Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I, too, rise in strong support of the bill. It addresses, in addition to many other things that it does, an issue that I have been working on for a number of years, and I thank my colleagues sincerely for their recognition of those efforts.

Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC, as others have already said, is a benefit accorded to the surviving dependents of those of the Armed Forces who died while on active duty or of a service-connected cause. Who would argue that this benefit is undeserved? I have always felt that their sacrifices even exceed, even exceed, those of the service member.

DIC is the only Federal annuity program that does not allow a widow who is receiving compensation to remarry at an older age and retain her annuity. Earlier this year I reintroduced legislation which provides that the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a veteran after age 55 shall not result in termination of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. I have heard, as I am sure most of us, from military widows from across the country who have found someone they would like to spend the rest of their lives with but cannot afford to do so because of the current law. They have expressed deep frustrations about not being able to remarry. Many of these women lost their husbands at a very young age and have been alone for a long time. They have finally found someone to share their lives with, but they are afraid to remarry because they will lose their DIC benefits.

I think it is a wonderful thing if an older person finds companionship, falls in love, and decides to marry. I do not think we should be discouraging such marriages by making them financially burdensome.

For those remarrying after the age of 55, it is often the case that both partners are living on fixed incomes. The prospect of one partner losing financial benefits as a result of the marriage is a real disincentive. In fact, current law makes it virtually impossible for some couples to marry after age 55 because they simply cannot afford to do so and continue to support themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I would like so very much to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith); the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans); the Subcommittee on Benefits chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown); and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) for working with me to include, finally, DIC remarriage provisions in this legislation, H.R. 2297.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two wonderful individuals who dedicated their lives to defending America and helping those who fought for our freedom.

Wayne and Jo Hitchcock were long-time constituents and close friends of mine. Wayne was an Army Air Corps tail gunner who flew missions over Hungary during World War II. He was shot down during his 14th mission and subsequently spent 13 months as a prisoner-of-war in Stalag 17B, which was liberated by Patton's Third Army in May of 1945. Wayne received the Air Medal with one Oak Leaf, the European Campaign Medal with four stars, and the Prisoner of War Medal for his heroism.

Wayne returned to his native Indiana after the war and became a homebuilder, land developer, and real estate broker. He also returned to government service and retired after serving as a postmaster for 23 years. He then moved to Florida where he and Jo devoted themselves to helping ex-prisoners of war.

I met Wayne and Jo before I was first elected to Congress. I am glad I did. They helped educate me about the many issues important to those who served our country in uniform, especially ex-prisoners of war. They brought to my attention an inequity which penalized the survivors of veterans who were completely disabled at the time of their deaths but whose deaths were not the result of their service-connected disability. To receive the benefits to which they were entitled, these widows had to meet requirements far above those of their counterparts whose husbands died as a result of their service-connected disability. I introduced legislation, which eventually became law, to fix this problem after Wayne and Jo brought it to my attention.

Wayne and Jo were actively involved with the American Ex-Prisoners of War, serving on various committees and posts at the department. Wayne eventually served as the Senior Vice Commander and as the National Legislative Chairman and Legislative Reporter. He became National Commander in 1997. He also was a life member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, and the Disabled American Veterans.

In addition to their work for ex-prisoners of war, Wayne and Jo also were very active in many volunteer and charitable organizations in the community. Wayne was a forty-year member of Lions International and was Boy Scout Master for more than 20 years. Jo spent her time running from meeting to meeting of the many charitable organizations to which she belonged. After Wayne's death in 1999, she also served as president of a local Ex-POW chapter until her death earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, Wayne and Jo Hitchcock were two outstanding individuals who loved their country and those who fought for it. They made this country better for ex-prisoners of war and for the many people with whom they came into contact. I miss them both, as do the many people who are forever indebted to them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate the 43rd anniversary of the Independence of the Republic of Cyprus. On October 1, 1960, Cyprus became an independent republic after decades of British colonial rule.

