Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, my pro-Israel efforts began long before my 28 years on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I believe that my pro- Israel record is as long and as strong as any Member of this House.

I rise to oppose this pseudo pro-Israel bill. It purports to deal with this issue of 2,000-pound bombs. As the ranking member has pointed out, suspensions occurred also under Reagan and Ford. More significantly, this is just a communicative act. It has no strategic significance.

Israel already has such a large stockpile of 2,000-pound bombs and similar weapons that the administration is going to be providing many thousands of JDAM kits to turn those dumb bombs into smart bombs.

The chair is working with several of us on a much better response to this suspension, and I look forward to that working its way through the committee. No one should be tempted to vote for this bill. There will be a better bill.

This bill does nothing to help Israel strategically, but it attacks Israel at its two weakest points. The first is bipartisan support. Israel has one friend in the world. It cannot afford to have only one- half of one friend.

We saw that bipartisan support when 85 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans voted to provide Israel with $14 billion of extraordinary aid, but this resolution has poison pills, including condemning Biden by name, in a clear effort to get as little Democratic support as possible.

Second, this bill attacks Israel's international image. Israel, in fact, meets American international standards for minimizing civilian casualties, but what this bill does is it exempts Israel from the Leahy and similar laws, in effect declaring from this Congress to the world that Israel can't meet the standard.

Israel is doing at least as good a job as any military in the history of urban warfare. The report from the Biden administration wasn't as clear as it should be on that but reached the right conclusion.

Congress should not step forward and exempt Israel from a test that Israel clearly meets. That is poison on the international stage.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 8 weeks, my friends, Ken and Rowan, have peddled 3,500 miles across this country to address the national homeless crisis and to raise funds to provide homes.

Founded 15 years ago in the San Fernando Valley, Hope the Mission has grown to become the largest rescue mission in the country, operating 23 interim housing shelters with 2,700 beds and serving over 3 million meals annually.

Hope will be adding 11 new projects in 2025, including five permanent supportive housing sites. I might point out that they are able to provide these housing sites at less than a quarter of the cost done by local government in the Los Angeles area.

Hope works to treat the unique needs of the housing insecure, operating shelter sites for families and for other victims of domestic violence, offering mental health services as well as shelter.

Ken and Rowan have put their bodies on the line more than once, not only bicycling across the country, but they also lived for 4 days on the streets. They also lived for 4 days in a car, and they previously ran to Las Vegas from Los Angeles.

I look forward to continuing to support Hope's efforts. I hope my colleagues, particularly in the Los Angeles area, do so as well. I am pleased to

have secured $2 million for them for homeless services, another $2 million for mental health services, and just this year almost a million to provide modular affordable housing.

Mr. Speaker, the crypto industry comes before our committee almost every week saying: We want clarity. Then the SEC provides the clarity. Now, the friends of crypto are here to abolish the clarity, to not only take away release 121, which requires that the custodians of crypto indicate that on the balance sheet, but to prevent the SEC from issuing a revised version of 121 that could call for that same disclosure to be made in footnotes.

It is very clear to me, as co-chair of the bipartisan CPA Caucus, that the financial statements must reflect the incredible risk that banks take when they become custodians of billions and hundreds of billions of dollars, supposedly, worth of crypto.

Now, why the uniqueness of crypto? We have seen Sam Bankman-Fried. He was the face of crypto. He is now facing only a quarter century in jail, which seems rather light. The crypto industry would tell us that Sam Bankman-Fried was just a single snake in the crypto Garden of Eden. The fact is, we have learned since Sam Bankman-Fried's indictments that crypto is a garden of snakes. It is uniquely problematic. Why is that? Because crypto's whole purpose is to facilitate evading American law and to help criminals. Who does it attract? It attracts criminals.

What is the comparative advantage that crypto has as it attempts to become a currency and partially displace the dollar and the euro? Is it more stable? Certainly not. Is it more useful to buy something? You can go to Rayburn and buy a sandwich for $1--well, okay, $8, but you can't buy a sandwich anywhere in this complex for a bitcoin. It is not a better medium of exchange. It is not a better measure of value. What advantage does it have? It is secret.

Now, the best way to have their secrecy is to have the iceberg above the water be available and visible and then to have under the water seven-eighths of the crypto subject to being hidden from the know-your- customer and anti-money-laundering laws.

