Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit for the Congressional Record an excerpt from the recent (9/23/04) address by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, to the General Assembly of the United Nations. In his remarks, President Papadopoulos eloquently outlined his concerns about the U.N. proposed plan, and his hopes for peace and reunification for Cyprus.

I would like to emphasize how proud we are that Cyprus is

now a full member of the European Union. The European Union

has outlined an extensive set of priorities for this Session

of the General Assembly. As the statement delivered by the

Dutch Presidency has delineated these priorities, I will not

elaborate on them any further.

This year marks 30 years since the occupation of 37% of

Cyprus' territory as a result of the invasion of the island

by Turkish troops. It also marks 30 years of relentless

efforts by the Greek Cypriots to achieve a just and peaceful

settlement, with the support of the international community,

to which I would like here to express our deep appreciation.

The Greek Cypriot side has repeatedly demonstrated in the

past thirty years, its readiness to move forward by making

many painful sacrifices and concessions, while the Turkish

Cypriot leadership always lacked the necessary political

will. The quest and eagerness of Greek Cypriots for a

solution never meant, however, that they would accept any

settlement proposed to them nor that they would be ready to

embark on an adventure, in all probability condemned to

failing, with irreversible consequences.

The latest effort by the UN Secretary-General to solve the

Cyprus problem resulted in a Plan, which, by some was

described as a historic opportunity to solve one of the

longest standing international problems. I will only briefly

outline why, despite the hard work invested in the process by

all involved, the end product of this effort was judged to be

inadequate and fell short of minimum expectations from a

settlement for Greek Cypriots.

Firstly, the Annan Plan was not the product of negotiation

nor did it constitute an agreed solution between the parties.

Secondly, the Plan did not place the necessary emphasis on

achieving a one State solution with a central government able

to guarantee the single sovereign character of Cyprus.

Thirdly, it failed to address the serious concerns of the

Greek Cypriot Community regarding their security and

effective implementation of the Plan.

In rejecting the Plan as a settlement for the Cyprus

problem the Greek Cypriots did not reject the solution or the

reunification of their country. They have rejected this

particular Plan as not effectively achieving this objective.

We remain committed to a solution which will ensure the

reunification of the country, its economy, and its people.

We are committed to reaching a solution on the basis of a

bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. However, there are a number

of essential parameters the Greek Cypriot Community insist

this solution to be founded on. The withdrawal of troops and

settlers and the respect of human rights for all Cypriots,

the underlying structures for a functioning economy, the

functionality and workability of the new state of affairs,

the just resolution of land and property issues in accordance

with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, and

the respect of the right of return of refugees. To this end,

we welcome the recent Pinheiro Progress Report on property

restitution in the context of the return of refugees and

internally displaced persons.

Simultaneously, it pains me to bring to your attention, Mr.

President, that certain provisions of the Annan Plan have

encouraged an unprecedented unlawful exploitation of occupied

properties in northern Cyprus, something alluded to even in

statements by officials of the occupying power itself.

The most paramount feature of any settlement is the ability

to install a sense of security to the people. The mistakes of

the past must not be repeated. Cyprus must in its future

course, proceed without any grey areas with regard to its

sovereignty or its relation to third states. If the people

feel that their needs have not formed the basis of any

solution reached or that the characteristics of this solution

have been dictated by the interests of third parties, then

this solution will unsurprisingly be bypassed. Indeed, the

spirit and practice of effective multilateralism not only

encompasses, but also derives from, the comprehension and

consideration of local realities and particulars, on which it

must then proceed to formulate proposals.

This should not be interpreted by third parties as a lack

of will to solve the Cyprus problem. Instead, it must be

unequivocally understood that the people who will have to

live with this solution are in the best position to judge

what is suitable for them, that it is imperative for the

people to be called upon to ratify any plans that are drawn

to this effect, and that their verdict must be respected.

In the framework of the European Union, and with the aim of

promoting reunification and reconciliation, my Government,

despite the obstacles placed by the current status quo, is

consistently pursuing policies aiming to enhance the economic

development of the Turkish Cypriots. While not intended to

serve as a substitute for a solution, such policies are in

our view the most effective way to foster the maximum

economic integration of the two Communities, and increase

contact between them, so as to ensure the viability of a

future solution.

