Securing Growth and Robust Leadership in American Aviation Act--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, October 7, 2023, was almost 5 years to the day after the attack on the Tree of Life synagogue--almost 5 years to the day. Anti-Semitism has been on the rise around the world and unfortunately here in America. We are seeing it on college campuses. We are seeing it in conversations online. It is not new, it is old, but it is on the rise in a way that we have not seen in a long time in the United States.

In 2019, Senator Rosen and I launched the Senate Bipartisan Task Force for Combatting Anti-Semitism. We started that on the 1-year anniversary of the shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue. Our mission was pretty simple: We wanted to create a task force to be able to collaborate with law enforcement, Federal Agencies, State and local governments, educators, advocates, clergy--any stakeholders who wanted to be able to combat anti-Semitism with education, empowerment, and bringing communities together in conversation.

Our goal was to speak out with one voice about hate, to support legislative efforts to combat anti-Semitism, to promote Holocaust education, and to bring the issue of combatting anti-Semitism to the forefront of our national conversation and, quite frankly, international.

She and I have worked together to be able to contact other nations and their Parliaments on what we have seen as anti-Semitism in other countries, to be able to reach out to Ambassadors, but to also speak out on what we see here in the United States. That has not changed.

The State Department has offered this warning:

History has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far behind. Defeating anti-Semitism must be a cause of great importance not only for Jews, but for all people who value humanity and justice.

That is our own State Department.

So now what are we going do about what we are seeing on college campuses? Interestingly enough, people see this as a new thing just in the last 7 months. This has been on the rise on college campuses for quite a while. Many of us have been ringing that bell to say that there is something happening in the national conversation on our college campuses.

So let's find ways to be able to engage on this. Senator Rosen and I have a piece of legislation that is a compilation of multiple pieces that we have worked on for a very long time to be able to talk about anti-Semitism and to say there are specific ways that our Nation can get involved with this.

I have affirmed President Biden in areas where we agree, and there are some areas that he has brought up in the task force that he has created on the executive level to take on anti-Semitism nationally. Some of those things have been actually executed and carried out, and some of them have not.

So we have continued to be able to nudge in ways that we thought were appropriate to be able to nudge and to be able to poke to say things can be done. It has been leadership at our State Department that has risen up on that, and some, we have been actively involved in trying to be able to get into those positions, to be able to lead.

My friend Tim Scott came to the floor to be able to ask for unanimous consent to be able to pass his resolution to condemn anti-Semitism on college campuses. I want to thank my friend Tim Scott for his leadership on this issue and what he has also done to be able to raise awareness. But unfortunately his request to be able to pass that resolution was denied.

We should be able to find common ground on issues that condemn hate. His resolution was a simple statement: What are we going to do as a body to be able to condemn hatred in this area? We should not ignore this.

The House of Representatives last week brought up the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. It was a bipartisan piece of legislation that they passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives that they have now sent to this body to be able to take up and to debate and to discuss.

What has been interesting to me is, when they picked up the Anti- Semitism Awareness Act as a nonpartisan piece of legislation, this is a continuance of actually what happened under the Trump administration. President Trump used the same definitions and the same process of putting it in the Department of Education, using what is called the IHRA definition for ``anti-Semitism'' and the examples attached to it in Executive order 13899.

But what has been fascinating to me is, when the House of Representatives passed it, there was a whole group of folks and some folks from my own party who stepped up and said: No, we can't actually do this, because this would inhibit free speech.

I have smiled at those same folks and said: Did you say that when President Trump was actually using it as an Executive order under his administration? Because now they are talking about making a statutory, long-term change.

The IHRA definition is not new, by the way. The United States has been a party to this definition since the 1990s. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition--that is IHRA--has been recognized all over the world as a basic definition with examples of what anti-Semitism is.

It is not new to the United States. There are many athletic teams that have recognized the IHRA definition for their teams in their conversations to be able to recognize what anti-Semitism is. There are 34 States, including my own State of Oklahoma, that have recognized the IHRA definition within our own States to say: This is how we are going to define ``anti-Semitism'' in our States.

This is a very basic principle. It is difficult to discourage what you cannot even define, and when someone makes just a blanket statement for anti-Semitism, it is helpful to put some definition to what it actually means and what it does not mean. For instance, if someone were to say they disagree with the Netanyahu government, is that anti- Semitic? The IHRA definition would say, clearly, it is not. We can disagree on governmental action. That is a normal part of dialogue.

It also is not something that inhibits free speech. Even hateful speech in the United States--even foolish, even stupid speech--can be said in the United States. It is a protected right to be able to say whatever crazy thing you want to be able to say in the United States, but when it shifts from free speech to inciting violence and threats, that has shifted. That has moved from just speech to now criminal action.

The IHRA definition in what the House of Representatives passed last week in the Antisemitism Awareness Act doesn't limit speech in any way. In fact, it very specifically states it is not trying to take away any free speech rights of anyone. It specifically notes a protection for the First Amendment rights of Americans to be able to say what they choose to say.

