Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the horrific attacks and murder that happened in Jerusalem today should be condemned by all people of goodwill. Four rabbis were praying in the synagogue, and in marched Palestinian thugs and murderers with meat cleavers and other weapons and horrifically murdered these four people who were in the midst of prayer. Three of the four people who were killed were American citizens, and our hearts go out to each and every one of their families. One of the gentlemen who was murdered is the brother-in-law of a prominent rabbi in my district. The rabbi in my district is Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt. We learned this morning that his brother-in-law was one of the victims. Mr. Speaker, I favor a two-state solution in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but Palestinians must know that they will never have their state on the backs of terror. They will never achieve statehood on the backs of terror. The more they use terror to try to achieve their political aims, the more that it will not happen. So I take the floor today with all people of goodwill in condemning these horrific murders. Terror has no place. These wanton acts of terror and murder need to be condemned by all people of goodwill. There is no justification whatsoever for these barbarous acts.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, as we and our allies deal with the numerous problems caused by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, we should not lose sight of the 10-year legal battle against Putin's illegal expropriation of Yukos Oil Company. After Yukos was privatized and stock was sold to investors in the United States and Europe, Putin manufactured a spurious tax claim against Yukos and manipulated the Russian legal system to seize the company's assets, most of which were turned over to Rosneft, a Putin-allied oil company. For 10 years, representatives of the 55,000 Yukos shareholders have pursued judgments against the Russian Federation and compensation for their financial losses. In July, 2014, this massive legal effort culminated in two judgments in European courts in favor of the claimants and against the Russian government. In the first case, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that the Russian government must pay $51.6 billion to the largest Yukos shareholder, GML, Ltd, for what the court found was Russia's illegal confiscation of Yukos. In the second case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Russian government must pay $2.5 billion in partial compensation to the Yukos shareholders who were registered owners of the company at the time of the illegal tax proceedings used to forcibly bankrupt Yukos. In both cases, the Russian government has an opportunity to appeal the rulings. Moreover, Russia could simply refuse to comply with the compensation orders. However, the two court rulings, if upheld, hold the possibility that the Russian government will be compelled to make some compensation, through seizure of Russian assets that come within the jurisdiction of the European authorities. Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian government unfortunately has taken major steps backwards and now must be considered a rogue regime. Perhaps the court actions in Europe in the Yukos case will contribute to the international effort to turn Russia back to a path of international cooperation and constructive behavior.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of this resolution. Tomorrow, we will welcome the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, to address a joint session of Congress. It is fitting that the leader of the Ukrainian people will speak in this Chamber where over the centuries our own democracy has grown and thrived. Today, we know that freedom and democracy in Ukraine are under threat. So with this resolution we will send a clear signal to President Poroshenko and to the people of Ukraine that we stand by them. America stands with them. I visited Ukraine a few months ago with my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Royce. Everywhere we went we heard the same thing: the people of Ukraine do not want Russian interference in their country. Ukraine is an independent Nation--it is not part of another country-- and the people of Ukraine have a right to make a determination for themselves as to what their policies would be without intimidation from Mr. Putin or anybody else. This hit home, especially for me, when I visited a synagogue in eastern Ukraine. My four grandparents were born in Ukraine. Two older men at this synagogue approached me to talk about the Russian threat. Over the last century, their eyes have seen the tide of history roll in and out of Ukraine. They had fought against Hitler's army, they had lived under the yoke of Soviet tyranny, they had witnessed democracy spread across Eastern Europe, and, now, they were looking East at a new threat on the horizon. ``Don't abandon us,'' one of them said. ``America is very, very important.'' If anything, that threat has only grown worse in recent months. Separatist forces, bolstered by President Putin, continue to wreak havoc across eastern Ukraine. Russian weapons have brought down a plane full of innocent civilians. Thousands of Russian troops have spilled over the border, trampling on Ukrainian sovereignty. Mr. Poroshenko comes to us with his country on the brink. With this measure, we say to him, ``We support Ukraine. We support the right of Ukraine to determine its own future.'' We are also saying to our friends and allies around the world that this Russian aggression must not stand and that democracies must unite to meet this challenge. Finally, we are saying to Mr. Putin, ``If you continue to threaten your neighbors, if you continue to sow unrest, if you continue to defy the will of the global community, you will isolate your country, and your actions will have consequences.'' I should also add that I think the credibility of the NATO alliance is really hanging in the balance. For the past 20 or 25 years, we have proceeded on the fact that Russia was not a threat and that Russia, indeed, in many ways, was a partner. That is no longer, unfortunately, the situation. Russia is an adversary, and the NATO alliance has to adjust to that. The equation that NATO has to adjust to has changed because of the actions of Mr. Putin in Ukraine. We have to make sure that our NATO allies feel strengthened. We have to make sure that the countries bordering Russia and the rest of Europe feel that they are not being intimidated, and countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova ought to be free to exert their independent thinking and what they feel is best for their country and not be intimidated by Mr. Putin. