Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a memorandum on Guatemala's many problems from the highly respected Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) was placed in the Congressional Record. The following timely memorandum authored by William McIntire, a research fellow at COHA, is a continuation of COHA's analysis of the ominous situation in Guatemala. COHA, a non-partisan organization that has long been committed to addressing issues associated with human rights, democracy and economic justice throughout the Western Hemisphere, has been referred to by Senator Edward Kennedy a number of years ago as ``one of our Nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policymakers.''

White House Recertifies an Ill-Deserving Guatemala

(By William B. McIntire, COHA Research Fellow)

On Monday, September 15, the White House recommended to

Congress that their certification of Guatemala, which was

previously revoked due to failure of that country's

authorities to be faithful allies in Washington's war on

drugs, be renewed. This move, a stunning reversal of a Bush

administration decision made last January to decertify for

reasons of non-performance, qualifies the country to receive

U.S. financial aid to fight drug traffickers. Applied to

Guatemala, however, U.S. recertification remains a largely

symbolic action as Washington waived all sanctions against

Guatemala last January and

never halted the flow of aid to that country. Guatemala will

now, nevertheless, gain the prestige of being a U.S. ally

when it comes to the drug war, when the whole process is

actually a sham. Alongside similar actions against Burma and

Haiti, the State Department's Bureau for International

Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) announced its

original decertification decision last January, which was a

reflection on the escalating ineffectiveness of Guatemala's

counter-narcotics efforts, as a result of President Alfonso

Portillo's lackluster performance. The quantity of drugs

seized by the Guatemalan government, which was rising

annually until Portillo took office, plummeted in 2000 to

only 13 percent of the amount seized the year before. In 2002

the Guatemalan police reportedly embezzled more than twice

the quantity of drugs than they confiscated. The government's

patently spurious commitment to the UN-brokered 1996 peace

accords was also cited as a basis for Washington's decision

to decertify last January. By its present action, the Bush

administration graphically shows Latin America that when it

comes to Washington's much touted war against drugs, there is

no doubt that trade comes first.

White House Hopes to Change Guatemala's Ways

In his briefing on the president's certification

determination, INL Acting Assistant Secretary Paul Simons

observed that last year's ``suspension of assistance to

Guatemala would result in further deterioration of precisely

those Guatemalan institutions that are essential to combating

the influence of organized crime.'' As a result, the State

Department decided that, despite its decision to decertify

Guatemala, financial sanctions that would normally accompany

such a decision would not be exercised because they would

only further undermine the country's already highly

delicate democratic institutions.

More directly, President Bush's decision to rescind last

January's largely symbolic decertification will be an obvious

effort to woo Guatemala, which has the region's largest

population and economy, into supporting a Central American

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA is a prototype of

Washington's Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) scheme,

which has been one of its highest priorities, and because of

Guatemala's economic significance, it is a prime target for

Washington's courtship. As a result, Bush's drug war is being

crucified on the cross of free trade. Thus, it comes as no

surprise that the Bush administration would not permit a

small matter like Guatemala's abysmal drug interdiction

record of late to jeopardize the achievement of CAFTA. As

negotiations for the trade pact continue, Washington has also

received criticism for not pursuing strong labor and

environmental regulations as part of its core.

CAFTA: Is it Worth the Sacrifice?

To the chagrin of some in Washington, Guatemala's

Constitutional Court recently gave former dictator Efrain

Rios Montt its blessing to run for the presidency despite a

constitutional provision that bars all coup participants from

doing so. Rios Montt rose to power during a military coup in

March 1982 and promptly set about a ``scorched earth''

campaign, murdering thousands of Mayan peasants. U.S.

Ambassador to Guatemala John R. Hamilton has publicly warned

that U.S. relations with Guatemala would be compromised if

Rios Montt made his way back to power. Still, in the face of

reaching a free trade accord, the recertification of

Guatemala reveals the true stripes of Washington's foreign

policy, and the insignificance it accords to the anti-drug

war and the rising human rights toll in Guatemala. In the

name of Washington's free trade blitzkrieg, the White House

has sacrificed the integrity of its professedly unwavering

commitment to fight corruption and drugs in the very same

Central American countries in which it allegedly endeavors to

expand democracy, while promoting its all-important trade

accord.

More Holes Than Swiss Cheese in White House Recertification of

Guatemala

On Monday, September 15, the White House, using doctored

information and skimpy statistics, recommended to Congress

the recertification of Guatemala, reversing a Bush

administration decision made last January in response to the

dramatic evidence of Guatemala's failure to meaningfully

cooperate with Washington's anti-drug efforts.

Recertification would normally qualify the newly reaccredited

country to receive U.S. financial aid. However, for

Guatemala, it remains a largely symbolic action, since

Washington originally had waived all sanctions against the

country, maintaining the flow of bilateral aid in the

interest of preserving what meager anti-narcotics operations

that remain active in the country. Shortly after the original

decertification, 21 members of the U.S. Congress asserted

that, until Guatemala was recertified as the result of

a dramatically improved drug interdiction record, they

would not vote to ratify the Central American Free Trade

Agreement (CAFTA).

In his Monday memorandum to the State Department President

Bush, using self-obfuscating language, touted Guatemala's

``willingness to better its counternarcotics practices,'' but

shied away from coming forth with any evidence to support it.

Instead, the country was merely omitted from a section of the

memorandum listing nations that had ``failed demonstrably . .

. to adhere to their obligations under international

counternarcotics agreements.'' Whereas Guatemala, Haiti and

Myanmar had been blacklisted in January, only the latter two

remained in the September 15 statement. The Bush

administration, understandably sheepish when it came to

recertifying Guatemala only months after decertifying it, and

with no tangible evidence to justify doing so, camouflaged

the announcement in the memorandum, hoping not to draw too

much attention to its actions. The underhanded nature of this

decision represents a massive downgrading of the authenticity

of both Washington's and Guatemala's supposed anti-drug

efforts. Guatemala would certainly not qualify for

certification if actually put to even a minimally objective

test. In making its determination, Washington proved once

again that its certification process was little better than a

total sham.

A White House Deception

Since the White House decertified Guatemala last January,

the DEA observed that the country had become the ``preferred

Central American location for storage and consolidation of

drug loads,'' and boats and light aircraft regularly bring

drugs into the country. The official White House report had

to acknowledge that Guatemala's alleged improvements were

only the ``initial steps'' that had to be taken and the

``permanence of these improvements had yet to be

determined.'' In other words, no significant steps have been

made to curtail the flow of narcotics through Guatemala.

Meanwhile, the White House is concerned mainly with

fulfilling its free trade aspirations in Central America and

realizes that they would not likely be achieved if Guatemala

remains uncertified. Thus ignoring the true deficiency of

Guatemala's anti-drug efforts, the Bush administration is

trying to slyly sweep its failed anti-drug campaign in the

country under the rug, caricaturing the entire certification

process just as the Clinton administration did with Mexico in

1997. As with the present Bush administration, free trade

logistics, specifically the North American Free Trade

Agreement (NAFTA), rather than a faithful evaluation of that

country's anti-drug performance, were the order of the day.

President Bush expects ``Guatemala to continue its efforts

and to demonstrate further progress in the coming year,''

apparently hoping that recertification will self-

prophetically lead to increased cooperation with his war on

drugs, a trend he claims erroneously in the memorandum has

already been manifest in the recent attitude of Guatemalan

authorities. Interestingly, only hours before the White House

announcement, Guatemalan officials announced that they had

just seized record quantities of drugs, perhaps hoping to

gull some ingenues into believing that interdictions had

reacquired past levels. Suspiciously, no arrests had been

made, nor statistics cited, to reinforce this claim. Some

allege that previously seized drugs had been recycled and

``seized'' again to create the false pretense of successful

interdiction.

