Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, let me say that, if children around the world cannot get a basic education, it will obviously be that much harder for them to get ahead later on in life, to contribute to their economies and communities, to help build stability and prosperity, and to deprive violent extremists of potential recruits. I think that is an important point. At a time that we are fighting extremism, children who are uneducated are much more vulnerable to be swayed by the allure of violent extremists. That is why we have made expanding access to education a part of our foreign policy. With this legislation, we are building on existing efforts and making sure administrations--this one and ones to come-- will focus on this priority for many, many years to come. So, again, I want to thank Chairman Royce for always working with me hand in hand on important measures like this in a bipartisan fashion. I want to thank Congresswoman Lowey for her hard work. She has been championing this for many, many years. I support this bill enthusiastically and urge all Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I will close now if there are no speakers on the other side. If there is a speaker, then I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this measure. Let me start by thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon), the chair of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for offering this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this week the Kim regime in North Korea has again shown the world that it has no intention of abandoning its destabilizing and provocative pattern of behavior. The recent missile launches are a reminder that we must keep up the pressure on that rogue country. I am glad President Obama and President Park of South Korea met this week about these latest tests, and I am glad they agreed that the new U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang should be fully implemented. That meeting was a reminder that one of our best tools for dealing with North Korea is the United States-Japan-South Korea trilateral relationship. These ties allow our countries to coordinate more closely on security issues, to share intelligence more quickly and effectively, and to pack a bigger punch as we work to hold the Kim regime in North Korea accountable for its atrocious record and dangerous record and terrible record on human rights. I visited North Korea twice, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you the people of that country deserve much, much better. In my view, we should be looking for ways to work even more closely with South Korea and Japan; and we need to keep up the pressure on China and Russia to do more to address the challenge of North Korea. China can put pressure on North Korea. China is the only one that can control what North Korea does, and yet all we get is lip service. It is not acceptable. So I am glad to support this measure. It sends a message that Congress understands the value of this trilateral relationship as a cornerstone of regional stability. I thank Chairman Royce, and I thank Mr. Salmon for his hard work and leadership. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I, first of all, want to thank our chairman, Ed Royce, from California. He has worked very, very hard on this bill for a long, long time, so I am very pleased to support this bill that he has introduced to help expand access to the Internet around the world. I know how strongly he feels about it. We all share his goal, but he was the impetus, obviously, for this bill, and this is really a good bill. Mr. Speaker, a generation ago, few could have envisioned the way the Internet would open up new gateways for information, connect people around the world, and change the global economy. Today, a classroom with broadband access gives students a window to the rest of the world, allowing them to build relationships face-to- face with people thousands and thousands of miles away. A relief worker with a smartphone can relay information in an instant about where help and resources are needed to deal with a crisis. A farmer with a laptop can make sure his or her produce is fetching a fair price on the global market. A journalist in a closed society who can get online can shine a light on abuses and corruption. And while we know this tool can be used for harm, such as the way ISIS uses social media to recruit fighters and spread propaganda, we also know that, in the right hands, the Internet expands opportunity, drives growth, and makes people's lives fuller and more productive. The ripple effects help strengthen communities and countries. But like so many resources around the world, access to the Internet often depends on where you live and what you have and if you can afford it. Living in a poor community or a rural area, or even being a woman in some places, may make it harder to take advantage of the Internet. Roughly 60 percent of the world's population is not able to use this tool, and the growth rate of Internet access is slowing down. Three- quarters of those who are offline live in just 20 countries. Think of what a difference it would make if these populations had access to a resource so many of us take for granted. This bill aims to close that gap. Chairman Royce's legislation calls on the administration to ramp up efforts around the world to expand access to the Internet. It encourages the State Department, USAID, and the Peace Corps to focus on Internet access as a diplomatic and developmental priority; and it states clearly, expanding Internet access, especially in the developing world, is an American foreign policy priority. I applaud Chairman Royce for doing this, and I am glad to support this measure. I want to also thank two staff persons for their hard work: Nilmini Rubin on the majority's staff, and Janice Kaguyutan on our side. They both worked very, very hard, and I think they deserve special mention. So I urge all my colleagues to support this very important bill. I, again, commend Chairman Royce for working so hard on it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I said before, the way the Internet has changed the world would have been hard to believe just a few decades ago. It would also have been hard to believe that we would be thinking of the Internet as a foreign policy priority, but we can and we should. Today, we know that the Internet has driven so much of the interconnectedness that we now see across the global landscape, so it is important that our foreign policy keep up with these changes. We want to see this tool used in a positive way by as many people as possible, while guarding against abuses or exploitation by those who mean to harm us. This bill helps us move in the right direction. Again, I am grateful to the chairman for bringing it forward. I am glad to support it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is clear that Vladimir Putin has no regard for his neighbor's sovereignty, and I think we should be doing more to push back against Russia's aggression. We also need to take every chance we get to make clear that his past bad behavior is not acceptable. Russia's illegal occupation, as we have said of Georgia, has gone on for too long. He has occupied other places as well: Moldova, Crimea, and Ukraine, which is part of Crimea. If we just let him do this, there will be no end in sight. The United States has to really be strong about this. I am glad we are sending this message today that we stand with the people of Georgia. We want to see their country made whole again, and we will never accept Russia's illegal claims. I am glad to support this measure. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Again, this is a bipartisan resolution because we all oppose aggression, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia should not be occupied. It should go back and be part of the rest of the country in a free and independent Georgia. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of this measure. I am glad that Mr. Poe said, ``That is just the way it is,'' because I agree. It is just the way it is. I agree with everything he says, and I want to thank him and Mr. Connolly for their work on this very timely resolution. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that Russian President Vladimir Putin is doing everything in his power to steamroll the efforts of the U.S. and our allies over many decades to build a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace; and we shouldn't forget that the illegal occupation of Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine isn't the first time he has trampled on his neighbors' territorial integrity. Last month, we marked 8 years since Russian troops moved into Georgia, where they remain to this day. Now, I believe keeping Georgia out of NATO in 2008 was a terrible mistake, and, indeed, then-President Medvedev cited the alliance's failure to put out the welcome mat for Georgia as a signal that Russia needed to push across the border. Yet, even with its sovereignty fractured for eight years, Georgia will soon write another chapter in its history of freedom and democracy by holding parliamentary elections. We went to a celebration--and, I believe Mr. Poe was there-- celebrating the 25th anniversary of freedom from communism by Georgia. Your heart really has to go out to the Georgian people and what they have been able to accomplish under very, very adverse circumstances. Georgia was a part of the Soviet Union for so many years. It was clear that they didn't wish to be, but they were forced to be. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed, Georgia, of course, was an independent country and declared so, but that wasn't good enough for Mr. Putin. So the resolution we are considering today reaffirms the commitment of the United States to our partners in Georgia. We believe that Georgia's territorial integrity should be restored, just as with Ukraine. We do not recognize Russia's occupation of parts of that country as legitimate, and we never will. I think we have to state that again. The Russian occupation of parts of Georgia is illegal, and Georgia should remain whole and free, and the Russians ought to get out. We view Georgia's democracy and vibrant society as a beacon in an increasingly challenging part of the world, and we continue to believe that the door should be open to Georgia to work with us. I continue to believe that the door should remain open to Georgia for both NATO and the EU membership. I am glad to support this resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a Bronx community leader, icon, and hero, Mr. James O'Neill, who passed away suddenly on July 17, 2016 at the age of 59. James, or Jimmy as he was known, lived a life that was dedicated fully to service. He was born and raised in the Bronx and attended Visitation School as well as Cardinal Hayes High School where he graduated. Jimmy then joined the New York Police Department in November of 1979 where he rose to the rank of Sergeant Supervisor as a member of Mayor Rudy Giuliani's personal protective detail before retiring in 2000. But retirement did not slow Jimmy down. After the devastation of 9/11 he sought to bring personal remembrance to his adopted home in Carmel, NY. Jimmy and his band of brothers in Carmel erected a memorial to the members of Putnam County who lost their lives that day. Each year since, he has coordinated the memorial remembrance faithfully attended each year by so many. He renamed the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 704 to the Stephen P. Driscoll Memorial Lodge. And although Jimmy left the Bronx, his heart never did. He was a founding member of the New York Shields, an organization that coined the motto, ``Cops for Cops.'' Every year at the Marina del Ray in The Bronx a service was held to remember those who gave their lives in service to the community. He was passionate that their names would be remembered and their memories protected and respected. Of course for all of his accomplishments, Jimmy's greatest legacy is his family. He is survived by his wife, Kathy, his son, James Jr., two brothers, four sisters, and seven nieces and nephews. Jimmy O'Neill was an icon in every community he was ever involved with. His empathy, compassion, and selflessness will forever stand as a shining example of what it means to be a member of one's community. I want to offer my deepest condolences to his entire family, and say that although we have lost a great man, his memory and the incredible work he did in life will surely stand the test of time and live forever.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an organization that has served our veteran community with great distinction for 40 years, the National Association of Black Military Women. The NABMW is an association of women located throughout the country who are veterans or current members of the United States Armed Forces. The group was founded in July of 1976, when a group of 21 women who served in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) and Women's Army Corps (WAC) during World War II, Korean and Vietnam wars got together at Lucille Brown's house in Hampton, Virginia. At this chartered meeting, the group decided to locate and invite other former service women to a first reunion that was held in 1978 in Dallas, Texas. Ever since, Biennial Reunions have continued to be held all through the country, where members discuss many of the issues facing the veteran community of black military women. The NABMW mission, ``To seek out, record, maintain and tell the history and heritage of African- American Military Women who served and are serving in the United States Armed Forces'' is as strong and power today on the organization's 40th anniversary as it was on the very first. This year, NABMW is holding their biennial conference from August 10- 14. I want to congratulate the entire organization on the occasion and thank them for their service.