Responding to the expanding possibilities on the ground, we

have intensified our efforts to ameliorate the situation and

seek ways to benefit citizens. In this context, my

Government has recently proposed the withdrawal of military

forces from sensitive areas and refraining from military

exercises, the opening of eight additional crossing points

across the cease fire line and the facilitation of the

movement of persons, goods and services across the Green

Line, as well as the extension of the so far unilateral de-

mining process initiated by my Government.

We have also declared our readiness to make special

arrangements whereby Turkish Cypriots will utilize Larnaca

Port for the export of their goods. Furthermore, subject to

the area of Varosha being returned under the control of the

Government of Cyprus and to its legitimate inhabitants, we

could accommodate the lawful operation of the port of

Famagusta.

The Cyprus problem is not always perceived in its correct

parameters. The fact remains that this problem is the result

of a

military invasion and continued occupation of part of the

territory of a sovereign state. This fact should not be

conveniently overlooked in people's perception, by

concentrating on peripheral parameters. Any initiative to

solve the problem must have at its core, this most basic and

fundamental fact and be based on the premise that

international legality must be served and the occupation

lifted.

Unfortunately, the fundamentals of the situation on the

ground remain unchanged for the past 30 years since the

Turkish invasion in Cyprus. This situation is one comprising

of severe violations of the most fundamental human rights.

The yet unresolved issues of the missing persons, an issue of

a purely humanitarian nature, as well as that of the enclave

of the Karpass peninsula, are in themselves an indication of

Cyprus' enduring suffering. This should not only point

towards the specifics of the solution to be pursued but must

also guide our actions with regard to managing the current

status quo. For instance, the United Nations Force in Cyprus

(UNFICYP), assigned with the task to manage the status quo

inflicted 30 years ago, should remain specific to the

situation on the ground.

The accession of Cyprus to the European Union, in

conjunction with the lack of an agreement on the settlement

of the Cyprus problem, in spite of our efforts and our

preference for a settlement prior to accession, signifies the

end of an era and the beginning of a new one. I firmly

believe that the new context defined by the accession of my

country to the EU and by the expressed will of Turkey to

advance on the European path offers a unique opportunity and

could have a catalytic effect in reaching a settlement in

Cyprus. Our vocation is to be partners and not enemies.

Hence, in this new era, we plea to Turkey, to join us in

turning the page and seeking ways to mutually discover,

mutually beneficial solutions to the various aspects that

compose the Cyprus problem. The mere realization that peace

and stability in our region serve the interests of both our

countries is ample evidence to prove that what unites us is

stronger than what divides us.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 567) congratulating the American Dental Association for sponsoring the second annual ``Give Kids a Smile'' program which emphasizes the need to improve access to dental care for children, and thanking dentists for volunteering their time to help provided needed dental care.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

I rise today in support of H. Res. 567, introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor). The resolution congratulates the American Dental Association for establishing the ``Give Kids a Smile'' program and thanks the thousands of dentists who volunteered their time to treat an estimated 1 million children on February 21 of last year, 2003.

Giving children access to dental care is crucial. Dental decay is one of the most common chronic infectious diseases among U.S. children. This preventable health problem begins early, and among low-income children, almost 50 percent of tooth decay remains untreated and may result in pain, dysfunction, underweight and poor appearance, problems that can greatly reduce a child's capacity to succeed in the educational environment.

The ``Give Kids a Smile'' program provides a much-needed service to our community by emphasizing the need to improve access to dental care for children. The program began in 2002 by a group of dentists in the Greater St. Louis Dental Society. Since then the program has grown, and in 2004 events took place at approximately 2,500 locations across the Nation, with about 36,000 dental team volunteers, including over 14,000 dentists, to provide free services to underserved children. The ADA has been crucial in implementing and expanding this program, and they deserve to be commended for their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 551) to provide for the implementation of air quality programs developed in accordance with an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the State of Colorado concerning Air Quality Control on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

The bill we are considering today, S. 551, the Southern Ute and Colorado Intergovernmental Agreement Implementation Act of 2003, provides the congressional authorization necessary to allow the Southern Ute Indian tribe and the State of Colorado to implement an important agreement to protect air quality on the Southern Ute reservation in Colorado.

This Intergovernmental Agreement enjoys broad local and regional support. In addition, this bill authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to recognize the Southern Ute Tribe as a State for purposes of administration of the Clean Air Act on the tribe's reservation and allows the tribe to enforce air quality programs within the borders of its reservation.