By spinning the facts of Guatemala's performance (pointing

to the country's supposedly renewed dedication to counter-

narcotics efforts) and continuing to use the certification

process as a political weapon, the White House risks further

disenchanting its remaining hemispheric allies in its fading

war against drug traffickers.

Mr. Speaker, The National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, operated by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), is a precious national resource that we must continue to support. I was happy to join my colleagues, Chairman Bill Young and Chairman Mike Bilirakis, in introducing H.R. 3034, ``The National Bond Marrow Registry Reauthorization Act.'' In particular, I am extremely pleased that we are considering this bill in an expeditious manner to ensure that there is no gap in the continuation of this important program. I am also pleased that my colleagues, Mr. Ford of Tennessee and Mr. Lewis of Georgia have indicated their endorsement for this legislation.

Since its inception, the NMDP has worked tirelessly to build a Registry that helps Americans in need. I applaud the donors who are true American heroes. They are willing to help individuals who they do not even know by taking the time to donate their marrow, blood, or cord blood. We can all hope to emulate their generosity and selflessness.

We honor these men and women, of all races and ethnicities, by reauthorizing the Registry. Since 1986, there have been many scientific advances in the area of bone marrow transplants. The NMDP continues to work diligently to improve the odds of every American being able to find a match through the Registry. Its efforts have led to an increase of the number of minority donors who participate in the Registry, as well as the number of minorities who have access to these life-saving transplants.

Today, I call on my colleagues to continue their support of the NMDP and its important

mission. We should approve H.R. 3034 today so that we can ensure a timely reauthorization of the Bone Marrow Registry.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Dr. Howard A. Riina, in recognition of his outstanding accomplishments in the field of medicine.

Dr. Riina was born in Brooklyn, New York. From 1982 to 1987, he earned two undergraduate degrees. He received a Bachelor of Science and Engineering in Bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Biology from Franklin and Marshall College. After earning his medical degree from Temple University, Dr. Riina earned a Master of Philosophy degree in Molecular Neurobiology from the University of Cambridge.

Since 2001, he has served as an Assistant Professor of Neurological Surgery in Radiology and in Neurology at Weil Medical College of Cornell University. Additionally, he is an Assistant Attending Neurological Surgeon at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, Chairman of Neurological Surgery at the Brooklyn Hospital Center, and NYP Hospital Consultant to HSS Orthopedic Surgery/Neurosurgery.

Dr. Riina is also a member of several professional committees and associations as well including, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, North American Skull Base Society, the Ethics Committee of the Weil Cornell Medical College and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, and the Weil Cornell Physician Organization Professional Liability Premium Subcommittee. He is also an Associate Fellow for the American College of Surgeons, and on the Executive Committee Joint Section of Cerebrovascular Diseases, AANS/

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the wonderful union of two families. On Saturday, September 20, 2003, Enrique Torrez, Jr. and Angie Patruno were married at All Saints Church in Brooklyn, New York. Enrique, who is from the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, and Angie, who is from the Ozone Park neighborhood of Queens, first met in junior high school and have been dating ever since.

The groom's parents, Aura Ordonez and Enrique Torrez Sr., and the bride's parents, Reverend Molly Golden and Dominic Patruno, have given their full blessing to this joyous event.

Angie has been very active in a wide range of civic issues in her community for about ten years. She currently works for the New York City Department of Education. Enrique is also a public servant, working for the New York State Department of Corrections.

Mr. Speaker, for more than a decade, this couple has already shown a deep commitment to each other, which I am confident will last a lifetime. As such, they are worthy of receiving our recognition today.

Mr. Speaker, on July 14, Guatemalan Constitutional Court justices made history by declaring null and void two previous court rulings banning infamous former dictator Efrain Rios Montt from seeking presidential office. Efrain Rios Montt, the retired brigadier general and current head of Guatemala's national legislature, has been universally condemned for waging a ``scorched earth'' campaign against indigenous Mayan civilians during his 1982-1983 presidency. Some of the worst abuses in Guatemala's brutal 36-year civil war occurred during Rios Montt's rule. Wisely enough, the drafters of Article 186 of Guatemala's 1985 Constitution engrossed a ban to prevent leaders responsible for staging military coups from ever again seeking the Guatemalan presidency. Yet Rios Montt, who came to power through just such a coup in March of 1982, recently obtained a favorable ruling from Guatemala's highest court despite this earlier provision. He managed this by using his influence to pack the court with additional members who were personally loyal to him. In addition, he sought to legitimate his candidacy by claiming that the 1985 Constitution cannot be applied retroactively to actions taken three years before it was enacted.

The State Department repeatedly has stated that Rios Montt's continued involvement in Guatemalan politics is an obstacle to effective U.S. relations with that country. In fact, events would seem to indicate that Rios Montt's candidacy is an equal threat to domestic stability within Guatemala; a number of weeks ago, mass protest in support of the ex-dictator's candidacy, clearly manipulated by Rios Montt and other leaders of his party, turned violent as mobs rushed into government buildings and seized them, including the Supreme Court. Since the Bush administration is so concerned with human rights in Iraq, what about Guatemala? Regional alliances such as the proposed U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement are bound to be jeopardized by Rios Montt's self-serving insistence on seeking the presidency, even at the country's democratic prospects. We as a body must strive to understand the potential implications and the high costs of Rios Montt's continued involvement in Guatemalan politics if we are to accelerate our steps towards the goal of promoting effective relations with the Central American region.

On September 15, the United States recertified Guatemala, reversing a decision made in January due to the country's consistently poor efforts to stem the northward flow of narcotics that end up in our streets. Circumstances, however, suggest that the recertification was motivated not so much by any improvement in Guatemala's drug interdiction efforts, but by the Bush administration's ceaseless search for the expansion of free trade, even if it costs the U.S. hundreds of thousands of solid jobs. The Bush administration, eager to enact its Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) proposal, seems to have been responding to certain pressures to renew Guatemala's certification whatever its justification; twenty-one of our esteemed colleagues took the principled step of writing to the White House and saying that they would not vote for CAFTA without such recertification, and Guatemala, home to Central America's largest population and most formidable economy, would not likely approve the trade agreement if it remained decertified. This leads one to wonder, then, what the certification process and the war on drugs are really about, as the controversial and inequitable specter of free trade has clearly taken precedent.

The following very timely memoranda on Guatemala's many problems were authored by Molly Maas and Jessica Leight, research associates at the highly respected Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a non-partisan organization that has long been committed to addressing issues associated with human rights, democracy and economic justice throughout the Western Hemisphere. COHA has been referred to by Senator Edward Kennedy in the Congressional Record as ``one of our Nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policymakers.''

