Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act. Certainly, this Member has no objections to expediting citizenship for noncitizen members serving in U.S. armed services and supports efforts to provide appropriate incentives for a very small percentage of few noncitizens who meet established requirements to join our professional military forces. However, in granting citizenship to these qualified men and women, it is not necessary or desirable to also grant priority to their parents, spouses, and children. And it is certainly not appropriate to waive the requirement that such family members financially support themselves in the U.S. Unfortunately, provisions in H.R. 1954 would have that effect.

Through this bill, the spouses, children under the age of 21, and parents of men and women who have been granted citizenship based on their service in the U.S. Armed Forces and who have died in the line of duty would be authorized to seek permanent resident status on an expedited basis. Then, unlike other people seeking legal immigrant status, these family members would not be required to meet financial thresholds which indicate that they would not immediately be public charges.

Most of the American public is unaware of these provisions. Enacting such excessive inducements for joining the U.S. military is a step in the wrong direction, particularly if it results in this country increasingly depending upon what could come to be thought of and called foreign mercenaries to serve in the Armed Forces. This practice has too many similarities to the mercenary forces of the Roman Empire in its decline as Roman citizens themselves became unwilling to serve in the Roman legions. Imagine, too, the reactions of foreign nations that begin to see our forces as forces that serve to gain citizenship for themselves and their families.

Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote against H.R. 1954 and to push strenuously for changing this legislation before enactment.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 215 I inadvertently pressed the wrong button. I meant to vote ``no.''

Announcement By the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 255. This legislation is noncontroversial. It is one introduced by this Member.

I very much appreciate the support and assistance of the gentleman from

California (Chairman Pombo) and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich) and the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, (Mrs. Christensen), for moving this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what this facilitates is the granting of an easement by the National Park Service to Otoe County, Nebraska, so that a road may be constructed to the Missouri River Basin Lewis and Clark Interpretive Trails and Visitors Center, expected to open in July of next year in time for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The Otoe County government will construct and maintain the road, but it is essential that we have a road for visitors to visit the visitors center.

I introduced this legislation originally in the 107th Congress. It was not acted upon. Time is running short; and, therefore, I very much appreciate the fact that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and his staff facilitated the presentation of the bill for the consideration of the House today.

This visitors center will focus primarily on the flora and fauna discovered by Lewis and Clark, well documented for the Nation as they paved the way for the settlement of the great American West.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of H.R. 255. This is a non-controversial, but very necessary bill. It would simply grant an easement to Otoe County in Nebraska allowing it to build an access road to the Missouri River Basin Lewis & Clark Interpretive Trails & Visitors Center which is now under construction at a site adjacent to Nebraska City, Nebraska.

This Member originally introduced this legislation during the 107th Congress when it became clear that the National Park Service could not grant this easement without congressional action. Otoe County has agreed to construct and maintain the access road.

This Member would like to begin by thanking the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the Chairman of the Resources Committee, and the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the Ranking Member of the Committee, for their assistance in expediting this legislation.

When completed, the access road facilitated by H.R. 255 will lead visitors from the State Highway Route 2 Expressway to an outstanding Lewis and Clark interpretive center. The center is scheduled to be completed in early 2004 with the grand opening set on July 30, 2004, which coincides with the Lewis and Clark signature event in Nebraska at historic Fort Atkinson, the site of the famous ``Council Bluff'' in Nebraska where Lewis and Clark had their first council with Native American leaders.

The Nebraska City Lewis and Clark Interpretive Center will find an important role by focusing on the flora and fauna encountered and documented by the expedition. Across the country, the bicentennial commemoration is expected to draw millions of Americans and foreign visitors to sites along the Lewis and Clark trail over the next several years. This new center will certainly be one of the must-see stops.

Much like the Expedition itself, this project has had to overcome numerous challenges and obstacles. Its success is due to the remarkable foresight, persistence and dedication of many individuals. This Member has had a longstanding interest in the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Starting from a first reading of Lewis and Clark's journals, many years ago, this Member has always been thrilled with the story of this extraordinary and courageous journey which was so important in the settlement of our region and the westward expansion of our Nation and people.

This Member's legislative efforts related to the Lewis and Clark Expedition began more than two decades ago with the authorship of an amendment to the National Trails System Act in 1980 to include provisions for a series of interpretive markets along the Lewis and Clark Trail in Nebraska and for the authorization of an interpretive center in each of the states through which the Lewis and Clark Trail passes. It has taken Nebraska about 22 years to reach the point of constructing a center, but the results will be worth the effort.

In 1987, Congress specifically authorized construction of a Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Interpretive Center in Nebraska to explain the significance of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. The same year, at this Member's request, Congress appropriated $25,000 for historical markers at Lewis and Clark campsites in Nebraska and $30,000 for initial planning of a trail interpretation center, both under the 1980 authorization this Member authored.