Over the last decades, Cyprus and the United States have established close political, economic and social ties, developing a valued friendship. Both countries gained their independence from Great Britain, and now each country celebrates the anniversary of that independence as their national holiday. More significantly, Cyprus and the United States share a deep and abiding commitment to democracy, fundamental human rights, free markets, and the ideal and practice of equal justice under law.

The relationship between Cyprus and the United States is strong and enduring. The people of Cyprus appreciate the leadership that America has shown in trying to end the division of Cyprus and bring about reunification. At the same time, the people of Cyprus stand with the American people and share in the firm resolve to uphold the ideals of freedom, justice and democracy threatened by the forces of international terrorism.

The government of Cyprus has pledged to cooperate fully with the Bush Administration in the battle against terrorism. Cypriots do not stand indifferent and passive in responding to heinous acts that target our sense of security, our civil liberties and our faith in the democratic process. Having achieved its independence after a bitter fight to uphold freedom and democracy, Cyprus understands that great determination and unity are needed in order to safeguard the treasured ideals we share.

As the Republic of Cyprus celebrates its 43rd Independence Day, I share the Cypriot's joy for having created a prosperous, open society based on solid foundations. Furthermore, I believe this is an opportunity for the United States of America and Cyprus to come closer together, as we stand united in our resolve to fight the battle on terrorism. As we move forward, I am confident that our friendship will continue well into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a very good case for rural health care, and I commend him for that and because we have heard the same case made time and time again, and this is why we have provided an approximately $25 billion increase in payments to rural providers.

Before I go into that, I would advise the gentleman through the Chair, if I may, that I certainly agree with him regarding wellness, preventive health care and whatnot, and for something like 60 years or 30 years after Medicare was devised, we did not have, in Medicare, provisions for preventive health

care. And it was not until a few years ago, in the 1990s, in the late 1990s, when finally a group of us got together on a bipartisan basis and finally for the first time put some preventive health care coverage reimbursement, if you will, in order to cover those areas.

In the House bill, in the House bill, the gentleman has not referred to this, we have a provision to the effect that when a person is about to go under Medicare, there is a reimbursement coverage. In other words, provided payment by Medicare, for a one-time physical. It is a voluntary type of a thing, but a one-time physical to encourage people to take that physical before they go into Medicare, and with the idea, of course, that many problems, many illnesses, prospective illnesses might be picked up at a real early stage and thus save not only an awful lot of money, of course, to the taxpayer ultimately, but certainly save an awful lot of money and inconvenience and pain for the beneficiary.

This is what is in the House bill, as I understand it. It is not the Senate bill. It is one of those provisions that we, on the Member level in conference, are going to have to address. The American Cancer Society supports that provision, and it is my idea, and so, certainly, I support it. So I agree with the gentleman about preventive health care, and it is something we are trying to do.

This is, as the gentleman indicated, the fourth time the minority has offered this motion to instruct conferees. I do find it perplexing that they continue to offer this motion, and for one reason only, and that is because by definition, by definition, it would reduce the amount of funding available for the new Medicare prescription drug benefit by 10s of billions of dollars.

So, yes, do we want to increase and are we, in fact, increasing the reimbursements to rural Medicare providers? Yes, we are doing that. If we increase that amount, we are taking it from where? We are taking it, of course, from the prescription drug benefits available to seniors.

The author would have the Medicare conferees accept every rural provider increase contained in both bills, as he indicated. I would note for my colleagues, and I have already said this, that the House has already recognized the need to ensure the rural Medicare providers are paid fairly. In fact, the House-passed bill contains a $24.9 billion increase in payments to rural providers, which will help rural hospitals and physicians, among others, continue to provide care to rural Americans. So, if the House bill goes down, or if we do not have a bill, let us say both bills go down because we want perfection, the rural hospitals will lose $25 billion as a result of that decision.