Rios Montt Declared Eligible To Run in Guatemala's Upcoming Election

(Jessica Leight and Molly Maas)

On Tuesday, July 14, one of the most brutal dictators in

modern Guatemalan history, General Efrain Rios Montt, was

declared a legitimate candidate for the November presidential

elections by the country's highest court. Since Guatemala

gained its independence from Spain in 1821, this largely poor

Central American nation has suffered under a series of

foreign rulers and pathological homegrown despots. Yet,

arguably, none of its leaders have been more infamous than

Rios Montt, who seized power in a 1982 coup and presided over

an unremittingly harsh dictatorship for eighteen months until

a counter-coup installed General Oscar Humberto Mejia

Victores as the country's military leader. Today, Guatemala's

official Commission for Historical Clarification labels

atrocities committed under Montt's regime as ``genocide,''

and impartial observers argue that the ex-dictator was

responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in the

country's 36-year civil war, including tortures, massacres,

the destruction of hundreds of indigenous communities, and

illegal detentions and murders of human rights advocates and

indigenous leaders.

rios montt's quest for the presidency

Since his fall from power in 1983, Rios Montt has twice

attempted to run for the Guatemalan presidency, in 1990 and

in 1995. Each time, he has been blocked by the country's

courts on the grounds that Article 186 of the 1985

Constitution forbids the candidacy of all former coup

leaders, a provision that was expressly designed to deter a

presidential bid from Rios Montt. Despite these previous

dismissals, however, the ruling FRG party, which controls the

legislature as well as the presidency, once again nominated

Rios Montt as its presidential candidate this past May, and

the Constitutional Court--the nation's highest judicial

authority--approved his candidacy on July 14. The decision in

this case was blatantly biased, as the current court was

especially expanded, i.e., ``packed'' with Rios Montt

supporters. The president of the Constitutional Court, Mario

Guillermo Ruiz Wong, is the former interior minister of the

current FRG administration of President Alfonso Portillo,

while another justice served as Rios Montt's personal lawyer.

Three of the four judges who voted in favor of the ex-

dictator have links to Portillo's administration.

Following this ruling, a lower court, the Supreme Court of

Justice, issued a contradictory injunction that temporarily

suspended Rios Montt's candidacy. In response, protests

rocked the capital on Thursday, July 24, with thousands of

former beneficiaries of Montt's dictatorship joining more

recent recruits to his rightwing cause in the streets of

Guatemala City. Though FRG leaders and Rios Montt himself

vehemently denied any role in organizing or even encouraging

the demonstrations, the protest was marked by a suspicious

lack of spontaneity. Pro-FRG peasants were trucked in from

across the country by organizers wearing such masks to

conceal their identity, and the entire operation had the mark

of a well-planned and well-orchestrated demonstration of

political intimidation.

Most damning for the FRG and the Portillo administration

was the lack of effort on the part of the police to control

violence by the protesters, as well as the army's refusal to

intervene even after President Portillo announced on radio

and television on Thursday afternoon that he had ordered the

armed forces out ``to guarantee respect of private property

and the physical security of persons, as well as the defense

of human rights.'' Though the demonstrators dispersed after

receiving instructions to do so from Rios Montt on Friday

morning, the capital continues to wait in fear for a return

of the usually armed encapuchados. Perhaps even more

alarmingly, the government's commitment to the preservation

of basic public order, as well as its control over the armed

forces--largely unreformed following decades of unrestricted

and brutal war against the guerrillas--remain in grave doubt.

Having only so recently emerged from forty years of two

devastating civil war which cost upwards of 200,000 lives,

Guatemala seems on

the point of lurching back into its old habits of blood and

gore, in a new era of mob rule.

u.s. chilly on subject of rios montt

The U.S., along with the United Nations, has been notably

critical of the human rights abuses that continue to plague

Guatemala's fragile democracy. The State Department condemned

the riots and the lack of effort by the authorities to

control the violence. Earlier, State Department spokesman

Richard Boucher had indicated his disapproval of Rios Montt's

candidacy, asserting that should Rios Montt be elected,

``realistically, in light of Mr. Rios Montt's background, it

would be difficult to have the kind of relationship that we

would prefer.'' This followed statements earlier in the year

by U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala John Hamilton that noted a

troubling lack of compliance on the part of the government

with the 1996 UN-brokered peace accord. In an admirable

display of candor about the deteriorating situation in

Guatemala, Hamilton stated that, ``My government shares the

Guatemalan people's concern that today, more than six years

after the end of the armed conflict, there are still serious

violations of human rights.''

It is crucially important that the U.S. maintain this

strong stance in opposition to the candidacy of such a brutal

ex-dictator and avoid the temptation to paper over the crimes

of Rios Montt in order to ensure Guatemala's inclusion in the

upcoming Central American Free Trade Agreement negotiations,

scheduled to be completed by the end of this year. Last

January, the Bush administration announced its decision to

decertify Guatemala for insufficient progress in the war on

drugs. Subsequently, it made use of a ``vital national

interest waiver'' to continue to provide economic aid to the

country in spite of the decertification. While continuance of

such assistance provides some valuable leverage for the U.S.

to exercise, as it seeks to pressure the Guatemalan

government to bring human rights violators to justice, rein

in corruption and ensure an orderly democratic transition

after the November elections, this is the case only if the

White House indicates that it is prepared to advance the

country's democratization. If the White House wishes to

demonstrate that its concern for human rights extends beyond

Iraq, then there can be no more appropriate task than to

facilitate the unhindered operation of justice in Guatemala,

a country that has seen precious little of it up to now.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in memory of Rodney C. Gillis, in recognition of his dedication, his heroism, and his ultimate sacrifice for his city and Nation.

Rodney was a man of purpose, integrity, intelligence, and compassion in both his professional and personal life. He was born on September 26, 1967 at St. Mary's Hospital in Brooklyn, New York and along with his beloved family, he grew up in the Crown Heights, Williamsburg, and Brownsville sections of Brooklyn.

Rodney had a distinguished academic career, graduating from the Park West High School in Manhattan and later, earning a Sports Management Certificate from St. John's University. Afterward, he studied at the Island Drafting and Technical College and received a diploma for studies in mechanical and electrical drafting and an Associate Degree in Computer Aided Drafting and Design. He also graduated with a diploma in Law, Police Science and Social Science from the New York City Police Department Police Academy.

In 1983, he began his professional career working as a manager at the Cooper Lantern Restaurant and then at Gibbs and Cox Naval Architects and Marine Engineers Inc., as a C.A.D.D. Supervisor. Later, Rodney joined the New York City Police Department and was assigned to the 71st precinct. He later served as a Patrol Officer in the 79th precinct and in the Emergency Service Squad 8. Additionally, he served at the 77th precinct as the FTU Supervisor. He eventually returned to Emergency Service as a Sergeant, initially in squad 4, and finally in squad 8.

His life long dream became a reality the day he got assigned to the New York City Emergency Service Unit. He quickly excelled, becoming proficient in every aspect of his new job. From taking down a jumper from the Brooklyn Bridge to extricating a victim from a vehicle, Sergeant Gillis always exuded passion and dedication in his job.

He was certified as an Emergency Medical Technician, Hazardous Materials Technician, Emergency Psychological Technician, P.A.D.I. Certified Diver, Rescue Level I Repelling, Jaws of Life Rescue System Operator, and a New York City Special Weapons and Tactics Member and Supervisor. He was also a member of the Guardians Association, the Police Benevolent Association, the Honor Legion of the Police Department of the City of New York, and the Fraternal Order of Police and Sergeants Benevolent Association.

Rodney's hard work earned him numerous medals and honors including the Excellent Police Duty award seven times, a Meritorious Police Duty award twice, and a Commendation. He was also awarded, posthumously, the prestigious Medal of Honor.

Mr. Speaker, Sergeant Rodney C. Gillis served his city in exemplary fashion as a member of the New York City Police Department, and on September 11, 2001, he gave the ultimate sacrifice to New York and the Nation. As such, he is more than worthy of receiving our recognition today and I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this truly remarkable person.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have co-sponsored with the gentleman from Indiana a recent letter to the State Department asking them to withdraw the offensive video ``Terrorism: A War Without Borders,'' which characterized all Sikhs as terrorists. This is offensive and against America's principles. As a minority, I take special offense at this kind of characterization of any minority group.