The National Park Service plan issued in 1991 recommended that the center be located in Nebraska City. The same year, the Park Service acquired a 65-acre tract of land for the center. This tract, along with adjacent land that was later donated, provides a panoramic view of the Missouri River, much as Lewis and Clark would have viewed it. In fact, two stops on the river at Nebraska City in 1804 are recorded in their journals.

The story of the incredible Lewis and Clark expedition has appeal for Americans of all ages and backgrounds and presents an opportunity for a unifying experience. In the coming months and years, the public will undoubtedly increase its demands for more information about Lewis and Clark and their bold and courageous adventures.

When Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, the United States had only about five and a half million people all concentrated in the eastern third of the continent, primarily along the coast. As a result of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the size of the country nearly doubled and the stage was set for a period of unparalleled development and progress.

But first, the new acquisition had to be explored. President Jefferson chose Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to ``explore the Missouri River & such principal streams of it, as, by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado, or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purposes of commerce.''

Lewis and Clark departed St. Louis on May 14, 1804, and returned to St. Louis 28 months later on September 23, 1806. That difficult but exciting journey covered 8,000 miles through the area which now constitutes the states of Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon.

Along the way, Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery encountered formidable challenges that easily could have thwarted their mission. However, they continued to keep their focus firmly on the ultimate goal. During their journey to the Pacific Ocean and back, the Lewis and Clark expedition documented numerous scientific and geographic discoveries and helped pave the way for the United States to become a great world power.

This Member believes that passage of H.R. 255, will play a small, but vital role in permitting ready access to the new visitors center and thus increase the attention to the bicentennial activities. As someone with a long-standing interest in the Expedition and a co-chair of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Congressional Caucus, this Member is pleased to have H.R. 255 considered on the Floor and urges his colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, this House for the first time in 6 years spoke unanimously and decisively on the current situation involving Cyprus. On March 27, this body voted 422-0 to express our disappointment that a United Nations-backed settlement plan would not be presented to the people of Cyprus for their consideration. The resolution, introduced by this Member, also called for the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to quickly return to the negotiating table to find a fair and lasting settlement acceptable to all.

Since passage of that resolution, two extraordinary events have taken place on that divided island. The first took place over Easter holiday when Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Rauf Denktash, announced a freedom of movement policy whereby the border separating the two sides would be open for the free passage of the island's population. In another welcome move shortly thereafter, the Cyprus Government announced that it was initiating 19 confidence-building measures. Some of those included lifting of trade restrictions between the north and the south and the de-mining of the Greek Cypriot side of the buffer zone.

Mr. Speaker, whatever the impact the actions of this House had on events which have taken place on Cyprus, a new and positive attitude has taken hold on that island. This Member would like to commend Mr. Denktash for taking the bold and most welcome actions he initiated. In addition, this Member wishes to offer a special note of congratulations to President Papadopoulos for the comprehensive and impressive measures his government has put forward and has begun to implement.

Others include the hiring of Turkish Cypriot professionals in the Cyprus Government; restoration of direct telecommunications between the Greek Cypriot side and the north as well as with Turkey; permitting Turkish Cypriot athletes to participate as members of national sporting teams of the Republic of Cyprus; improved health care opportunities for Turkish Cypriots; and an accounting of missing personnel, just to name a few.

Of further interest, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan traveled to north Cyprus last weekend. It was this Member's hope that the visit would help pave the way for the eventual resumption of settlement negotiations between the two Cypriot sides. In the meantime, however, it was also this Member's hope that Turkey could be helpful in building confidence on the island by announcing several new initiatives as well. These could include the demining of the Turkish side to the buffer zone; placing the town of Famagusta under U.N. control for its reconstruction and return of its original inhabitants; addressing the issue of the enclaved people living in northern Cyprus, and to restart the missing persons' investigative committee.

Mr. Speaker, while open borders, telecommunications and demining will not ultimately settle the division of the island, these measures, hopefully, will lead to more trust and a willingness to quickly resume the negotiations, and find a settlement for this division, which is the strong desire of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to note that today, May 9, is Europe Day.

Fifty-three years ago, then French Foreign Minister Robert Shuman announced a plan that proposed the pooling of European coal and steel production under a common authority as a way to bring some sense of order to the economic recovery of post-World War II Europe.

The Shuman Declaration, which was formalized in a treaty the following year, was regarded as the first step toward achieving a united Europe. Since that time, we have witnessed an extraordinary evolution within Europe toward what has now become the European Union-- a treaty-based institutional framework which defines and manages economic and political cooperation among its current 15--soon to be--25 member countries.

