Lee Zeldin

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to recognize composer Richard Fuchs of Coram, New York, and his 1983 composition entitled ``Gettysburg.'' His music, set to the awe-inspiring address given by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863, has given new, melodious life to those brilliant two hundred and forty words, reminding modern audiences of the sacred and revolutionary ideals our country strives to embody. Just as Baltimore shopkeeper Thomas Carr first put Francis Scott- Key's poem, ``The Defense of Fort McHenry'', to music in 1814, creating ``The Star Spangled Banner'', Mr. Fuchs found a similar way to preserve the Gettysburg Address. Ever since he first saw the speech engraved on the side of the Lincoln Memorial at 9 years old, he wanted to honor its eternal message in song. After years of tinkering with melody and meter, Mr. Fuchs finally published ``Gettysburg'' in 1983, just in time for the 120th anniversary celebration of the Gettysburg Address. Thirty four years after his first visit to the Lincoln Memorial, Mr. Fuchs performed his creation on the monument's steps during this celebration, playing piano alongside his daughter and their hometown Centereach High School Choir. Since that first performance, Mr. Fuchs composition has been sung by choirs across the nation, from Tucson, Arizona to the Smithsonian. Over nearly four decades, through his music, Mr. Fuchs has helped preserve President Lincoln's vision for America for an entirely new generation, trying every day to live up to the principles of freedom, happiness, and equality our country's founders spoke of. In 2013, Mr. Fuchs' composition was performed with one hundred and fifty chorus members at the very place President Lincoln first delivered the Gettysburg Address. Each member of the chorus represented each year since the historic event. Like President Lincoln's address, Mr. Fuchs' composition is yet another stark reminder of our constant, unfinished work as Americans to ensure liberty and justice for all.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise today in support of my bipartisan amendment to halt the sale and marketing of Plum Island, New York, by the General Services Administration. Situated at the gateway of the Long Island Sound, Plum Island is treasured by our local community in both New York and Connecticut. Since World War II, Plum Island has been utilized as a research laboratory. In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, which currently has jurisdiction over the island, announced that the Animal Disease Center would be moved to a new Federal facility in Kansas. To offset the cost of this relocation, a law was enacted in 2008 that called for the sale of Plum Island to the highest bidder. However, according to a DHS report issued in April 2016, the new site in Kansas is already fully paid for through a combination of Federal appropriations and funding from the State of Kansas. The current law is the wrong path forward. The better way is to provide for public access, permanent preservation of Plum Island, and continued use of the state-of-the-art research infrastructure. That is why I have been working with my colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Joe Courtney, and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers from both sides of Long Island Sound to repeal this flawed mandate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of representing the First Congressional District of New York, located on the East End of Long Island, a district almost completely surrounded by water. We were hit really hard by Superstorm Sandy, and the widespread devastation emphasized the dire need to ensure our communities were better prepared for the future. Working hard with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Colonel Thomas Asbery of the Army Corps, and their entire hardworking team, this bill prioritizes local projects that are vital to my congressional district. That includes the Fire Island to Montauk Point project, which includes essential dredging and shoreline projects over 83 miles of coastline. Coastal storm risk management for Hashamomuck Cove in Southold is included, where right now local residents, businesses, and first responders are paralyzed even during a severe thunderstorm. Equally as important, this legislation continues to build on these victories, jump-starting movement on projects at Reel Point Reserve and Shelter Island, Goldsmith's Inlet in Southold, and Wading River Creek in Riverhead through authorizing feasibility studies. The Water Resources Development Act is great news for our shorelines on Long Island and across the country, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers for helping lead the charge to get this important victory across the finish line. I represent the First Congressional District of New York. It is a district almost completely surrounded by water on the east end of Long Island. In my district alone, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided funding for over 65 parks, and that is just one example of the impact this program has made all across our great Nation. This supports public access, fishing, hunting, recreation, and our environment. After securing permanent authorization last year, it is an honor to continue the fight today. I am not sure about everyone else, but being cooped up over the course of these last few months has probably given just about all of us more appreciation for the great outdoors. This is an effective program that will go a long way in keeping our magnificent outdoors great for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Detective Joseph Guidice and his culmination of 25 years of distinguished service in the New York City Police Department. Detective Guidice went above and beyond as a detective, officer, and teacher to assist and advance our law enforcement's aptitude and ability in investigating auto crime. In 1995, Detective Guidice started his career as a patrol officer in the NYPD's 109th and 30th Precincts. After five years of