Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank Mr. Smith for his work on this legislation. Mr. Smith, through the years, has done great work on so many issues. I think he is the only one on the Foreign Affairs Committee that has actually been there longer than I have. We have collaborated on a good many projects, bipartisan projects, through the years. I thank Mr. Smith for being such a good member of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation. It is very important. It is very important for our country. It is very important for the world. I urge all my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5586) to measure the progress of recovery and development efforts in Haiti and the strength of democracy and rule of law in the country, as amended.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the author of this important bill, the chair of our Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from New York, even though it is Brooklyn.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I once again thank Mr. Jeffries for authoring this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to recognize one of my constituents, Reverend Dr. Alfred Gordon, who has served the City of Mount Vernon, New York for more than 50 years in ministry. Reverend Dr. Alfred Gordon has served our nation both through his service in the United States Marine Corps and through his work in ministry improving the quality of life for the people of Mount Vernon, especially our most vulnerable populations. In honor of his 86th birthday, it is my privilege to acknowledge the work he has done to better his community and his contribution to our nation as a whole. He has set a high standard for civic engagement and service to one's community, and he is a well-respected and integral part of the City of Mount Vernon. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Reverend Dr. Alfred Gordon on this special occasion.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate all those who lost their lives in the Holocaust and honor the memory of those who were so brutally murdered in the atrocities that took place between 29- 30 September 1941 at Babyn Yar in Ukraine. It is of great importance to me to bring this issue to the attention of the United States Congress because of my Jewish heritage and family ties to Ukraine, but also to shine a light on one of the darkest chapters in our shared history. The past must never be forgotten, and the lessons we learn, especially the painful ones, should guide us to a better future. As we see a resurgence of antisemitism and Holocaust denial across the world, and when there are fewer and fewer living survivors to tell the story first hand, it is essential that we learn the tragedies of the past and educate future generations so we can prevent these events from never happening again. Today, it is critically important to remember one of the Holocaust's most oft-forgotten horrors--the massacre that took place at Babyn Yar in Ukraine and in other Eastern Europe countries, silenced for so long by the former Soviet Union. The massacre of Kyiv's Jews at Babyn Yar was one of the largest mass killings by the Nazi regime at a single location during World War II. It is incumbent upon us to remember the sorrow and grief of the victims and their families of the Babyn Yar massacre, and I commend the Ukrainian people for coming together to deal with this tragedy and commemorate the horrific atrocity at Babyn Yar. In honor of the 79th anniversary of the horrifying massacres at Babyn Yar, where it was officially estimated that up to 100,000 people were murdered during the Nazi occupation of Kyiv from 1941 to 1943, I rise today to honor all those who lost their lives, remind our colleagues and the world of the tremendous evil that took place at Babyn Yar, and commend the people of Ukraine for their commitment to remembering these horrific events. We must continue to stand up and say, ``never again.'' A review of the timeline of events surrounding the Babyn Yar tragedy are an important part of our solemn duty to ensure that terrible events like these can never happen again: On September 19, 1941, Axis forces occupied Kyiv. A week later, the Nazi occupational government and SS leadership convened at Rear Headquarters Army Group South and made the decision to exterminate the Jews of Kyiv. On September 28, 1941, the Nazi occupiers of Kyiv posted the following notice: ``All [Jews] living in the city of Kiev and its vicinity are to report by 8 o'clock on the morning of Monday, September 29, 1941, at the corner of Melnykova and Dokterivska Streets (near the cemeteries). They are to take with them documents, money, valuables, as well as warm clothes, underwear, etc. Any [Jew] not carrying out this instruction and who is found elsewhere will be shot. Any civilian entering homes vacated by [Jews] and stealing property will be shot''. On September 29-30, 1941, the eve of Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in Judaism, 33,771 Jewish civilians were shot and killed by machine-gun fire at Babyn Yar, a ravine northwest of Kyiv. Between September and early October 1941, about 38,000 Jews were murdered at or near Babyn Yar; and the total Jewish death toll there until the Nazi retreat was around 40,000. When Nazi forces retreated from the Soviet Union, they attempted to hide evidence of the massacres at Babyn Yar by exhuming the bodies and burning them, but in 1991, the government of independent Ukraine erected a monument in the shape of a menorah dedicated to the Jewish victims at Babyn Yar. Sadly, the names of many of these civilians who perished have been lost forever.