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), a very important and valued member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will close and say that this is a very important and timely resolution. When Chairman Royce and I visited Ukraine a few months ago, we had the good fortune to meet with many Ukrainian officials and people running for President. Mr. Poroshenko, who will address us tomorrow in joint session, was one of them. I can tell you that Chairman Royce and I both were very impressed with Mr. Poroshenko. We really felt that there was great hope for Ukraine and thought that he was the likely winner. Everything that he has done, in my opinion, since he has won just reaffirms our initial feeling about him. I was very happy that Ukraine signed the European Union Association Agreement yesterday. It strikes a very good balance but moves Ukraine closer to the West where the people want it. I can tell you that when we went to Ukraine and we stood in Maidan Square where the protests happened, you really felt--it was a palpable feeling--that you were part of history, people, average Ukrainians, coming up to us in the street thanking the United States of America for its strong support of Ukraine and for the independence of Ukraine. Now, the resolution--and I think it is important to highlight certain things--says that the United States is strongly committed to the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and the United States strongly supports the right of the people of Ukraine to freely determine their future, including their country's relationship with other nations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries. It also talks about Crimea, and I think that that should not be forgotten. Mr. Connolly is quite right. The taking of part of another country through military force cannot be fathomed and we cannot look the other way. We need to very strongly condemn it. Crimea is part of Ukraine, not part of Russia. So what we have here in this resolution--and I again want to commend Mr. Gerlach and Ms. Kaptur and Mr. Levin and all the people who put it together--is a commonsense resolution that says that the United States stands with the people of Ukraine and stands with the right of the people of Ukraine to determine its own future. This is a very important resolution. It is a very timely resolution, and I would urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me first of all echo what Mr. Pascrell just said. I want to commend Mr. Gerlach, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Levin for this. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the coauthor of this legislation.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). She and I traveled to Ukraine together many years ago on my first trip there. She is also the cochair of the Ukrainian Caucus and has long been an advocate for a free and independent Ukraine.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I hope to correct this persistent theme. I have heard from some Members that Syrian Christians would prefer to live under Assad than the moderate opposition. This is a complete mischaracterization, in my opinion, of the situation in Syria. Assad may profess to protect Christians, but, in reality, he buys his oil from ISIS; thereby bankrolling them and their massacres of Christians. ISIS would not be able to fund their operations without the Assad regime. The moderate opposition has publicly stated their acceptance and tolerance of Christians, and the Syrian Christian community has welcomed the U.S. call to degrade and destroy ISIS terrorists and the efforts of moderate Syrians to defend their communities. I understand the reticence of some of my colleagues to get involved. Again, we have no great choices here, but the worst choice is to do nothing. Mr. Speaker, I want to again thank Congressman McKeon. Chairman Royce and I conduct the Foreign Affairs Committee in a very bipartisan fashion. We pride ourselves in being one of the most bipartisan committees. Foreign policy should be bipartisan. Issues like this should be bipartisan. I think we can all be proud to be Members of Congress. This is being done in a bipartisan way. I certainly support this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. My colleagues, there are only bad choices left in Syria and Iraq, but, in my opinion, the worst choice of all would be to do nothing. This is an attempt to do something. I want to commend Chairman McKeon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the McKeon amendment which would authorize a train-and-equip mission for the vetted moderate Syrian opposition. Again, the worst choice would be to do nothing. This is an attempt to do something. It is urgent that we do it now. Every day we wait is a day longer that ISIS gets stronger and the opposition gets weaker. Now, I think it should be plainly stated that this is a separate issue from an AUMF. This is separate. This is talking about aiding and abetting the vetted Syrian opposition. Now, I was in favor of doing this 2 years ago. For 2 years, I have been working to assist the moderate opposition. In early 2013, I introduced the Free Syria Act to provide the Syrian opposition with the weapons they need to fight the Syrian regime and the extremists that now control large parts of Syria and Iraq. This is authorizing a train-and-equip mission for the vetted moderate Syrian opposition. It isn't perfect, but it is a step forward, and it is far, far better than doing nothing. Mr. Speaker, since I introduced that legislation, the situation in Syria has gotten much worse. More than 200,000 people have died, and millions have been driven from their homes. Now, it is impossible to know the answers to the what-if questions. What if we had trained the moderate opposition 2 years ago? What if they had been able to hold territory against Assad and ISIS? What if and what if? We have to deal with what we have now. What might have been, no one will ever know. Right now, this is a very, very important thing for us to do. Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleagues are war-weary. I am war- weary. I understand the American people are war-weary. I am war-weary, but, again, I think doing nothing would invite something very similar that happened to my city, New York City, on that fateful day of September 11, 2001. We kicked the Russians--or the world kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan when that happened; so what happened was we took our eye off the prize; and so we allowed Afghanistan to become a safe haven. We allowed the Taliban to welcome in al Qaeda, and al Qaeda had a safe haven to plot and plan attacks against the U.S. homeland. That is replicating itself right now in Syria and in Iraq, and, if we do nothing, ISIS will plot and plan, and we will have many more September 11s in the United States, in Europe, and in the Middle East. That is why this is in the national interests, the U.S. national interests, and it is something that we really need to do. The Foreign Affairs Committee held a hearing last month with the Syrian defector ``Caesar,'' a military photographer who smuggled thousands of images out of Syria to demonstrate the atrocities of the Assad regime. The gruesome photographs of Christians and Muslims--men, women, and children--starved, tortured, and killed by the regime demonstrate the true brutality of Assad and his cronies. Last month, the American people and the world woke up to the brutality of ISIS which has beheaded two American journalists and murdered countless Christians and other minorities and most recently beheaded someone from the United Kingdom. A self-financed terrorist group with highly-trained fighters willing to die, ISIS represents an immediate threat to our interests and allies and, if left unchecked, the U.S. homeland. Terrorism, wherever it rears its ugly head--they are all the same. Whether it is ISIS or ISIL or al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah, they are all terrorists, and they all want to use terror to achieve their political goals. I see Assad and ISIS as two sides of the same coin. Fighting one must not empower the other. Only fighting Assad would allow ISIS to flourish, but only fighting ISIS would leave Assad in power, and he is the biggest magnet drawing foreign fighters to ISIS. Believe it or not, they have this symbiotic relationship from all around the globe. This crisis does not end unless the moderate opposition is empowered to show the Syrian people that they can fight ISIS and win and, later on, they will fight Assad and win. Through this strategy, the moderate opposition can gain leverage and create the conditions on the ground to compel a political solution. Now, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to change course in Syria and the region. This authorization can give new hope to the Syrian people and to the people of the region that the United States will stand with them against terrorism. Like many of my colleagues, I have attended a number of briefings on these matters, and I have noticed a persistent theme.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to introduce the United States-Caribbean Partnership Act of 2014. I ask my colleagues to imagine countries where tens of thousands of American citizens travel for pleasure or business; where thousands of American citizens go to school; where there is a constant concern about drug trafficking to the United States; but where the United States has no U.S. embassies. Surprisingly, there are five countries in the Caribbean--only a few hundred miles from the United States--where we have no physical diplomatic presence. My legislation will correct this problem by establishing U.S. embassies in the five countries in the Caribbean with which the United States has diplomatic relations but no permanent diplomatic presence: Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Currently, all diplomatic relations with these countries are run out of the U.S. embassy in Barbados. While these countries are small, they must not be taken for granted. They are key voting members of the United Nations and other international organizations. As members of the Organization of American States (OAS), their votes are extremely important, particularly as countries in the hemisphere choose a new Secretary General next May. We must work with our partners in the Caribbean to ensure that the next OAS Secretary General is committed to upholding the principles enshrined in the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Without a U.S. presence in these five countries, it is very difficult to conduct in-person diplomacy with our counterparts on a range of crucial international issues. These countries are also of profound interest and importance to the millions of Caribbean-American citizens in the United States. Currently, in order to meet with local officials, the private sector or civil society, U.S. diplomats must fly in from Barbados (or Washington) on often expensive, infrequent flights, and stay overnight in often expensive island hotels. Close working relationships with key leaders cannot develop, because our diplomats are not there to establish them. And, our diplomacy is limited to phone calls, emails and faxes, even though we all know that the best interaction is carried out in person. In addition to our stymied diplomacy, U.S. citizens living in these countries do not have full consular services to assist in the event of emergencies. This bill establishes new embassies in Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines while using existing funding. I authored an amendment to create these embassies in 2011 which was approved unanimously by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. I look forward to working with the Obama Administration to get this legislation across the finish line this time. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Taiwan on their National Day. On October 10, Taiwan will celebrate their 103rd National Day, also known as Double Ten day because it falls on the tenth day of the tenth month. October 10, 1911 marks the beginning of the Wuchang Uprising which led to the fall of China's Qing Dynasty. In turn, the fall of the Qing Dynasty paved the way for Taiwan to become the beacon of democracy and economic powerhouse it is today. We greatly appreciate Taiwan as a friend and as an economic partner. Taiwan is the United States' 16th largest export market. As a matter of fact, in 2013 Taiwan imported almost $26 billion dollars in goods from the United States last year. From my state, New York, Taiwan imported over $750,000,000 dollars worth of goods in 2013. Both in New York and nationwide, the U.S. economy greatly benefits from a robust economic relationship with Taiwan--this relationship is good for Taiwan and it is good for America. Congratulations again to Taiwan on their National Day. We look forward to many more years of close friendship.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. My friend on the other side of the aisle said that this doesn't repeal the Affordable Care Act, but in reality, it does. This is the 53rd time. When I was a little boy, I went to PS 53 in the Bronx. I feel we have now reached that level of 53, with no end in sight, and I really wish that both sides of the aisle could put their heads together and keep what we like and fix what we don't like. All of the major bills that have ever been put into effect, be it Medicare, be it Medicaid, be it the civil rights bills of the 1960s, had to be tweaked because, when you have an omnibus bill, you really don't know what its effect is going to be until you roll it out and you see, and then you make changes. I mean, that happens with every major bill. The problem is that most of our friends on the other side of the aisle hated the law and never really wanted it to succeed. So, if you don't want it to succeed and if you throw roadblocks in its path and if you have a situation in which Republican Governors are refusing to expand it, you will have failure because, if you don't want to work with something and if you don't want to make it better, it won't get better. In my home State, where we embrace it, it has worked. It hasn't worked in every single instance but in a vast majority of instances. Again, we should change what doesn't work and keep what works. In New York, this year's insurance rates, on average, were--and here is another 53--53 percent lower than the rates in 2013 for comparable coverage. Our exchange, New York State of Health, has already announced next year's rates, which will continue to be more than 50 percent lower than they were before our insurance exchange was established. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research & Educational Trust's annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, individuals obtaining health insurance from their employers are generally facing ``similar premium contributions and cost-sharing requirements in 2014 as they did in 2013.'' Furthermore, we know that these individuals are often benefiting from more quality, comprehensive coverage. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to return to the bad old days when insurance companies where permitted to discriminate against small businesses that employed large numbers of women, older individuals, or those with preexisting conditions. I don't want to return to the bad old days when you couldn't keep your child on your premium until that child was 26 years old, as you can under the Affordable Care Act. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this legislation, and I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to really sit down with us. Let's put our heads together, and let's once and for all help fix this bill. There are a lot of good features in it. We should expand on those. The things that we think need to change we should change, but, please, let's not ever vote to repeal again. We don't need to have a 54th time. Enough is enough.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 107, condemning Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, on our TV screens and computer monitors, in the pages of newspapers and magazines, we have seen the bloody and brutal results of war. We have heard the reports of so many lives lost. No matter where you come from or what you believe, if you don't grieve over every innocent killed, you simply don't have a heart. What is missing from many of these stories, though, is why these blameless men, women, and children ended up in harm's way. When Israel acts to defend itself, it does everything it can do to warn civilians and minimize loss of life. Israel warns Palestinians ahead of time, going so far as to say specifically where an airstrike is going to occur. What does Hamas do, on the other hand? It forces Palestinians to stay in their homes, to stay in the line of fire. All the while, Hamas leaders cower in their underground tunnels. Then they have the cynicism to point their cameras at the dead, show the world the outcome of their human shield strategy, and blame Israel. It is despicable and it