service, his exceptional skill and drive propelled him to the rank of investigator in the Auto Crime Division and, eventually, detective in 2002. While continuing to serve as a citywide investigator in conjunction with local, state and federal agencies, in 2005, Detective Guidice began teaching the NYPD's four-day intensive Fundamentals of Auto Theft Investigation course. Over his 15 years of instruction, he has trained upwards of 17,000 special investigation unit professionals from across the globe, inspiring the next generation of law enforcement. For his professional excellence and accomplishment, Detective Guidice has been praised by the NYPD with their commendation for meritorious and excellent police duty on three separate occasions and was given its prestigious 20-year perfect attendance award in 2018. On behalf of my constituents, the State of New York and our nation, I want to deeply thank Detective Guidice for being a standard-bearer of honorable service in the New York City Police Department. I wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, thank you to lead Republican McCaul for important words to start today's debate. For the third time in 2 months, as he pointed out, we are here to debate an Iran War Powers Resolution. Once again, this resolution requires terminating the use of force against Iran, even though U.S. Forces are not engaged in hostilities against Iran. As we stand here today, the President has repeatedly said in the past that he does not want a war with Iran. I don't. This body doesn't. My constituents don't. The President, himself, as lead Republican McCaul has pointed out, has shown incredible restraint when opportunities have presented, when there was legal justification to strike back. We must continue to pursue peace through strength. The military option is the last possible option that we should ever use, but we need Iran to understand that it is on the table. My colleague from the other side of the aisle who just spoke used the term ``disproportionate'' to describe taking out Qasem Soleimani. As people listen to today's debate, and if you are one of the 600-plus families who lost your son or daughter, your husband or your wife, maybe your mother or father because of Qasem Soleimani, if you are one of the thousands of people who were injured because of Qasem Soleimani, U.S. troops--600 U.S. troops, thousands of U.S. troops were injured because of Qasem Soleimani, and, literally, in the days leading up to this attack, we had U.S. citizens who were killed and wounded because of Qasem Soleimani. What is the justification? What was Qasem Soleimani doing in Iraq? How about we look at IRGC's own statement of January 3? The IRGC said that Soleimani was in Iraq to ``plan a confrontation against the new scheme of the Americans to rebuild DAESH and the Takfiri groups in order to again disrupt Iraq's security.'' Anyone who wants to suggest that Soleimani was in Iraq to do anything that was good and not to be planning and engaged in hostilities has to ignore the IRGC's own words. The IRGC is a designated foreign terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani is a designated terrorist himself, as sanctioned by the United States and the EU and the U.N., and we took him out. And I say good. To hear my colleague on the other side of the aisle call it disproportionate, my question is: How many more U.S. troops have to die at the hands of Qasem Soleimani before it is proportionate? How many more have to lose arms and legs at the hands of Qasem Soleimani until my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will call it proportionate? I salute the President for making a decision; it was well done. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that the House may take up H.R. 5595, the Israel Anti- Boycott Act, that would help fight back against the BDS movement. This bill would prohibit boycotts or requests for boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations against Israel and would protect American companies from being coerced to provide information to those organizations for the purpose of furthering boycotts against Israel. This bill holds individuals who attempt to violate this protection accountable. Additionally, it establishes Congress' opposition to the BDS movement and condemns the United Nations' Human Rights Council's creation of a blacklist of companies doing business in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights as an act of BDS. This legislation does not impede the right of any individual American to boycott or criticize Israel. It is okay to have reasonable, legitimate concerns with any government, including our own and allies like Israel, but this hate-fueled movement is not all about affirming the rights of Palestinians. The BDS movement has fueled anti-Semitism across college campuses and in our country's politics. I hear from Jewish students on college campuses across America who are being subjected to blatant anti- Semitism under the guise of BDS. For example, at Syracuse University, they are granting internship school credit to students interning with pro-BDS organizations after a slew of anti-Semitic graffiti vandalized the school. The founder of BDS was blatantly anti-Semitic, and this movement is being pushed by many people who support a one-state solution that would end Israel, our Nation's greatest ally. BDS tries to delegitimize Israel by turning it into a pariah state cut off from all trade, tourism, military, diplomatic, and cultural ties with the rest of the world. Last month, the U.N. did it again and published a blacklist of companies doing business in the West Bank. We must forcefully condemn this. This House, last year, passed H. Res. 246, a resolution to condemn the BDS movement. Making a statement was a start, but now it is time to do something about it and pass legislation with teeth. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and defeat the previous question.