S. 551 also provides a process for the tribe and the Southern Ute/ State of Colorado Environmental Commission, created by the Intergovernmental Agreement, to enforce their orders under an approved air quality program.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation.

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 express my highest praise and congratulations for the magnificent way Greece hosted the 2004 Summer Olympics. I strongly support H. Res. 774, a resolution which commends the people and government of Greece for the superb Olympic Games held this summer in Athens.

The task of hosting the modern Olympic Games is filled with honor, but also presents

a colossal challenge. With dedication, commitment to hard work, and inspirational leadership, Greece met the challenge while proudly showcasing the ideals of the Olympics and promoting friendship and peace among nations.

As the host to the biggest sporting event in the world, Athens rose magnificently to the challenge and demonstrated the pride and honor that comes with such an occasion. The leadership shown by the government of Greece, and more specifically, the Prime Minister of Greece, Costas Karamanlis, inspired Athens to a great celebration of commitment, dedication, and human endeavor. The mayor of Athens, Dora Bakoyianni, was responsible for presenting the Olympics not only as a modern sporting occasion, but also as an ancient tradition with superb new modern facilities surrounded by historic and architectural wonder.

The Olympic Games left behind not only a memory of great athletic competition, but a legacy of peace, nobility, and honor that should be at the forefront of all international occasions. The Athens Olympic Organizing Committee, under the direction of Gianna Dasklaki- Angelopoulos, presented such a colossal event which surpassed all expectations. She and her staff succeeded in showcasing all that Athens has to offer, old and new, as the birthplace of the Olympics and a frontrunner in modern development. With Athens being the birthplace of the modern Olympics games and containing so many beautiful ancient monuments, there could not have been a more perfect setting for a truly wonderful celebration of athleticism.

The citizens and government of Greece put on a show that made Hellenes from around the world proud. As a Greek-American, I am most proud. I commend Greece for ensuring that the 2004 Summer Olympic Games would not be forgotten. I encourage my colleagues to support H. Res. 774.

Mr. Speaker, last week the House approved H.R. 3734, which would designate the federal building located at Fifth and Richardson Avenues in Roswell, New Mexico, as the ``Joe Skeen Federal Building.'' Naming this building after our late colleague would be a tremendous honor to his memory and his family, and I strongly support this legislation to accomplish that goal.

Representative Skeen was a dedicated patriot who answered the call of his country by joining the Navy and the Air Force Reserves. He built his life on helping people, serving his neighbors and fellow citizens in the New Mexico State Senate before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a write-in candidate in 1980. He served in this venerable body for 22 years, the longest-serving Member of the House from New Mexico. He was respected by his colleagues and loved by his constituents for being honest, caring, and hard-working.

I had the privilege of serving with Joe for 20 years in Congress, and I am proud to have been his friend. I remember many conversations I had with Joe over the years. He spent much of his time on this floor sitting in the ``Florida corner,'' delighting us with his wonderful sense of humor and thoughtful opinions. He is greatly missed.

Mr. Speaker, Joe's death from Parkinson's disease in December 2003 may have closed the book on a life characterized by unfailing public service, but it did not extinguish his memory, which lives on in the hearts of his family, his friends, and the Members of this body. The ``Joe Skeen Federal Building'' will stand as a testament to the great New Mexican who served his constituents and the people of the United States so tirelessly for many decades. I thank my colleagues for honoring Joe by approving H.R. 3734.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 784, which commends the resiliency of the people of the State of Florida and the work of those individuals who have assisted with the recovery efforts after the devastation caused by Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Ivan. As a Floridian and cosponsor of this resolution, I am proud to stand here today.

Florida is the most hurricane-prone State in the Nation. This season alone we have witnessed destruction from Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan and, most recently, Jeanne. Homes have been damaged and in some cases destroyed. Power outages continue to plague many throughout the State. The agricultural industry has taken a beating by the devastation caused to crops and livestock.

And the hurricane season is far from over.

Mr. Speaker, Floridians are tired and many are hurting as a result of these hurricanes. But they don't give up. They rally together to help those in need, volunteering their time and resources to help their neighbors. Even individuals who are faced with repairing their own homes and businesses take time to help those with greater need first. This is a testament to the good will and hopeful spirit that I have come to admire and expect in the people of our great State.