While the video may have had some usefulness in reminding Americans what they can do to help combat the threat of terrorism, its stereotyping of Sikhs as terrorists is unacceptable.

Let me quote from the letter, Mr. Speaker: ``This video should be corrected or withdrawn immediately. The United States government should not be in the business of spreading inaccurate information, especially when that information is offensive to a hard-working, honorable people and serves only to promote the interests of a foreign regime.''

The Sikhs are hard-working people who have been involved in every aspect of American life. One Sikh American, Dalip Singh Saund, even served in the U.S. Congress. Back in the subcontinent, they are one of many national groups, along with predominantly Christian Nagas, Kashmiris, and others struggling for their sovereignty and independence from India, which is run by militant Hindu nationalists bent on imposing Hinduism on all aspects of Indian life. The Sikh leadership has committed to carrying out this struggle by peaceful, democratic, nonviolent means. Yet it is for seeking their freedom at all that India labels them ``terrorists.'' In fact, shortly after India's independence Prime Minister Nehru issued a directive calling Sikhs a ``criminal class'' and ordering police to keep special track of them, despite the fact that the Sikhs, who were less than two percent of the population, gave the majority of the sacrifices in India's freedom struggle. I am very distressed to see the government of the United States repeating this offensive description.

That is why withdrawing this video is so important, Mr. Speaker. There were more than 300 cases of hate crimes or actions against Sikhs in the wake of September 11, 2001. For the United States to give support in an official production of the government to the characterization of all Sikhs as terrorists merely encourages more of this kind of hate against loyal, hard-working, honest Americans. It also unfairly supports the position of a repressive regime that has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since the Golden Temple attack of June 1984, according to figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human rights groups, as well as over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 85,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and others. It encourages a government that admits to holding 52,268 Sikh political prisoners and holds tens of thousands of other minorities as political prisoners as well, according to Amnesty International.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be endorsing the party line of such a repressive regime. Instead, we should be working to support freedom by stopping U.S. aid to India until all people there enjoy full and equal human rights and by supporting self-determination for the Sikhs of Khalistan, the Kashmiris, the Nagas, and everyone seeking freedom. That is the democratic way and it is the only way to bring real peace and freedom from terrorism to everyone in South Asia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the letter from Members of Congress to Secretary Powell into the Record at this time for the information of my colleagues.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 18, 2003.

Hon. Colin Powell,

Secretary of State,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Powell: As Members of the United States

Congress, we are very concerned about your Department's

video, ``War Without Borders.'' Your depiction of the Sikhs

is discriminatory, unfair, and offensive.

The video is offensive to Sikhs around the world and to all

people who support nondiscrimination and freedom. The video

inaccurately broadly labels all of the world's 25 million

Sikhs--500,000 of whom live in the United States--as

terrorists. This is offensive and inaccurate.

The video's description of the June 1984 Indian military

attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the most sacred of

Sikh shrines, misrepresents the circumstances of that

unfortunate incident. Every terrorist act cited in the video

is described as either the work of an individual or a group

of a certain nationality or a group, such as Al Qaeda or the

like, which honorably refrains from labelling an entire

people as terrorists. Yet with the Sikhs it takes a different

approach, referring to the terrorists merely as ``Sikhs,''

thus implicitly creating the impression that all Sikhs are

terrorists. But there were no terrorists in the Golden Temple

complex. The book Chakravyuh: Web of Indian Secularism

reprints letters showing conclusively that India planned this

attack in order to kill Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and

other Sikh leaders who spoke out for a sovereign Sikh state.

Labelling all Sikhs who support an independent, sovereign

Khalistan as terrorists is the propaganda line of the

repressive Indian regime. We share your desire to have good

relations with India, but good relations must not trump

truth.

India is a repressive government. Over 250,000 Sikhs have

been murdered by the Indian government since the Golden

Temple attack, according to figures compiled by the Punjab

State Magistracy and human rights groups and reported in The

Politics of Genocide by lnderjit Singh Jaijee. According to a

report by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR), the

Indian government admits to holding 52,268 political

prisoners under the brutal, repressive ``Terrorist and

Disruptive Activities Act'' (TADA), which expired in 1995. In

addition, India has murdered over 200,000 Christians in

Nagaland since 1947, over 85,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988,

and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris,

Tamils, and others. An Indian Cabinet minister said that

everyone who lives in India must either be a Hindu or be

subservient to Hinduism.

This video should be corrected or withdrawn immediately.

The United States government should not be in the business of

spreading inaccurate information, especially when that

information is offensive to a hard-working, honorable people

and serves only to promote the interests of a foreign regime.

Sincerely,

Dan Burton.

Ed Towns.

Wally Herger.

Mr. Speaker, as the United Nations General Assembly convenes for its 58th session this week, I remind my colleagues that the Republic of China on Taiwan--a free and open democratic society and a leading trade partner of the U.S.--is still being denied membership to that world body. It is time for the U.N. to readmit Taiwan.

Taiwan not only has a thriving democracy and prosperous economy, but its 23 million people make it larger than three quarters of the existing member states of the U.N. It is hard to conceive of any good reason to continue denying such a worthy country admission to this vitally important world body.

There exists now, and has existed before, examples of parallel representation of the countries in the U.N. I speak now of East and West Germany which both held memberships in the U.N. until their reunification in 1990. Today both the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea are members of the United Nations.

Taiwan is not only a free and open democracy, a bulwark for human rights and an important player in our global economy, but it is a good neighbor to countries in need around the world. Time and time again, Taiwan has heeded calls by the U.N. and others for emergency assistance to countries suddenly fallen victims to natural disasters or war. Among others, it has assisted Afghanistan, Kosovo, Turkey, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the fight against aids in Africa, and the current relief needs of Iraq.

The 23 million people of this country--who have demonstrated in nearly every way imaginable that they are responsible citizens of the world--deserve a voice at the U.N.

Mr. Speaker, recently the State Department put out a video called ``Terrorism: A War Without Borders'' that is offensive. The video portrays all Sikhs as terrorists. This characterization is inaccurate. It is also offensive to any fair-minded person. How can the State Department portray an entire group as terrorists? Secretary Powell should order the immediate withdrawal of this offensive video. This kind of stereotyping is simply unacceptable.

There are more than half a million Sikhs in the United States. Are they all terrorists, Mr. Speaker? They are active in all phases of American life, from law to medicine to agriculture to information technology. These are people who contribute a lot to America's way of life. Many of them were attacked after September 11, yet they still believe in America.

To label all Sikhs terrorists demeans the Sikh people, their faith, and their national aspirations and culture. This is extremely unfair. Yet the video consistently labels Sikhs as ``terrorists'' while ignoring the brutal atrocities carried out against minorities by the Indian government. For example, the video's description of the attack on the Golden Temple in June 1984 simply refers to ``Sikhs,'' thus condemning all Sikhs as members of a terrorist organization.

What the video ignores is that Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, General Shabeg Singh, and many other Sikh leaders took refuge in the Golden Temple to protect themselves from the atrocities that the Indian government was already carrying out. They had been threatened with violence for peacefully speaking out on behalf of the rights of their people.

Over 20,000 Sikhs were killed over that three-day period in June 1984 as the Indian government attacked the Golden Temple and 38 other Sikh Gurdwaras throughout Punjab to frighten the Sikhs and end their movement to free themselves. Instead, just as Bhindranwale predicted, they laid the foundations for an independent Sikh state called Khalistan, which finally declared its independence from India on October 7, 1987. Let me be among the first to congratulate the Sikhs on the upcoming anniversary of that event.