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, tonight, over the course of the next hour on this House floor, Republicans and Democrats united are coming together for the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. For all of us, this is an extra special, extra personal moment. Six million Jews, and millions of others, died during the Holocaust; 1.1 million people died at Auschwitz alone. Millions of lives were unfathomably cut short, tearing apart families, communities, and countries. Thanks to the heroism of our Nation's Greatest Generation, with their strength, and their will, and their courage, good ultimately triumphed over evil. There must be a permanent, never-ending, never-yielding commitment to never allow this form of hate and evil to ever rise again. This pledge must include combating anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate wherever it rears its ugly head, and even when it disguises itself as legitimate. Today, and every day, we must reaffirm our pledge, ``Never Again.'' For everyone who is watching at home, after votes, while we are here, at times we see Republican Special Orders and Democrat Special Orders; but this is an important moment in time for us to come together in this Chamber, united, Republicans and Democrats, as Americans, for humanity must ensure that this never happens again. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ZELDIN. 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 materials on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Deputy Warden of the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office's Corrections Division, Robert F. Bologna, as he culminates 28 years serving our community with the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office. Beginning his civil service career with the Sheriff's Office in January of 1992 as a Correction Officer, Officer Bologna went above and beyond the call of duty, quickly rising through the ranks thanks to his unparalleled skill set and leadership. Promoted to Deputy Warden in 2016, he commanded correctional facilities in Yaphank and Riverhead, responsible for several hundred law enforcement officers, the safety of thousands of individuals in the custody of the Sheriff and the safety and security of communities across Long Island. From his time as a United States Navy Operations Specialist in the Persian Gulf to his time serving in the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, Deputy Warden has never hesitated to put the safety of his fellow Long Islanders above his own. On behalf of our entire community and nation, I thank Deputy Warden Bologna for his service and wish him the best in his well-earned retirement.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I rise in total support of the decision to remove Qasem Soleimani. I have heard the use of the word ``disproportionate'' from the Speaker. I have heard it here today on the House floor, and it is just a shocking word to be used to describe what took place. It makes me ask the question: At what point is it proportionate to take out a designated terrorist who kills 600 U.S. troops, wounds thousands of others, kills and wounds troops recently, and his proxies attack a U.S. Embassy? If anyone has any doubt as to what Qasem Soleimani was doing in Iraq at the time we took him out, you can look at the IRGC's own words. The IRGC put out a statement saying that Soleimani and companions were on their way to ``plan a confrontation against the new scheme of the Americans to rebuild Daesh and the Takfiri groups in order to again disrupt Iraq's security.'' Who needs an intelligence briefing to determine that this is totally legitimate? On behalf of all of those Gold Star families and all the Blue Star families, of anyone who is deployed now, anyone who is in harm's way, if you need proof, go to Walter Reed. If you need proof, sit down with some of these Gold Star families who lost their sons, their daughters, their fathers, their mothers, their brothers, and their sisters because of this designated foreign terrorist running a designated foreign terrorist organization, who was sanctioned by the United States, by EU, and by the United Nations. I say good riddance. Why are we having this debate? We should be coming together, not as Republicans first, not as Democrats first. We should be coming together as Americans first and voting this down.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to reiterate the fact that this bill is just a very temporary change to the SALT deduction until 2021 in exchange for a permanent increase to taxes on individuals in small businesses. While we are having this debate, I think it is also really important to point out that the reason our State and local tax deduction was as high as it was is because our State and local taxes are as high as they are. As we take this opportunity on this floor, let's send a message to Mayor de Blasio in New York City, and Governors and State legislators in Albany, New Jersey, and California, that all levels of government have a role to play in tax relief. That is why our State and local tax deduction was as high as it was. To deliver for my constituents on the east end of Long Island, for people in our entire State, and for Governor Cuomo and the Democrats running Albany right now watching this, do your part. My people in my district are desperate for relief, and Congress shouldn't try to bail you out time and time again. We will stand here and fight for you. That is why I support multiple bills that will make a change to the State and local tax deduction. But ironically, this is a bill that makes it worse through a temporary change for the SALT deduction in exchange from a permanent tax increase. So now, they are getting screwed both ways. I am a little different from some of my colleagues. I had some opposition to the bill in 2017, and I am opposed to this bill as well. For those Democratic politicians who are in New York City and Albany and putting the screws to my constituents because they only know how to raise taxes and they don't know how to spend wisely, start doing your part because that is why our SALT deduction was as high as it was for so long.