So how can the crypto compete with the dollar, aspire to become a currency, and compete with the best currency in the world? By tapping into the markets that don't want to be surveilled by the U.S. Government. What are those? Obviously, the sanctions evaders, the drug dealers, and the human traffickers, but that is not a big enough market for crypto. They want the tax evasion market.

The IRS Commissioner under Donald Trump testified that we are losing a trillion dollars in revenue. That means that those who are cheating on taxes, almost all at the high end of the spectrum, have to hide $3 trillion of income each and every year. That is $30 trillion of hidden income every decade. They can't do it with U.S. dollars, so crypto is designed to fill that need.

Now, if you think it will be successful in doing that and you want to bet against America and facilitate the undermining of American laws while perhaps making a profit, you can buy crypto, but it is an asset whose very nature creates an additional risk. That risk needs to be shown in the financial statements of the custodian. This resolution would prevent the SEC from causing that to be disclosed either on the balance sheet or in the footnotes.

If you doubt what the purpose is of crypto, then look at their latest invention: the mixer.

What is the mixer?

It is designed to mix up law enforcement. It is a facility available to every crypto owner to disguise their transactions and to hide from American law enforcement.

Not only that, of course, crypto aspires and claims that they will partially displace the dollar as the reserve currency. If it does that, that will be a tremendous decline in America's power in the world and the American economy.

So I see no reason for us to have rules that hide this risk from the shareholders of the custodian.

I see no reason for us to hide from those who are looking at bank balance sheets the unique risk that they take in order to facilitate a crypto ecosystem whose sole purpose and whose strategy is to defeat the American Government whether it tries to collect taxes or enforce our sanctions.

Mr. Speaker, if you have any doubt, look at what the proponents, the visionaries, behind crypto say. They say that they are innovative. They are trying to innovate a way to make sure that America cannot enforce its sanctions, cannot deal with drug dealers, cannot enforce its taxes, and, oh, by the way, particularly useful to Sam Bankman-Fried, cannot enforce its bankruptcy laws.

Mr. Speaker, I want to focus on the 40 percent of this bill that gets little or no attention. It provides $9.1 billion in humanitarian aid, and that aid is un-earmarked.

So at a hearing last week, I got the administration to go on record as to where that money will be spent.

It will be spent in Haiti where 80 percent of the capital is in the hands of gangs and hundreds of thousands have been forced to flee.

It will be spent in Sudan where 18 million people face ``acute food insecurity'' due to civil war.

It will be spent in Ethiopia, where we have seen the highest casualty war of this decade. Five hundred thousand Tigrayans have died, and now millions face famine.

It will be spent in eastern Congo where 7 million people have been displaced by war. It will be spent on the 1.1 million Rohingya in camps, where they are due to ethnic cleansing by Myanmar, and where rations have recently been cut by 30 percent due to lack of funding.

It will be spent in Armenia where 120,000 refugees are there because of Azerbaijan's ethnic cleansing.

It will be spent to meet the critical needs in Gaza.

This bill will save hundreds of thousands, I believe millions, of lives. Vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I commend President Biden for putting this whole package together back in October. It is time to pass it now.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the bill. It is not a good bill. We have some amendments that will make it slightly better, but it still won't be a good bill. All the Democrats on the Financial Services Committee voted against this bill in committee.

Let's give a little background here. The gold standard is a public offering of securities. They then become registered securities. They can trade on an exchange. They provide disclosures to investors and audited financial statements.

We do have exceptions to this rule--exceptions for small offerings and exceptions where you are going to have accredited investors who have the capacity to absorb an enormous amount of risk and the capacity to evaluate the investments.

The definition of an accredited investor was criticized by the chair of the full committee when he was here, and I agree that definition should change. Right now, it is focused too much just on wealth and income. We need, instead, to also allow people to be accredited investors if they have the expertise to evaluate the investment and are not putting too much of their own resources into one illiquid investment. We also need to take a look at the expertise that an investor may not have himself or herself but can acquire through truly independent advisers.

The fact is that the definition of accredited investor should be improved, and that is why this House passed and sent to the Senate bills that would improve it, and I hope the Senate will finally take action on those bipartisan pieces of legislation.

This bill doesn't really improve the definition of accredited investor. It says that you are an accredited investor if you sign a piece of paper saying you want to be an accredited investor, self- certification. That shreds investor protection.