Mr. Speaker, although the difficult debate over Iraq presented yet another challenge to the relationship between the United States and a few countries in Europe, it remains clear to this Member a strong, developed transatlantic relationship is critical to the long-term political, economic and security interests of both the United States and Europe. It is also clear that one of the central ingredients to a successful partnership with Europe is a stable, integrated and dynamic Europe--and the European Union has evolved to become, along with NATO, one of the two critical international organizations for achieving those objectives.

We in this country may not fully understand or appreciate all that has, and is, evolving within the European Union. But it remains clear that as we have worked so well with Europe within the NATO Alliance over the years, we must strive to develop a better working knowledge of, and relationship with, the European Union that will be both a transatlantic partner and an economic competitor for America.

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare for the forthcoming U.S.--EU summit in June, today, Europe Day, is as good a time as ever to begin to renew our enduring and critical alliance with the countries of Europe and with the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, today this Member rises to inform the House that the United States Senate a few minutes ago by a vote of 96-0 voted to give its advice and consent to U.S. ratification of the NATO enlargement protocols. The lines drawn across Europe at Yalta are gone. By its action today on the 58th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, the Senate has approved the membership of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in the North Atlantic Alliance.

According to the Constitution, it is the Senate that must give its advice and consent to treaty protocols. But, Mr. Speaker, this Member must note the leading role that this Chamber has played in promoting the admission into NATO of the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. The decision to admit former Communist countries from Central and Eastern Europe into the Atlantic Alliance is one of the great success stories in American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It is a bipartisan success, promoted by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. The seven nations across the face of Eastern and Central Europe that join NATO are democracies that will help build a stronger North Atlantic Alliance. Having fought so long and hard to gain their freedom, these nations know how very precious freedom is.

I ask all the states of the NATO nations to give their approval under their national processes as Canada, Norway and now the United States have done.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform the House about the signing of the Adriatic treaty last Friday in the Albanian capital of Tirana. This agreement was signed by Secretary of State Powell and the foreign ministers of Albania, Croatia, and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the three currently-remaining NATO aspirant nations.

The Adriatic Charter pledges the United States to support efforts by Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia to join NATO and other Euro-Atlantic institutions. In this agreement, the three aspirant nations commit themselves to

accelerate their democratic reforms, protect human rights, implement market-oriented economic policies, and enhance their mutual cooperation.

Under the Adriatic Charter, the United States and these three countries pledge to consult whenever the security of one of them is threatened, and the aspirant countries promise to continue defense reforms and undertake steps to enhance border security so they can contribute to regional stability.

Mr. Speaker, the Adriatic Charter is one more important step toward President Bush's goal of a Europe whole and free from the Baltic to the Black Sea. I commend and congratulate the people of Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia on the occasion of the signing of the Adriatic Charter.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the April 12, 2003, editorial from the Lincoln Journal Star, entitled ``Castro shows he is still a brutal tyrant.'' As the editorial correctly notes, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro's recent crackdowns on political dissent cannot be tolerated.

Castro Shows He Is Still a Brutal Tyrant

Early this year, the College of Journalism and Mass

Communications at the University of Nebraska arranged a trip

to Cuba for students in its depth reporting class.

The students made an effort to talk to dissenters, pro-

democracy activists and independent journalists.

Today, six of the people they met are in prison, according

to student Sarah Fox. In addition, two Cubans met by the UNL

group have been identified as government spies, according to

Professor Joe Starita, a leader of the visit.

Since March 18, Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has jailed more

than 75 Cubans, including many in the recent Varela Project,

which collected more than 10,000 signatures last year calling

for a pro-democracy referendum.

Castro's latest round of suppression shatters hopes the 76-

year-old autocrat will permit meaningful progress toward

democracy near the end of his long stay in power.

The people jailed by Castro were guilty only of exercising

freedoms--criticism of the government, political activism,

independent journalism--that Americans take for granted.

Raul Rivero, a poet and independent journalist, already has

been sentenced to 20 years in prison after pre-ordained legal

proceedings. Also facing long prison sentences are economist

Martha Beatriz Roque, labor activist Pedro Pablo Alvarez and

editor Ricardo Gonzalez.

During the crackdown, government officials hauled the

dissidents from their homes and confiscated tape recorders,

fax machines, computers and clippings from American

newspapers.

Amnesty International described the sentences as ``a giant

step backward for human rights.'' The U.S. State Department

described them as ``the most despicable act of political

repression in the Americas in a decade.'' The Human Rights

Watch said Cuba is ``flouting fundamental human rights

norms.''

The level of repression in Cuba has fluctuated during the

43 years Castro has held power. In recent years, however,

Castro seemed more tolerant of dissent, and he opened the

doors of the island nation to tourists and international

visitors.

