Lee Zeldin

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the BDS movement, the supporters make territorial claims as it relates to Gaza, Judea and Samaria, the West Bank. Let's clear up the record a little more on that. Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank, contain disputed territory, not occupied territory. Israel ended up with this territory after it was attacked, before there was even a Palestinian Authority. Time and again, the PA has rejected peace proposals because they refuse, publicly and privately, to accept a Jewish state in Israel. That is on them. In 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 93 percent from Judea and Samaria. As for Gaza, Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, they are in charge. There is no Israeli occupation there. This small strip of land is packed out with 1.7 million people living in sub-Third World country conditions because of Hamas. As was pointed out earlier, Hamas refuses humanitarian aid, uses women and children as human shields, calls jihad as an obligation, and murders innocent civilians. One of the most important reasons we are here today is not only making a strong statement in opposition to the BDS movement but also to refute all the lies that are being told out there. People will speak up to try to justify the hate that is filling the ranks of the BDS movement, and they will never tell you the other 100 percent of the story. This Chamber today comes together, Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, to make that powerful statement. There is a list of victims--we don't have enough time to go through it--of Palestinian violence and terrorism in 2019. Mr. Speaker, 1,355 people have been killed by Palestinian violence and terrorism since September of 2000--1,355 people. Never will the BDS supporters take any opportunity to set the record straight on any of that, but we will here. I see that Brad Schneider is with us as well, the main author of the bill. This is a bipartisan effort that I am very proud to be part of today. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for speaking today, as well as Chris Smith and Minority Whip Scalise. This is something that we are very passionate about. We also believe that the strong statement that is going to be made here today with this vote is not the last step of this Chamber's speaking out. I really hope that we all can work together in a bipartisan fashion to figure out how to do something about it, to be able to pass legislation with teeth. Today is nothing short of progress, and it is something for all of us to be proud of around our country and around the world because it should be an American value to stand strong, shoulder to shoulder with our great ally, our greatest ally in the Middle East in Israel. It is a beacon of hope, freedom, liberty, and opportunity. Americans, in our day-to-day lives, don't even realize just how much we are using Israeli technology, American companies that have used Israeli technology. We probably have used it multiple times just today. You can't boycott Israel and, at the same exact time, spend your entire day using Israeli technology. You can't boycott Israel and travel to Israel. We are going to call out the hypocrisies that exist. Ultimately, as we flush this out, let's work together. This is about advocacy. It is also about education. When I came to Congress in 2015, honestly, there were a lot of Members of Congress that, if you asked them, ``Where do you stand on the BDS movement?'' their answer would have been, ``What is BDS?'' Now, in 2019, here we are, July 2019, coming together. We know what BDS is: Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. We know it is filled with anti-Israel hate. We know it is about delegitimizing Israel. We know that it is filled with anti-Semitism, from the founder of BDS to those in the name of BDS on college campuses from coast to coast. I plead with all of my colleagues, if we can all work together as we move past this great vote today, that we can next pass legislation that has teeth in it. Mr. Speaker, I thank, again, Brad Schneider, Jerry Nadler, Ann Wagner, the 350 cosponsors, and, hopefully, everyone today voting ``yes.'' I thank lead Republican Michael McCaul on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. This is a resolution for us all to be proud of. We should all vote ``yes,'' tell all of our constituents about it, and redouble our efforts to do something about it right after that vote. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his cosponsorship and his leadership with this issue. Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of our 9/11 victims, first responders, and their families, urging my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act. First responders who worked on the pile day and night, aiding in the search, rescue, and cleanup efforts, were breathing in toxic debris and ash that are now known to have caused over 50 different types of cancer. In 2011, the Zadroga Act was signed into law to help them. Five years later, it was permanently reauthorized and included $4.6 billion for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the very fund that we are here debating today. In February, the special master of the fund reported that current funding ``may be insufficient to compensate all claims,'' reporting that they would have to cut claims by up to 70 percent. As was noted, in the aftermath of 9/11, the EPA told New Yorkers and these first responders that the air at Ground Zero and the surrounding area was safe to breathe. The Federal Government was wrong. Madam Speaker, this was not a hurricane or a flood or a