Since the authors of this motion continue to emphasize that their motion will not cause us to exceed the $400 billion laid out in the budget resolution, we would have to reallocate funds, I have already said it, away from beneficiaries and towards whom? Towards rural providers.

Would we like to do that? Yes. Would we like to take it away from prescription drug benefits? The answer is no. I do not support it. I think the House bill strikes the right balance between providing a meaningful prescription drug benefit and helping ensure that providers, especially those in rural areas, continue to serve Medicare beneficiaries.

This motion would also, in some cases, require a type of government- run fallback. Although the House passed legislation, both bills have a fallback. The House passed legislation has a fallback. It already guarantees that every Medicare beneficiary will have a choice of the least two Medicare prescription drug plans.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office tells us, and they are, of course, as bipartisan as you can be, that under both acts, CBO estimates that all Medicare beneficiaries would have access to prescription drug coverage. In spite of that, both bills have a fallback. They are good fallbacks. As time goes on, if, God forbid, we might have to fall back, if you will, to a fallback, and it looks like it is not working, then, of course, that is something that can be adjusted. But there really is not that much of a difference in terms of what the fallbacks are as I understand it. It is just the case of the Senate bill fallback would immediately fall back to the government picking up 100 percent of risk whereas the House bill affords flexibility, if you will, from the standpoint that one fallback may result in government picking up a certain percentage of risk in some areas and in some other areas and pick up a larger risk or smaller risk or something of that nature.

We have found that, in order to control costs, it is important that Medicare prescription drug sponsors share some of the risk associated with providing this new benefit. I am uncomfortable asking the Federal taxpayer to completely shoulder the weight of this new entitlement. That is why I do not think we need the government running prescription drug plans. But the fact of the matter is the fallback is there, and there is a guarantee in the House bill that a plan will be available for all beneficiaries.

And, finally, the motion instructs conferees to recede to the Senate and remove the hospital market-basket update adjustment contained in the House bill. I would note for my colleagues that we are not cutting hospital reimbursement. We are not cutting hospital reimbursement. We have hospitals all over, whether it be urban areas or rural areas, my area is somewhat in between, if you will, but we are not getting hospital reimbursements.

According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which we call MedPAC, it is the nonpartisan panel of experts that advises Congress on Medicare policy, hospitals currently make a 10 percent profit for Medicare inpatient services and a 5 percent profit, on average, for all services provided to Medicare patients.

So I have already emphasized, if you will, MedPAC unanimously advised Congress to increase payments by 3 percent, which is what the House bill does. We have gone along with basically the experts in that regard, MedPAC.

The $25 billion approximate increase in provider payments in rural areas is based on certain formulas. Iowa hospitals would receive a certain percentage, Hawaii hospitals receive a certain percentage, increases above and beyond that 3 percent I might add.

Additionally, and it has not been mentioned in the motion to instruct, but under the current law, Medicare providers would have reduced their reimbursement by 4.4 percent. The House bill increases that by 1.5 percent. You are talking about a swing of 5.9 percent to Medicare providers, M.D.-type providers, if you will, which would take place if we enact this legislation into law. If we defeat this legislation and defeat any version of this type of legislation, those providers would be hurting. The rural providers would be hurting considerably more than they are now. And obviously, the beneficiaries, to whom we have promised prescription drugs of a sort, would be hurting.

Mr. Speaker, given the progress the conferees have made toward reaching an agreement, progress is being made, it is slow, there is no question about it, but it is moving, I would hope that conferees are given the opportunity to work through their differences between both bills. After all, that is what the system is all about. There are differences between the House version and the Senate version. And conferees were appointed on a bipartisan basis in order to try to work out those differences.

Basically what we are saying to the gentleman and to the entire House is give the conferees the opportunity to work, and hopefully we will be able to successfully address the many competing issues in a satisfactory way.