Despite the welcome influx of foreign currency, Castro

eventually felt threatened by the opposition movement in

Cuba. Adding to Castro's paranoia was encouragement given to

Castro's opponents by the American government.

The top U.S. diplomat in Cuba, James Cason, met with

dissidents, offered them public support and allowed them to

use U.S. facilities in Cuba for their meetings.

If Castro had been willing to continue loosening the reins

of power, Cuba could have enjoyed the economic benefits of

increased tourism and trade. Instead, his crackdown reaffirms

that Castro is nothing more than a garden variety tyrant more

interested in clinging to power than improving the lives of

his people.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the April 10, 2003, editorial from the Lincoln Journal Star, entitled ``Cheers for Toppling of Saddam.'' Indeed, the editorial captures the enthusiastic spirit of the Iraqi people as American troops liberated them from the horrific, repressive regime of Saddam Hussein.

Cheers for Toppling of Saddam

On Wednesday the war in Iraq reached a historic `tipping

point,'' as Brig. Gen Vince Brooks termed it, symbolized by

the toppling of a 40-foot statue of Saddam Hussein in a main

square of Baghdad.

Hundreds of Iraqis, especially the Shiite Muslim majority

that suffered under Saddam's predominantly Sunni Muslim

government, celebrated with cheers, exchanging high fives

with U.S. Marines.

A group of Iraqis dragged the head of the Saddam statue

through the streets. Others battered it with sticks and

shoes.

Few predicted that this historic moment would occur so soon

after a war of less than three weeks. President George W.

Bush, in fact, warned Americans on March 23, ``It is evident

that it will take awhile to achieve our objective.''

And in fact, more military action lies ahead. Parts of

Baghdad are not secure. Coalition ground forces have not yet

moved into other cities, including Tikrit, Saddam's

birthplace 100 miles north of Baghdad. No one knows with

certainty whether Saddam is alive or dead.

But Iraqis on Wednesday grasped that Saddam's 24-year rule

of terror had come to an end.

Also abundantly clear is the new prowess of the U.S.

military. The brilliant campaign to remove Saddam so far has

produced a death toll far less than predictions and in fact

less than the toll of the Desert Storm war in 1991.

The combination of smart weaponry, high-tech surveillance

equipment and instantaneous communication turned coalition

troops into a potent force capable of making split-second

adjustments to battlefield conditions, even in urban

environments.

Drone aircraft fed television images of streets and

rooftops. Ground troops called for precision air strikes

rather than fighting blind. Troops even used hand-held

computerized translators that allowed them to communicate

with Iraqis.

The advanced technology, training and updated strategy

brought success at minimal cost more quickly than many dared

hope.

So Wednesday was a day for celebration. ``He's gone? He's

gone?'' chanted a group of boys in the Kurdish city of Irbil.

``Bush No. 1 Bush No 1,'' shouted young men in Baghdad. Women

held their babies for American troops to kiss. Women and

children handed them flowers.

And coalition troops were making discoveries that showed

why there was dancing in the streets at the realization that

Saddam's grip was loosed forever. In Basra, Iraqis showed

journalists the ``White Lion'' jail where they said Saddam's

secret police tortured prisoners with beatings, mutilations,

electric shocks and chemicals. Similar discoveries were being

made elsewhere in Iraq.

The cheers of today might be soon forgotten as Iraqis begin

the task of rebuilding their country and establishing a new

government. And it must be acknowledged that this historic

moment came despite objections from scores of nations around

the globe.

Nonetheless, it was gratifying on Wednesday to witness the

end of the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 165) expressing support for a renewed effort to find a peaceful, just, and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 165, a resolution offered by this Member regarding the political situation in Cyprus. The Subcommittee on Europe adopted this measure unanimously last week, because an historic moment in the history of Cyprus was about to be lost if the momentum which had been building over the past 2 years to bring about a resolution of the Cyprus problem was allowed to slip away.

I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Europe, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), for his support on this issue and his willingness to see this resolution move forward. I believe the resolution represents an important statement by the House on the need for a solution for the Cyprus problem.

I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their help in moving this legislation to the floor; and to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) for managing the legislation tonight.

I also want to particularly acknowledge the work of our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who has long been a leader in keeping this House informed of the situation in Cyprus and the status of the peace process.

It is interesting and very salutary, I think, that we have as supporters of this resolution, indeed, as cosponsors of the resolution, some of the Members that are strongest in support of Greece and are strongest in support of Turkey.

House Resolution 165 commends the United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, for his tireless efforts to seek a resolution to the Cyprus problem, a problem which has been on the agenda of the Security Council for almost 40 years. In fact, it is the oldest item continuously on the Secretary General's peacemaking agenda.