tornado. This was the largest terrorist attack ever on American soil. As Jon Stewart testified in front of the House Judiciary Committee, these terrorists weren't saying ``death to Tribeca.'' This was an attack on all of us as Americans. We all should be voting ``yes'' today as Americans. Yet, we are forcing sick first responders to come to Washington, D.C., to beg for benefits that they earned and were promised. Last month, Luis Alvarez was one of those first responders. After his appearance in D.C., he rushed home for his 69th round of chemo. Unfortunately, he immediately ended up in hospice and passed away. He shouldn't have had to come down here to fight on behalf of all of these other victims and first responders in the first place. Month after month, year after year, going back to the first time the Zadroga Act was passed, how many first responders have made dozens of trips, educating, advocating, and passionately asking Members of Congress for their support? Like so many other 9/11 first responders, this was not Lou's second or third time. Unfortunately, it was his last. Lou Alvarez was an extraordinary man. What is truly extraordinary is that his spirit and grit represent that of each and every one of our 9/ 11 first responders. Think of all of those firefighters and others who rushed up to the towers when everyone else was running away. Think of those who ignored orders telling them to vacate the tower because they would not leave behind their captain. The experience for us in the New York area is that when we meet someone when we are back home in our districts, day after day after day, people who looked larger than life, healthy and fit on 9/11, after going through multiple rounds of chemo, they are losing thei battle. Their bodies are riddled with all forms of cancer because they exposed themselves to that harm when the Federal Government told them it was safe. I thank everyone who has worked so hard to get this bill passed, including my colleagues Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler, Pete King, and others. I would also like to recognize the FealGood Foundation; Jon Stewart; Shepard Smith, for his reporting; and so many others fighting tooth and nail to make passage of this bill a reality. Madam Speaker, I urge every single one of my colleagues in this House to vote ``yes,'' and I urge the Senate to take up this bill immediately.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment prohibiting the use of funds from the Special Defense Acquisition Fund to provide assistance to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates if such assistance could be used in hostilities in Yemen. Nearly every Member in this Chamber has made it very clear that we are concerned about civilian casualties resulting from the conflict in Yemen. However, this amendment does not address that concern. The war in Yemen must end, but, as Iran continues to finance terror and help the Houthis, who have overthrown the government, the consequence will be utter devastation for the Yemeni civilians. Our assistance for the coalition opposing Houthi and Iranian terror in Yemen started in 2015 during the Obama administration when the Houthis overthrew a legitimate government, with Iran's assistance. The Houthis fired missiles against the coalition, with support from Iran, and the U.S. provided intelligence and logistical support in compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. Iran poses a massive geostrategic threat in the area around Yemen, throughout the Middle East, and to the United States and many of our allies. Right now, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the U.S. share a common adversary in Iran. We cannot signal to Iran that their continued aggression will be tolerated. Iran's nefarious activities must be countered effectively. The coalition continues to face an onslaught of Houthi attacks on civilian targets, and the U.S. needs a nuanced approach that helps our Nation, our partners, and avoids civilian casualties. Instead, this amendment slams the door shut, crushing any opportunity to see the region and civilians protected. Have no doubt: The coalition will continue to purchase arms, including defensive weapons, from other sources that have no regard for how these weapons are deployed. As a result of this amendment, the war in Yemen will not end, nor will it assist the United States or our strategic allies in containing Iran's malign influence in the region. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would prohibit any funds from being used to process any arms sales or transfers to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates pursuant to emergency certification made under the Arms Export Control Act. The President's emergency certification of May 24 to move 22 arms sales as an emergency was to address increased threats from Iran to U.S. security interests and Iran's continued efforts to destabilize the region, which directly impacts our strategic allies. The Democrat majority had been holding onto arms sales through congressional notification requirements and abusing oversight power with the Arms Export Control Act. Some of these requests by the administration had been on hold for over a year, and there was no progress in determining why. We witnessed just last month, on June 19, Iran shot down a U.S. military asset, a drone over international waters, one of many examples of Iranian aggression toward the United States and other nations, many in that region surrounding Iran. There is no doubt that Iran is an increased threat. Mr. Chair, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I just want to point out Chairman Engel has been