Eliot Engel

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this resolution along with my friends and colleagues Representatives Matt Salmon, Nancy Pelosi, Joseph R. Pitts, James P. McGovern, Yvette D. Clarke, Steve Chabot, Alan Grayson, Gerald Connolly, Albio Sires, Alcee L. Hastings, Michael E. Capuano, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Lewis, Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Betty McCollum, Scott DesJarlais, David N. Cicilline, Alan S. Lowenthal, Jared Polis, Brad Sherman, Michael M. Honda, Reid J. Ribble, Charles B. Rangel, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Dana Rohrabacher, Katherine M. Clark, Trent Franks, and Ami Bera. This resolution calls for meaningful dialogue and a negotiated settlement for the people of Tibet and acknowledges the contributions of His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama in advance of his 80th birthday. The 14th Dalai Lama has tirelessly promoted, through peaceful means, genuine autonomy for the people of Tibet. Throughout his life, His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama, has championed greater understanding, harmony and respect among all religious faiths. As the spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan people, he has been a model for all of us on the importance of preserving the cultural, religious, historical, and linguistic heritage--not just for the Tibetan people but for all people. His Holiness has done outstanding work to safeguard the environment in the Tibetan plateau, to promote democracy among the Tibetan people, and to champion non-violent conflict resolution. With this resolution, we reaffirm the unwavering friendship between the Tibetan people and the United States and call on the government of the United States to uphold its commitment to preserving the human rights, political and religious freedom of the people of Tibet. Additionally, it calls on the People's Republic of China to enter into meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama and his representatives, without any preconditions, in order to produce negotiated settlement for the Tibetan people. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a global day of physical and mental exercise as the world celebrates International Yoga Day on June 21, 2015. Yoga is a physical, mental, and spiritual practice that aims to integrate the body and the mind. It encourages participants to assume various postures and to conduct breathing exercise, subsequently allowing them to achieve a deeper sense of consciousness and tranquility. Developed around the fifth and sixth century BCE by the ancient Indian civilizations of the Indus River Valley, yoga is a hallmark of the Indian culture. The world's religions that originate from India-- Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism--utilize yoga as a central part of their religious and cultural traditions. In fact, yoga appears prominently in the Bhagadad Gita, one of Hinduism's most important texts, and in some of the earliest Buddhist texts. In the mid-19th century, the Western public gained an active interest in yoga, valuing the practice for its transcendental experience. By the 1980's, yoga became viewed as a means to promote physical wellbeing, citing improvements to mental health and flexibility. On December 11, 2014, the United Nations General Assembly declared June 21st as International Yoga Day. The importance of this special day cannot be understated, because as the saying goes, ``in the practice of yoga, one can emphasize the body, the mind, or the self and hence the effort can never be fruitless.'' This year, there will be a rally on June 21 celebrating International Yoga Day in Times Square. I am honored to recognize the invaluable gift of consciousness and well-being that yoga has brought to the people of the United States and the world, and I wish the participants of International Yoga Day a stimulating experience.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. It is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

