[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2343-H2346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       U.S. POLICY TOWARDS KOSOVO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, an Olympic Gold Medal; groundbreaking 
international conferences on religious cooperation intolerance; 
membership in the World Bank, the IMF, and other international bodies; 
and recognition by more than 110 countries--these are only some of the 
accomplishments of the young nation of Kosovo.
  The United States was among the first to recognize Kosovo, and today 
we are its strongest backer, and rightfully so. First recognized by 
President Bush, relations only deepened under President Obama. For 
that, Kosovo proudly has become the strongest supporter of the United 
States and Europe, sitting at an 85 percent approval rating.
  This is not to say that Kosovo is a perfect country. We are not a 
perfect country. Corruption needs to be attacked in Kosovo. Judicial 
reform is progressing far too slowly. And official unemployment hovers 
at just above 30 percent. So there is hard work to be done. There is 
obviously a lot of work to do. But I have visited this country again 
and again and again and again;

[[Page H2344]]

and every time, I see progress, and I know there is a bright future.
  I have often said that, as an American, I can go all around the 
world, but I will never get greeted with more love and friendship than 
I will in Kosovo. People there truly love Americans and all things 
American.
  The best way to help Kosovo is through continued, strong support, as 
the United States has done for many years. But too many impediments 
stand in the way, many of them coming from outside of Kosovo's borders.
  For example, Kosovo wants what most countries across the region want, 
to become part of a secure and integrated Europe, membership in the 
European Union and in NATO. Yet, just five European holdouts stand in 
the way of this progress for Kosovo.
  When it comes to United Nations membership, Kosovo's way forward is 
blocked by Serbia and its ally, Russia. In fact, Serbia seeks to block 
Kosovo at almost every turn, and lately has been escalating tensions.
  Both Serbia and Kosovo want to go to the European Union, and I 
support both of them getting into the European Union. But one of those 
countries shouldn't try to block another one, and Serbia has repeatedly 
tried to make it difficult for Kosovo to get into the EU and to get 
other things as well.
  Serbia recently sent into Kosovo's north a propaganda train 
emblazoned with the words, Serbia is Kosovo, written in 21 languages to 
foment discord among Kosovo's small Serbian population. It pushed the 
building of a wall in Metrovica, a tiny city straddling the cleavages 
of Kosovo's interethnic divide. While that wall has now come down, the 
scars remain.
  Serbia has continued to deny justice to the loved ones of hundreds of 
victims of its campaign of ethnic cleansing, including three American 
citizens, the Bytyqi brothers. And there are all kinds of insults, from 
a train and other things, giving propaganda against Kosovo by Serbia 
pushed to the Serbian-Kosovo border that helps to escalate tensions 
rather than bring them down.
  As a result of a Serbian INTERPOL arrest warrant, French authorities 
recently detained former Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj, who 
has already been acquitted twice by an international tribunal.
  We in the United States have this wonderful thing of no double 
jeopardy. If you go to trial and you are acquitted, you cannot be tried 
on the same thing again. That isn't true of many countries.
  So Ramush Haradinaj was accused of war crimes, went to The Hague, 
spent many weeks and months there, was acquitted, and then was 
recharged again, and had to go back to The Hague to have another trial 
on which he was again acquitted. Now, Serbia has manipulated INTERPOL 
to try to get a third trial on essentially the same matter for Ramush 
Haradinaj again. This, to me, is unconscionable and shows tremendous 
bad faith on the part of the Serbian Government.
  Serbia also fought Kosovo's membership in UNESCO, ultimately a self-
defeating act, because among Kosovo's most cherished historical 
cultural institutions are its 13th century Serbian Orthodox churches. 
Kosovo did not get into UNESCO. It failed by three votes, and again the 
Serbian interruption played a major role in preventing them from 
getting into UNESCO. The United States fought to have Kosovo into 
UNESCO, but ultimately lost by three votes.
  Kosovo and Serbia have sat down across the negotiating table in talks 
facilitated by the European Union. Those talks showed some progress 
that resulted in an agreement calling for normalization. I even 
nominated, at that time, the Prime Ministers of Kosovo and Serbia, 
along with the EU's former policy head, Baroness Catherine Ashton, for 
the Nobel Peace Prize.
  Unfortunately, today, I question these successes. What kind of 
normalization involves stoking tensions among a neighbor's minority 
population and standing in the way of international integration? That 
is what Serbia is doing to Kosovo, and it should be stopped.
  In terms of Ramush Haradinaj, trying to try him again, I don't know 
why the Government of Serbia seems intent on rekindling 20- and 30-
year-old Balkan wars. They were terrible things that happened in war 
and terrible things that happened on both sides, but the man was found 
innocent twice. This is nothing more than bad faith on the part of the 
Serbian Government and harassment.
  It might come as a surprise to you, Mr. Speaker, but 9 years on, as a 
free and independent country, Kosovo still has no army. That is right. 
A sovereign nation-state without an army. It has a small, lightly armed 
security force, but nothing resembling the large Russian-equipped 
Serbian military just next door.
  Earlier this month, Kosovo took a small step toward establishing its 
army. Legislation was submitted to parliament. Like the legislative 
process here in the United States, the introduction of a bill is only 
the opening note on a much larger and longer sheet of music, a score 
which involves consultation with regional partners, the international 
community, domestic minorities, and NGOs.