Mr. Speaker, we all seek good relations with India. But it is offensive and inappropriate to suppress atrocities and spread inaccurate propaganda to achieve this objective. Why is our government placing the derogatory label of terrorist on an entire people? This is not something the government of the United States, which was founded on tolerance, should be doing.

The State Department should immediately remove this from circulation immediately so that it can either be corrected or withdrawn. Fairness demands that we stop labelling entire peoples with derogatory characterizations like ``terrorist.''

Our government should stop American aid and trade with India until the Sikhs, the Nagas, the Kashmins and all the people of South Asia enjoy full freedom and democratic

rights and we should strongly and actively support these peoples in their effort to have self-determination in free and independent states.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the recent letter from International Sikh Organization to Secretary of State Powell about this video into the Record.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Tenth Master

Washington, DC, July 29, 2003.

Hon. Colin Powell

Secretary of State, Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Powell: On behalf of the 25 million strong

Sikh Nation and over 500,000 Sikhs in the United States, I am

writing to express the outrage of the Sikh community at the

new video ``Terrorism: A War Without Borders.'' While Sikhs

fully support the war against terrorism, your video

inaccurately depicts Sikhs as terrorists.

The video is offensive to Sikhs around the world. It

significantly misrepresents the Sikh faith and the Sikh

culture. The video inaccurately uses the term ``Sikh

terrorist'' to broadly label all of the world's 25 million

Sikhs--500,000 of whom live in the United States--and

condemns all people of the Sikh faith. This is offensive and

inaccurate.

The video's description of the June 1984 Indian military

attack on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the most sacred of

Sikh shrines, is completely bogus and entirely false. Every

terrorist act cited in the video is described as either the

work of an individual or a group of a certain nationality or

a group with its own identity. But in the 1984 Attack on

Darbar Sahib, the video refers to the terrorists as

``Sikhs''. It shows Sikhs, easily recognizable from their

turbans and beards, with weapons in the Darbar Sahib complex

along with some Indian soldiers. The fact is that there were

no ``terrorists'' in Darbar Sahib. Sikh leaders, including

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and others, took refuge there

to protect themselves from Indian government violence against

Sikhs. Letters reprinted in the book Chakravyuh: Web of

Indian Secularism show conclusively that India pre-planned

this attack in order to kill Bhindranwale and other Sikh

leaders who spoke out peacefully for Sikh sovereignty. After

the attack, Indira Gandhi said, ``I have broken the back of

the Sikh Nation by attacking the Golden Temple.'' If the

sanctity of the Golden Temple cannot be protected, how can

the Sikh Nation survive?

Labelling all Sikhs who support an independent, sovereign

Khalistan as terrorists is the propaganda line of the

repressive Indian regime. I would expect better from the

State Department, especially under your outstanding

leadership, than to spout the cliches of Indian

disinformation.

The segment on the Darbar Sahib attack states: ``In an

effort to establish an independent state, Sikh terrorists

seized Darbar Sahib Shrine in Amritsar, India. Prime Minister

Indira Gandhi ordered a military campaign to drive out the

terrorists. Hundreds were killed.'' In fact, over 20,000 were

murdered in the attack on Darbar Sahib and 38 other Sikh

Gurdwaras throughout Punjab, which was known as Operation

Bluestar. The aim of this operation was to wipe out the Sikh

religion.

In actuality, it is the Indian government that is the

terrorist organization. The Washington Times reported on

January 2, 2002 that the Indian government is sponsoring

cross-border terrorism in the Pakistani province of Sindh.

India stationed troops on the border in Kashmir while

Pakistani troops were helping American forces look for Al

Qaeda operatives, forcing Pakistan to divert troops to that

border and reducing the effectiveness of their help in the

search for Al Qaeda. This was a de facto pro-terrorist

action. It has provided heavy water to Iran and has done

business with Iraq for many years. The Indian oil minister

declared Iraq ``a strategic partner.''

In November 1994, the Indian newspaper Hitavada reported

that India paid the late Governor of Punjab, Surendra Nath,

about $1.5 billion to organize and support covert terrorist

activities in Punjab and Kashmir. Two independent reports and

an article in the New York Times magazine all showed that

Indian forces were responsible for the massacre of 35 Sikhs

in Chithisinghpora in March 2000 during President Clinton's

visit. Indian forces were caught red-handed trying to set

fire to a Gurdwara and some Sikh homes in a village in

Kashmir. The book Soft Target conclusively shows that India

blew up its own airliner, killing 329 innocent people, to

blame the Sikhs. Why is the State Department trying to

appease such a state?

In all, over 250,000 Sikhs have been murdered by the Indian

government since the Golden Temple attack, according to

figures compiled by the Punjab State Magistracy and human

rights groups and reported in The Politics of Genocide by

Inderjit Singh Jaijee. According to a report by the Movement

Against State Repression (MASR), the Indian government admits

to holding 52,268 political prisoners under the brutal,

repressive ``Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act''

(TADA), which expired in 1995. Another 50,000 have been

arrested, tortured, killed in custody, declared

``unidentified,'' and secretly cremated. The man who exposed

this secret cremation policy, Jaswant Singh Khalra, was

kidnapped by the police and murdered while in police custody.

His body was never handed over to his family.

India has murdered over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland

since 1947, over 85,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens

of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils,

and others. An Indian Cabinet minister said that everyone who

lives in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to

Hinduism.

Since Christmas 1998, priests have been murdered, nuns have

been raped, churches have been burned, Christian schools have

been attacked. Missionary Graham Staines and his two sons,

ages 8 and 10, were burned to death while sleeping in their

jeep. Their killers chanted ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu

god. None of these people has been brought to justice.

Missionary Joseph Cooper was deported back to Pennsylvania

after Hindus attacked him so severely that he had to spend a

week in the hospital. No action has been taken in these

cases. Police broke up a Christian religious festival by

opening fire on it. All over India, laws are being passed

that ban conversion to any religion except Hinduism.

Newspaper reports show that the Indian government pre-

planned the attack on Muslims in Gujarat last year in which

2,000 to 5,000 Muslims were killed, according to the Indian

newspaper The Hindu. Police were ordered to stand aside and

let the massacre happen, in a striking parallel to the 1984

Delhi massacre of Sikhs in which police were locked in their

barracks while state-run television and radio called for more

Sikh blood.

Secretary Powell, the State Department owes the Sikh Nation

an apology. On behalf of the Sikh community in America and

worldwide, I request an apology and correction from you for

this offensive and inaccurate video. The video should be

corrected or withdrawn. I thought that the United States of

America was dedicated to the truth, not to spreading the

disinformation of a terrorist regime.

I would like to meet with you about this at your earliest

convenience. Please contact me at the above number to let me

know when we can meet. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh,

President, International Sikh Organization.

Mr. Speaker, while we were in recess, India celebrated its Independence Day on August 15. I join my colleagues in congratulating India on 56 years of independence, but what is India really celebrating?

Indian Independence Day is certainly not a celebration for the minorities living under the boot of Indian repression. Is missionary Graham Staines, who was burned to death along with his two young sons while they slept in their jeep, celebrating? Is human-rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who was murdered in police custody after exposing the Indian government's policy of mass cremations, celebrating? Is Gurdev Singh Kaunke, who was murdered by the Indian police official Swaran Singh Ghotna, celebrating? What about the priests who have been murdered, the nuns who have been raped, the Christians whose peaceful religious festival was broken up by police gunfire, or American missionary Joseph Cooper, who was thrown out of the country after being beaten so severely by Hindu nationalists that he had to spend a week in a hospital? Do you think they are celebrating Indian Independence Day? I seriously doubt it, Mr. Speaker.