This bill not only guts investor protection when it comes to the definition of accredited investor, but it also locks in a system in which a company can say they are a private company even though they have thousands of owners--thousands. You can have 2,000 or more owners because you may have an investment vehicle that has hundreds of investors of its own, and it counts as only one investor toward that 2,000.

That means that a lot of companies will never go public. That means that those investors who want investor protection and want the liquidity of being able to sell their shares on an exchange will never be able to invest. It means that these companies will not provide the audited financial statements and the other disclosures that are required of public companies.

It guts the concept of being a public company. Why is that so important? Because today, the SEC published climate disclosures required of public companies, and today, we are considering a bill that is designed to truncate the number of public companies that we have.

If you care about the economy, vote ``no.'' If you want to protect investors, vote ``no.'' If you want to protect our climate, vote ``no.''

This bill would open the door to investors placing their entire nest eggs in private securities with insufficient transparency, no audited financial statements, and no liquidity. Vote ``no.''

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, in the debate on the bill in chief, the chair of the full committee correctly criticized the definition of accredited investor as it occurs under current law.

Accredited investor is an important concept in securities law because, Madam Chair, when you have a private offering, one that hasn't gone through the SEC process, the amount that can be raised and the number of investors you can have are related to, in large part, how many of your investors are accredited.

The current definition makes you an accredited investor if you earn over $200,000 a year or have a net worth of more than $1 million. Frankly, the fact that you have that level of income or that level of wealth does not show that you have particular expertise or that your adviser team has particular expertise. While it certainly shows that you are in a position to absorb a loss, no one can afford to absorb a loss of 100 percent of their net worth.

We need a different definition of accredited investor, one that does not limit that status just to those who happen to be wealthy or have a high income.

The bill before us here does provide that different definition by saying you are an accredited investor, first, if you acknowledge the risks that you are taking and, second, if you are investing less than 10 percent of your net worth in the securities offering so that you can afford a loss on what, after all, is a higher risk--as many people have pointed out--offering about which you get less information.

The problem with the bill in chief using that 10 percent standard is twofold. First, it includes in your net

worth your primary residence. If you happen to have a $1 million home, you could take out a $100,000 mortgage on it and invest all $100,000 in one relatively risky investment.

You have literally bet your house on an investment that is of a type that is risky and where you get less information and where the investment is illiquid. That is not good investor protection.

What this amendment does is it says, yes, we are going to look at what portion of your net worth you are investing, but we are going to take a look first at your net worth excluding your primary residence because very few people feel they can afford to lose their house; second, that you cannot invest more than 10 percent of your net worth in any single offering or more than 25 percent of your net worth in all these private offerings.

Therefore, we look at wealth, excluding your home so you don't risk losing your home, and we look at not only how much you are investing in the particular investment, but how much you are investing overall.

I want to correct one thing. This amendment limits it to, excluding your primary residence, 5 percent of your net worth on any one private offering, and no more than 25 percent of your net worth, excluding your primary residence, on all such private offerings.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment. I think it gives us a better definition of those who can afford the risks and the risk of liquidity that comes with these private investments.

The risk of liquidity is there. You may think, well, I made an investment and it is going to pan out, but if you need the money and you can't liquidate the investment on a fair basis, it is almost as if the investment failed.

Therefore, we are talking higher risk, less liquidity. We limit it under this amendment to 5 percent of your net worth on any one deal, 25 percent of your net worth on all such deals. Also, when we look at your net worth, we exclude your personal residence. These are not situations where you should be betting your home.

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

Madam Chair, let me respond to those comments.

The underlying bill acknowledges the fact that the government puts some restrictions on how much of your net worth you can put into one of these unregulated, risky, low-information, illiquid investments. Therefore, to say that we have clashed with some great principle of personal freedom in my amendment because it says 5 percent, but that it is consistent with the same great overriding principle of personal autonomy when you back a bill that says 10 percent, defies logic.

Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to recognize the outstanding achievements of Stephen Wise Temple on the occasion of its 60th anniversary. Since its founding by Rabbi Isaiah Zeldin in 1964, Stephen Wise Temple has grown to become one of the strongest pillars of the faith community in Los Angeles. Stephen Wise Temple's core principles of creativity, inclusivity, and generosity truly embody the values of its namesake, Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise, and further the mission of tikkun olam, ``repairing the world.''