In addition, this resolution expresses the disappointment of the House that the recent United Nations plan for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem could not be agreed to by the two Cypriot sides, despite the effort of many and, in particular, the United Nations Secretary General.

Referenda put before both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots would be approved to create a confederation to bring peace and unity to Cyprus, if only they were given that opportunity.

In a report that the Security Council issued on Saturday on the Secretary General's effort to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan made it clear that ``a unique set of circumstances, including the membership of Cyprus in the European Union, offering a framework of incentives to reach a settlement, as well as deadlines within which to reach it'' was emerging and that the potential existed to make a true impact on peace.

Finally, the resolution urges both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to quickly resume negotiations to resolve this problem. It expresses the view of the House of Representatives that we want and appreciate continued efforts by Greece and Turkey to maximize their influence to prevent this opportunity to bring peace and economic prosperity to the entire Cypriot community from being lost.

The resolution urges the United Nations and the Bush administration to redouble their efforts to encourage the talks to begin again in order to seek a solution.

Mr. Speaker, since 1974, the island of Cyprus has been politically divided in what has been often a bitter and violent dispute. Consequently and regrettably, the people of Cyprus have been culturally and socially isolated from each other by a heavily fortified green line in what today represents something akin to the Berlin Wall of the last century.

This Member has personally walked that green line through Nicosia on two occasions. The commander of one of the four national peacekeeping forces, the British commander, told this Member that in his capacity, he has men in his unit whose fathers have served in that unit at that location.

For the past 29 years, various attempts and numerous proposals have been put forward to bring Greek and Turkish Cypriots together to resolve what has become known as ``the Cyprus problem.''

None of these attempts to bring about reconciliation has been so close to achieving success than the effort which is before us now has had as an opportunity during this past 5 months. Last November, with the entry of a divided Cyprus into the European Union

looming, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed a comprehensive framework for a just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem. His plan was hailed as a positive attempt to resolve the problem.

In presenting his framework, the Secretary General asked Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders to accept the plan by February 28. When neither side resolved their differences with the proposal by the end of the February, the Secretary General asked the two leaders to meet him in The Hague on March 10 and to sign an agreement that would put the framework to simultaneous referenda on the island.

On March 10 both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders did meet with Annan in The Hague. However, we learned with great disappointment that the Secretary General's framework was rejected when the Turkish Cypriot leader announced he could not accept the settlement plan, and would not agree to put the referenda to the Turkish Cypriots.

This decision was disappointing because informal polls indicated that a majority of Turkish Cypriots were prepared to support the plan and bring the longstanding division and suffering of the island to an end.

Despite our uncertainty over the future of the island, last week, as our subcommittee prepared to adopt this resolution, we were informed that several measures were being initiated by the various parties which seemed to us to be very positive.

The first was the announcement by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan that he would bring a new effort to unite the Greek and Turkish Cypriot areas of Cyprus forward.

The second was the announcement that Turkish Foreign Minister Gul would travel to Northern Cypress to discuss the peace process with Turkish Cypriot leaders and then would travel to Belgrade to meet with Greek leaders to discuss how to resume the peace negotiations. Both of these announcements were very welcome, and this Member commends the Turkish leadership for their willingness to address the issue.

A third announcement was that the Turkish Cypriot leader, Denktash, had sent a letter to the Cypriot President, Mr. Papadopoulos, suggesting several measures which the Turkish leader was offering as a way to begin rebuilding confidence between the two sides in advance of resuming the negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, this Member felt that the gestures may have been positive because one of the biggest obstacles which had plagued the peace process for all these years has been the lack of confidence and trust on both sides. Unfortunately and very quickly, we saw just how much distrust actually does exist today on that island because some people thought there was a hidden agenda, and maybe there was, but I hope that was not the case.

Whatever the real motivation of the proposal, a little bit of trust and confidence is something both sides could use right now. This Member wonders what is wrong with lifting current restrictions on crossborder trade, tourism, education and culture exchanges, even if for only 1 day a week just as a way for both sides to see if they really are prepared to live as a united island. This Member also wonders why some of the measures could not be agreed to outside of a more comprehensive agreement based upon the U.N. peace plan.

Mr. Speaker, in just 12 days the Government of Cypress will sign the accession papers paving the way for the southern part of the island to enter the European Union. The economic benefits of this membership to the southern half of the island will be significant. On the other hand, it would be a terribly damaging blow to the potential economic prospects for the Turkish Cypriots. The current differences between the income levels of the two communities would continue to widen dramatically.

Now is the time for both sides to put aside their past differences and to make a serious commitment to resolve this problem of a divided Cypress. We are never going to have a better opportunity.