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

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. ENGEL. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H. Con. Res. 55. Let me first say that I believe Congress needs to do its job and pass an AUMF, which is the Authorization for Use of Military Force. We should have acted on this months ago. So this is the right message. But, with only the highest respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, I believe that withdrawal by a date certain at this time is the wrong policy. This measure would direct the President to remove all U.S. Armed Forces deployed to Iraq or Syria since August 7, 2014, except those needed to protect American diplomatic facilities and personnel. That is no way to defeat ISIS or to help the people of Iraq and Syria. I cannot vote for a policy I do not support. However, I share the frustration voiced by Mr. McGovern, Ms. Lee, and many others. I have said time and time again that Congress should pass a new AUMF. We owe it to the American people, we should do our job, and we owe it to our men and women in uniform. Congressional inaction on an AUMF is inexcusable. Congress has had months to consider the President's language, and it is well past time we act. Right now, the administration is using the resolution we passed after September 11, 2001, as the legal justification to fight ISIS. This is deeply problematic. First of all, the 2001 AUMF has none of the limits many of us are seeking. The American people have no stomach for another large-scale, open-ended commitment of American troops in the Middle East. It was our disastrous intervention in Iraq last decade that set the stage for the rise of ISIS in the first place. This is a new challenge, and we need new parameters to define our mission and our goals. At the same time, using a 2001 authorization for a 2015 conflict sets a terrible precedent. What happens in 5 years when the next administration does the same thing and 5 years after that and 5 years after that? We didn't vote for perpetual war, and we need a new AUMF. We cannot allow that outcome. With a new AUMF, I hope it will be a bipartisan effort. I hope it will be the hallmark of our work on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I commend my friend, Mr. McGovern, for taking a stand on this issue, and we are in agreement that the United States must avoid another failed open-ended war in the Middle East. But there is a role for the United States in this region, and we should not just vote to withdraw. I believe that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. The United States has already made a difference by supporting the Iraqis and the Syrians who are fighting ISIS. It is a difficult fight, but I don't think we can walk away. With American leadership, we were able to prevent a wholesale slaughter of Yazidi people. With American help, our Iraqi partners were able to maintain control of the Mosul Dam, which, if breached by ISIS, could have resulted in the death and displacement of up to 2 million people. With American assistance, the Iraqi Security Forces and the moderate Syrian opposition are taking back territory, too slowly, but they are taking back territory, particularly in the south. The Foreign Affairs Committee just had a hearing earlier this morning and we saw horrific situations of children being gassed in Syria. There is no good side in Syria. We have got to somehow let the Free Syrian Army or the rebels, the well-vetted moderate rebels, we have got to help them, and that is why I believe there is still a role for us to play. A precipitous withdrawal by turning our heads away because we are fed up and disgusted, I think, is not the right move. So this fight is far from over, and the United States has a critical role to play. We need an authorization that defines a role for the United States, a limited role, and that is the measure I will support. I, again, do want to thank Mr. McGovern for bringing this issue to the floor. He is a thoughtful, effective colleague. And while I appreciate his resolution, I commend him for focusing this Congress on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), my friend and colleague.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle), a rising star on the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just reiterate that I agree that Congress should do its job and pass a new AUMF. The question is: Is this the best way to do it? We ought to pass the right AUMF, not just any AUMF, and we are told we should force the issue. I had a friend who used to say: ``Be careful what you wish for.'' If we pass this resolution, it is more than possible the Republican leadership will force through language that we on this side of the aisle cannot accept, something that does not have the limits the Democrats are seeking, or worse, just ratify the administration's argument that the 2001 AUMF applies to ISIL. We need to pass an AUMF, I agree, but we need to pass the right AUMF, even if that means we can't do it within 6 months. I hope we can get together and do that--and we should--and that is why I think this debate is good; but I think passing any AUMF is like buying a pig in a poke, and I am not ready to go down that line. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, again, let me say that what we have here, as well-intentioned as I know it is, is a unilateral withdrawal, clean and simple. I understand the frustration, but this is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I think we need to be very, very careful before we do these things unilaterally. It is now my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Let me, first of all, I will conclude the way I began. I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), for raising this issue. It is an issue that has to be raised, and I am in sympathy with many of the things that he said. I don't really think we are really disagreeing here; we are just disagreeing on tactics. As I have said, the intentions behind this resolution are commendable, but I cannot support this policy which, when you all boil everything down, would require a straight withdrawal without conditions. That is not the right policy for this country, a straight withdrawal without conditions. I share my colleague's frustration that we haven't acted on a new AUMF. We need to pass an AUMF, but we need to pass the right AUMF. If we pass this resolution, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will be pushed to pass their own language overriding this measure. What will it look like? I would wager that it won't include the limitations that many of us on this side would like to see. Worse still, we could just rubberstamp the argument that the 2001 AUMF applies to ISIS in 2015. Again, that is why I said we have to be careful we don't cut off our nose to spite our face. Now, the President sent us an AUMF. I thought it was a good starting point. I know it was panned on both sides--Republicans thought it was too light; Democrats thought it was too harsh--but it was a good starting point. There are many things in an AUMF we have to consider. We need to consider time, geography; we need to consider what we do with the previous AUMFs. These are issues that should be debated, and I hope we will debate, but I