approaching this issue in a little more of a surgical approach in looking at Federal law. I think that that would be the more appropriate tactic in being able to work together in a bipartisan fashion on this issue. This amendment, with all due respect to my good friend from California, is a little more of a sledgehammer. I think he would probably say that that would be true, unapologetically. I, though, would certainly encourage my colleagues, really, on both sides of the aisle, to be able to work together through concerns that others may have rather than passing this particular amendment. There has been a hold that has been placed for a very long time. And I would encourage any Members of Congress who are responsible for that hold or support the hold to articulate to us and to the administration exactly what the hold is, what the concerns are, and how we can work through it together. I hope that we all are in unanimity with concern over Iranian aggression in the Middle East. We are all in unanimity with concern when we see Iran--beyond the rhetorical calling us the great Satan-- pledging death to America, building a land bridge across the Middle East, supporting Assad in Syria and financing Hezbollah in Lebanon. And, certainly, there are the concerns with the movement in shipping lanes around Yemen, a conflict that the Houthis, in overthrowing a legitimate government, did with the backing of the Iranians. So, there are a lot of concerns that we have on our side of the aisle as it relates to Iranian aggression, and I hope that we can work together in dealing with those concerns that we all have as it relates to Iranian aggression. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I also think it is important to note that the United States has not engaged in direct hostilities in Yemen. We stopped the refueling of Saudi aircraft, so the activities have actually, in many respects, been walked back from what was historically known as being directly engaged in hostilities on the ground, which is just not the case here as it relates to the United States. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, again, I would urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I completely support Congress' solemn duty under Article I of the Constitution to authorize the commitment of U.S. troops to foreign hostilities; but that is not the only issue here. This amendment attempts to block intelligence sharing to our strategic partners such as Saudi Arabia at a time when those partners have civilian targets that are actively being attacked by Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Intelligence sharing can help our partners protect their forces and their civilians. It can also help them ensure that they are hitting their correct targets, thereby minimizing civilian casualties. Additionally, the Iran-backed Houthis are stepping up its attacks on U.S. assets in Yemen. CENTCOM confirmed that the Houthis shot down a U.S. drone earlier this summer. If we cut off intelligence sharing with our strategic partners, it will certainly have repercussions that diminish our abilities to protect our own assets. There is reason that a bipartisan majority supported exempting intelligence sharing from the War Powers Resolution on Yemen that we considered earlier this year. It is because this type of cooperation is essential to U.S. interests in the region, including ensuring responsible conduct of the war in Yemen. It is important to point out that here, in this case with Yemen, the Houthis overthrew a government with the backing of Iran. Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terror. They do many malign, nonnuclear, nefarious activities. While, for good reason, we give the most amount of attention to Iran's nuclear activities--they call Israel the Little Satan, the United States the Great Satan, and they pledge death to America in their parliament and on their streets and in their holidays--they have been attempting to build a land bridge to the west of the country. They have a much more growing influence within the government of Iraq. They have been propping up Assad in Syria. They have been financing rockets and other activities to support Hezbollah in Lebanon. When you look towards the Strait of Bab al-Mandab, and the area around Yemen, and the strategic advantage for Iran to be able to successfully help the Houthis in overthrowing this government and having long-term security, Iranian aggression has caused a realignment of different alliances within the Middle East. Many of these nations are looking at Israel differently than they used to because they are so concerned with Iranian aggression. I think what is most important for U.S. interests in the Middle East and, specifically, in Yemen, one, it is critically important, and as the gentleman said in his point, minimizing civilian casualties must be of a bipartisan concern. It should be one of international concern, most importantly, for innocent civilians who end up losing their life. Additionally, those who are cutting off access to humanitarian aid is also of great concern and great debate. So for myself, speaking for myself specifically, as it relates to Yemen, I am greatly concerned by the Houthis activities backed by Iran, and it is one that we should successfully be hoping that that aggression is pushed back to the point that Houthis are unsuccessful; that Iran is unsuccessful, and they are pushed back to their own country, back in a defensive posture, and we don't see further aggression in more countries. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford).

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, who has the right to close?