As Secretary General Kofi Annan has stated, his settlement proposal is still on the table; and I believe resumption of the negotiations should continue to use the Secretary General's plan as a basis for an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Cypress have endured 29 years of separation. They are ready, it is clear, to see and support referenda. Therefore, it is a sincere hope of this Member that the leaders of both sides will return to the negotiating table and resolve this important problem so that next year, in 2004, we will be celebrating the first anniversary of a united Cypress and not the 30th anniversary of a divided one.

Mr. Speaker, this Member urges Members of the House to speak with one strong voice in support of a resolution on the Cypress problem and thus urges support for the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who I would say is among the House's most outstanding experts on Cypress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his concluding comments, and all of these speakers this evening have had a very positive outlook on the opportunity, a rare opportunity, for us to really bring peace and unity to the island of Cyprus.

This is an opportunity we cannot avoid trying our best on. This is an opportunity with a maximum amount of leverage. I urge, therefore, my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 149) expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of Serbia, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in strong support of H. Res. 149, a resolution expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives in response to the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic of Serbia. It is with sadness that this Member brings this resolution to the floor of the House of Representatives today. Prime Minister Djindjic was assassinated on March 12. This tragic event was a shock to the people of Serbia, to the people of the Balkans, and to people around the world.

If anyone represented the present state of the Balkans, all of the changes that occurred in recent years, the hope for a free, democratic and prosperous future, it was Prime Minister Djindjic. He was the decisive leader who played a critical role in bringing democracy to Serbia. He was probably the most visible and important proponent of helping the Serbian people come to terms with the past, the destruction and the injustices of the tragic events which have been happening in the Balkans over the past decade. He was the leader most determined to integrate his country into Europe and the community of Western democracies, to provide a future of security, prosperity, and hope to the Serbian people.

However, only 2\1/2\ years after the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic, let us not forget how fragile freedom and democracy in the region really is. During this crucial period, Prime Minister Djindjic was the leader who represented the best hope for the changes and reforms necessary to lead the former Yugoslavia to a new and different direction; but in the context of a country and a region of so much violence, hatred and corruption over the past decade, anyone who would have made these necessary forums would certainly make enemies and endanger both himself and the path of reform in his country.

Prime Minister Djindjic sought to change the political system in Serbia, sought to fight organized crime and official corruption, and sought to bring suspected war criminals to justice. He

attempted to develop better political institutions, to establish an independent judiciary, and to reform the police and the military. Although not exempt from what may have been legitimate criticism, perhaps even appearing to turn a blind or jaded eye to some of the forces that are so prevalent in Serbian society, he was seen to be making remarkable progress. He was the leader of a coalition and the leader of a younger generation who were bringing their efforts to bear to transform Serbian society. However, in the process, the forces of the past proved remarkably entrenched and widely based.

Mr. Speaker, let us recognize how significant the tragic event of March 12, 2003, is for Serbia and the Balkans. Let us recognize that the path of reform and fighting the forces of the past is not easy. Reformist leaders in Serbia and throughout the Balkans are vulnerable, and reformist and newly-democratic governments are fragile.

President Bush said Prime Minister Djindjic will be remembered for his role in bringing democracy to Serbia and for his role in bringing Slobodan Milosevic to justice.

Mr. Speaker, let us also remember Prime Minister Djindjic for his courage and bravery in fighting some of the most corrosive and virulent forces of the past in Serbia and the former Yugoslavia. This resolution shows that the House of Representatives supports the reforms that Prime Minister Djindjic spoke about most energetically and upon which he sought action. Reflecting upon the forces that brought his death must cause our country and the international community to redouble our efforts to assist the country of Serbia and Montenegro as it seeks a new and different future.

We offer our strongest encouragement to the new leaders of Serbia and Montenegro so that they may redouble their efforts in pursuit of crucial reforms. They must have the courage, the resources, and the support first of their citizenry and their country, but also the international community to aggressively fight the forces of the past, the forces of hatred and violence, the forces of organized crime and the history of official corruption in their country.

Mr. Speaker, in offering this resolution and statement, this Member offers his deepest sympathies and heartfelt condolences to the family of Prime Minister Djindjic and the people of Serbia and Montenegro.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for expediting the consideration of this resolution. I want to particularly note the contributions of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) who had the major role in drafting the legislation. I am grateful to have his assistance and his cosponsorship along with a substantial number of other Members who believe this is an important way for the House to recognize the contributions of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Cunningham amendment.

We have heard a lot about the distinguished history of Turkey as a NATO ally, and as an ally in Korea as well, and in Afghanistan leading the ISAF for 8 months, and in Operation Northern Watch over Iraq where they provided the air base for our flights for the last 12 years. They have been an incredibly faithful ally.