The history of Stephen Wise Temple serves as a testament to the American ideal that greatness can spring from humble origins. Initially, the congregation consisted of just 35 families and lacked a permanent location. Through the dedication of Rabbi Zeldin and the perseverance of its members, the Temple never once faltered in its conviction to provide a place for the Reform Jewish community of Los Angeles, until finally, in 1969, the congregation moved into its current home in Bel-Air, overlooking one of the most beautiful views in all of Los Angeles.

Under the stewardship of their outstanding clergy, including Senior Rabbi Yoshi Zweiback: Rabbis David Woznica. Ron Stern. Sari Laufer and Josh Knobel; Senior Rabbi Emeritus Eli Herscher; and Cantor Emma Lutz, Stephen Wise Temple today provides a spiritual home for Southern California's Jewish community. It is a place where people connect with their faith, with their neighbors, and with the State of Israel. Now more than ever, people also turn to Stephen Wise Temple for courageous moral leadership.

In the face of rising bigotry and hatred, Stephen Wise Temple has worked to increase awareness of antisemitism in our local communities and to combat its normalization through educational initiatives and interfaith partnerships. Last year, they also convened an important discussion of international efforts to combat antisemitism with European representatives.

``The Wise Way Forward'', as it has come to be known, is perhaps best personified by the Temple's Center for Tikkun Olam, which advocates for efforts to promote climate justice, prevent gun violence, and provide food relief for the homeless. Additionally, in partnership with Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH), the Temple also works to assist newly housed veterans by providing them with furniture, appliances, and other amenities to help them transition off the street and into new homes. In sickness and in health, in sorrow and in joy, Stephen Wise Temple and their congregants answer the call to serve.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Stephen Wise Temple and join in celebration of this momentous anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 14.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 6.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber on Monday, November 13, 2023 for the first votes of the week. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 643; ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 644; and ``Yea'' on Roll Call No. 645.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 612.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

Mr. Speaker, Speaker Johnson brought to this floor a bill to prevent the IRS from auditing the wealthy because: ``Every time a billionaire cheats on their taxes, a member of the House Freedom Caucus earns his wings.''

Speaker Mike Johnson said today that Israel can't wait for this critical aid. Then, he brings to the floor a bill that he knows is dead on arrival in the Senate. He knew full well that all he had to do was bring it up without the IRS provisions and it would pass overwhelmingly in this House and the Senate, and would be on the President's desk in a day.

For 50 years, every Israel bill that came to this floor passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. That is critical because Israel has one friend in the world. If Israel becomes a partisan issue, then Israel has one-half of one friend in the world.

Hamas was willing to kill, to decapitate, and to die to undercut world support for Israel, particularly bipartisan support here in the United States. No one has done more than our new Speaker to help Hamas achieve that objective.

Mr. Speaker, the scenes from Gaza are horrendous, and people want the fighting to end. Some call for a cease-fire. Hamas needs to hear those calls and agree to free the hostages and turn over its rockets, and then we can have that cease-fire.

There was a cease-fire on October 6. Hamas broke it and killed 1,400 Israelis.

What would happen if we had a cease-fire leaving the rockets and arms in Hamas' hands?

Today, Ghazi Hamad, a high-ranking Hamas official, said exactly what would happen. He said: We will repeat October 7 one, two, three, four, five times, as many times as it takes, until Israel is annihilated.

We need a true cease-fire, and we can achieve it only if Hamas is disarmed.

I have been a pro-Israel activist for 60 years and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee for nearly 30. Israel has one friend in the world. Hamas knows that. America is divided and partisan. Hamas knows that. The terrible scenes in Gaza show that Hamas is willing to die for one thing, and that is to put those scenes on American television to undercut support for Israel to make sure that that support is not bipartisan.

Last week, we showed bipartisan support, with 97 percent of the Democrats and 99 percent of the Republicans voting for a strong resolution. Unfortunately, our Speaker has decided to undercut that and, in doing so, help Hamas achieve its most important geopolitical objective.

For 60 years, when an Israel resolution comes to this floor, it passes overwhelmingly with support on both sides of the aisle. Tomorrow, that changes because the Speaker is bringing a nakedly partisan version of the support for Israel bill to this floor.