Mr. ZELDIN. It is unfortunate that, at the end of the day, when the dust has settled, they will continue to be the victims of out-of-State and out-of-touch congressional leadership putting politics over commonsense, realistic solutions. My colleagues know I am eager to work with them to fix this legislation, so we can actually get this across the finish line and signed into law to provide true tax relief for hardworking Americans. But, unfortunately, that very temporary change to SALT in exchange for that permanent tax increase for individuals and small businesses is why I can't support this bill in its current form.

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. First off, I do want to thank my colleague from Long Island, Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Suozzi and I have engaged in many conversations about this important issue, and I am sure that that will continue after today's debate. I would like to clear up a few things about this legislation before us today to cut through some of what has been debated. This bill permanently hikes taxes on individuals and small businesses to 39.6 percent for those currently in the 37 percent tax bracket--and for many in the 35 percent tax bracket as well--in exchange for a very temporary change of the SALT deduction only until 2021. So the SALT deduction is going to change very temporarily, but permanently we are going to be increasing taxes on individuals and small businesses. We have to understand that 90 percent of U.S. businesses are passthroughs. They don't pay the corporate tax rate. They pay under the individual tax rate. Almost 100 percent of all passthrough businesses have less than 100 employees. We are increasing taxes permanently on all these small businesses in exchange for that short-term change. I support multiple active bills that would change the State and local tax deduction without raising any taxes on individuals and small businesses. It is important to remember that the only SALT deduction legislation that will ever provide relief is legislation that can be signed into law, and this bill which permanently raises taxes on individuals and small businesses is not it. In my district, from Main Street to wineries on the North Fork, this is bad news for small businesses up and down Long Island. I am focused on providing true tax relief for all hardworking Long Islanders.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, this impeachment is an embarrassment for House Democrats. On the substance, the Democrats claim that their case is uncontested, relying on presumptions, hearsay, and 3 percent of the story trying to connect dots that actually aren't connected. Some inconvenient truths: President Zelensky didn't know that there was a hold on aid until August 29. The aid gets released shortly thereafter, and Ukraine didn't have to do anything in order to get that aid released; President Zelensky says no demand, no quid pro quo, no pressure. But Democrats want the public to ignore the other 97 percent of this story. It doesn't work like that. Senate Democrats want new witnesses to show why there was a hold on aid. That is an odd request if you think you have already proven your case. At the heart of this debate, two investigations are being discussed between countries. Democrats and media allies want the public to believe it is all just debunked that Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election. They want you to ignore Avakov and Chaly's comments, that Chalupa worked with the Ukrainian Embassy, origins of the Steele dossier, the black ledger, and more. The problem with all of this is that the American public are smarter than Democrats are giving them credit for. Next, the Democrats claim the Republicans are arguing that it was Ukraine and not Russia that wanted to interfere and was interfering in the 2016 election. No, that is not what Republicans are saying. Of course, we have the Burisma-Biden issue of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company run by a corrupt Ukrainian oligarch hiring Hunter Biden for at least $50,000 per month, with no energy experience and no Ukraine experience, solely because he is Vice President Biden's son. Now, the company wanted to hire Hunter Biden because they wanted to curry favor while there was this ongoing corruption investigation. Enter Joe Biden. He gets that prosecutor fired, threatening the loss of $1 billion if it didn't happen immediately, which it was. Now, Democrats believe