Now, what happened in Turkey is really this, when it comes down to it. They had an election in November. It swept in a new party. Ninety percent of their national assembly is new. This party, the Justice and Development Party, had never been in power; and never had even shared power before. And through inexperience and incompetence they were surprised to have lost the vote. They got the plurality. They had too many absentees and too many abstentions and they were surprised that they did not have the absolute majority vote.

This is not the time to punish Turkey for that inexperience.

Their own party leader, a charismatic man, was not eligible to serve in the Parliament at that time. Now he is the Prime Minister.

They have done an incredible amount of things, but the other thing I want my colleagues to consider is that they were the biggest loser in the Gulf War. Not the United States in terms of costs, no one else; the cost to them was somewhere between $60 billion and $80 billion, unreimbursed. We had our costs paid for, primarily so, by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Now, let us see what Condoleezza Rice said in behalf of the President today. She said in this letter addressed to the chairman, ``American and Turkish soldiers stood side by side during the Cold War and on battlefields from Korea to Afghanistan. The President's supplemental request recognizes and reflects that past, and his desire,'' that is the President's desire, ``to strengthen the relationship further. This assistance . . . can play a significant role in bolstering the U.S.- Turkey partnership.''

This is not the time to undercut our President. And this very moment is certainly not the time, because the concessions and the kind of agreements recently conveyed to Colin Powell says Turkey is there for us.

Please defeat the amendment. The costs for passing this amendment are extraordinary.

Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his colleagues the March 31, 2003, editorial from the Norfolk Daily News entitled ``Unharmed.''

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remains critical to Slovenia and other countries who until recently suffered under the yoke of tyranny. Such countries have made difficult, immediate sacrifices to gain the long-term protection which NATO membership provides and should be recognized for their efforts.

Unharmed

slovenia's vote indicates nato not harmed by war on iraq

Critics of Bush administration policy have feared, that the

war in Iraq and U.S. ``unilateralism'' might damage critical

alliances like NATO.

From tiny Slovenia--population 1.9 million--comes

heartening evidence that this may not be so. Slovenia is the

most successful of the Balkan nations to come out of the

breakup of Yugoslavia, and from the beginning, its leaders

decided the future lay with the West.

In recent referendums, Slovenes voted to join both NATO and

the European Union. The E.U. vote was never in doubt, but

Slovenia's leaders, who fully understand that NATO membership

has real obligations, feared the effect of the war on that

vote. In the end, two-thirds of the voters approved:

An economist, Milan Cadez, gave the New York Times a

reassuring reason why as he left a polling place: ``Only

America is capable of doing anything for peace. The E.U. is

not capable of doing anything. They watched the crimes in

Bosnia and when the Americans come, they make order.'' And,

it should be noted, are still there to help maintain order.

The Slovenes might have their doubts about the war in Iraq,

but they have few reservations about the benefits of the

U.S.-led military alliance.

Mr. Speaker, as our troops move into Baghdad, countless Americans are watching as embedded reporters use 21st century technology to relay the bloodshed and horror of the battlefront into their living rooms. These images cannot help but have a profound impact on all of us. We would be well advised to heed the advice of Winston Churchill that, ``Nothing is more dangerous in wartime than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll, always feeling one's pulse and taking one's temperature.''

A timely editorial published in the Omaha World-Herald on Saturday, March 29, 2003, reflects the situation Americans face in Iraq and on the homefront. This member commends it to his colleagues, especially noting its recommendations that only unconditional victory now will suffice.

[From the Omaha Daily Herald, Mar. 29, 2003]

Baghdad Bound

Wars, many have observed, don't follow scripts. Certainly

the one in Iraq underscores the point.

It it not turning out to be as quick or as clean as many

seasoned observers, including some highly placed military

officials, had hoped. But as the second week began, positive

developments emerged.

The (official) start of the war met with unexpected

contingencies. First came one of the worst sand-storms in

modern memory. Only those who have experienced a major and

prolonged storm of that kind can begin to imagine what it

would be like to pursue a military engagement under such

conditions. Another surprise has been the tenacity of some of

the Iraqi soliders. They may not be the best-trained

fighters, but desperation and zealotry combined have kept

them in the battle longer than many expected.

Desperation and zealotry have also led to some despicable

dirty tricks--war crimes, really. Much of this was expected,

but is no less infuriating for that fact: Fighting from

hospitals. Fake surrenders that become massacres. Forced

human shields. Apparent executions of prisoners and Iraqi

civilians. And more. But the tide does appear to be turning.

Massive bombs are shattering strategic targets in Baghdad.

Ground forces are speeding up, and bit by bit they are

securing the ever-important supply line all the way back to

the Persian Gulf. Helicopters (for which sand-storms are a

curse) are back in the air, laying down lethal fire and

ferrying troops.