Mr. Speaker, you have only been in office for a week and already you are achieving Hamas' geopolitical objectives. Why? Supposedly, to pay for the cost of aiding Israel, they are going to slash the IRS budget. CBO today just indicated that that will cost us over $26 billion in revenue and will increase the cost of aiding Israel.

I am here to say, as the co-chair of the Bipartisan CPA Caucus, as someone who has taught tax law at Harvard Law School, and as someone who headed the second largest tax agency in this country, that that CBO number is way too low. The long-term effects will be devastating on our ability to collect taxes.

We need a bipartisan bill before this floor, not a bill that supposedly is going to help Israel but actually is designed to hurt Israel, help Hamas, and die in the Senate.

Now, the numbers coming from Gaza about casualties are something that a CPA should look at. We know what happened at Al Ahli Arab hospital. They dramatically overstated the casualties. Then, America said, with a high degree of confidence from our intel community, that that was a rocket fired by Hamas or Islamic jihad that failed to reach its target and instead fell on a Palestinian hospital.

Even if you accept Hamas' statistics, our press goes further and exaggerates their number.

First, Hamas will tell you that they include in their statistics dead Palestinian combatants, and so our press reports the number as if that somehow is Israel's fault.

Hamas will tell you that they include in those statistics those who die from the one-third of Hamas rockets that crash into Gaza, yet our press will report that statistic as if that is a number Israel is responsible for.

As to those who die from Israeli ordnance, keep in mind that is because of Hamas' use of human shields. They were in Israel and could have stood and fought the Israeli Defense Forces. Instead, they quickly retreated behind their human shields.

Finally, those who say that we have more deaths in Gaza than in other terrible events happening in the world, this is clearly false. We have had over 600,000 deaths in Ethiopia. The press didn't report it, but it still matters.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an open letter dated November 1, 2023, from the Association of University Heads, Israel, to accompany my speech on the floor today.

Dear Colleagues:

We, the leaders of Israeli universities and research

institutions, write to express deep concern over the

discourse emanating from academia following the devastating

Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 and the inadequate

response, in many cases, by academic leadership.

On that darkest of days, in a tragedy unprecedented in

Israel's 75-year history, the Hamas terrorists infiltrated

into the country and murdered more than 1,400 people,

including infants, children, students, and senior citizens--

Jewish, Muslim, and Christian alike. The attack also included

the abduction of 240 civilians of all ages into Gaza;

additional missing persons have not yet been identified and

accounted for. In the aftermath of these horrific events, we

find it disturbing that certain narratives from academic

institutions misrepresent the situation, or, in the worst

cases, actively target Israelis and Jews.

We find ourselves facing a war on two fronts: one against

the atrocities of Hamas, and another in the global arena of

public opinion. Regrettably, we have noticed an alarming

trend in which Israel, despite its right to self-defense, is

mischaracterized as an oppressor. This is a false equivalence

between the actions of a murderous terrorist organization and

a sovereign state's right to defend its citizens, which

unfortunately results in the loss of innocent Palestinian

lives. Any attempt to justify or equivocate Hamas's brutal

and grotesque actions is intellectually and morally

indefensible.

It's unsettling to note that many college campuses have

become breeding grounds for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic

sentiments, largely fueled by a naive and biased

understanding of the conflict. It is ironic that the very

halls of enlightenment in America and Europe, ostensibly the

bastions of intellectual and progressive thought that are

your campuses, have adopted Hamas as the cause celebre while

Israel is demonized. Universities, as hubs of enlightenment

and rational discourse, must take responsibility for the

views they perpetuate.

There is no moral equivalency here. Let's be clear: Hamas

shares no values with any Western academic institution. Hamas

is an organization that has repeatedly pledged to annihilate

Israel and its people.

Its ideology is antithetical to the values of human life

and the liberal values we hold dear. Hamas funnels

international aid into armament rather than to the welfare of

its citizens. While Israel uses its weapons to shield its

citizens, Hamas uses its citizens as shields for its

weapons--which it hides in hospitals, schools, and mosques.

It is crucial to distinguish between Hamas' terrorist

objectives and the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian

people for statehood. The conflation of the two only serves

to fuel hatred and ignorance.

Academic institutions stand as lighthouses in the

intellectual landscape, and we ask you to illuminate them.