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just encourage all my colleagues to oppose this amendment for reasons that were stated, hopefully, with great concern across this entire body on both sides of the aisle as it relates to Iranian aggression. We need to work together, really all around the world or wherever the United States can be of assistance to minimize civilian casualties, to get access to humanitarian aid. There is debate at times of who is responsible, but I think it is important for us to do a better job working together to achieve the results that are in the best interests of the United States, even though we have debates at times of the best way to get there. I encourage all Members to vote ``no.'' I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I stand in opposition to the amendment offered by my dear colleague, Mrs. Torres, that prohibits the President from removing any items listed in categories 1, 2, and 3 of the U.S. Munitions List. One of the first Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearings this year was a review of a large interagency process to modernize the United States Munitions List to ensure the State Department retained oversight over only the most critical defense articles with military end-use. The decision to transfer certain defense articles and services from State to Commerce had strong, bipartisan support but got caught up in a debate that had nothing to do with export control reform. The process to move certain defense articles has already begun. In fact, here are just some of the categories of weapons that have already moved to Commerce licensing controls: launch vehicles and missiles, explosives, military aircraft, submersible vessels, tanks, and the list goes on. Once again, these defense articles have already moved to Commerce control. This rule change should be finalized. After years of input from both sides of the aisle to make the change from State to Commerce, there is no reason this decision, which started in the last administration, needs to be delayed any longer. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, it is important to point out that not all firearms will move to Commerce. The State Department will continue to retain oversight for certain firearms: fully automatic firearms; modern artillery; silencers, components, parts, and accessories specially designed for automatic firearms and shotguns. The list goes on. It is actually a long list of firearms-related components that will stay on USML. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, the USML and the CCL are for listed exports of firearms. This jurisdictional transfer does not govern the illicit transfer of firearms that are often used in violent crimes and human rights abuses overseas. The U.S. Government will continue its longstanding end-use modernizing efforts, including vetting of potential end-users, to help prevent human rights abuses. As I stated during my opening remarks, when assessing Commerce's ability to take over this responsibility, it is hugely important to recognize everything that Commerce is already now in charge of, including, as I mentioned earlier, launch vehicles and missiles, explosives, military aircraft, submersible vessels, tanks, and the list goes on. This is not a new function for Commerce. It is a transition that started years ago during the last administration. This new rule should be finalized. What shouldn't be lost in this debate is how effectively Commerce is handling this responsibility with all the very important parts and categories that have already moved to their Department. Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Barr for his leadership, not just for yielding time. This is something that he has been working on himself, putting a lot of heart, passion, and thought into. I thank Congressman David Scott for his incredible leadership on this important bipartisan effort. He laid it out so eloquently just now, the many aspects of not just this issue but the need to fight for veterans. There are many people who are here in the gallery, millions of people at home watching C-SPAN, shocked at what they are seeing, as Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate work together to get a bill through committee, through the Chambers, and to the President's desk to become law. The beneficiaries will be our Nation's veterans. I rise today to urge passage of H.R. 1988, the Protecting Affordable Mortgages for Veterans Act. It provides more than a technical fix. It is important for recently issued loans refinanced by the Department of Veterans Affairs to remain eligible for the secondary market. This fix is essential to prevent a liquidity crisis in the veterans home loan market and ensure that the brave men and women who have served our Nation in uniform have access to affordable mortgages. Through passage of this bill, we can ensure that VA home loans are not adversely impacted by issues in the veterans mortgage market created by the unintended consequences of S. 2155. The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, S. 2155, became law in May 2018 and contained some very important bipartisan reforms to protect veterans from predatory lending and deceptive marketing. These provisions are essential to protect the VA home loan market, but unclear timelines laid out in the legislation, and the way that Ginnie Mae chose to implement the requirements of the new law, have left an estimated 2,500 or more VA home loans boxed out of the secondary market. These mortgages are now considered orphan loans because they are no longer eligible for Ginnie Mae securitization, even though they met all Federal requirements and are backed by the VA. This bill would prevent a government-triggered liquidity crisis in the VA mortgage market by fixing this problem and restoring eligibility for these orphaned loans. Addressing this issue ensures that veteran homeowners or prospective home buyers who have earned access to the VA home loan program through their military service aren't hurt by a fluke in S. 2155. Without this bill, potential damage to the overall VA home loan market is likely because VA lenders may have to sell or finance these orphaned mortgages at a loss. This would have a negative impact on the brave men and women who have served our country and deserve a path to homeownership in order to achieve the American Dream. If lenders aren't able to securitize VA home loans through Ginnie Mae, closing costs and borrowing costs could go up, and opportunities to borrow or refinance could go down. Mr. Speaker, veterans have some of the lowest default and foreclosure rates in the Nation. They have earned access to VA home loans through their selfless service to our country. Even one VA home loan negatively impacted by a minor mistake is one too many when it comes to giving our veterans access to homeownership. That is why we must pass this bipartisan bill and send it to the President's desk to become law as soon as possible. Again, I thank my lead bipartisan cosponsors, Congressmen David Scott and Andy Barr, and Mike Levin. I thank Chairwoman Waters for her efforts and Ranking Member McHenry. This was a truly bipartisan effort from the committee. Everyone came together and worked together to get to this important point, a huge bipartisan, bicameral win coming for our Nation's veterans. I urge adoption of this important bipartisan bill.