Additionally, thousands of Iraqi citizens, once they feel

reasonably secure, have begun to flee to safety behind

American and British lines. There they are being fed and

medically treated as necessary, affirming that the allies

truly are on the scene as rescuers.

None of that makes this a stroll on the beach. Baghdad will

be tough to pacify. Casualties among the liberators are

rising. Some innocent Iraqis, inevitably, are dying. That

makes this the point at which the troops--and we would add,

their loved ones at home--must have some steel in their

spines.

The only sensible course now is unconditional victory. The

allies can win it, and we believe they will. Chapter 2 will

be winning the peace.

Mr. Chairman, this Member rises today to express his support for H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act. This bill, of which this Member is an original cosponsor, will encourage private savings which is a crucial factor in promoting economic stability.

First, this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit (Mr. Bachus) for introducing this legislation. This Member would also like to thank both the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (Mr. Oxley), and the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the Ranking Member of this Committee (Mr. Frank), for their efforts in bringing this measure to the House Floor.

This bill, H.R. 522, passed the House Financial Services Committee, by a voice vote, on March 13, 2003. This legislation is virtually identical to a bill that passed the House last year, by a vote of 408- 18. Unfortunately, the Senate chose not to act on Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, reform in the 107th Congress.

As a matter of background, Congress in 1934 initially set the deposit insurance coverage limit at $5,000. The last increase was in 1980, when Congress raised the value of coverage to $100,000, per person, per institution. According to the FDIC, due to inflation, the real value of this $100,000 coverage limit has decreased by about half.

This Member would like to focus on the following four provisions in this important legislation which will:

1. Increase the FDIC coverage level to $130,000 and index this level for inflation every five years thereafter;

2. Increase the FDIC coverage level for retirement accounts to $260,000;

3. Increase the FDIC coverage level for in-state municipal deposits to the lower of $2 million or the sum of the new coverage level plus 80 percent of the deposits in excess of the new standard; and

4. Ensure the financial institutions receive their equitable share of dividends and credits from the deposit insurance fund.

First, this legislation would increase the $100,000 FDIC insurance limit to a new limit of $130,000. The deposit insurance limit would then be indexed every five years to a cost of living adjustment and rounded to the nearest $10,000. This Member believes this increase in the FDIC limit is warranted and justified.

This Member has met with many Nebraska community bankers who have emphasized the importance of increasing the deposit insurance coverage limit in order for community banks to attract and maintain core deposits. Currently, community banks are losing deposits to more distant brokerage and mutual fund companies. If community banks do not have the core deposits to make loans, the economic development of communities suffer. Local money needs to stay in a community where it can build infrastructure and create jobs.

Second, this bill would increase the coverage level for retirement accounts from the current $100,000 to a level of $260,000, which will encourage greater retirement savings. It is important to take this action, since the current rate of savings by Americans is quite low. Moreover, this change is particularly important to older Americans to ensure that they have secure banking services nearby. In many rural areas, the alternative to this coverage level increase is for consumers to bank at more distant institutions.

Third, this legislation would also importantly increase coverage for in-state municipal deposits to the lower of $2 million or the sum of the new coverage level plus 80 percent of the deposits in excess of the new standard. Community bankers have stressed to this Member their support for greater coverage of municipal deposits as they now only receive $100,000 of FDIC protection. Municipal deposits are taxpayer funds from state and local governments, and schools deposited in local banks. This change is very important in Nebraska since there are so many different public entities collecting revenue and in turn making deposits in local banks.

Lastly, this Member supports the provisions in H.R. 522 which were authored by the distinguished gentlelady from New York (Ms. Maloney) and this Member. These three provisions were included in the Manager's Amendment which passed by voice vote during the Committee's consideration of the virtually identical bill in the 107th Congress. We offered the following changes to help ensure that financial institutions receive their equitable share of dividends and credits from the deposit insurance fund.

This bill establishes a 1 basis point cap on the premiums that the FDIC can charge those institutions that qualify for the lowest-risk category under the risk-based premium system, when the actual level of the reserve ratio is above 1.15 per $100 of insured deposits. Furthermore, H.R. 522 provides that when the reserve ratio of the deposit insurance fund is between 1.35 and 1.4 per $100 of insured deposits, the FDIC must pay dividends equal to 50 percent of the amount in excess of 1.35. This bill also includes language which establishes an ongoing credit pool that could be used by institutions against their premium assessments based on the historical contributions of the institution to the deposit insurance fund. This provision will reward those institutions who helped fully recapitalize the bank insurance fund in 1996.

In conclusion, for the reasons mentioned and many others, this Member urges his colleagues to support H.R. 522.