Your roles as leaders of these institutions confer upon you

an extraordinary responsibility: to guide the moral and

ethical development of your students, to imbue them with the

ability to think critically and to discern the nuances that

separate right from wrong. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone

of academic freedom, but it should not be manipulated to

legitimize hate speech or to justify violence.

We urge you to delineate the boundaries between

constructive discourse and destructive propaganda, and

promote evidence-based, nuanced thinking that challenges

simplistic narratives. Expose the falsity of justifications

for acts of terror; expose and condemn disingenuous

statements; and reject hypocritical voices that justify

murder, rape, and destruction in the name of ``resistance''.

Moreover, we expect that Israeli and Jewish students and

faculty on university and college campuses will be accorded

the same respect and protections as any other minority. The

principles of inclusivity and campus safety must

unequivocally extend to include Israeli and Jewish members of

your academic communities. Just as it would be unthinkable

for an academic institution to extend free speech protections

to groups targeting other protected classes, so too should

demonstrations that call for our destruction and glorify

violence against Jews be explicitly prohibited and condemned.

What the world witnessed on October 7 were not methods to

help disadvantaged peoples build better futures for

themselves. The events of this terrible day should be taken

as a wake-up call to all of the dangers of nihilistic

organizations like Hamas and ISIS that represent the very

opposite of freedom and liberty.

As leaders of Israeli universities, we have been heartened

by clear statements of solidary and support for Israel, which

are, at their heart, statements in solidary with humanity,

enlightenment, and progress. At the same time, we are calling

for a sea change in clarity and truth in academia on the

matter of Israel's war against Hamas, so that light will

triumph over dark, now and always.

Signed,

Prof. Arie Zaban, President of Bar-Ilan University,

Chairperson of Association of University Heads--VERA;

Prof. Daniel A. Chamovitz, President of Ben-Gurion

University of the Negev;

Prof. Alon Chen, President of Weizmann Institute of

Science;

Prof. Asher Cohen, President of the Hebrew University of

Jerusalem;

Prof. Leo Corry, President of the Open University of

Israel;

Prof. Ehud Grossman, President of Ariel University;

Prof. Ariel Porat, President of Tel-Aviv University;

Prof. Ron Robin, President of University of Haifa;

Prof. Uri Sivan, President of the Technion-Israel Institute

of Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this bill for a long time. I introduced it in the 116th Congress and the 117th Congress, and both times it passed unanimously in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Now, finally, in the 118th Congress, we have it to the floor. I thank Mr. Mast from Florida for being the Republican lead on this bill and speaking for it here on the floor. Now, as I said, this bill passed unanimously three times through our committee, and I hope it passes unanimously by voice vote here on the floor.

Let us reflect on what has happened recently in Israel. Our Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, I think, summarized it well in his testimony yesterday: Young people chased down and gunned down at a dance party. Children executed in front of their parents. Parents executed in front of their children. Families in final embrace burned alive. People beheaded.

There was a family of four, a boy and a girl of 6 and 8 years old and their parents, around the breakfast table. The father's eye was gouged out in front of his children, the mother's breasts were cut off, the girl's foot was amputated, and the boy's finger was cut off before they were executed. Then the executioners sat down and had a meal.

We heard an intercepted telephone call where a terrorist called his mother and said gleefully: ``I have killed 10 Jews with my own hands. I'm using the dead Jewish woman's phone to call you now.''

How does such a horror occur? It occurs when generations are raised to hate, to kill, to behead, to murder, and it is a product of the schools that we have seen for decades on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

I point to a particular fifth grade textbook which glorifies a terrorist who in 1978 went forward and killed 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children, many of them pictured here. This is who is glorified. This is who is held up to Palestinian children as the model for them to follow.

We should not be surprised that there is, therefore, significant support for the Hamas doctrine: ``From the river to the sea . . . '' All Jews must be killed; that is their position. That is what holds their organization together.

I know the scenes that come now from Gaza are horrific. People say: ``Let's stop the fighting. Let's have a cease-fire.'' Well, what would happen then? We don't have to wonder, because just today, Ghazi Hamad, a high-ranking official of Hamas, said exactly what would happen. He said: We will repeat October 7 one, two, three, four, five times, as many times as it takes, until Israel is annihilated.