  We all know how this process works. There is back and forth, there is 
give and take. Supporters and opponents alike are welcome into the 
arena and all positions are heard. The process accounts for everybody's 
concerns in some way or another.
  So what is in this proposal? What would Kosovo's army look like? It 
would be multiethnic, just as the Kosovo security force and the Kosovo 
police are now. It would partner with Western countries and hopefully 
NATO in pursuit of greater regional and international stability. It 
would be defensive and nonthreatening to Kosovo's neighbors. Mr. 
Speaker, it would be exactly what the United States wants to see in a 
partner.
  Yet, while Kosovo slowly moves to set up its small defensive force, 
Serbia is beefing up its military with full Russian backing. It is 
taking deliveries of T-72 tanks, MiG-29 fighters, and S-300 
antiaircraft missile systems, courtesy of Moscow and Vladimir Putin.
  So I am a little confused, Mr. Speaker. Kosovo, a country we support 
and which supports us, wants what every other country in the world has: 
a basic army in which its citizens can serve their nation, and probably 
serve alongside our own military if given the chance.
  What do we do? We offer rebukes and diplomatic threats, and we make 
it clear that we don't support Kosovo having an army at this time. That 
is absolutely absurd and is a position that we ought to change, and 
change quickly. Yet Russian weapons and materiel are pouring into 
Serbia, courtesy of Vladimir Putin; and as far as I can tell, the 
United States has stood in silence.
  Regardless, Mr. Speaker, America's relation with Kosovo is strong and 
the future is bright. We need to stay on that course. Kosovo is a young 
country. I have been there many, many times. It is not even 10 years 
old.
  We know better than anyone that building a democracy is hard work. 
Sometimes you will face setbacks. Sometimes you need a helping hand. 
That is why American support is more important than ever. That is why 
the United States should work to deepen our ties, enrich our mutual 
understanding, and continue to bring stability to the entire Balkan 
region. That is the way to a more prosperous, democratic, and 
multiethnic Kosovo; and that is the way for the United States to see a 
Balkan region free, at peace, and part of the whole of Europe.
  Meanwhile, France should send Ramush Haradinaj home. Enough is enough 
already. We cannot stand for any more of this nonsense.
  The United States should stand by Kosovo. Kosovo is a free and 
independent country. For many years, they were fed all kinds of lies 
about the United States during the old Communist regime in the fifties, 
sixties, and seventies. You know what? The people of Kosovo didn't 
believe a word of it.
  So I would say to my colleagues and to my friends and to all of our 
American citizens: When you visit Kosovo, you will know and you will be 
proud to be an American because people come up to you in the street and 
want to touch you, want to talk to you, want to do everything and be 
everything American. Those are the kinds of friends that we need.
  America does much for many, many people around the world, many, many