I commend Floridians for persevering during this trying hurricane season, and I applaud all those who have assisted in recovery efforts. Governor Jeb Bush has done a great job leading, encouraging, and comforting the weather-weary citizens of our State, and he is one player among a cast of thousands that is worthy of our praise. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) representatives who have spent much time and many resources assisting Floridians. I also commend our local and State law enforcement officials, emergency workers, and public safety personnel for keeping order, directing traffic and rescuing stranded individuals.

There are too many people to thank to name them, but they know who they are. I encourage all Floridians to keep persevering and to keep helping one another. You are an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, passage of H. Res. 784 would show the people of Florida that the House of Representatives recognizes and values the manner by which they have dealt with this busy hurricane season. I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution to commend Floridians for their hard work and patience during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep sorrow and incredible admiration for the people of the State of Florida, who have had to endure the damage and destruction of Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricanes Charley and Frances and who are preparing for the landfall of Hurricane Ivan. Not many natural disasters target an entire state, and I am comforted to know that even in the toughest of times, Floridians can work together and persevere.

These past few weeks have been very hard for the people of Florida. As our families were returning from late summer vacations and our children were settling into the new school year, the official hurricane season snuck up on us. While Florida's unique location between the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico makes it the most hurricane prone state in the Nation, no one would have imagined the loud roar that greeted us in the middle of August. We have been challenged by this abrupt and alarming hurricane season and one thing is for sure: the people of Florida are strong-willed and resilient.

We have had to board up our homes and businesses, pack our belongings, and pray. We have had to return to our homes and watch our neighbors pick up what belongings remain. We have had to wait in long lines to receive food, water, and gas. And we have had to do this while trying to maintain a normal life.

Florida's tourism industry suffered greatly because of the fear of these storms and the ensuing closure of many of Florida's greatest attractions, and the agriculture industry also has suffered deeply. The State of Florida has a wide range of crops and livestock grown and raised in her backyard. Our farmers and ranchers will be affected for years after the devastating effects these high winds have had on their crops. The total loss in Florida's agricultural production from Hurricanes Charley and Frances alone could cost more than $2 billion.

Before this year, the State of Florida had fallen victim to seven major hurricanes and one devastating tropical storm in the past century, which makes this year's active hurricane season so unique. While much research has been conducted to help the National Weather Service detect hurricanes before landfall, the need still remains for an exact method to predict the paths of hurricanes and tropical storms.

The U.S. Congress recognizes the need to further research the impact hurricanes and other windstorms have on communities. As we have experienced these past few weeks, hurricanes can hit land with wind speeds in excess of 155 mph and destroy all that is in their path. The Nation's most expensive hurricane, Hurricane Andrew, made landfall near Miami in 1992 with wind speeds exceeding 175 mph and caused more than $25 billion in damage. It is still too early to measure the monetary impact of Hurricanes Charley, Frances and possibly Ivan, and there are still six weeks remaining in the official hurricane season.

The House of Representatives approved the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act on

July 8, 2004. This bill establishes a multi agency National Windstorm Hazard Reduction Program which will improve the understanding of windstorms, windstorm impact assessment, and windstorm impact reduction. The bill authorizes much needed funds for research and development projects that will improve the understanding of the behavior of windstorms and their impact on buildings, structures, and lifelines. Through this research, the goal is to ensure the safety of buildings and homes from the destructive effects of hurricanes. Although approving this legislation will reduce the impact of hurricanes and improve the prediction of these storms, this bill will not help the victims of this year's hurricanes. Additional research is needed to protect our citizens in the future.

The road to recovery can not be accomplished without all of the help and outpouring of support that the State of Florida has received in the past few weeks. Thousands of volunteers have come from all over our great Nation to restore our electricity, cook us hot meals, provide temporary shelter and clothing for those who are now homeless, and help us pick up what remains of our communities. I am grateful for all of those volunteers and for all of the government agencies that are quickly and efficiently working to help the citizens of Florida stand up on their feet. We are indebted to your service and will not forget your help during these hard times.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly, quite frankly, I raise this point of order, but it is necessary to do so.

My point of order is against section 219(b) of the bill on the grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill. The rule, as I understand it, does not protect against that.

