opinion about policy. It has become a means by which we can come to the floor to remove a person from office, a person who was sent here by people who voted. I am much afraid for what we are going to have to regret because of what we will do as time progresses.

So, I shall now move to the well of the House and file my resolution affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist. I have read it to you, Mr. Speaker. Some Members may be tuning in late, so I will read it again. This is the resolution.

I voted for Israel's right to exist on Tuesday of this week. I think we ought to vote similarly for Palestine to have a right to exist, as well.

It reads:

Affirming the state of Palestine's right to exist.

Whereas, this resolution may be cited as the Original Resolution Affirming the State of Palestine's Right to Exist;

Whereas, Palestinian people are inhabitants of the land of Palestine;

Whereas, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 181, which called for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states;

Whereas, on May 14, 1948, President Harry Truman issued a statement recognizing Israel as an independent state.

Mr. Speaker, I support Israel as an independent state. That is not here. I support Israel as an independent state. This is a sidebar comment. I have supported it. I will continue to support it.

I supported Israel by voting for more than $50 billion in funds, but I did it because I thought we were moving toward a two-state solution. I did it because I thought a two-state solution was the will and the desire of the House of Representatives.

I have reached a point now where I have to know. That is what I thought. Passage of the resolution will give me the certainty I need. The absence of the passage of the resolution will cause me to have a great deal of consternation about how I am going to approach votes in the future.

To continue:

Whereas, on November 28, 2023, the House of Representatives agreed to H. Res. 888, reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist--I voted for it, and I would vote for it again and again and again if given the opportunity--by a vote of 412 ``yeas,'' 1 ``nay,'' and 1 ``present.''

Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives, one, affirms Palestine's right to exist and at a future time to become a state.

Mr. Speaker, I accentuated at a future time because I am making it clear to those who would make the argument that this is about saying that Palestine should become a state today. That is not what I am saying. ``At a future time''--I don't know when in the future, but I do believe that we ought to have that as our goal since we have stated that we want a two-state solution.

Number two, recognizes the two-state solution as the only solution that will secure a lasting peace in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this. There are some people who want a one- state solution. They mouth ``two state,'' but in their hearts, they want one state. I am not one of them. What I say is what I mean.

Those Members who say they want a two-state solution and really want a one-state solution, well, this is not for them. This is for people who want a two-state solution.

Number three, rejects calls for Palestine's destruction.

Mr. Speaker, there will be people who will say that nobody is calling for Palestine's destruction. They are wrong. I was on C-SPAN just this week, and there was a caller who called in and who literally, by virtue of the way he presented his argument, wanted to see the destruction of Palestine, the destruction of Palestine. I am not for that. I am not for that. I am not for what is happening with the destruction of Palestine currently. For us to conclude that it is okay to destroy Palestine is an absurdity.

How could we possibly approve of the destruction that we see and the lives that are being taken? How could we approve of that? I don't approve of it. If others can approve of it, the killing of babies, I don't approve of it.

Yes, you have a right to defend yourself, but you have to do it in a just fashion. To perform, if you will, an unjust act in the name of justice is still an injustice. You cannot clean it up by saying it is a just act. Your actions themselves speak for you.

Killing babies is not a just act, especially when you have declared war on Hamas and you end up killing Palestinian babies. It was wrong to kill Israeli babies. What Hamas did was dastardly. The way they did it, it is impossible to even imagine a human being doing it, but you can't complain about killing innocent Israeli babies and then decide: Well, it is okay. The Palestinian babies are just collateral damage. They just happened to be in the wrong place.

What is wrong with us? I will not support the killing of these Palestinian babies. I will not support the destruction of Gaza. I pray that this country will come to its senses.

How long can this go on?

Mr. Speaker, I am always honored to have this opportunity. I don't know how much longer I will have it. There are a lot of people who don't like what I say who have the power to change rules.