And more importantly, in addition to helping the rural providers and rural hospitals, all providers, et cetera, we will be providing our seniors with a prescription drug benefit that they need so very desperately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman, and I appreciate his comments because he is so very much concerned about health care for our seniors; but I mentioned the conference is taking place on a bipartisan basis, and the truth is it is. We have two United States Senators from the other party who are part of that conference, on an everyday basis, I might add.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Just to respond very briefly to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), this is my 21st year in the House. Virtually all of that time, I have been a member of the Subcommittee on Health, and the question of reimbursements to rural providers has always been there. If it were simple to correct, it could have been corrected. It could have been corrected when the other party was in charge. It could have been corrected when this party has been in charge, which is a lot less years than when the other party was in charge. It is very difficult, but it is being addressed. The conferees are spending a lot of time on that particular issue, and, hopefully, they will reach agreement.

Again, I would say to my colleagues, I have talked to members of the AARP who have come into my office back home. Yes, we have all received a seven-page letter to the effect of what they want in that bill, but they say we want a bill which will help some people now, and, hopefully, provide a foundation we can improve upon as we go on.

If all of us are just going to stand fast and say this is not in the bill or that is not in the bill, or this is in the bill and I do not like it and we want perfection, we are not going to have a bill. As I said before, at least the rural providers are receiving some benefit, some help out of this bill. That $25 billion is certainly not chicken feed.

It is significant that we have a piece of legislation that is going to be of some help to the rural providers. It may not be enough, it may not be as much as the gentleman would like, and I do not blame him. This is a representative system of government, and they are representing their people, and they are doing a good job of it insofar as wanting to help their rural communities. But again, we have to have a bill, and it is critical that we all try to work together as much as we can.

All of the conferees are not always meeting together in every conference that we have. That is unfortunate, but there are some Members who have indicated that they are against anything at all involving this type of legislation; and, consequently, I suppose those are the reasons. I do not make those decisions, but it is unfortunate. But a lot of work is being done every day at 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, on a bipartisan basis.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Tom Lewis, a friend and former colleague who epitomized what being a public servant is all about.

Tom devoted his life to serving his country and his countrymen. He fought for America in the Air Force, serving tours of duty in both World War II and Korea during his eleven-year military career. Tom used the knowledge he gained in the Air Force later in life as a jet and rocket-testing chief for Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, eventually supervising work on sensitive and sophisticated military and commercial aircraft systems.

Tom came to Congress the same year I did, in 1983, after serving as both Mayor and city councilman of North Palm Beach from 1964 to 1971. He then went on to represent that area in the Florida House of Representatives until 1980, when he was elected to the Florida Senate.

During his time in these hallowed halls, Tom zealously fought for the people of his district, whom he considered more than just constituents. He was largely responsible for saving the Hurricane Hunter Plane Program, the aircraft which fly into hurricanes to collect data so meteorologists can predict when and where these storms will hit. He also led the effort to build a much-needed VA medical center in his district, as well as to save the Big Cypress Natural Preserve, a unique part of Florida's environment.

After his retirement from Congress in 1994, he worked to protect Florida's agricultural interests during trade negotiations and led a campaign which raised $66 million to improve a stretch of U.S. Highway 27 on which more than 100 people died between 1982 and 1997. That portion of highway in Palm Beach County now bears Tom's name.

My colleague from Florida, the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said it best when he noted a decade ago that there was ``not a comer of his vast district that you can go without seeing the fruit of Tom's work.''

Mr. Speaker, Tom was much more than a dedicated public servant. He was a loving husband to his wife, Marian. He was a devoted father to his three children. He also was one of my closest confidants in Congress. It saddened me to learn that he passed away last month. I am comforted, however, in the knowledge that he will be remembered as one of the most respected, accomplished, and honorable members of this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Stanley Graziul, a veteran in my congressional district who has served his country with distinction.