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4861, the Effective Suicide Screening and Assessment in the Emergency Department Act. Before I tell why, I want to thank my good friend Mr. Pallone from New Jersey. We came to Congress together a long while ago, and we have worked very closely together. And I want to thank Mr. Walden. He said I am thoughtful. He is one of the most thoughtful Members in Congress. He reaches across the aisle, and we have made a lot of great progress, and the country is so much better having people with that kind of temperament to reach across the aisle. I thank the gentleman for all the kind words. They really mean a lot. I authored this legislation with my colleague, Gus Bilirakis, to help reduce rates of suicide in the United States. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. It claimed more than 47,000 lives in 2017, alone. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, the suicide rate in the U.S. increased by an alarming 31 percent from 2001 to 2017. In this time of COVID, where the pandemic has taken an untold physical and emotional toll on Americans' health, officials are reporting surges in mental and behavioral health problems. Studies show that as many as 11 percent of all patients visiting a hospital emergency department are at risk for suicide, but only a fraction of these at-risk patients are ever identified. Our bill aims to improve the identification, assessment, and treatment of patients in emergency departments who are at high risk of suicide. It provides $100 million over a 5-year period to support emergency department programs to prevent suicides specifically by: Training emergency department clinicians to identify patients with an elevated risk of suicide; Developing programs to coordinate care and follow-up of those with an elevated risk of suicide; Supporting the recruitment and retainment of behavioral health professionals who specialize in treating individuals with suicidal tendencies; and Incentivizing the development of new approaches, such as telehealth, to help those at high risk of suicide. Our legislation has been endorsed by over 40 mental health advocacy groups, including: the Emergency Nurses Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, The Kennedy Forum, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Mental Health America. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I first thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) for really terrific work on this. He did so much to move this forward, and it was a pleasure having our staffs work together, and I thank him very much for that. Mr. Speaker, for years, I have been sounding the alarm on Nord Stream 2. I have warned about the dangers of allowing Putin and Russia to strengthen their hand by making Europe more dependent on Russian energy. I have supported dozens of other efforts to hold Putin accountable and demand that there be consequences for his aggression. If I thought this amendment would ratchet up pressure on Putin and his cronies, I would be the first to support it. Instead, I believe this measure lets Putin off the hook while placing all the consequences for Nord Stream 2 on our friends and allies. I think it is just a wrong direction to go. If we are serious about making Putin pay a price, we should defeat this amendment and go back to the drawing board. I won't call for a vote by the yeas and nays on this measure, but I will oppose it, and I urge all Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let's be clear, if our aim is to push back on Russian aggression and hold Vladimir Putin accountable, this amendment will accomplish none of that. Nord Stream 2 is a menace to peace and security in Europe, period. It is Putin's transparent attempt to make Europe more dependent on Russian energy, to tighten Russia's grip, and to put down deeper roots to fracture European resolve. If we want to disrupt Nord Stream 2, where should we turn up the heat? On Russia. On Putin and the oligarchs who stand to reap billions with this. What does this amendment do? It goes after our allies. It targets German companies, European enterprises, maybe even Americans. But consequences for Russia? Forget about it. Spit on our closest friends, let Russia off the hook, it doesn't seem right to me. Sound familiar? It is the same refrain we have heard again and again. This is not good, and it should not pass. How are we even debating this? The amendments I offered with Chairwoman Waters to address Russian bounties on American lives and pushing back on Russian election interference? Out of order. Nobody would go along with those. The measure Chairman Schiff and I authored to prevent the collapse of the New START treaty, the last remaining safeguard on Russia expanding its nuclear arsenal unchecked? Out of order. The Republicans and Democrats loved this treaty when it was ratified. There was cross-party support for nuclear modernization, but they are offering a collective shrug now that the clock is ticking on its expiration. Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act has long stood as a pillar of bipartisanship in advancing our security interests, but right now, the Republicans seem to be backing out of this. So guess what? We have to make sure that certain priorities are not passed because that is not the direction we should go in. I am the chairman of the most bipartisan committee in Congress, and that is too high a price to pay for bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment that we passed already, but I wanted to give my strong support for it. Earlier this year, despite opposition from Congress and our allies, the administration withdrew from the treaty. I don't think that was the right thing to do. When it comes to Putin and when it comes to Russia, we have much reason to be afraid of moves that Putin is always plotting and planning. I think the Open Skies Treaty was a good treaty, and I think it was a big mistake to pull out of it.