India is a multinational state like the old Austro-Hungarian Empire or the Soviet Union. The record of history is that countries like that don't last. Eventually, they all break up. That makes India's 56 years of independence all the more remarkable, and perhaps it explains why India has to try to keep the country together by force.

This effort has claimed the lives of over a quarter of a million Sikhs, over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland, more than 85,000 Kashmiri Muslims as well as thousands of Muslims in Gujarat and other places around the country, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Bodos, Dalits, Manipuris, Tamils, and so many others. According to the Movement Against State Repression, India admitted to holding more than 52,000 Sikhs as political prisoners under TADA, a repressive law that expired in 1995. Some of these Sikhs have been in custody for almost 20 years without charge or trial. Even a Sikh Member of Parliament has recently had TADA charges brought to court against him. Amnesty International notes that tens of thousands of Christians, Muslims, and others are also being held as political prisoners, Mr. Speaker. Do you think they are celebrating India's independence?

Listen to what a spokesman for the Golden Temple, Narinder Singh, told National Public Radio on the fiftieth anniversary of Indian independence in 1997: ``The Indian government, all the time they boast that they are secular, that they are democratic. They have nothing to do with a secularism, nothing to do with a democracy. They kill Sikhs just to please the majority.'' And Sikhs are unfortunately not the only ones. That is why Sikhs from the East Coast showed up to protest in front of the Indian Ambassador's residence, where an Independence Day celebration was being held. They demanded the basic democratic freedom of self-determination and freedom for the Sikh homeland, Khalistan, which declared itself independent on October 7, 1987.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for America to take a stand for freedom and democracy in South Asia. We must act now to cut off aid to India until it allows real democracy and freedom for the Sikhs, Christians, Dalits, Muslims, and other minorities. And we must put this Congress on record in full support of self determination for all the peoples and nations of South Asia in the form of a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Self-determination is the cornerstone of democracy and India is not allowing self-determination for anyone but the upper-caste Brahmins. A free and fair plebiscite will allow everyone to have self- determination and allow this to happen peacefully. We must not allow militant Hindu fundamentalist theocrats to turn South Asia into another Yugoslavia, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to place the International Sikh Organization's press release on the Independence Day protest into the Record at this time.

Deceitful Indian Government Moves Independence Day Celebration To Avoid

Sikh Demonstrators--Are Victims of Indian Repression Celebrating?

Washington, D.C., August 15, 2003.--The cowardly, deceitful

Indian regime again moved its Independence Day celebration

from the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. to the

Ambassador's residence to avoid Sikhs who came from

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia to protest

Indian repression of Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other

minorities and to demand an independent, sovereign Khalistan.

``This action shows the cowardice of the fundamentalist

Hindu nationalists,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President

of the Council of Khalistan. ``They are afraid of a peaceful

protest,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``That is not how democracies

act,'' Dr. Aulakh said.

The protestors raised slogans like ``India out of

Khalistan'', ``Khalistan Zindabad'', and others. They carried

signs demanding the release of over 52,000 Sikh political

prisoners in India as well as thousands of Christian, Muslim,

and other political prisoners, denouncing India for its

violent repression of minorities, pointing out India's long

history of anti-Americanism. and demanding freedom for

Khalistan. Khalistan is the independent Sikh homeland

declared on October 7, 1987. It has been under Indian

occupation since then. When India became independent, Sikhs

were equal partners in the transfer of power and were to

receive their own state, but the weak and ignorant Sikh

leaders of the time were tricked into staying with India on

the promise that they would have ``the glow of freedom'' and

no law affecting the Sikhs would pass without their consent.

Sikhs ruled an independent and sovereign Punjab from 1710 to

1716 and again from 1765 to 1849 and were recognized by most

of the countries of the world at that time. No Sikh

representative has ever signed the Indian constitution. The

Council of Khalistan is the government pro tempore of

Khalistan, the Sikh homeland.

History shows that multinational states such as India are

doomed to failure. Countries like Austria-Hungary, India's

longtime friend the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia,

and others prove this point. India is not one country; it is

a polyglot like those countries, thrown together for the

convenience of the British colonialists. It is doomed to

break up as they did. ``We only hope that the breakup will be

peaceful,'' said Dr. Aulakh, ``and that the fundamentalist

Hindu nationalists will not force a violent, bloody breakup

like that of Yugoslavia.'' India is ruled by Hindu theocrats

whose agenda is ``Hindu, Hindi, Hindutva, Hindu Rashtra,'' or

total Hindu domination of every facet of Indian life. An

Indian Cabinet minister said that everyone who lives in India

must be a Hindu or subservient to Hindus.

``It is clear that India does not accept Sikhs,'' said Dr.

Aulakh. ``The Indian government continues to persecute and

kill our Sikh brethren,'' he said. ``Sardar Atinder Pal

Singh's question of 13 years ago is still the question facing

the Sikh Nation: Why don't we liberate Khalistan? As

Professor Darshan Singh, a former Jathedar, said, `If a Sikh

is not for Khalistan, he is not a Sikh','' Dr. Aulakh noted.

An Indian newspaper reported on Tuesday that Sikhs in India

had decided not to celebrate Indian Independence Day, but

instead would hoist a black flag for the occasion. ``This

shows that the drive for freedom is still alive in Punjab,''

Dr. Aulakh said.

The Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since

1984, more than 200,000 Christians since 1948, over 85,000

Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and tens of thousands of

Tamils, Assamese, Manipuris, Dalits (the aboriginal people of

the subcontinent), and others. The Indian Supreme Court

called the Indian government's murders of Sikhs ``worse than

a genocide.''

``Is Jaswant Singh Khalra celebrating? Is Jathedar Kaunke

celebrating? Is Graham Staines celebrating?,'' Dr. Aulakh

asked. ``How can a democracy celebrate the kind of violent

repression that claimed their lives?''

Indian police arrested human-rights activist Jaswant Singh

Khalra after he exposed their policy of mass cremation of

Sikhs, in which over 50,000 Sikhs have been arrested,

tortured, and murdered, then their bodies were declared

unidentified and secretly cremated. He was murdered in police

custody. His body was not given to his family. The police

never released the body of former Jathedar of the Akal Takht

Gurdev Singh Kaunke after SSP Swaran Singh Ghotna murdered

him. No one has been brought to justice for the Khalra

kidnapping and murder. SSP Swaran Ghotna has never been

brought to trial for the Kaunke murder. Yet according to a

report by the Movement Against State Repression (MASR),

52,268 Sikhs are being held as political prisoners in India

without charge or trial. Some have been in illegal custody

since 1984!

Missionary Graham Staines was murdered along with his two

sons, ages 8 and 10, by a mob of militant, fundamentalist

Hindu nationalists who set fire to the jeep, surrounded it,

and chanted ``Victory to Hannuman,'' a Hindu god. None of the

people involved has been tried. The persons who have murdered

priests, raped nuns, and burned Christian churches have not

been charged or tried. The murderers of 2,000 to 5,000

Muslims in Gujarat last year have never been brought to

trial. An Indian newspaper reported that the police were

ordered to stand aside in that massacre and not to get

involved, a frightening parallel to the Delhi massacre of

Sikhs in 1984.

``Only in a free Khalistan will the Sikh Nation prosper and

get justice,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``India should act like a

democracy and allow a plebiscite on independence for

Khalistan and all the nations of South Asia,'' Dr. Aulakh

said. ``We must free Khalistan now.''

Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 2 million women with disabilities in the Medicare program. The Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research reported that these women are without appropriate access to primary care services. Their average time between gynecological visits was 10-12 years. They were also less likely than the general population to have received a recent mammogram. Certified Nurse- Midwives and Certified Midwives are qualified through their unique training to deliver the appropriate health services to this population.