Mr. ENGEL

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to this measure. Mr. Speaker, I just walked here from our hearing room where the Foreign Affairs Committee marked up 13 measures. We had a committee meeting this morning. Some were written by Republicans, some by Democrats. When these bills and resolutions were first introduced, a lot of Members had questions and concerns. But the committee went to work ironing out differences, and now all 13 pieces of legislation have been favorably reported with bipartisan support. That is how our committee works. That is how our chairman, Ed Royce, runs things. That is why we say that the Foreign Affairs Committee is the most bipartisan committee in the entire Congress, and I am proud of that as a ranking member. I believe, and we believe, that partisanship should end at the water's edge. When it comes to fighting for our country, there should be no Democrats and Republicans. We should be working together on this. Partisanship should end at the water's edge. And that is our best how we legislate, especially when it comes to advancing American interests and security overseas. So it is rather jarring, Mr. Speaker, to walk onto the floor to debate the majority leader's bill--80 pages of new sanctions on the Iranian regime, introduced literally in the middle of the night last week, rammed through the Rules Committee, brought to the floor without any chance to improve it or any input from the Foreign Affairs Committee. That is a disappointment, Mr. Speaker, because there are plenty of us on both sides of the aisle who think we should be doing more to hold Iran's leaders accountable for their bad behavior. After all, Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. Iran props up the Assad regime, detains Americans on trumped-up charges, and has racked up the worst record on human rights you could imagine. Congress could speak with a unified voice on these issues, but not with the bill we are considering today. I don't like the regime. Everyone knows I oppose the deal with Iran. I think if we work together, we can move forward on legislation; but not this way, not ramming it through the Rules Committee so it doesn't get to the Foreign Affairs Committee and it gets to the floor where nobody had any kind of input whatsoever. That is not how we should be running this house. So it is not with the bill we are considering today. My friends on the other side know that. This isn't a serious bill. It would force the United States to violate our obligations under the nuclear deal. Now, I think that is a mistake. As I said before, I opposed the Iran nuclear deal, but I was on the losing side of that debate. We shouldn't relitigate this issue. We shouldn't have 62 votes again and again to try to upend this issue, like we do with the Affordable Care Act. We should not relitigate this issue. Our work now should be to hold Iran to its obligations and make sure the deal is being fully implemented. One of the ways we could do this is to ensure there is a viable snapback of sanctions if Iran violates the deal. That is why I have been saying we should reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act before it expires by the end of the year. But here in front of us in this 80-page bill, what is missing? A reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act. That shows me that this isn't a serious undertaking. Regardless of what I think, we know that this bill has zero chance of becoming law. It most certainly won't pass the Senate. If it did, the White House would veto it. So we can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, that this is a political exercise, and that troubles me. One of our greatest traditions in American foreign policy is that politics and partisanship stop at the water's edge. That principle has been especially true in the way Congress has dealt with Iran in recent years. That principle has guided our work on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Maybe that is why the Foreign Affairs Committee was cut out of this process. We have avoided letting foreign policy turn to everyday politics. But make no mistake, what we are doing today is politics, plain and simple. I worry about that precedent. I worry about what it means when Iran sees us playing politics with global security, when Iran's leaders see us engage in political grandstanding instead of serious policymaking. I also worry about what it means for the Foreign Affairs Committee. Our committee's jurisdiction gives us oversight of diplomacy, development, foreign assistance, war powers. Yet, here we are debating a major, major sanctions bill that never passed through the doors of our committee room. Yesterday, the House voted on another Iran bill that completely bypassed our committee as well. The House just approved the Defense Authorization Act that includes dozens of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Who knows how many foreign policy riders will find their way into our spending bills this year, all without the Foreign Affairs Committee saying a word. This is a bad trend, Mr. Speaker. This is not regular order, which the Speaker promised us. By the way, I wonder what our friends in the Freedom Caucus and Liberty Caucus have to say about the process that got this bill to the floor. I wonder what happened to the Speaker's commitment to regular order that put the gavel in his hands in the first place. I didn't see a lot of concern over