is shameful. This resolution sends a clear message. The Palestinian people of Gaza should not have to take this anymore from Hamas. It also makes clear that we support taking away Hamas' ability to wage terror campaigns. As Secretary Kerry said on Tuesday: Any process to resolve the crisis in Gaza in a lasting and meaningful way must lead to the disarmament of Hamas and all terrorist groups. Now is the time for the United States to stand firm in our support of Israel. Hamas has Qatar and Turkey, shamefully, to support them, and the rest of the world has turned a deaf ear to Israel's pleas for security. The U.N. Human Rights Council, which, frankly, is a joke, even voted to investigate Israel for war crimes, with the United States casting the courageous lone dissenting vote. We know the Human Rights Council typically has a muddled view of Israeli-Palestinian issues. But given the constant barrage of Hamas rockets, launched from civilian population centers, day in and day out, week in and week out, year in and year out, and falling on Israeli civilian population centers, the Council seems especially out of touch. We ought to mention something that is very important. This war started because Hamas keeps attacking the Israeli civilian population through the years with its missiles--civilians. So for Hamas to now fret over civilian casualties, which is the fault of them in both Gaza and Israel, really just rings hollow. If Hamas were so concerned about human casualties, why does it target Israeli civilian populations, as it has all these years? As Israel's security is threatened and its reputation is smeared-- frankly, the media hasn't been helpful or evenhanded--this moral equivalency between a terrorist group and a democratic country trying to protect its citizens is sometimes sickening. The United States is the only one true friend that Israel has. We must always stand up for Israel's security, and we must state plainly that Israel is not alone. I want to thank Representative Ros-Lehtinen and Representative Deutch for their leadership on this issue. They have done very strong work in bringing to light Hamas' deplorable crimes against the Israeli and Palestinian people. I also want to thank Representative Steve Israel and Representative Tom Cole for sponsoring a similar resolution, which the House passed just a few weeks ago. I also want to thank Chairman Royce, who has worked diligently and hard to bring consensus to our committee, so we can speak with one voice to let the Israeli people know that when it comes to the support of Israel, support is strong and bipartisan from this Congress, and that is the way it should be. So only when the world rejects Hamas and its tactics and when Hamas can no longer rain terrorist rockets on Israel and send the Palestinian to their deaths will peace between Israelis and Palestinians be possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It has been said many times, but I think we should say it again: Israel uses its missiles to protect its citizens, and Hamas uses its citizens to protect its missiles. That says it all. That is just a disgrace, and it is a fact. The United States must back Israel in its quest for security. Any cease-fire that is put forth must contain the total disarming of Hamas and the total destruction of those death tunnels that Hamas has been building to try to kill Israeli civilians. That concrete was allowed to be trucked in, under the eyes of Israel, because they were told that the concrete would be used to build schools and infrastructure. Instead, the concrete was used to build tunnels to kill Israelis. This really cannot be tolerated at all. I would also say again that the media reporting of what is really going on in Gaza has been less than stellar. There are atrocities in Syria, but that seems to be yesterday's story. So while every death in Gaza and in Israel is something over which we grieve, there are more deaths in Syria every single day in that bloody civil war than there have been in Gaza, yet you hear no mention of it on the news. All you do is have cameras focused on Gaza. War is hell. Nobody wants war, but a terrorist organization like Hamas must be told that terrorism cannot prevail. Israel's fight is not with the Palestinian people. It is with Hamas, a terrorist organization that denies Israel's very right to exist and that wants to kill as many Israelis and Jews around the world and destroy the State of Israel. That is why the United States and the European Union have designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. We need to put that in perspective. A terrorist organization that uses its own people as human shields is not to ever be taken seriously, nor has it the right to lecture anybody about the sanctity of human life. In closing, let me say again that Israel has the right to self- defense. Hamas' use of human shields demonstrates just how much they devalue human life. The Palestinian people deserve better than Hamas. The Israeli people deserve better. I want to again thank my friend, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Deutch, for their hard work on this issue. I want to thank my friend, Chairman Royce, for his leadership on so many issues, but on this issue as well. Democrats and Republicans agree that we stand by our ally, Israel, and we condemn the terrorist organization Hamas, which uses its own people as human shields. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the Middle East Subcommittee and coauthor of this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I want to thank all my colleagues for their excellent remarks. I agree with every word that has been said. I think perhaps I will start off with a bit of good news because everyone can see this tonight. At a time when the pundits say that the two parties can't agree on anything, that nothing gets done, and that there is too much fighting, there is one thing on which we can agree, and that is that the support for Israel in this Congress is strong and it is bipartisan, and that is the way it should be. It is bipartisan for a number of reasons. First of all, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. We share common values with Israel, and we understand that the people of Israel, right now, are besieged. Hamas is a terrorist group. It is not a fight between Israelis and Palestinians. It is a fight between Israel and a terrorist group. As someone who was in New York on that fateful day of September 11, 2001, Israel has endured many September 11, 2001s. My colleague said it right before. The difference between the Hamas terrorists and Israelis is that Israel uses its missiles to protect its citizens and Hamas uses its citizens to protect its missiles. It is terrible when any civilians die, and my heart breaks for casualties on both sides, but Hamas uses their citizens as human shields. They build their bomb factories, and they build their missile factories in mosques and schoolyards. Missiles were even found in United Nation schools. They do this deliberately because they apparently don't value human life at all. Let's just imagine if we, in the United States, had a terrorist group over the border in Canada firing rockets, hurting people in New York or Michigan. Wouldn't we respond? If there were terrorists in Mexico that were firing into Arizona, Texas, or California, would we just simply let our people be targets? Wouldn't we respond? Wouldn't we go over the border and try to root out the terrorists, root out their missiles, root out their tunnels if there were? That is precisely what Israel is trying to do. I am introducing the emergency Iron Dome replacement act. The Iron Dome, which has been Israeli-created and American-funded, has saved countless numbers of Israeli lives, and by the way, Hamas has the nerve to talk about civilian casualties when it has targeted, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, Israeli civilians. That is what they do. Israel targets the missiles--and there are some civilian casualties because of the way the Palestinians put their missiles right in the densely-populated areas--but Hamas has deliberately been trying to kill innocent Israeli civilians. So we hope we will continue funding the Iron Dome, and I know there will be strong bipartisan support on both sides. Any cease-fire should contain the total disarming of Hamas. Any cease-fire should contain the destruction of the tunnels which, as my colleague very adeptly pointed out, were made for terrible purposes. With the concrete that was coming into Gaza, they could have built schools and mosques and skyscrapers; but what did they do? They built terror tunnels, so they can try to kill Israelis. And the media? Shame on some of the coverage we have seen in the media. There is no moral equivalency between a terrorist group and a nation that values its citizens and wants to protect its citizens. There is no moral equivalency whatsoever. Israel is trying to protect its citizens. Hamas only wants to kill. Read their charter. Read what they say about Jews. Read about Israel. They want to destroy every last person in Israel. So I think the media ought to be a little more evenhanded and not the way it has been portraying things up until now. So let me conclude by saying this: the bond between Israel and the United States is unbreakable, unshakeable. It has always been and will always be. The United States will always stand by the people of Israel, particularly in their fight to exist and in their fight against terrorism. I thank my friend.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 594, the Paul D. Wellstone Muscular Dystrophy Community Assistance, Research and Education Amendments, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I worked with the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, to introduce this bill, and I would personally like to thank him for his hard work and partnership developing the legislation and bringing it through the Energy and Commerce Committee. I would also like to thank our colleagues, Representatives Waxman, Pallone, Pitts, and Upton, for their support and effort to get this bill here today. Mr. Speaker, the MD CARE Act has always enjoyed full bipartisan support. Congress first approved it in 2001, we updated it in 2008, and we are doing the same now. I am pleased to see that this bipartisan tradition remains strong as we continue the fight against muscular dystrophy by taking up this legislation today. As I am sure many of my colleagues already know and as Dr. Burgess pointed out, muscular dystrophy is not a single disease, but a spectrum of genetic disorders resulting from progressive muscle weakness and degeneration. Hundreds of thousands of children and adults currently suffer from various forms of muscular dystrophy in the United States and around the world. Although there is still no cure, the MD CARE Act has played a critical role in improving the lives of those suffering from these lethal disorders. The MD CARE Act has successfully coordinated and focused biomedical research, established clinical care standards, improved data collection, and helped generate more than 65 clinical trials, more than 30 of which are still ongoing. As a direct result of this law, the lifespan of the average American living with Duchenne muscular dystrophy--the most common form of muscular dystrophy in children--has increased by a full 10 years. That is a statistic of which we can be proud. This progress is substantial, and the law needs to be updated to reflect these developments. As people live longer, their needs evolve. The legislation we are considering today responds to the changing needs of muscular dystrophy patients without requiring any additional authorization of appropriations. It will make targeted updates to the MD CARE Act, bringing our programs in line with the scientific advancements we have made since 2008 when the law was last updated. The bill allows the Director of the National Institutes