that Burisma and Biden should be immune from scrutiny. I disagree. Never again should that conflict of interest ever happen. And our governments should be working together to get to the bottom of all of this. This has also been a total disaster on the process, from getting a Federal worker to file a whistleblower complaint to Schiff's made-up version of the July 25 call. In the closed-door interviews, Schiff was prosecutor, judge, jury, and witness coach. Every day he loved getting America drunk on his favorite cocktail, three ingredients: cherry-picking leaks, withholding key facts, and misstating evidence. In the depositions and in the public hearings, the President's counsel was not invited to attend, present evidence, or cross-examine witnesses; and Republicans weren't allowed to call witnesses like Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, and others. Then there was the House Judiciary debacle where Schiff couldn't even show up to present his reports. He had to have one of his staffers present it for him. This impeachment is ripping our country in half. It is fatally flawed on the process, the substance, the intentions, and the consequences. It is a total Schiff show. I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle throughout this whole process, their allies in the media, they like to say that Republicans only want to talk about process, not substance, even though we continue to talk about substance as well. They declare their facts are uncontested. They just did it again. So just to, maybe, recap a few for everyone watching at home, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and hopefully they will listen: President Zelensky says there was no demand, no pressure, no quid pro quo. Andriy Yermak said on December 10 that their whole story with regard to the December 1 meeting with Ambassador Sondland is completely refuted. We heard from Ambassador Sondland himself, who admitted that he heard from President Trump that he didn't want any quid pro quo and that he was guessing when he stated otherwise. Ambassador Sondland, that is, said he was guessing and that no one on the planet had told him otherwise. Ambassador Volker tells us that President Zelensky didn't know that there was a hold on aid on July 25. He didn't find out until after he read it in Politico on July 29. The aid got released shortly thereafter, and Ukraine didn't have to do absolutely anything in order to get the hold released. When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that the July 25 call transcript says, ``do me a favor,'' we have to correct them time and again that it says, ``do us a favor.'' And if you look at that paragraph, it is only about Ukrainians interfering in the 2016 election. Now, if you want to ignore the Chaly op-ed; Chalupa worked with the Ukrainian Embassy to dig up dirt; the black ledger to bring down the Trump campaign; whether it is Avakov's statement; or the origins of the Steele dossier--these are all examples. Look at Ken Vogel's reporting from January 2017. It is irrefutable. These are all substance, so stop saying that the facts are uncontested.

Mr. ZELDIN

Mr. ZELDIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Father Alexander Karloutsos, the leader of Dormition of the Virgin Mary Greek Orthodox Church of the Hamptons in Southampton, New York. Father Alex, as he's known to so many in our community, has served his church for over 40 years, guiding Long Islanders in a life centered in faith. However, his work goes beyond the members of his faith community, and his work has affected so many aspects of our community and our nation. In fact, Father Alex has met with and advised every U.S. President since President Ronald Reagan on religious freedom and many other issues and is well-known and respected by many members of Congress and policy-makers on both sides of the aisle. While his reputation precedes him on the national level, he has never turned his back on the community he loves. Just last year, he led his church in donating $100,000 to the Southampton Town Police Department to help fight the heroin and opioid abuse epidemic that has taken its toll on our community. For his extraordinary service to our community and nation, he was recently appointed as the Vicar General of the Holy Archdiocese of America at the discretion of the Archbishop himself. I congratulate Father Alex on his well-deserved appointment and look forward to continuing to work together to better the community we love.