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, New York has been ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic. My constituents in New Rochelle, New York, were in the original New York hotspot and have suffered greatly, both health-wise and economically. I have worked tirelessly since the last CARES Act to help my constituents and bring as many resources as I can back to the Bronx and Westchester. This includes about $5 billion for hard-hit New York hospitals and $76 million for New York's community health centers. With today's vote, the House makes clear its commitment to continue helping the heroes of this pandemic and our State even further. The HEROES Act finally makes whole our State and local governments with nearly $34 billion in funding for New York and an additional $32 billion for local assistance. It provides billions in hazard pay for the brave frontline workers who have kept us going through this crisis, and also allocates billions more for the three T's, testing, tracing, and treatment, keys to reviving our economy. The bill also includes provisions I specifically requested and authored, including an additional $5 billion in education funding for New York to help prevent layoffs and program cuts, provisions to protect the medical supply chain, and increased Medicaid payments for safety-net New York hospitals. What is more, New York will benefit greatly from the provision in this bill which repeals SALT, the caps on State and local taxes deductions, something we have fought hard for since the GOP tax scam passed 3 years ago. In addition to the already mentioned provisions, there is an additional $175 billion in housing aid, including the $100 billion in rental assistance that I and other New Yorkers called for; extended unemployment benefits through January 2021; more direct stimulus payments to Americans; and billions in funding for hospitals and the Postal Service. There are pension provisions in this bill which are controversial to some groups, and I am hopeful this can be resolved in conference. I was pleased to see property service workers included under the Pandemic Premium Pay for the Essential Workers section. These workers, like janitors, security officers, residential door persons, and others, are often overlooked, but are crucial in keeping buildings and facilities up and running. Please vote ``yes.''

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we know that so many critical national security threats require a global, coordinated response. We know that we're stronger when we work with our international partners to face challenges head-on. And we know that the United States has a vital global leadership role to during international crises. Today, those principles should guide our response to this pandemic. The rapid spread of COVID-19---an infectious disease that knows no borders--has presented us with unprecedented challenge and heartbreak. We need a path forward for the United States and countries around the world to get on the road toward rebuilding and recovery. More than 50,000 Americans have died from coronavirus. It's painfully clear that the Administration should have done more to prepare for this pandemic and protect our citizens. There is so much more we have to do to keep Americans safe and our communities healthy moving forward. We need more testing. We need to support our doctors and nurses. We need to help those who provide our food and those who keep us safe. But, we simply can't do those things effectively if we bury our heads in the sand and wall ourselves off from the rest of the world. Our world is interconnected. Fighting the coronavirus for America means making sure other countries can effectively fight the pandemic, as well. The United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres summed it up well: ``We are only as strong as the weakest health system in our interconnected world.'' That's why the Trump Administration's decision to cut funding for the World Health Organization is so counterproductive. The WHO plays a vital role in supporting and enforcing international health regulations, educating the public, and strengthening the ability of health systems--particularly those in the developing world--to prevent, detect, and respond to outbreaks. This is precisely the time that we need the WHO most. Instead, the Administration is stopping all our funding--just like shutting down the fire department in the middle of a blaze. Retreating from global health institutions at this time only makes it harder for us to combat COVID-19, putting our national security and American lives at risk. When America pulls away from the world, others will fill the void. China is already providing relief and support to countries now on the brink of their own crises--particularly in Africa and the developing world. And, Beijing pledged an additional $30 million to the WHO just as Trump suspended American funds to the world body. The United States must act to preserve the critical development gains we helped drive, from basic education to access to clean water to free and fair elections. lf we want to see the world recover in a way that strengthens our economy, national security, and environment--in a way that promotes and preserves the values of freedom and democracy which we hold dear--in a way that raises up impoverished people--we need to lead it in that direction. Now is the time for American global leadership. Now is the time to recognize our interconnected world and work with our partners to save lives in countries near and far. Now is the time to move forward for America and the world.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 891, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 68) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material in the Record related to S.J. Res. 68, currently under consideration.