My point of order is this proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislating in an appropriations bill and violates clause 2(b) of rule XXI.

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 three decades 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 (U.N.) 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. For thirty years, the Turkish Northern Republic of Cyprus (TNRC), recognized by no nation in the world except for Turkey, has prohibited Greek-Cypriots, until recently, 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.

Thirty years later, the forced separation of these two communities still exist despite efforts by the 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 the President of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, and Mr. Denktash came to an abrupt halt. Responsibility for this unfortunate setback in the peace process rested largely with Mr. Denktash, who rejected U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's plan to end the 29-year division of Cyprus. It was shameful that the Secretary General's personal diplomacy was met by this kind of flat-out rejection. A large share of the blame also rested 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 was sincere about settling the Cyprus problem, it could have put the necessary pressure on Mr. Denktash to say ``yes'' to the U.N. Plan at that time.

Nearly a year later, the Turkish government finally expressed interest in renewing negotiations using the Annan plan as a basis. However, the clock was ticking toward Cyprus becoming a full member of the European Union (EU) on May 1, 2004. The goal was to have a completed and agreed-to settlement plan by the week before so Cyprus could enter the EU as a united island. Even though both sides knew they were not going to get everything they wanted, each side was guaranteed a fair plan and one that would be immediately functional. Unfortunately, the final version of the Annan plan which was submitted for a referenda vote to both communities was unbalanced and biased against the Greek-Cypriots.

On several occasions, my colleagues and I strongly voiced our serious concerns with the Annan plan through letters, meetings and floor statements. We wanted to make sure that all those involved in the negotiation process were well aware that unless these issues were addressed and resolved, the Greek-Cypriots would not agree to the plan. Greater efforts should have been made to address these legitimate concerns which could have secured a positive vote from the Greek- Cypriots.

On April 24, 2004, the people of Cyprus had the opportunity to speak for themselves and vote on a United Nations settlement plan. The Greek- Cypriots' rejection of the suggested settlement plan should not be interpreted as a vote against reunification, but rather, as an important statement about the fundamental principles that must be addressed in any viable and workable settlement.

The Greek-Cypriot voters have made clear that the suggested settlement plan failed because it did not provide for guarantees to ensure the complete implementation of commitments under the plan. Security was a major concern for the Greek-Cypriots.

The Annan plan did not thoroughly satisfy the condition of the removal of foreign troops from Cyprus and the elimination of the right of the guarantor powers to interview in Cyprus. Although previous versions of the Annan plan called for the complete withdrawal of Greek and Turkish forces once Turkey joint the E.U., the final version of the Annan plan provided for an indefinite presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus. According to the plan, the number of troops would gradually decrease to 650 over a period of 14 years. However, their continuing presence and intervention rights would make a full and genuine independence of Cyprus impossible.

The plan also provided for the continuation of the Treaty of guarantee. This treaty gives the guarantor powers (Turkey, Greece, United Kingdom (UK)) the right to unilaterally intervene in order to preserve the ``constitutional order'' of the United Cyprus Republic and its constituent states. However, the Annan plan failed to specifically clarify that this treaty does not authorize military intervention. This was a critical point because Turkey insisted that it

would continue to have the right to intervene militarily in Cyprus. This Turkish arrogance increased the Greek-Cypriot fear of a repetition of the 1974 invasion and its tragic consequences.

The Annan plan also did not provide for a property recovery system that would recognize the rights and interests of displaced Greek- Cypriots, and a property compensation system that would not force Greek-Cypriots to pay for their own restitution. The plan allowed for one-third restitution and two-thirds compensation for property owned in the north by Greek-Cypriots who would be losing the use of their properties. The funds for the restitution would be guaranteed by the Federal State. However, nine-tenths of the Federal State's resources would derive from Greek-Cypriots and the remainder from Turkish- Cypriots. Essentially, the Greek-Cypriots, to a large extent, would be paying for their own loss of property.

In addition, compensation for the property would have been required to be paid by the constituent states. This meant that Greek-Cypriot refugees would have to request compensation from the Greek-Cypriot Constituent State. Again, Greek-Cypriot taxpayers, who were the victims of the invasion, would be paying for their own loss of use of property.

