Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Brown).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it would be helpful if peoples' motives or patriotism wasn't questioned. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schneider).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Tennessee an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), a very distinguished gentleman on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, this body has to make a decision about whether we are going to stand up for our constitutional responsibilities or just subordinate ourselves to the executive branch when it comes to war powers. We are two decades into the 21st century. Our country has been at war almost that entire time. Not a day goes by that I don't wish we could have some of those decisions back, especially because we see that those measures we passed in 2001 and 2002 are still being used to justify sending American men and women into harm's way. We could stand here all day and say your side let this happen when you were in charge, or you didn't say anything when this President did that. I don't disagree that it has been a collective failure on the part of this body that we have given away our authority on war powers and that we haven't done enough to grapple with the issue. I hope today will not be the end of our efforts to make progress on debating Congress' war powers. If the President thinks he needs to use military force, then he needs to come to Congress and make the case and let us vote on it. This is the beginning of Congress' taking back its authority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5377, to begin to repair some of the damage from the GPO's tax scam legislation which passed this House 2 years ago. I said it at the time, and I say it again: It is one of the worst bills I have ever seen, and it blows a hole in the budget. So much for fiscal responsibility on the other side of the aisle. One of the more egregious provisions in that bill was capping State and local tax deductions at $10,000. This deduction has been part of our tax code for over 150 years. This cap hurts my constituents, who often have property, income, and sales taxes exceeding $10,000. New Yorkers already pay more to the Federal Government as a donor State than we receive back. We receive only 84 cents for every dollar we send to Washington. This imbalance is greater than any other State and grows because of the SALT cap. Homeowners are already seeing home values decline because of the SALT cap. Earlier in this year, I introduced H.R. 515, with 20 of my colleagues, to repeal this harmful tax provision. I am pleased to see my New York colleague Mr. Suozzi's measure containing much of my bill here on the floor today. In conclusion, let me say we need to reverse some of the harm the GPO's tax scam bill has inflicted on so many Americans, especially my New York constituents. Support H.R. 5377, and let's be fair once and for all.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend. As chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have to say that this is a sad day. No one is gleeful that the President's actions have brought us to this point. But when you boil it down, we are here today because the President abused the power of his office to help his chances at reelection. He used the enormous weight of the Presidency and American foreign policy to push a foreign government to smear a political rival. And he got caught. Why is this conduct so serious? Why has the President's behavior pushed the House of Representatives to exercise one of its most consequential constitutional responsibilities? Because corrupting an American election, particularly in cahoots with a foreign power, means corrupting American democracy. Our elections are at the heart of our democracy, the foundation of what makes our system of government great, our Republic, if we can keep it, as Benjamin Franklin once said. If our elections aren't fair, then our Republic cannot stand. Anyone who tries to fix an election is taking away the power of the American people to choose their leaders. If it happens at any level of government, it is toxic to our democracy, and this came from the highest level. In this case, it is even more serious, because what was the President willing to give up for this advantage? What price was he willing to pay? The price was our national security. When the President devised a shadow foreign policy that undermined our diplomacy and diplomats; when he held back assistance for Ukraine, which was embroiled in a war against Russia; when he pressured a foreign government to interfere in our elections, again, he sacrificed our security. He shook the faith of a loyal ally. He played right into the hands of Vladimir Putin. He weakened our country all because he thought it might help his reelection bid. Only the President has that power to corrupt our foreign policy for political gain. The moment he chose to do so, the moment he undermined our security in this scheme to undermine our democracy, whether he succeeded or not--and thank God, he did not--at that moment, it became an abuse of power. A President who abuses his power for personal gain is exactly what the Framers feared. It is why impeachment is in the Constitution. We need to pass these articles. The President's actions have left us no choice. He cannot be allowed to undermine our democracy and tear apart the fabric that holds our country together. Madam Speaker, I will vote for impeachment.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an exchange of letters between me and the Chair of the Committee on Intelligence on S. 178, the Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act of 2019. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, December 2, 2019. Hon. Adam B. Schiff, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington,