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, a resolution that will allow Congress to stand up for its constitutional responsibilities over war powers, a resolution that will send a clear message that the American people don't want war with Iran and that Congress has not authorized war with Iran. In the few months since the House last took up legislation to address the administration's policy toward Iran, much has shifted. I think we are all relieved that tensions have ratcheted down. After the strike that took out Qasem Soleimani, we appeared to be on the brink of a direct conflict with Iran, but things have cooled off since. Some will say this resolution is no longer needed or has no legal effect because we are not shooting at Iran today. They say we are not in hostilities with Iran. But that is not an accurate reading of the law. The drafters of the War Powers Resolution accounted for the situation we are in today. They were clear that Congress' powers are not as narrow as the administration would like us to believe and, apparently, as some Members of this body would like us to believe. The committee report from 1973 says, ``In addition to a situation in which fighting actually has begun, hostilities also encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict.'' That sounds a lot like what we are facing today, except shots have been fired on both sides. Further, the President had to send 6,000 additional troops to the Middle East after the Soleimani incident, precisely because there is a clear and present danger of armed conflict. Congress doesn't have to wait until the President alone decides to use military force again. Indeed, it is our responsibility to do something because we know that tensions could flare up again at a moment's notice. Iran has not been deterred, as the administration promised. Indeed, there have already been four attacks on American personnel after the President ordered Soleimani's killing, injuring more than 100 U.S. servicemembers. This isn't deterrence. The regime is again pushing ahead with research into a nuclear weapon and expanding its stockpile of enriched uranium. Now, I don't like the Iranian Government. I don't like what they stand for. I don't like what they do. But the reality is this: Following the strike, we are now closer to a war with a country that is closer to possessing a nuclear weapon. The last few weeks have also shown the administration scrambling to come up with a legal justification for the strike. Contrary to the initial claims, it quickly became clear that there was no imminent threat. In fact, when the administration sent a legally required report to Congress, laying out the legal and policy justifications, there was no mention of an imminent threat--none whatsoever. What was in that report, however, was an alarming claim that underscores why it is so important to press ahead with this resolution. According to the administration, the strike on Soleimani was legally authorized by the 2002 Saddam Hussein war authorization. Let me say that again: the 2002 Saddam Hussein, Iraq war authorization. Madam Speaker, I was here in 2002 when the House considered that resolution, and I can tell you: Congress did not intend for it to authorize a war against Iran. Read it. Nowhere will you find any mention of Iran. Incidentally, the House has voted to repeal this out-of-date war authorization, thanks to Congresswoman Lee's efforts, which I have supported. I have heard some arguments that the 2002 authorization wasn't just about Saddam, but was also about terrorism, because that legislation says Saddam Hussein might give al-Qaida weapons of mass destruction. That finding was debunked a long time ago, and it still has nothing to do with Iran. Some also claim that because the forces in Iraq under the 2001 and 2002 war authorizations have acted in self-defense against Iraqi militias backed by Iran, that somehow means that the 2002 AUMF can be used to attack Iran directly. Anyone who is confused about this needs to read the administration's legal rationale more closely. They have been all over the map, trying to untangle this confusion, but their official justification is clear. It distinguishes the Soleimani killing from the defensive actions taken against militias--apples and oranges. The administration, and any administration, should not be relying on the 2002 AUMF for anything, but we should all be able to recognize that attacking Iran is very different from other uses of force in Iraq. It is an absurd reading of the authorization, and if the administration is going to lean on that outdated law for this, what else do they plan to use it for? Some executive branch officials, past and present, also argue that the Constitution gives the President sweeping unilateral power to use military force without coming to Congress. I will say that again: without coming to Congress. But even among this group, it is hard to find anyone who actually believes Congress authorized the strike against Soleimani. What has me worried is that the President made a decision