What it does say is, if you are on a college campus and you are choosing to discriminate against Jewish students, that should fall into the same as any other title VI discrimination falls into. It is no different. So if they are doing discrimination on a college campus, you can't just say: Well, they are discriminating against Jewish students, so that doesn't fall under title VI.

That clearly does fall under title VI areas and makes what has been implied clear. What has been done by Executive action in the past under the Trump administration makes it clear for every administration. What has been done under the Department of State for three decades in the United States is clear policy not just for the State Department but also for the Department of Education. I think that is a pretty reasonable way to take on this issue and to be able to clarify what anti-Semitism is on a college campus or any campus that is out there.

Some of the responses that I have already mentioned have been fascinating to me on this, things like I have already said: This is going to limit free speech.

No. You still have the right to say something, even to say something dumb. That is still a protected right in the United States.

We can say things that we both disagree with--that is a protected right--but you can't move into criminal activity. That is not protected, and a university cannot protect discrimination on their own campus. That would not be allowed.

My favorite thing is that it does not outlaw the Bible. I have had folks who have said: If you put in the IHRA definition, it outlaws the Bible.

I have just smiled and said: That is absolutely ridiculous.

And it is not just me saying this. Christian leaders who I know all over the country say that is just a ridiculous statement.

There is a letter that just came out this week from Pastor John Hagee, who leads what is called CUFI, the national Christians United for Israel, and Ralph Reed, who is the leader of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. They have made this simple statement:

To the Biblically literate, claims that the Antisemitism Awareness Act is anti-Christian are as insulting as they are injurious.

I have made it very clear on this as well when people have asked me about this, to say that somehow the Antisemitism Awareness Act outlaws the Bible or limits speech around the Bible.

There is a statement in the IHRA definition that talks about using symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, and the examples are claims that ``Jews killing Jesus are blood libel'' to characterize Israel or Israelis. So they take that one statement and pull that out and say: See? You couldn't use the Bible.

I have laughed, and I have said: Well, I would just say not only have Pastor Hagee and others said this--and other faith leaders around--but let me add a voice to this as well. The Scripture is very clear from John 10 that Jesus laid his life down for others. He had the power to lay it down and the power to be able to take it up. That is Orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Christianity says: My sin is what put Jesus on the cross. That is what Scripture says.

What the IHRA definition says is, if someone is biased to say ``I hate all Jews because Jews killed Jesus,'' they are saying that that is an anti-Semitic statement to say that. I would also say it is not only inconsistent with the clear teachings of Scripture, but it is inconsistent with the faith practices of individuals.

Not only is the New Testament exceptionally clear about respect for Judaism, but the guy on the cross was Jewish. His mom at the foot of the cross was Jewish. The disciples were all Jewish. The people who wrote the New Testament were Jewish. So to somehow believe that Christianity would discount all Jews is to ignore the basic teachings of the New Testament, besides the basic fact that the Romans put Jesus on the cross.

So somehow to say that this discounts Scripture--that I have heard over and over again on social media over the past week--I think is absurd, No. 1, and as John Hagee and Ralph Reed have said, it actually is insulting and injurious.

There are folks who have said that there will be an international organization that is now going to police speech in the United States. I would encourage them to please read the legislation, not what is on social media, to be able to understand what this actually does. It does not give authority to an international organization to be able to step into the United States and be able to police speech. It is very clear.

It just says this is what discrimination looks like under title VI, just like we have discrimination laws in other areas wherein the Department of Education could not say: Well, it doesn't specifically outline religion in this area, and so if there is discrimination against Jewish students, we can look the other way. That would stop under this piece of legislation.

First things first: Let's actually have real dialogue as a country. Are we as a nation going to look the other way when students are discriminated against on a campus, or are we going to step in and say: ``No, we are not going to just look the other way when there is discrimination''? Because, as I go back to the statement from our State Department, history has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far behind. So let's speak out and stop it.

For individuals who want to have anti-Semitic beliefs, that is still legal in America to have an anti-Semitic belief. It is still protected as a right. I would say it is hateful, and I would say it is bigoted, but it is still your protected right to be able to have that belief. But, when that speech moves to threats of violence and intimidation, when it moves from a voice to an action, that is criminal activity, and we should treat it as such. We should not let it fester as criminal activity and think it will not spread. It will.

My final statement: For the folks who track through social media, where you see voices of anti-Semitism on social media, why don't you be bold enough to speak out for the people who are being bullied online and say every person has the right to their faith and to be able to live that faith and have that protected? We as Americans have the right to have any faith of our choosing, to change our faith, or to have no faith at all, and that would be protected. That should not be any less for Jewish students anywhere online or on their own campuses.

So let's speak out on their behalf. And instead of allowing them to be bullied on their campuses or online, why don't we speak out for their right to be able to live their faith and practice their faith as every other American? That is what I think we should do on college campuses, and that is a simple way we can honor the dignity of every student.

We are going to disagree. There are people who have strong disagreements with the war that is happening right now in Israel and in Gaza. So let's talk about it, but let's not discriminate while we do it.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source