Stanley Graziul is a World War II hero. He served in the Army's 97th Infantry Division, in Battery B of its 365th Field Artillery Battalion, which saw heavy action during the war. Stanley single-handedly captured twenty-five German soldiers in Liebeneck, Czechoslovakia, on April 26, 1945. He was alone that morning guarding Battery B's perimeter when a young soldier dressed in an American uniform approached him. Stanley sensed that something was wrong and ordered the man, a German soldier, to halt. After interrogating him, Stanley learned that twenty-four of the soldier's comrades were hiding in the woods and promptly took them into custody, until he encountered American GI's who could take the Germans to a nearby prisoner-of-war camp.

Stanley Graziul's commitment to his country and the causes in which he believed did not end with his military service. He returned to the United States after the war and became actively involved in his community. He gave his time and energy to help many volunteer and service organizations assist those less fortunate than him. He also became active in the political process and donated his time and money to candidates and causes in which he believed. He and his wonderful wife, Caroline, live in my congressional district in Spring Hill and remain active in the community still today.

Mr. Speaker, Stanley Graziul is a true American hero. His honor, courage, and bravery, and that of countless American veterans, helped us win World War II and ensure that our democratic republic endured. I am proud to call him a constituent, and more important, to have him as a friend. I urge our colleagues to remember his example, and those of their constituents, as we exercise the freedoms that they helped secure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Warren Wilson, a former constituent and friend whose short life touched those with whom he came into contact.

Warren Wilson was, more than anything else, generous. I have met few people in my life whose generosity and charity exceeded Warren's. He willingly gave his time, energy, and money to help those in need. He performed free legal work for those who could not afford it. He raised money for charitable organizations that helped the poor and downtrodden. He volunteered to serve on the boards of local community and service organizations.

Warren Wilson was, however, more than just an asset to our community. He was a loving husband to his wonderful wife, Beth. He was a devoted father to his fine son, Scott. And he was a mentor to my children, especially to my son Gus, who runs the law practice that I started before I came to Congress.

Warren also was my friend. He was someone with whom I could watch a baseball game, someone with whom I could discuss the issues we debate in this hallowed chamber, and someone with whom I could talk about life and our roles in it. One of my proudest and most gratifying moments in Congress came when I was able to appoint his son to serve as a congressional page. Warren was so proud of Scott, as was I for the outstanding job he did during his time in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I was blessed to know Warren Wilson and to have had him as a friend. And the world is a much better place for having had him in it. I know that, although his earthly life has passed, his impact will be felt by those he touched for many, many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Doctor Louise R. D'Oliveira, a talented and caring constituent of mine who recently passed away.

Dr. D'Oliveira, a native of Louisiana who came to the United States from South Africa in 1980, was an ordained Methodist minister and devoted her life to helping those less fortunate than herself. She directed the Women's Christian Center in Tampa and was an advisory board member of Everybody's Tabernacle-Homeless Emergency Project in Clearwater. This organization helps hungry and homeless individuals who have nowhere else to turn in their greatest times of need.

Louise also was considered one of the world's foremost adult literacy experts. She chaired the African Division of Laubach Literacy and also founded and directed Operation Upgrade South Africa, programs which helped untold numbers of adults worldwide learn to read. She also authored several books about Africa and her native Louisiana. In addition, she was an Army veteran of World War II.

Mr. Speaker, the world lost a wonderful woman and dedicated advocate for learning when Louise D'Oliveira's earthly life ended. However, I am certain that, wherever she is today, she is sharing her wisdom and knowledge with whomever she encounters.

Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather in the Tampa area, my flight was delayed and I missed rollcall votes 460, 461, and 462. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three votes.

Mr. Speaker, as I have done every year, I rise again today to reiterate my fierce objection to the illegal occupation of the island of Cyprus by Turkish troops and declare my grave concern for the future of the area. The island's twenty nine years of internal division make the status quo absolutely unacceptable.