of Health to expand and intensify programs targeted at the nine most common forms of muscular dystrophy. It also enhances research at the Wellstone Centers of Excellence, strengthens the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee, updates data collection, and increases awareness of treatment options among medical professionals. This bill is supported by 113 bipartisan cosponsors, and it has the full backing of the muscular dystrophy community. Passing H.R. 594 will make a huge difference in the lives of all those affected by muscular dystrophy. I urge my colleagues to give it their full support. I want to conclude by thanking majority and minority staff, which Dr. Burgess mentioned, and I once again thank him for his partnership on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 105. It reaffirms our belief that U.S. troops should not be deployed in a sustained combat role in Iraq without specific congressional authorization. Since last December, the terrorist group ISIS has marched across Iraq with lethal efficiency. Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul have fallen to their control. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers have been killed or have laid down their weapons. The military equipment they left behind, some supplied by the United States, is now in the hands of these fanatics. After erasing the border between Iraq and Syria, ISIS has advanced toward our ally, Jordan. And the leaders of ISIS have declared an Islamic caliphate, promising to rule with a brand of barbarism, such as mandatory female genital mutilation, more suited to the Dark Ages than the 21st century. Madam Speaker, the threat posed by ISIS is real. Iraq is teetering on the brink, and we cannot allow that country to become a safe haven for terrorists that could be used to launch another 9/11. While the Hamas terrorists are pushing forth in Gaza, the ISIS terrorists are pushing forth in Iraq. At the same time, however, we need to make clear to the American people and to the Iraqi government that the U.S. combat mission in Iraq is over. After losing more than 4,000 American lives and spending more than $1 trillion, we cannot allow ourselves to be sucked into another sectarian quagmire. The crisis in Iraq cannot be solved through military means alone. The solution will be rooted in real political changes in Iraq, more inclusive policies, and a greater effort to avoid sectarian conflict. President Obama removed the last American combat troops from Iraq on December 18, 2011, under an agreement reached by the Bush administration, and he has no intention of sending them back, a position with which I firmly agree. As the President said last month: ``American forces will not be returning to combat in Iraq, but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists who threaten the Iraqi people, the region, and American interests as well.'' In the last several weeks, the President has expanded intelligence and surveillance efforts. He has sent a contingent of troops to protect our diplomatic personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, and he has deployed small military assessment teams to get information about the threat that ISIS poses to Iraq, to the region, and to American interests. I support these measures. They represent the sort of security cooperation with the Iraqi government that we should be offering to support our own national security interests. But they don't require a sustained presence of American combat troops in Iraq. At the end of the day, we all know it is past time for the Iraqi government to confront some serious challenges. These will require an Iraqi solution, one based on respect for each other and the rule of law. I would like to thank Representative McGovern, Representative Jones, and Representative Lee for their tenacity and leadership in sparking this important debate. They have worked with us in the Foreign Affairs Committee, constructively with me and Chairman Royce both, along with the House leadership on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that the amendment we are considering today would enjoy broad bipartisan support. So I hope that the process which brought about today's bill will serve as an example of bipartisan cooperation for the House to follow in the days to come. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, the war in Gaza continues. Every human life that is killed is a tragedy, particularly those of civilians, but I think it is important to put it in perspective. The fight is not between Israelis and Palestinians. The fight is between Israelis and Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. Week after week, month after month, year after year, Hamas has lobbed missiles into the Israeli civilian population--killing Israelis, maiming Israelis. Israel is fighting back in order to try to stop the onslaught of Hamas. What would we do, Madam Speaker, if missiles came over the border from Canada or from Mexico, attacking population areas of the United States? Of course, we would go over the border and attempt to stop the terrorists who were doing that to our civilians. That is precisely what Israel is doing, and quite frankly, the media coverage of the war in Gaza has been absolutely one-sided against Israel and absolutely disgraceful. Hamas uses its people as human shields. They build bomb factories and missile factories in heavily populated civilian areas. So, when civilians are killed, it is the fault of Hamas, not the fault of Israel, which has tried to defend its way of life and defend its citizens. I am proud that America stands with Israel, and we will continue to do so.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Schneider), the coauthor of this bill.