think the White House put forth a good starting position. The American people expect us to do our job and pass a new AUMF. They expect us to keep the United States out of another large-scale open- ended war and pass a responsible policy for degrading and defeating ISIS. Voting for withdrawal is not the right way forward. I believe that with all my heart. Let's vote down this resolution and go back to the drawing board. Chairman Royce and I will work together in a bipartisan way, as we have so many times in the past, and let's put before this Congress the right policy to get this job done. I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to, specifically, the provision of H.R. 2570 that pays for the Value Based Insurance Design for Better Care Act. If this bill passes with its current pay-for in place, it will do so at the detriment of Americans who rely on home infusion therapies. ``Infusion therapy'' refers to the administration of medication directly into the bloodstream through a needle or catheter. A patient will undergo infusion therapy when his or her disease or infection cannot be adequately treated by oral medications. Infusion therapy is used to treat cancers, congestive heart failure, immune deficiencies, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, gastrointestinal diseases, and other conditions. The administration of infusion therapies is significantly more involved than that of oral medications. Infusion therapy entails specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services, including sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient education and monitoring. Currently, Medicare fully covers infusion therapy when it is administered in a hospital, doctor's office or nursing home. However, Medicare's coverage of infusion therapy in the home is fractured and does not adequately cover the services needed to provide infusions in the home. Not only does this coverage gap force patients into expensive institutional settings, but it also puts patients at risk of developing additional infections in these environments. What's more, this coverage gap prevents patients from receiving the treatment they need in the most comfortable setting possible: their homes. Although Medicare does not presently pay for the services that are essential for a patient to receive infusion therapies at home, providers have been able to offer a limited set of home infusion drugs to Medicare beneficiaries via Medicare Part B DME coverage, as the reimbursement they receive for home infusion drugs is substantial enough to cover the services necessary to administer those drugs. If H.R. 2570 passes in its current form, this will no longer be the case. The demonstration program that this legislation creates is financed by modifying the reimbursement structure for infusion drugs under the Medicare Part B durable medical equipment benefit. This change will perpetuate the coverage gap that prevents Medicare from covering the indispensable service component of home infusion therapy. In addition, the drug reimbursement that providers receive will no longer be significant enough to capture home infusion services as it does currently. As a result, it will become exceedingly difficult for providers to offer Medicare beneficiaries infusion therapy in their homes. I want to emphasize that I do not oppose changing the manner in which home infusion drugs are paid for. On the contrary, I have introduced H.R. 605, the Medicare Home Infusion Site of Care Act, with Congressman Pat Tiberi. Our bill, which has garnered cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, would explicitly cover the services that must be provided to administer infusion drugs at home. I ask that my colleagues think about the patients who depend on home infusion therapies. If we allow H.R. 2570 to pass in its current form, we simultaneously deny patients the ability to receive life-saving therapies in their homes, forcing them into institutional settings that will come at a cost to the Medicare program and, most importantly, to patients' quality of life.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. I thank my friend for yielding. I want to say that I appreciate the bipartisan, hard work of Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff, but I want to bring to the House's attention recent reports that this bill makes drastic cuts in our so- called covert support to the moderate Syrian opposition. A headline in the Saturday Washington Post read: ``Secret CIA effort in Syria faces large funding cut.'' If these reports are true, just as the moderate Syrian forces may be starting to make progress, especially in the south, then I am afraid we may be making a big mistake. Unfortunately, most Members of the House don't know for certain if this legislation will reduce our support for the moderate opposition. Those funding decisions are made behind closed doors. And that is why I believe this bill is not the right place for us to be making decisions that have a major impact on our Syria strategy. I have no doubt that Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff are determined to get the intelligence piece of our Syria response right, but this is not merely an intelligence issue, and our overall strategy in Syria goes far beyond what is included in any covert program. I believe we shouldn't be dealing with this problem in a piecemeal way. As we have been doing in the Foreign Affairs Committee on a bipartisan basis, I urge my colleagues to take a step back, look at the big picture, and address our Syria policy in a way that makes sense and involves all the relevant players. I am troubled if it is true that this bill makes drastic cuts in our so-called covert support to the moderate Syria opposition. And I commend the hard work of our chairman and ranking member.

Mr. ENGEL

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a Member who has also been fighting for his constituent, who has brought this issue up with us so many times, who has been unyielding in trying to get freedom for all the hostages.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I, again, urge my colleagues to support this resolution at this critical time. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), for his work on this. We are in the final days of the nuclear negotiations, as has been mentioned before, with Iran. And as the families of these Americans point out, when these negotiations are over, if we do nothing, so too may be the chance of the United States to engage directly with Iran over the fate of their family members. So we must not let this opportunity go to waste. We call on Iran to release Amir Hekmati, Jason Rezaian, Saeed Abedini, and Robert Levinson; to live up to their pledge to provide further information about Robert Levinson; and to bring these men home to their families. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is now my great pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch), one of the senior members of our Foreign Affairs Committee, the ranking member on the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee, and someone whom I turn to very often for advice and counsel, who has been a clear and effective voice in trying to bring our hostages home.

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