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 741, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 326) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding United States efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 326, currently under consideration.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the measure we are considering today is something that ought to be straightforward. It is essentially a reiteration of our support for the consensus view that has prevailed for two decades on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two-state solution. This measure emphasizes that presidents of both parties and Israeli Prime Ministers have supported reaching the two-state solution that establishes a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel. President George W. Bush said clearly, ``My vision is two states living side by side in peace and security.'' And President Obama agreed that, ``There is little secret about where they must lead, two states for two peoples.'' Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, ``Israel remains fully committed to peace and the possibility of two states for two people.'' There are reasons, Mr. Speaker, so many of us have supported this approach for so long. A two-state solution would go a long way to ensure Israel's survival as a secure Jewish and democratic state, and it would fulfill the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a state of their own. The resolution we are considering underscores that a two-state solution puts us on the path toward these outcomes. It makes clear that any proposal to achieve a just, stable, and lasting solution to this conflict should likewise endorse a two-state solution. This is what we have been talking about for decades, Mr. Speaker, here on the House floor and at international gatherings, across administrations of both parties and Congresses, and premierships and Knessets of every stripe. This isn't controversial. At least it shouldn't be. This is nothing radical. We all know two states won't spontaneously appear tomorrow. The parties have a lot of work ahead of them, but every day we seem farther away from the goal. Some of the reasons are plain as can be. Violence and terrorism continue to come in waves. Hamas has rained down hundreds of rockets at populations across Israel, and there seems to be no end in sight. Palestinian leaders have not embraced their role as peacemaker. How can Israel sit down with people who pay off terrorists? But no one said peace was easy. To paraphrase the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, ``You don't make peace with your friends. You make peace with your enemies.'' I haven't lost hope, but the minute America abandons its leadership role in the two-state solution, that hope dwindles. We cannot get to the point where Israel's role as a Jewish and democratic state is at risk. So that is why we need to get back to what has rooted American policy toward the conflict for so long, what has guided our efforts. Now, let's look at the history, because a little bit of history is important. Back in 1947, the U.N. Security Council came up with Resolution 181, which partitioned the land into what they called a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted it. And the Palestinians, the Arabs, rejected it and tried to push Israel and the Jews into the sea. It didn't work. The war of independence happened. In 1948 Israel was declared a democracy and a nation state. And so we fast forward and we see what happened each time the Arab states rejected the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland on their land for many years. So when one side says, oh, we are being mistreated. I think they have to go back and look at how they reacted. Because, again, back in 1967, back in 1973, there was no so-called occupation, there was nothing that the Arabs object to today, and yet, they refused to make peace with Israel. So I think that we have to look at both sides and we have to say, you know, people who are protesting now and saying that there is no peace really should look at what their actions have been for these past years. Unfortunately, there has not been the leadership, in my opinion, in the Arab world to be able to make peace. That is why it is so important that this Congress do it. That is why it is so important that we put our heads together and try to say that constant war is not going to solve anything, but a two-state solution probably ultimately will. So that is why we need to get back to what has rooted American policy toward the conflict for so long, what has guided our efforts. Do you know what a one-state solution means? It means a state where Jews could become the minority in their own country. It means one Palestinian state with no determination for the Jewish people or for the Palestinians. Israel's right to exist as a state that is both Jewish and democratic is incompatible with a one-state solution, period. I would caution all Members to bear in mind that before making charges in this debate about who supports Israel and who doesn't, about who is turning this issue into a political football, there is no Member of this body who is a stronger supporter than I am of the U.S.-Israel relationship, of Israel's right to exist and defend itself. That is why I support this legislation, because I want to see peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I want Israel to have a secure and prosperous future. And I want to see American leadership brought to bear on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), the author of this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a distinguished member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a distinguished Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a valued member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).