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, let me just close. Let me sum up by saying that, in closing, this legislation comes at a very, very critical time. Anyone can turn on the TV or go online and know the region seems to be falling further into chaos. As we seek greater stability, cutting Hezbollah off from its financial lifeline is an important step to that end. We did this before with Iran, and the naysayers said what Congress did wouldn't be important because it wouldn't have that much effect. We proved them wrong. Again, as I mentioned, there are negotiations now going on between the United States and Iran to end their nuclear program. They are at the negotiating table only because we slapped tough sanctions on them, brought their economy to its knees. This can be done with Hezbollah. This is what we are trying to do today. So I urge passage of this important legislation. I want to thank Chairman Royce again, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Schneider. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. I yield the gentleman another minute.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I begin, the Foreign Affairs Committee is acting in a bipartisan way by speaking with one voice to say ``no'' to terrorism. I want to thank Chairman Royce for the bipartisan way that he has conducted this committee. We believe that foreign policy is best when it is bipartisan, and there is no difference here between Members. We all condemn terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. I rise in strong support of H.R. 4411, the Hezbollah International Financing Prevention Act. This legislation will greatly enhance our ability to confront Hezbollah as they continue to sow terror around the globe. As the chairman pointed out, Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, just like its cousin, Hamas; and terrorism must be confronted whenever it raises its ugly head, be it in Israel or be it here in the United States of America. Everywhere around the globe, we must confront terrorism and speak with one voice and say that we will not accept it-- ever. Ten years ago, I wrote the Syria Accountability Act, which Congress passed, and it was signed into law by President Bush. At that time, Syria was already working closely with Iran to strengthen Hezbollah by facilitating the shipment of thousands of Iranian rockets and missiles to the group. A decade later, Hezbollah has become a more sophisticated terrorist organization, but their goal remains the same: supporting Iran's nefarious agenda throughout the region. Once dependent on Assad in Syria, Hezbollah is now returning the favor. Hezbollah's intervention in the Syrian civil war on the side of Assad has provided a new lease on life to the Assad regime. In fact, it is the reason Assad believes he is winning this war and can continue to kill his own people, can continue to use starvation as an act of war, and can continue to do horrific things to hundreds of thousands of its citizens. Hezbollah has also had a corrosive effect on Lebanese politics, holding the Lebanese people hostage to its demand that the country accept its illegal armed force--a terrorist army which is perpetually at war with Lebanon's southern neighbor, Israel. Mr. Speaker, claims that Hezbollah is just a political organization or some kind of a social services agency are simply naive, untrue, just plain lies. This bill exposes the group for what it is--a vicious terrorist organization with a global reach, including an operational capacity in the United States. The United States is responding to this threat, and last week, the Treasury Department sanctioned companies for procuring engines, communications electronics, and navigation equipment for Hezbollah. It is time to impose even stronger sanctions on Hezbollah. It is time to focus on their evolving efforts to raise money all over the world whether through kidnapping and ransom, conflict diamonds, narcotrafficking, and other criminal enterprises. This bill would sanction foreign banks for knowingly facilitating transactions with Hezbollah and would designate Hezbollah as a narcotics trafficking organization. We are currently in negotiation with Iran. Iran didn't come to the table because they are a good government or nice people. They came to the table because our sanctions passed by Congress are crippling their economy. We must do the same thing and cripple Hezbollah. This bill shines a bright light on Al-Manar, Hezbollah's television station, which is itself a Specially Designated Terrorist group. Hezbollah uses Al-Manar for logistical, propaganda, and fundraising purposes. It is shocking that this station is still carried by satellite providers all over the world. It is just an outrage. By passing this legislation, Congress is seeking to give the administration every tool it needs to confront Hezbollah in this dangerous world. I want to thank Representative Meadows for the extraordinary work he has put into this legislation. I want to thank Representative Schneider for also doing yeoman's work in making sure that this legislation is here. Again, it is another example of the bipartisan cooperation we have on the Foreign Affairs Committee so that this Congress will speak with one voice and say that we will never accept this scourge of terrorism, be it Hezbollah or be it Hamas. Mr. Meadows and Mr. Schneider have made sure that this is a responsible and a targeted bill, focused on cutting off Hezbollah's financial lifeline without unintended consequences. Mr. Speaker, as Hezbollah doubles down to defend the Assad regime and expands its political presence in Europe and elsewhere, now is the time for us to ramp up our efforts to disrupt its global logistics and financial network. It is a disgrace that the European Union, while designating Hezbollah's armed wing as a terrorist organization, tries to separate it from its social services wing and pretend that, somehow, Hezbollah's social services aren't a terrorist organization. They are a terrorist organization. That is an umbrella group, and it confronts everything. They must be boycotted, and we are doing that today. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I reserve the balance of my time.