As you have seen today, Mr. Speaker, they can change the rules. So, I never know when I will be giving my last speech from this podium, but as long as I have the opportunity to give a speech, I am going to speak truth to power, but more than that, I am going to speak truth about power.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 888 introduced by my friends, Representatives Mike Lawler and Jared Moskowitz.

Mr. Speaker, on many occasions this House of Representatives has reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, and it is important that we do so again today. It is incomprehensible to me that after Hamas' horrific terrorist attack on October 7, the largest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, we are seeing a growing wave of anti-Semitism rear its ugly head at home and around the world.

Since Israel's independence in 1948 and its admission into the United Nations the following year, international law has mandated Israel's right to exist. Yet, as of this year, 28 of the 193 United Nation member states still do not recognize Israeli sovereignty.

The terrorist organization, Hamas, has declared that Israel has no right to exist and for decades has targeted Israel for destruction with suicide bombs, with missiles and rockets, and most recently, with gruesome and savage terror attacks targeting civilians.

The destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews is Hamas' sole focus. They have murdered babies, raped women, executed parents in front of their children, and massacred 260 young people at a music festival. They have taken 250 innocent civilians, including American citizens, hostage.

They are not working to help the Palestinian people who elected them. Indeed, the Palestinian people are shamelessly used and abused by Hamas as human shields.

As a proud, lifelong supporter of a two-state solution, I know that with Hamas in control of 2 million Palestinians in Gaza, real progress on a two-state solution cannot being achieved. Hamas has always only ever played spoiler. The same is true of Iran's other regional proxies, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and others, who also exist only to destabilize and destroy Israel, not to strive for a two-state solution.

There cannot be peace when a party to a conflict doesn't recognize the other parties' right to exist. With recognition comes peace and mutual prosperity, security, and innovation. That is why efforts to facilitate and expand the Abraham Accords are so historic and important. The Abraham Accords countries, along with Egypt and Jordan, all recognize this fact and are advancing their nations in the spirit of regional cooperation and peace.

Here at home, whether it is on public streets, on college campuses, or online, we have seen a deeply disturbing and aggressive increase and despicable call for Israel to cease existing as a Jewish State.

The phrase, ``from the river to the sea,'' a sickening call for the destruction of the State of Israel and the genocide of the Jewish people, has become a rallying cry for those hoping for Israel's destruction. Calling for total Palestinian control of all Israeli territory from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea is a call to eliminate the Jewish State of Israel.

This resolution states that denying Israel's right to exist is a form of anti-Semitism. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. To be clear, it is not necessarily anti-Semitic to criticize the State of Israel or its leaders for particular policies. That is free speech, and no country is above criticism for its policies, including our own. It is absolutely anti-Semitic to treat Israel as a pariah based on the claim that Jews alone should be denied the right to define themselves as a people and to exercise any form of national self-determination.

This is the crucial difference. It is anti-Semitism, and we must totally reject it.

In 2015, former President Barack Obama stated the following in an interview: I think it would be a moral failing for me as President of the United

States, a moral failing for America, and a moral failing for the world if we did not protect Israel and stand up for its right to exist, because that would negate not just the history of the 20th century, it would negate the history of the past millennium.

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with that statement. For thousands of years, Jews have suffered persecution and lack the safety and stability of a homeland. Today, the modern Jewish State of Israel thrives in the ancient Jewish Holy Land where it is a robust democracy and productive and treasured member of the international community of nations.

Israel has signed peace treaties with two of its most important neighbors and has come to the table for many rounds of peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Israel is a country that wants peace, whereas Hamas and its Iranian patron do not.

Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and will always remain a place of refuge where Jews can be truly safe and control their own destiny. Israel is certainly worthy of the support of this House and the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo), the newest member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Speaker, the Jewish people have connections to the State of Israel that go back thousands of years. Indeed, the Jewish people are indigenous to that land.