[[Page H2345]]

nations, and sometimes we feel it is not appreciated--but not in 
Kosovo. Everything the United States has helped that country with is 
appreciated from everyone, from the Prime Minister to the President, to 
people in government, to the average people in the street.
  I very often have people coming up to me in the street wanting to 
talk to me. They recognize me. They say: Thank you. Thank you to 
America for standing by us in our independence. Thank you to America 
for being strong and keeping us strong.
  So those are the kinds of friends I want to have. Those are the kind 
of people I want to have.
  So I would say to the people of Kosovo and the Government of Kosovo: 
The United States stands by you and always will stand by you.
  I would say to the Government of Serbia: We support the aspirations 
of the Serbian people to enter the European Union, but Serbia ought to 
stop doing what it is doing to block Kosovo. Serbia ought to stop its 
belligerent moves against Kosovo.
  Both countries should go into the European Union--and eventually, 
NATO--and each one should not stop each other. They should help each 
other.


                              Health Care

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend the next couple of moments 
talking about a subject that is very near and dear to everyone's heart, 
and that is health care. I want to do it because tomorrow we have a big 
healthcare vote here in the Congress, and I think it is very important 
that we all very clearly lay out what we really feel should happen.
  Last week, as part of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was up for 
about 28 hours in a row marking up a bill that was done all night long. 
At the time when we marked it up, we thought it was a bit silly because 
the bill hadn't been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, so we 
had no idea what it cost. It was like buying a pig in a poke. How could 
you decide whether something is good or not when you don't even know 
what the cost is? Since we obviously don't have unlimited funds, if 
something costs more money, we have to pull it out of someplace else.

                              {time}  1800

  So we voted on a bill. Unfortunately, it was a strict party-line 
vote, and the bill passed. Shortly thereafter, a few days later, the 
Congressional Budget Office scored it; and I think it was, frankly, 
from my vantage point, a disaster for the bill.
  Now, what I think that this Congress should be doing is I think that 
we should make tweaks and fix the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. 
There are many, many good things in ObamaCare, in the healthcare bill, 
in the healthcare act, that has now been here for many, many years. But 
there are also some problems with it.
  You know, every major bill that has been passed by this Congress and 
signed into law needed some tweaks, needed some changes, because you 
pass a law with good intention, but sometimes it doesn't work out 
exactly as you wanted it to work out. So you need to change things, you 
need to make improvements. When you see what is working, what is not 
working, that is what you do.
  That is what this Congress should do with ObamaCare. We should say 
where premiums are going up or where certain jurisdictions only have 
one insurance company and, therefore, there is no competition, we can 
figure out ways to fix it. We can figure out ways to tweak it. That is 
what the American people would want us to do. The American people would 
want us to work together and would want us to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to try to fix what was wrong with ObamaCare.
  Now, there are many wonderful things about ObamaCare. First of all, 
everyone knows it eliminated the so-called preexisting condition 
problem, where before, when you changed jobs and you went to a new 
insurance company, the insurance company said, ``Sorry, you have had 
cancer for 3 years and you have been treated; we are not going to treat 
you for cancer because it is a preexisting condition,'' or a heart 
attack or whatever it is. That was basically unconscionable.
  And millions of people couldn't get help because they changed a job 
and, therefore, changed a healthcare plan. That was changed in 
ObamaCare. And that was a very, very important thing because an 
insurance company can now no longer deny you coverage because of a 
preexisting condition.
  Also, as everybody knows, children up to 26 years old can now stay 
and be insured under their parents' insurance plans. That was a very 
good plus of ObamaCare, or of the Affordable Care Act.
  And there were other very, very important, good things. We had more 
people being covered than ever before. People who had never had health 
coverage got it now because of the Affordable Care Act.
  So what do we see now? We see, instead of trying to put it together 
in a bipartisan fashion, trying to fix it, we have this bill which 
passed the Energy and Commerce Committee and passed the Ways and Means 
Committee and supposedly is going to be on the floor tomorrow if they 
can round up the votes. They are having difficulty rounding up the 
votes.
  And what do we see when we look at this new bill that they are asking 
us to vote for? Let me tell you what we see.
  If this bill would ever come into law, we would have much less 
coverage than ever before. Many people would lose their healthcare 
coverage, and we would have a smaller population actually being covered 
for health care.
  We call it TrumpCare, and TrumpCare will take away health care from 
24 million hardworking Americans. That is not acceptable.
  Why shouldn't we be working together to improve ObamaCare? Why do we 
need a new plan that will insure 24 million less people than we insure 
now? It is bizarre. It makes no sense whatsoever.
  We also feel, when we analyze it--and this is, again, what the 
Congressional Budget Office tells us--there are higher costs. TrumpCare 
forces families to pay increased out-of-pocket costs and higher 
deductibles.
  So what does that all mean?
  It means you pay more and you get less. That is a pretty bad deal. I 
don't think anybody wants that deal. I think Democrats and Republicans, 
alike, don't want that deal. I think Americans don't want that deal. We 
want it the opposite way. We would like to pay less and get coverage. 
But what TrumpCare does to the Affordable Care Act, you pay more and 
you get less.
  If that weren't bad enough, an analysis of it finds that there is a 
crushing age tax. TrumpCare forces Americans between the ages of 50 and 
64 to pay premiums which are five times higher than what others pay for 
health coverage, no matter how healthy they are. Talk about 
discrimination.
  If you are a 50-year-old that is in good health, why should you have 
to pay five times more premium than what others pay for health 
coverage? Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.
  And then you say: How do they get the money to pay for whatever? 
Well, it steals from Medicaid and Medicare. TrumpCare ransacks the 
Medicaid funds that allow seniors to get the long-term care they need 
and shortens the life of the Medicare trust fund by 3 years. Again, 
pretty bad deal for me.
  And you say: Well, who benefits from this? If this is something that 
people are going to have to pay more and get less coverage, it is 
discriminatory for people ages 50 to 64. It hurts middle class people 
making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year, hurts them and hurts 
seniors, knocks seniors out. Well, who does it help?
  Well, guess what? TrumpCare ransacks the Medicaid funds that allow 
seniors to get the long-term care they need. I said that before. But 
what does it do? It lowers tax cuts for the rich. So the rich get more 
tax cuts--I am sorry. It doesn't lower it. It gives the rich more tax 
cuts.
  So it is really kind of nice, I suppose, when you have a billionaire 
President, it is nice to help the rich--but not at the expense of 
middle class America.
  So when you look at this plan, it is a pretty bad plan for the middle 
class, pretty bad. So if you didn't like ObamaCare, you are going to 
dislike TrumpCare even more.