regular order as this bill was being rushed through the Rules Committee. We have a legislative process that cut out the most experienced legislators on this issue. We have an important foreign policy concern turned into a political football. We have a bill that has no chance of becoming law. I am starting to think this has something to do with the calendar. Today, when we finish our business, Members will rush to the exits. But next week, many of my friends on the other side will descend on Cleveland for their convention. Now, let me say a bit with tongue and cheek that I sympathize with my friends on the other side. Their standard-bearer has some pretty unusual ideas about foreign policy. He thinks more countries should get nuclear weapons. He wants to withdraw from our alliances. He thinks we ought to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and start a trade war with China. He looks to people like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong- un, and Saddam Hussein as apparent role models. If I were in the majority's shoes, I would want to change the conversations, too. But this bill is the way to do it. This bill doesn't make the majority appear strong on foreign policy. It only makes Congress appear to be divided on issues on which we cannot afford division. This bill weakens us as a Congress when Congress should be finding ways to make Americans safer. I oppose this measure, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a very respected and hardworking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic whip.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), a very hardworking and respected member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You know, the question is not whether Iran is a good player. Iran is not a good player. The question is: What should be our response to it? It is not a question of whether the Iranian regime is good or bad. Of course it is bad. I opposed the Iran deal. The question is: How do we react to it? Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity to work on meaningful legislation that would have held Iran's feet to the fire and ensured the nuclear deal was being fully, fairly implemented. It could have been a reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act. It could have been another bipartisan approach. But, instead, we are going to vote on this bill, which will pass mostly on partisan lines, and then skip town for 7 weeks. I think that is a shame, because I don't think we have done our job. And there is no job more important than protecting America's security. Ramming through partisan bills that don't stand a chance of becoming law is just irresponsible. It diminishes Congress' role in making foreign policy. It certainly diminishes the Foreign Affairs Committee's role. So I hope when we return from the break we can hit the reset button on the way we deal with these issues. I think it is important for us to work together in a bipartisan fashion. As I have said so many times on this floor, it has been a pleasure working with Chairman Royce on the committee in a bipartisan fashion. Give the committee a chance to formulate a bill that will hold Iran's feet to the fire. It is a terrible regime. It is a bloody regime. We are all united on both sides of the aisle in wanting to confront that regime. The question is how to do it. You don't do it by ramming through a partisan bill. You do it by working in a bipartisan fashion. For now, we should reject this bill, go back to the drawing board, and work together to confront the Iranian murderous regime. They are a regime that we need to confront. Nobody disagrees on that on both sides of the aisle. The question is: Should we do it together? Let's do it together. The Foreign Affairs Committee has been a bipartisan mecca of how Congress should work. Let's go back to that, particularly with foreign policy. Let's go back to that. So I urge my colleagues to reject the bill. We have good people on both sides of the aisle. We all want to see the same thing. Let's put our heads together and come up with a consensus and confront Iran. Reject the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a very respected member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, do you remember when you were kids in school, and there was this big chart, and you learned how a bill becomes a law? It told you that somebody proposes an idea, and if it gets a majority in committee, it moves on. Then it gets to the floor of the House, and if it gets a majority, it moves on to the other body. Then, if it gets a majority, it goes to the President's desk, and the President signs it. Take that chart and throw it away because that is not what happens here. We can't get a vote on the floor on gun control. We can't get the people's will listened to. Whether it is gun control or Flint, Michigan, or the Zika virus or anything, we can't get a vote. All we are saying to the Republican leadership is to give us a vote-- up or down, win or lose. The American people want to know where their legislators stand. This is a pressing issue. For us to ignore it is shameful and disgraceful. This young man, Seth Rich, was just murdered--a young man here who worked in politics. We owe it to his life, to his remembrance, and to all of the other victims of gun violence. We need an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House.

Mr. ENGEL

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