Yes, Israel has a right to exist. This multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious nation, a nation of laws, a nation with free speech and free press, a nation of innovation, and a vibrant, thriving democracy, an incredible country, has much to teach the world and will continue to do so. This country, our only democratic ally in the Middle East, is here to stay.

This resolution puts the House of Representatives on record as affirming the State of Israel's right to exist. It recognizes that denying Israel's right to exist is a form of anti-Semitism. It rejects calls for Israel's destruction and the elimination of the only Jewish state and condemns the October 7 Hamas-led terrorist attack on the State of Israel and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 888) reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge the House to agree to my resolution that reaffirms Israel's fundamental right to exist.

This is a pretty simple and straightforward resolution. Israel has a right to exist. You either believe that or you don't. The American people should see very clearly whether or not the Members of Congress affirm Israel's right to exist.

President Harry Truman recognized Israel 11 minutes after its founding. America was the first country to recognize the State of Israel, and for good reason.

Over the last 75 years, Israel has become the greatest ally of the United States--our shared values, shared heritage. The relationship between our two Nations is unbreakable.

I fundamentally believe that the terrorist attacks of October 7 perpetrated by Hamas are about one thing: Hamas does not believe Israel has the right to exist. Hamas wants to eradicate the Jewish people from the face of the Earth. They say so.

Other bad actors like Hezbollah share that perspective. Iran, the greatest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, the backer and funder of Hamas, has been calling for the eradication of the State of Israel for millennia. They don't believe they have the right to exist.

This resolution seeks to reaffirm the commitment made by President Truman upon Israel's founding. We not only recognize Israel, we reaffirm Israel's fundamental right to exist.

In the wake of the horrific October 7 attacks on Israel, we saw Members of this body and other opponents of Israel call for the elimination of Israel. When they chant: ``From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free,'' they mean that Israel will not exist.

I want Palestinians to be free. I want them to be free from their oppressors: Hamas and the Palestinian authority.

Hamas has used Palestinians as human shields even until today. As Israel prosecutes this war against this terrorist organization, Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, camping out in hospitals and schools, launching missiles, shooting innocent civilians.

I watched in horror the 21-minute unedited, raw footage of the October 7 terrorist attack. Every Member of Congress was offered the opportunity to watch a 45-minute viewing of that attack.

Nearly half of Congress chose not to come, including some of the Members who have made it clear that they don't support Israel's right to exist.

On college campuses and city streets, we see people calling for an intifada, actively promoting the destruction of the Jewish state. Everyone has a right to say what they want about a foreign government, to say what they want about war, but they don't have the right to delegitimize the very existence of the Jewish state to justify terror.

The State of Israel was created 75 years ago to reestablish the native homeland of the Jewish people. For centuries, Jews were discriminated against and persecuted wherever they went. This culminated in the attempted genocide of European Jews during the Holocaust; 6 million Jews slaughtered.

This most recent genocide provides new urgency to reestablish the Jewish homeland where the Jewish people were displaced, and we wanted to create a homeland where they weren't a vulnerable minority, where they could freely practice their faith, and where something like the Holocaust could never happen again.

Yet, on October 7, we saw the largest slaughtering of Jews since the Holocaust. Yet, still today, many Jews view Israel as the safest place for them to live, even as rockets and missiles come from all sides.

Denying Israel's right to exist is denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination. It is denying the Jewish people's historic ties to the land. It is justifying war crimes against babies, and let's call it what it is, it is anti-Semitic.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense resolution that makes one thing fundamentally clear: Israel has a right to exist. Congress must never stop pushing back against Israel's opponents, and we must reject biased attempts to destroy our greatest ally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations.

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

It should be clear by now to each and every Member of this body on both sides of the aisle and every American that Israel has a right to exist. This sentiment is unequivocal and is a critical point to unequivocally voice now in our ally's time of need.

Harry Truman recognized the State of Israel 11 minutes after its founding. For 75 years, the United States and Israel have had a special bond. Israel is the only multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious democracy in the Middle East. It is a beacon of hope, of freedom, and of opportunity.