Research studies have shown that special populations seek out care from midwives and that their health outcomes are improved. The Medicare program reimburses Certified Nurse-Midwives at 65 percent of the physician fee schedule, resulting in an average payment of only $14 per annual exam. Midwives who serve these women are forced to subsidize care with their own money or turn away patients because they cannot afford to operate at a financial loss. Like physicians, skyrocketing professional liability premiums for midwives are leaving no monies to subsidize care. Congress has not provided an update in payment of midwifery services since 1988.

The legislation that I have reintroduced today with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton, increases the level of reimbursement to 95 percent of the physician fee schedule. This amount is based on studies using the relative value methodology. Additionally, Certified Nurse-Midwives serve as faculty members of medical schools. For over 20 years, they have supervised and trained residents. This legislation clarifies the fact that midwives who are medical school faculty members may bill for Medicare Part B services in accordance with CMS residency training regulations. The bill also includes technical corrections that will clarify the reassignment of billing rights for midwives who are employed by others and recognize that Certified Nurse-Midwives and Certified Midwives have hospital admitting privileges. I urge you to support this legislation, which is in the best interest of women with disabilities across this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart as New York City lost a true public servant yesterday in a violent shooting at City Hall.

Councilman James Davis of Brooklyn was an intelligent, passionate, and energetic young man who had an extremely bright future. He worked very hard and took his duties as a public servant very, very seriously.

With James, it was always about the community. He was dedicated to his community, having served as a police officer and district leader before being elected to the city council. One could always see the love he had for his community.

I met James through the Youth March Against Violence that he organized. He was only 41 years old and had served almost one term in the New York City Council at the time of his murder. But he had already made his mark. I will miss him greatly, as will the entire city and Nation, especially those of us from Brooklyn.

My sympathies and prayers go out to his family, to his staff, and friends. Farewell, James. You fought a good fight. Farewell, farewell.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. If we vote for this legislation tonight, we are kissing safety regulations good-bye and saying to patients, fend for yourselves in determining what drugs are safe. The FDA will have no oversight responsibility here.

I will admit that I am not qualified to determine what drugs are safe. It takes expertise to distinguish between counterfeit medicines and the genuine article. We rely on our government's health and safety officials like the Food and Drug Administration to keep unsafe drugs out of American medicine cabinets.

It is a mystery to me why anyone would vote for a bill that would prevent our health officials from doing their job. That just blows my mind. And it is a giant step in the wrong direction.

I ask all of my colleagues here tonight to vote against this bill because

safety is a nonpartisan issue. The life you save might be your own.

Mr. Speaker, for over half a century, Taiwan and the United States have been close Trade partners. Last year, bilateral trade between Taiwan and the United States reached US $51 billion, making Taiwan our 8th largest trading partner. It is interesting to note that bilateral trade between Taiwan and the United States surpassed that of all of our newest prospective free trade agreement partners combined. It is therefore timely for us to consider negotiating a free trade agreement with Taiwan.

Our International Trade Commission recently issued a report which showed net gains totaling $3.4 billion for the U.S. economy from a proposed agreement. Beneficiaries would include U.S. exporters of cars, auto parts, machinery and equipment, chemicals and plastic products and certain foods. New opportunities would be created for financial and educational services.

Negotiations of a trade agreement would serve long-term U.S. interests overseas. A trade agreement with Taiwan would phase out tariffs and other non-tariff barriers with Taiwan and promote U.S. efforts to increase trade not only with Taiwan but also with other countries in the Pacific Rim.

We will build on the free trade agreements already concluded with Chile and Singapore. It is possible we will enter negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, eventually reaching the goal of a free trade zone in the region by 2010, as envisioned by the APEC Bogor Declaration.

In short, Mr. Speaker, with Taiwan's recent accession to the World Trade Organization and passage of Trade Promotion Authority for the president, it is most appropriate for the United States to reach out to Taiwan, a strong friend and ally in the Pacific. We need to solidify our long-term trade relations with Taiwan by starting to negotiate a free trade agreement with Taiwan now.

Mr. Speaker, last February, members of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) met to discuss the prospect of creating a single Caribbean market economy. In mid-April, members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), a CARICOM subgroup, gathered to examine a similar proposal. Despite widespread enthusiasm among OECS members for economic integration, CARICOM participants Jamaica, Barbados, and other non-OECS members have expressed their reservations. In response to strains caused by declining tourist revenue and highly competitive pricing in the tropical fruit sector, some of the smaller Eastern Caribbean islands are recognizing that their interests and the interests of other CARICOM members do not always fully coincide. The disagreements between OECS members and the remainder of the CARICOM states merit adequate attention on Washington's part if the final product of FTAA negotiations is to result in maximum economic benefits for our own citizens and for our neighbors to the South, including, of course, the English-speaking Caribbean.

As the economies of the region find themselves under increasing stress, and as diplomatic negotiations for the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas marches onward, it seems clearer than ever that careful attention must be paid to the delicate economic relationships presently maintained by each of the hemispheric nations, both small and large. If the world's economy is to recover from its present downturn, and if future economic slumps are to be averted, planners must recognize that support for total economic integration is far from universal. They must strive to understand the reasons behind dissent, where it exists, and the reasons for support, where it thrives. It may very well be that principles of free trade can be implemented more effectively in some places rather than in others, where local economic fundamentals do not entirely coincide with those of the main players, like the U.S.

The following research memorandum was authored by Justin Vance, a research associate with the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization that has long been committed to addressing issues associated with human rights, democracy and economic justice throughout the western hemisphere.

Fueled by a greater sense of urgency regarding the forging

of a single market economy than some of their neighbors and

fellow members in the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the

prime ministers of the Organization of the Eastern Caribbean

States (OECS) met in mid-April 2003 to discuss the future of

their economic relations. The seven permanent members of the

OECS are Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat,

St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the

Grenadines. Their governments have already passed EU-style

measures that allow people to move freely across each other's

borders. New passports for the Eastern Caribbean States are

expected to be issued by 2004, while Antigua, St. Kitts,

Montserrat, and St. Vincent have further accelerated their

economic integration by also allowing the free movement of

labor within the island group. The necessary planning to

implement a single market economy would obviously take

longer, but the group hopes to implement its integration

by 2005. ``This is only advancing by two years what is

really going to take place,'' said St. Vincent Prime

Minister Ralph Gonsalves, possibly alluding to the fact

that CARICOM is aiming for its own single market economy

by 2007, only two years after its original date.

Most people tend to associate the Caribbean with stunning

beaches and refreshing oceans. Some insist it is as close to

paradise as one can find. Indeed, the Caribbean islands have

plentiful resources and boast a soil structure that is

perfect for growing a wide array of crops. Despite these

riches,

many Caribbean residents equate their alleged Eden more

closely with Hades, as they struggle to feed their families.

Some EC islands are among the most underprivileged in the

world, with an increasing disparity between the rich and

poor. Though the per capita GDP of most of the islands is

increasing, they are still far behind that of the developed

nations.

The Caribbean islands have long faced an array of dilemmas.

To cope with some of these, the Treaty of Chaguaramas, signed

in Trinidad on the 4th of July 1973, established the

Caribbean Community known as CARICOM. The organization has

taken on evolving objectives including improving standards of

living, safer working conditions, full employment, and

enhanced levels of competitiveness and productivity. During

the twenty-third meeting of the Conference of Heads of

Government of the Caribbean Community in July 2002, Mr. Edwin

W. Carrington, CARICOM's secretary-general, called upon those

in attendance to celebrate the organization's 30th

anniversary by implementing the Caribbean Single Market

Economy (CSME). In what may be an understatement, Jamaican

Prime Minister, Percival J. Patterson, observed, ``Our

situation no longer permits time just for talking. It is high

time for action here and now. In today's world there is no

question of simply standing still. Just to mark the time is

to be left behind.''