In July 1974, Turkish troops captured the northern part of Cyprus, seizing more than a third of the island. The Turkish troops expelled 200,000 Greek-Cypriots from their homes and killed 5,000 citizens of the once-peaceful island. The Turkish invasion was a conscious and deliberate attempt at ethnic cleansing. Turkey proceeded to install 40,000 military personnel on Cyprus. Today, these troops, in conjunction with United Nations peacekeeping forces, make the small island of Cyprus one of the most militarized areas in the world. Over a quarter of a century later, approximately 1,500 Greek-Cypriots remain missing, including four Americans.

The Green Line, a 113-mile barbed wire fence, separates the Greek- Cypriot community from its Turkish-Cypriot counterpart. The Turkish Northern Republic of Cyprus (TNRC), recognized by no nation in the world except for Turkey, prohibits Greek-Cypriots from freely crossing the Green Line to visit the towns and communities of their families. With control of about 37 percent of the island, Turkey's military occupation has had severe consequences, most notably the dislocation of the Greek-Cypriot population and the resulting refugees.

Twenty-nine years later, the forced separation of these two communities still exists despite efforts by the United Nations (U.N.) and G-8 leadership to mend this rift between north and south. The U.N., with the explicit support of the United States, has sponsored several rounds of proximity talks between the former President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, and Mr. Rauf Denktash, the self- proclaimed leader of the occupied northern part of the island.

In March 2003, the United Nations-sponsored Cyprus peace talks at the Hague between newly-elected President of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, and Mr. Denktash came to an abrupt halt. Responsibility for this unfortunate setback in the peace process rests largely with Mr. Denktash who rejected U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's Plan to end the 29-year division of Cyprus. It is a shame that the Secretary General's personal diplomacy was met by this kind of flat-out rejection. A large share of the blame also rests with the Turkish military and hard-line nationalists in Ankara, who have maintained the illegal Turkish military occupation of Cyprus since Turkish forces invaded the island in 1974. If the Government of Turkey were sincere about settling the Cyprus problem, they could have put the necessary pressure on Mr. Denktash to say ``yes'' to the U.N. Plan.

In sharp contrast to Mr. Denktash, Mr. Papadopoulos said ``yes'' to a public referendum on the Secretary General's plan. His response is consistent with years of efforts by the Government of Cyprus to try to negotiate in good faith to reunify the country--efforts that have been consistently rebuffed by the separatist Turkish-Cypriot regime. I praise President Papadopoulos for stressing that the Greek-Cypriot side will continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the European Union (EU).

In April 2003, the House of Representatives unanimously approved House Resolution 165, introduced by Mr. Bereuter and myself, which expresses support for a renewed effort to find a peaceful and lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem by declaring appreciation for the efforts of Kofi Annan. The bill also expresses strong disappointment that Mr. Denktash rejected the comprehensive settlement offered by Secretary General Annan, thereby denying the Turkish-Cypriot people the opportunity to determine their own future.

A few days later, Cyprus experienced a major historic event on April 16, 2003, with the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. For the first time, the people of Cyprus have the opportunity to seal their future when Cyprus becomes a member of the E.U. next year. Upon accession to the European Union, Cyprus will, in its capacity as a full member, be firmly anchored to the western political and security structures, enhancing both geographically and qualitatively the operational capabilities of the Western world.

Needless to say, it would be in the best interest of Turkey to cooperate with the United Nations and the rest of the international community on Cyprus in order to advance its own membership in the European Union. Northern Cyprus will perhaps be the greatest beneficiary of Cypriot membership and resolution of the entire affair. It is currently in a state of economic distress that is being exacerbated by Turkish intransigence. Sadly, the people living in the northern part of the island continue to be mired in poverty as a direct result of their leadership's and Turkey's separatist policies. By joining the rest of Cyprus, it would become part of an already progressive economy, eliminating its financial dependence on Turkey.