If anyone in this body believes that they do not have the right to exist, please explain to us and the American people what nation does.

This is a simple vote, and every Member should be on record in support of Israel's right to exist. If they cannot muster the courage to support Israel's right to exist at this moment, they don't belong in Congress, period.

This is a simple vote, and I encourage all of my colleagues to stand with Israel, to defend and reaffirm their very right to exist, and to defend the right of the Jewish people to practice their faith.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 888 reaffirming the State of Israel's right to exist.

I thank my good friend from New York, Mike Lawler, for introducing this timely, extremely important, and ever-necessary resolution.

Mr. Speaker, Israel is the only state in the world whose fundamental right to exist is openly denied by other states. Some of them, including Iran, even call for Israel's complete destruction and support transnational terrorist organizations to work toward its demise.

It is also the only state in the world whose fundamental right to exist is constantly undermined and challenged by intergovernmental organizations, such as and most shamefully of all, the United Nations.

The anti-Semitism motivating those who deny Israel's right to exist is apparent, but it is important to connect, as this resolution does, the denial of Israel's right to exist, to anti-Semitism, and to connect them both as enabling causes to the monstrous crimes Hamas has unleashed on Israel.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, anti-Semitic bigotry is at the root of the U.N.'s hostility toward Israel, which is ugly, evil, and manifests itself at almost every U.N. entity.

On November 8, I chaired a hearing of my subcommittee, and we called it United Nations' Bigotry Towards Israel.

We heard expert testimony from Hillel Neuer, the executive director of U.N. Watch; and Jonathan Schanzer, the senior vice president for research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Hillel Neuer testified: ``Teachers and schools at the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, which runs education and social services for Palestinians, regularly call to murder Jews, and create teaching materials that glorify terrorism, encourage martyrdom, demonize Israelis, and incite anti-Semitism.''

He further said: ``In 2022 alone, UNRWA received $344 million in U.S. funding. Yet, a March 2023 report by U.N. Watch and Impact-SE identified 133 UNRWA educators and staff who were found to promote hate and violence on social media, and an additional 82 teachers and other staff affiliated with 30 UNRWA schools who were involved in drafting and distributing hateful content to their students.''

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Jonathan Schanzer testified that: ``The U.N. doesn't recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Nor does it recognize Hezbollah either. That means U.N. resources can be and regularly are provided to members of those terrorist groups.''

Mr. Speaker, according to the great human rights defender, Nathan Sharansky's famous 3-D test for anti-Semitism, which he articulated at a hearing that I chaired way back in 2004, criticism of Israel is nothing less than anti-Semitic when it passes over into the demonization of Jews and Israel, delegitimizes the Jewish state, or applies double standards; that is, one standard for Israel, and another for every other country on Earth.

That is what many U.N. entities and agencies do every single day.

Yesterday, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the JTA, reported on the latest example of the double standard and said: ``Nearly 50 days after Hamas' attack on Israel left 1,200 dead, and after weeks of criticism over its silence about allegations of sexual violence during the attack, the women's rights group, U.N. Women, issued a statement condemning the terror group on Friday.

Then it deleted the post.''

Here is what it said originally:

`` `We condemn the brutal attack by Hamas on October 7 and continue to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages,' read the initial statement posted on U.N. Women's Instagram page.

It was soon replaced with a statement that dropped the condemnation of Hamas and only called for the release of hostages.''

Mr. Speaker, there are so many examples.

In 2022, the U.N. General Assembly targeted Israel in a total of 15 harshly critical resolutions, compared to 13 country-specific resolutions for the entire world: China, North Korea, Iran; 13 for all of them combined, 15 for Israel.

In large measure, it is because of the U.N., which unquestionably is the world's foremost legitimizer of anti-Semitism, that it remains necessary, 75 years after the founding of the great State of Israel, to reaffirm its right to exist.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from New York, and my friend from Florida, for authoring this important resolution.