Some island governments argue that the creation of a single

market economy that would allow goods, services, people and

capital to move freely throughout the Caribbean would be a

bonanza for their citizens. They insist that the CSME will

increase production and trade among member countries while it

also improves the quality of goods and the competitiveness of

their prices, creates jobs and improves living standards.

Others, such as The Bahamas, contend that such an agreement

would infringe on their sovereignty. It may sometimes appear

easier and seemingly more beneficial for an island nation to

enter into a bilateral agreement with a single country rather

than with a multiplicity of its neighbors and fellow CARICOM

members.

The Bahamas is content to be a part of CARICOM, but

hesitant to integrate into a single market economy. According

to Bahamian Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham, ``the `free

movement of people' aspect of the SME would have serious

social and political implications for The Bahamas, given its

unique position as the target for massive unregulated

migration from many countries.'' This realistic fear of a

domestic job market that becomes inundated by floods of

migrants from nearby islands appears justified when one looks

at the statistics. The Bahamas currently enjoys a GDP per

capita of $16,800, while the average for other CARICOM

members is only $5,500. The unemployment rate in The

Bahamas is a low 6.9% compared to the average rate of

16.6% in other CARICOM nations, (If Haiti is excluded, the

average drops to 13%). CARICOM members believe that their

economic problems will be ameliorated once they become a

part of the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas

(FTAA), making them even more competitive on the

international level. Although Bahamian officials plan on

negotiating in collaboration with CARICOM, they have

confirmed that they are prepared to voice opinions that

are at variance with the latter's initiatives in order to

protect their interests as well as ensure the proper

treatment of some of the other smaller, developing

economies.

Jamaica also on occasion has exhibited what could be called

anti-CARICOM tendencies by negotiating a unilateral air

services agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) in Washington. CARICOM members supposedly were working

collectively towards a deal with the FAA, but Jamaica skirted

what it saw as a slowmoving CARICOM out of fear of further

jeopardizing its already hemorrhaging tourist industry. The

Bahamas and Belize have also shown themselves to be willing

to strike separate deals with the U.S. As tourism generates a

large part of the foreign currencies for these nations, it

was a matter of utmost importance to them to reach an

agreement.

In view of their individual interests, CARICOM's

characteristic grindingly slow approach was producing

paralysis. In response to the organization's long term

aspirations to also form a political alliance as well, Prime

Minister P.J. Patterson confirmed that Jamaica considers

CARICOM a ``community of sovereign states'' and that his

country would have no part of it, though they respect and

support the rights of other CARICOM nations to negotiate

accordingly, if they so desire. These types of divergences

are what have kept CARICOM from implementing the single

market economy about which they have been talking for the

last fifteen years.

Another deterrent to CARICOM's quest for economic

unification is the fact that the Caribbean Islands all have

fairly similar economies. Chicago School neoliberal economic

scholars advocate strict adherence to the law of comparative

advantage, specialization, and unfettered access to markets.

They insist that if the above criteria are present, an

economy will maximize production and benefit from the gains

of trade. In the Caribbean, however, specialization has

proven difficult due to the similarity of its economic

profiles.

Antigua, The Bahamas, Barbados, and Jamaica all depend

heavily on tourism. For example, over 60% of the Bahamas' GDP

comes from tourism. Over 50% of Belize's exports are from

cane sugar, while St. Kitts also relies heavily on sugar,

despite the commodity's falling price. St. Lucia and St.

Vincent's primary income comes from the production of

bananas, but competition involving this fruit is fierce as

Central American countries are able to produce at a

considerably cheaper price. Dominica also relies on bananas,

but since Hurricane Luis in 1995 devastated the crop, the

country has relied upon construction and such non-traditional

commercial activities as soap production to fuel its

recovery.

Guyana has a large mining industry based on numerous gold

deposits, but lacks the required skilled labor to fully

exploit that commodity. Other resources found on the islands

include bauxite, petroleum, and natural gas. This dependence

on tourism and limited amounts of economic diversity among

the islands has pressured CARICOM members and increased

inter-island competition, as they at the same time seek out

various bilateral agreements with other countries that best

meet their needs. Perhaps for this reason, members of the

Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) have sought a

single market economy sooner than CARICOM, hoping to do what

the larger body has failed to accomplish thus far.

Some observers claim the OECS is pushing to form a free

trade agreement apart from CARICOM in an attempt to increase

their collective bargaining power. Such an alliance would

allow CARICOM's smaller member states to contract services

collectively--including telecommunications services, which

are currently over-priced due to their micro markets--as well

as to import goods at lower prices through unified buying

power. The island nations aspire to eventually be seen as a

larger market and to profit from economies of scale that will

also strengthen their voice in an already complex global

economy, and, of course, in upcoming FTAA negotiations.

Though not a single market economy, The North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada

was met with considerable opposition when first proposed. It

is the world's most extensive free trade agreement short of a

common market. Since the beginning of its implementation in

1994, some tariffs have been completely eliminated while

others will drop until they too disappear in five, ten, or

fifteen years. From 1993 to 2001, bilateral trade between the

U.S. and Mexico increased 188 percent. But despite these

seemingly beneficial statistics, opponents still point out

that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans have been negatively

affected due to rising unemployment rates brought about by a

contracting economy. In the first three years of NAFTA, over

2 million Mexicans lost their jobs. Many American and

Canadian workers also lost out as companies moved south of

the border in search of cheap labor. One convincing argument

now being made is that those who benefit from NAFTA tend not

to need it, while those who suffered before, continue to

suffer, but even more dramatically.

At the beginning of the year, U.S. officials announced the

commencement of discussions concerning the Central American

Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The hope of negotiators is to

eliminate tariffs and other economic barriers to the

expansion of manufactured goods, agriculture, and services,

as well as increasing FDI and portfolio investment between

the United States and Central America. Over 50 programs will

be initiated to help Central American countries compete on an

international level. It remains to be seen, however, whether

CAFTA will truly help stabilize the area's economies and

bring relief to all strata of Central American societies.

Some Caribbean authorities feel that a NAFTA-like

prescription for the Caribbean would have a monumental effect

on the area as the islands' individual economies are becoming

more and more obsolete in the international market, based as

they are on high cost sugar and banana cultivation as well as

an increasingly fickle tourist industry. According to the

CARIBNews, the OECS hopes to implement a single market

economy by 2005 because ``the region is likely to be exposed

to tough competition as it joins Latin American and North

American countries in signing onto the Free Trade Area of the

Americas.''

Dr. Richard Bernal, director-general of the Caribbean

Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM), has said that the

Caribbean will inevitably have to increase its participation

in the global economy. Its advocates say that each of the

nations in the Caribbean region would benefit greatly from

being a part of the FTAA, as their worldwide markets would

almost certainly expand. But some of the smaller and lesser-

developed countries' fate could be far more problematic. If

the U.S. and other large economies are interested in what the

smaller countries have to offer--such as Guyana's gold and

bauxite--they will need to include provisions that help those

countries develop instead of marginalizing their exports and

forcing down their prices, which will only add to the poverty

that already is widely found. The OECS members who are

seeking a single market economy and integration within the

FTAA will soon know whether their economic prospects under

the pending trade pact will fulfill the abundance of sales

talk they have heard over the past few years.