So far we have seen that both Turkey and Mr. Denktash have sought to create preconditions on Cyprus' accession by tying that process to the resolution of a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus. The United States should remind Turkey that any threat against the Republic of Cyprus will be met with strong opposition and that Turkey does not possess any veto power over European Union membership. Promotion of Cyprus' membership will remove what has been a stumbling block in comprehensive settlement negotiations, and it will allow Turkey to strive toward the laudable goal of its own accession.

Despite the continued Turkish intransigence, earlier this year the Cypriot Government announced a package of measures aimed at assisting those Turkish Cypriots residing under the control of the Turkish occupation army. This package includes a wide range of political, social, humanitarian, educational and economic measures that will enhance the ability of the Turkish Cypriots to enjoy many of the benefits that the Republic of Cyprus offers to its citizens--as well as to share in the benefits of European Union membership. Far beyond a merely symbolic gesture, the package is a substantive program to integrate the Turkish Cypriot community into the larger Cypriot society as the country prepares to join the EU.

At the same time, the Turkish occupation regime partially lifted restrictions on freedom across the artificial line of division created by Turkey's military occupation. Since then, hundreds of thousands of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have crossed the line, to visit homes and areas of their own country that

were inaccessible to them for nearly 30 years. It isn't clear whether opening the border was just a tactic to ease the frustrations, or a sign of a fundamental change of heart. But it has produced rare displays of human kinship, exchanges of flowers and pastries, and emotional visits to homes abandoned in the mid-1970s.

Neither the Government's measures for the Turkish Cypriots, nor the partial lifting of restrictions by the occupation regime, should be seen as a substitute for a comprehensive resolution to end the division of Cyprus. We can only hope that the improved climate that has resulted from these steps will contribute to a negotiated settlement based on the U.N. framework in time for the accession of Cyprus to the European Union in May 2004.

We are all standing at the threshold of a historic opportunity that will shape the futures of generations of Cypriots, Greeks, and Turks. We have a responsibility to these ensuant generations to secure their futures by contributing to the efforts to create a peaceful world. We have a moral and ethical obligation to use our influence as Americans-- as defenders of democracy, and as defenders of human rights, to reunify Cyprus. There have been twenty-nine years of illegitimate occupation, violence, and strife; let's not make it three decades.

Lastly, I want to bid a fond farewell to Cyprus's Ambassador to the United States, Mrs. Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis, after nearly 5 years of service in our nation's capital. I want to praise the Ambassador for her tremendous efforts and contributions to accomplishing awareness among Members of Congress and Administration officials of Cyprus' desire to be reunified. She will be missed.

Mr. Speaker, this dangerous bill is a legislative Trojan Horse that uses a promising veneer to hide dangerous realities.

I do not have the time to go into all of the reasons why I personally am opposing this legislation, but I want to remind my colleagues that a number of patient advocate organizations dedicated to the health and well-being of our constituents, including the ALS Association, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, and the Friends of Cancer Research, and this long list here, and so many others that will not fit on this chart, are joining me in my opposition tonight. They, they consider the issue safety. They consider the issue safety.

Also, the bill, in addition to the devastating impact on patient safety, would adversely affect the ability of our research-driven pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries to develop breakthrough cures for a myriad of devastating diseases.

Many of the solutions to high pharmaceutical prices have already been considered on this floor. They include a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit and Hatch-Waxman reforms to ensure quicker access to less costly generic drugs. We also need to find a way to reduce the number of Americans without health insurance. In fact, I recently introduced a bill that would attempt to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It will do more harm than good. I urge my colleagues to do the responsible, the responsible and not the political thing, and that is to defeat H.R. 2427 tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Larry Allen, a retired police officer from my hometown of Tarpon Springs who offers free computer classes to children in my congressional district.

Mr. Allen retired from the Tarpon Springs Police Department earlier this year after thirty years of dedicated service. He joined the force after high school because he wanted to serve the community in which he was raised. Mr. Allen, however, wanted to continue serving the community he once protected after his retirement. Consequently, he devotes much of his time to the Department's Cops and Kids program, which teaches children how to use, repair, and take care of computers.