That is what happens if we have a cease-fire, unless we have the kind of cease-fire that we should have, one in which Hamas releases all the hostages and disarms. Then we can have a cease-fire.

In the years to come, after the actions being taken in Gaza, we will again wonder: Is another generation being educated to repeat these crimes in future years?

How are these students educated? They are educated in schools run by UNRWA, the U.N. organization, and paid for in large part by the United States. While we have responsibilities

around the world, the oil-rich Arab states contribute only a portion, a small portion of what UNRWA spends. America contributes half and more than half.

When we resumed funding for UNRWA in 2021, it was with the understanding that the schools would change, and we reached the 2021 framework for cooperation. So far, not so good. It appears as if the books continue.

Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is requires a formal report to tell us what, unfortunately, we know informally, and that is that education for terrorism has continued.

With this formal report on its way, UNRWA will understand that what is happening in its schools will be exposed and that the American Congress will not continue to fund them if they don't meet the responsibilities.

Now, it is said that they have to rely on Palestinian Authority textbooks. No, they simply have to change their policy.

I look forward to meeting the humanitarian and educational needs of the Palestinian people in a way that builds toward peace, not in a way that holds out to Palestinian fifth graders as an example someone who would kill 38 civilians, including 13 children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Hakeem Jeffries for his speech in favor of the importance of this resolution.

The scenes from Gaza are horrendous and some cry out for a cease- fire. Hamas cannot follow a cease-fire. They exist and it is in their charter to kill every Jew in the Middle East. If they agreed to a cease-fire, they would fall apart. They had a cease-fire on October 6, which is why they killed 1,400 civilians on October 7.

We can get a cease-fire when Hamas agrees to disarm and release the hostages. The loud voices demanding a cease-fire should be shouting at Hamas demanding those two actions.

We hear quotes from the Gaza Ministry of Health. The Gaza Ministry of Health counts in their death counts the terrorists who are killed and mixes them with the civilians. The Gaza Ministry of Health is under the control of Hamas.

Hamas brutally murders Palestinians who dare to dissent. It forces innocent Palestinians to act as human shields, and it steals aid meant for civilians. Thirty percent of the time when it shoots a rocket in an effort to kill an Israeli civilian, the rocket never leaves Gaza and it falls down to Earth where it may kill Palestinians, including those who died at that hospital in Gaza.

Israel is characterized as somehow a European colony. Keep in mind, the majority of Israeli Jews are there from Arab States and Iran from which they have been expelled or persecuted. This is a Middle Eastern country of Middle Eastern descent from people who, 2,000 years ago, lived there but also lived there right until the Arab States expelled them or persecuted them.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a time when we can have a two-state solution, that begins with the destruction of Hamas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about Capital Group and one of its retiring leaders, Mr. Timothy D. Armour. Capital Group is not only headquartered, but was also founded more than 90 years ago, in my hometown of Los Angeles. Today, I want to recognize Tim for his contributions to the field of asset management and his dedication to the tens of millions of investors in the United States and around the world who have entrusted Capital Group to safeguard and grow their savings.

At the end of this year, Tim will retire from Capital Group, a firm he joined over 40 years ago at its Los Angeles headquarters. After graduating from the firm's early-career rotational program, he served as an investment research analyst covering telecommunications and U.S. service companies and later as a portfolio manager in several of the American Funds. He distinguished himself throughout his career as a savvy investor able to identify companies that deliver long-term value for their shareholders.

Tim also served in various leadership roles, including as Chairman of Capital Group's Management Committee and Board of Directors over the past 8 years. Under his leadership, the 92-year old firm expanded its reach to global investors while evolving to meet the demands of a changing world and provide for future success for the benefit of Capital Group's clients, associates and the communities where those associates live and work.

Tim has been regarded by his colleagues and peers within the financial services industry as the embodiment of Capital Group's core values. His personal integrity, long-term focus and commitment to clients have set the tone for the current generation of the firm's associates and created a legacy that the next generation can follow.

In anticipation of his retirement at the end of this year, associates of Capital Group were asked to characterize Tim's leadership with just a single word. The words most often repeated included kind, trusted, candid, inclusive, present, and caring. One close colleague added, ``It is rare to find a leader who cares so genuinely and openly about his colleagues and clients.'' I am proud to celebrate the career accomplishment of Tim Armour and wish him all the very best in life's next chapter.