Mr. ZELDIN

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

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose it as well. It is no coincidence that this resolution is being brought now. It is an attempted rebuke of the Trump administration. I think that this Chamber should be coming together and praising the decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, that this Chamber should be coming together and praising the decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. We all should be coming together on a bipartisan basis with regard to the implementation of the Taylor Force Act. The Palestinian Authority has a policy not just to incite violence but to financially reward terrorism. If you murder an innocent American or Israeli, by policy--this is no secret; it is documented; it is their own admission--they will pay you money. Now, as far as this Chamber goes, we are stewards of U.S. tax dollars. To send money to the Palestinian Authority, as long as they have a policy where they are going to pay someone for murdering an American, that is something that this Chamber should be coming together on, on a bipartisan basis, with regard to the implementation of the Taylor Force Act and how to do even better. This resolution attempts to get into that world of what preconditions need to be met in order to have an agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. It chooses to stay silent with regard to any of the Israeli preconditions on the Palestinians, but this resolution chooses not to be silent on the preconditions of the Palestinians toward the Israelis. Not just in the text of the resolution but today in the debate, the goal is to place pressure on the Israelis, on what they need to make concessions on, by not saying anything at all with regard to Palestinians committing acts of terror and being financially rewarded for it, saying nothing about Hamas. Hamas literally put in their charter that jihad is an obligation. I wonder where Hamas stands. If the Palestinian Authority sat down with Israelis and right now agreed, I don't know if whoever would sign that document on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be assassinated within days. But I will say that he can't in good faith deliver all of his people because not only are the ranks of the Palestinian Authority filled with the likes of terrorist groups like Hamas--and Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist organization of the United States--not only can they not deliver their people, Hamas doesn't just refute the argument that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, Hamas refutes the argument that Israel has a right to exist. How are we silent about a resolution? If you want to get into preconditions, how do we not get into any acts of Hamas denying access to humanitarian aid to its own people or the fact that they use women and children as human shields, that Hamas will pay someone to get shot? A kid goes to a checkpoint, gets shot, and gets paid $500. Right now, as we are here--I mean, literally, as the decision is being made to bring this resolution to the floor, Israel is getting showered by rockets from a terrorist group in Gaza, hundreds of rockets targeting innocent Israelis, kids who are going to school or are worshiping or are at home or are running to bomb shelters because they have rockets being launched at them, trying to kill them. That is the issue with getting into that world of preconditions, only talking about the preconditions that the Palestinians want to place on the Israelis, and then to double down and triple down during floor debate and to be silent entirely with regard to any of the preconditions toward peace. December 2016 is specifically referenced in this resolution. This House came together and condemned that December 2016 policy. After the November 2016 election, this House came together in January on a huge bipartisan basis and condemned that change of policy in December 2016. The reversal here in this resolution is now this resolution is specifically referencing the December 2016 policy as if it is something to be celebrated. What we should be doing right now is passing legislation with teeth-- by the way, a whole lot of legislation with teeth: passing USMCA; lowering the cost of prescription drugs, a bipartisan agreement that passed out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; passing S.1/ H.R. 336, legislation with teeth to stop BDS, to help support Israel with teeth; authorizing funding to support Jordan; legislation with teeth to increase sanctions on Assad in Syria. This bill has already passed the Senate with all of these different Republicans and Democrats, almost 80 Senators passing it. Bill numbers are set based on what is important. What is important to the Senate? That was S.1. We made a strong statement last summer, almost unanimously passing a resolution condemning BDS, including language toward peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We should have woken up the next day united to now do something about it. It is one thing to make a statement about anything that anyone in this Chamber is passionate about, and I respect the different passions and backgrounds of all of my colleagues. There are people who have different opinions on just about anything that comes for a vote in this Chamber. When we choose to make statements of something that we feel strongly about, it is important to wake up the next day and say: ``Okay, well, what are we going to do about it?'' That is why, while I am so proud of my colleagues for voting almost unanimously for that resolution, we should be passing S.1/H.R. 336. Mr. Speaker, I ask for all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The majority are tying themselves up in knots. With all due respect to the majority leader, who said there was not a departure in policy towards the end of the Obama administration and that I was incorrect; I would like to point him to H. Res. 11 from January 2017, that he voted in favor of as well as most House Democrats, which included: ``Whereas on December 23, 2016, the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations disregarded H.Con. Res. 165 and departed from longstanding United States policy by abstaining and permitting United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 to be adopted under Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter.'' That is from a resolution that the majority leader voted in favor of, where he personally, and many others in this Chamber on both sides of the aisle, took strong exception with that departure from longstanding U.S. policy with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334, now reversing that, once again, with the text of this resolution that is giving a shout-out to that December 2016 Obama administration policy as if it is something to be applauded. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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