The program, which allows six youngsters to participate on a rotating basis every six weeks, enables its participants to get individualized instruction that they may not otherwise receive at school. This attention allows the students to learn how to use computers as educational tools and learn more than they would without the benefit of those skills.

I am pleased that many individuals and businesses from my congressional district have supported this effort by donating computers to the program. These machines are refurbished and loaded with current software which allows the students to take computers home to assist with their school work.

Mr. Speaker, the Cops and Kids program is a shining example of what can be accomplished by dedicated individuals who care about their community. Larry Allen is one such person; a man whose career in law enforcement made Tarpon Springs a safer place to live and work and whose concern for his community has improved the lives of many children in it. I am proud to represent Mr. Allen in Congress and commend him both for his police career and his service in the Cops and Kids program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Shelly Agarwal, a fine young woman and outstanding student from my congressional district in Tarpon Springs, Florida.

Shelly recently earned a perfect score of 36 on her ACT college entrance exam. She was one of only two students in Florida, and 51 nationwide, who answered each of the 215 test questions correctly when she took the test. The national average ACT score is 20.8.

Shelly became the first student from Berkeley Preparatory School in Tampa to receive a perfect score on the ACT. She said she was ``surprised'' by her score and ``didn't expect anything that high.'' However, I think she was being modest because she also scored 1580 out of a possible 1600 on her SAT college placement test.

It is clear that Shelly is a bright and motivated young woman. Unlike many of her peers who are taking the summer months off, she is spending them at the University of Chicago studying molecular biology. She is one of only a half dozen high school students who are conducting research alongside undergraduate and graduate students.

Mr. Speaker, Shelly also owes much of her success to her parents, Sudhir and Usha, who are doctors in one of the counties in my district, and to her brother Siddhartha, who will be a sophomore at Harvard this fall. They encouraged Shelly to excel in school and taught her the importance of getting a good education. I want to commend them for providing the support that all students should be as fortunate to have and congratulate Shelly on her tremendous accomplishments. I am certain that she will succeed in her future educational and professional endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman, my good friend, the chairman for recognizing me, and I speak in support of the Project Bioshield Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, in 2001, we really learned about the real threat of terrorism and the importance of being adequately prepared for an attack. The possibility that our enemies might attack us with biological, chemical or radiological weapons still remains, unfortunately, a significant threat.

During the last Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce worked together in a bipartisan fashion to produce the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act which became law in June of 2002. I was proud to have been a small part of this important effort. However, while our legislation has helped get critical resources out to the States and moved us closer to the reality of a more comprehensive strategic national stockpile, more still needs to be done.

I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues and the Bush administration to develop legislation that would help make the vision of Project Bioshield a reality. As we have heard, this initiative is designed to speed the development and availability of medical countermeasures that will help us respond to any future terrorist attacks.

The bill will also provide the Federal Government with tools to help encourage our research-driven pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical technology to develop new countermeasures where none exists today.

It remains our responsibility to do what we can to ensure that the United States is ready for whatever biological, chemical or radiological threat we might face.

It is for that reason that I join the others in urging my colleagues to join us in supporting the Project BioShield Act of 2003.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Eric Lee, a fine young man and outstanding student from my congressional district in Safety Harbor, Florida.

Eric recently learned that he has been selected to receive the prestigious Fulbright award to study, lecture, or conduct research abroad during the next academic year. Eric received this award because of his academic achievement and leadership in the field in which he has chosen to study.

Congress created the Fulbright program in 1946 to ``increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries.'' I strongly support this goal and agree with the program's namesake, former Senator J. William Fulbright, that we should ``aim to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.''

Mr. Speaker, there are more than 250,000 Fulbright alumni worldwide. I am confident that Eric Lee will exemplify the excellence and achievement that they have established throughout the program's history. I congratulate him, and his parents, on this outstanding achievement, and I wish him well in his studies and his future endeavors.