  If it is passed, once it is passed, we are going to see, again, 
premiums rise, millions of people thrown out of insurance, and less 
coverage, but the very wealthy will get a nice, juicy tax break.

[[Page H2346]]

  So, you know who used to steal from the rich and give to the poor? 
This is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. It is really 
disgraceful.
  So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's defeat 
TrumpCare because it doesn't help anybody, and let's put our heads 
together. We have enough talent in this place on both sides of the 
aisle, and that is what the American people want us to do. They want us 
to put our heads together. They want us to work together and come up 
with a plan that aids the largest amount of people at the lowest 
possible cost.
  It won't be easy. It will be very difficult. But we should do it 
together, not jam TrumpCare down our throat, not tell people about 
false promises when you know people are going to be thrown off.
  If you say: Well, you know what? It is going to be cheaper. Well, it 
is cheaper if you throw off all the sick people and you don't give them 
insurance, and you throw off all the seniors and you don't help them. 
Well, of course it is cheaper because all the people that are sick and 
really need the help won't get it. And after all, what is insurance 
about? Insurance is there just in case you get sick.
  So I am very chagrined about this new bill. I hope it gets defeated 
tomorrow. I hope that we then go back to the drawing board and come up 
with a program that will help the American people, not a program that 
helps Democrats or a program that helps Republicans, but a program that 
helps Americans, because we are all in this together.
  The bill proposed by my Republican colleagues called TrumpCare is not 
a bill for Americans that will aid them with help when they get sick. 
As Americans, I do believe that health care should be a right, not a 
luxury. I believe that the richest country that the world has ever 
known can give its citizens health care. I believe in the single-payer 
health care.
  But even if it is not single-payer, let's take the original 
Affordable Care Act, keep what is good, enhance what is good and what 
needs to be corrected and changed. Let's do it. That is what the 
American people want. That is what the American people demand, and we 
should do nothing less.
  This bill ought to be defeated tomorrow. Let's go back to the drawing 
board and come up with something we can be proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________