to escalate tensions with Iran; failed to consult Congress, even though he had ample opportunity to do so; misled the American people about why the strike was necessary; and then switched gears and conjured up this dubious, after-the-fact legal justification. Here is the reality: The American people don't want war with Iran. The Congress has not authorized war with Iran. That should be crystal clear. Congress has the right to declare war. It is in the Constitution. It doesn't say that the President has the right, any President. It doesn't say the President has the right; Congress has the right. We are trying to fulfill the Constitution. We are trying to take the Constitution back to the way it was and the way it was interpreted. Congress has the power to declare war. Many of us are very concerned that since December 7, 1941, when President Franklin Roosevelt stood up and declared war against Japan, we have not had a declared war since then. So, what has that done? It has really rendered Congress impotent. Congress, essentially, has no say, and the President is the one who decides unilaterally. That cannot be. That should not be. It is going directly against the Constitution, and we should not stand for it any longer. So, as I said, the American people don't want war. Congress has not authorized war. That should be crystal clear. However, since the administration is somehow claiming that Congress has already authorized force against Iran, then it becomes that much more important for Congress to go on record saying otherwise, and that is what this joint resolution would do. We passed a similar measure in January. At the time, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that the House version was unenforceable because it was a concurrent resolution, that it would never go to the President's desk and wouldn't have the power of law. I disagreed with that assessment. In my view, the House version was a clear exercise of Congress' authority over war powers. We don't have authority over war powers only if the President says so. We have authority over war powers because the Constitution says so. The House and Senate have both acted, and the Supreme Court has made clear that the President's Article II war powers are at their lowest ebb when he acts against the express will of Congress. We have expressed our will. The President does not have authority for war with Iran. But the legislation we are considering today takes a step further. It is a joint resolution, not a concurrent resolution, so it will go straight to the President's desk if it passes the House unamended. It is important that Congress stands up for itself, but more important is that Congress stands up for its constitutional authorities and makes it clear that we don't want war and that we haven't authorized war with Iran. Advancing this measure would be the right thing to do under any circumstances, but it is especially important in the face of an administration that, again and again, tries to brush Congress aside as though we are an annoyance rather than a constitutionally coequal branch of government. Now, I will be honest and say that this has been done by subsequent administrations on both sides of the aisle. Well, we don't want it done by any administration. Congress has the power to declare war--not a President, Congress. We are not an annoyance; we are a constitutionally coequal branch of government. I am glad to support this measure. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have said all along that this is not a partisan issue, and it isn't. Executive branch officials from both parties have tried to sideline Congress when it comes to war. It is time we said: ``Enough.'' It may be in the executive branch's interest to keep Congress out, but that doesn't make it legal or make it right. Madam Speaker, no one in this body mourns Qasem Soleimani, certainly not me. No one doubts that he was a hardened terrorist with the blood of Americans and others on his hands. But that is not the issue before us today. The issue is that the Trump administration decided to kill him without authorization from Congress, without any prior consultation with Congress, then misled the American people about why that was necessary. And then, when the administration's explanation couldn't withstand scrutiny, they tell us Congress had already authorized military action against Iran. Madam Speaker, I think we would know if we had voted to authorize military action against Iran. Those aren't the kinds of votes you easily forget. So, today, we will vote on this resolution and send it to the President's desk. And it carries with it a very clear, very important message: Congress has not authorized war, and Congress has not authorized war against Iran. It is remarkable that we even need to say this, but as is often the case, up is down, down is up, laws don't matter, and Congress doesn't matter because the Constitution doesn't matter.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, before I close, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.