Lastly, the Annan plan ignored the right of all Cypriots to buy property and to live wherever they choose without being limited by ethnic quotas and failed to provide a viable, functional government free of built-in deadlocks and voting restrictions based on ethnicity. It set complicated and restrictive provisions regarding the right of Greek-Cypriot refugees to return to their homes in the north. More specifically, a restrictive moratorium of 6 years would be implemented for those Greek-Cypriots who wished to return and permanently live in the Turkish-Cypriot Constituent State (TCCS). For the first 19 years or until Turkey's accession to the EU, the number of Greek-Cypriots who wished to permanently live in the TCCS would not be able to exceed 18 percent of its total population. After that time period, they would not be able to exceed 33.3 percent of the total population of the TCCS. This restriction would have been permanent.

The Annan plan established a system based on permanent ethnic division, while denying fundamental democratic rights to a segment of the population. Under the plan, Greek-Cypriots permanently living in the TCCS and possessing its internal citizenship status would not have the right to participate in the elections for its 24 representatives in the federal Senate.

Since the vote on the referenda, Greek-Cypriots have been criticized for allegedly rejecting peace and the ``only chance'' for reunification. Many people--including the Greek-Cypriots themselves-- regret that the plan presented to them did not allow both communities to respond positively. Criticism and anger, however, will only further divide the island precisely when the Cypriot people need the support of the international community to continue on the path toward lasting peace.

Greek-Cypriots should not be blamed for voting against a plan that they believed did not meet the interests of their country and their futures. It is one thing for others to comment on the terms and conditions for settlement, but it is the Cypriots who must live with whatever plan is adopted.

The Government of Cyprus continues to emphasize that it remains committed to persevering in its efforts to reunify Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation with democratic and human rights for all Cypriots. Earlier this year, the Cypriot Government announced a series 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.

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.

However, 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.

I urge this Administration, the United Nations and the European Union to respect the democratic decision of the Cypriot people, to remain engaged in efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem, and to work toward a fair and lasting reunification of Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) particularly, and the leadership for their cooperation in bringing this bill to the floor as quickly as we have.

I too rise with great honor to support my bill, H.R. 4380, which will name the post office at 4737 Mile Stretch Drive in Holiday, Florida, the Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith Post Office. I cannot think of anything more fitting than to name the only post office in Holiday, Florida, after one of her bravest citizens, Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith. While Paul was many things to many people, he can be remembered best as a distinguished soldier and American hero and a great family man.

Paul was raised in Tampa, Florida, by a single mother who instilled the values of hard work and determination in Paul and his three siblings. Paul would later use these values in battle in Baghdad.

Paul attended the Tampa Vocational-Technical High School in 1989 and joined the U.S. Army following graduation. He served tours of duty in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War and during the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts. Throughout his career, Sergeant Smith distinguished himself as a fine soldier. He was awarded five Army Commendation Medals, six Army Achievement Medals, a Kuwaiti Liberation Medal, a NATO Liberation Medal, two National Defense Service Medals, three Good Conduct Medals, a Sergeant Morales Club for his courageous actions during combat, the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.

His most valiant action as a soldier occurred on April 4, 2003, outside of Saddam International Airport in Baghdad. Sergeant Smith's unit, the Bravo Company of the Eleventh Engineer Battalion of the Third Infantry, was tasked with securing a prison for Iraqi prisoners of war at the Baghdad Airport, which had just been secured by American forces. Sergeant Smith immediately thought of the grassy courtyard he had seen that was encompassed by a tall stone wall and next to a tower that overlooked it.

He gave the orders to build a prison, not knowing that the tower and surrounding area was still occupied by members of the Iraqi Republican Guard. While Sergeant Smith and his men were working in the POW prison, they spotted members of the Republican Guard nearby. Paul called for a Bradley, which was at a nearby road block, and he prepared his men for engagement. Sergeant Smith took charge and led the effort while they waited for the Bradley, which would bring an intimidating fire force.

Even though Sergeant Smith and his men were outnumbered by more than two to one, they continued to fight back. Paul jumped on an Army vehicle and began firing a 50 caliber machine gun. He fired and reloaded and continued to fire. Sergeant Smith's determination and bravery gave him the strength to lead the fight until he was shot and killed.

Sergeant Paul Smith, Mr. Speaker, never wavered, he never questioned his decisions, and he never gave up. He fought the hard fight, and by doing so he saved the lives of all of his men and the more than 100 American soldiers in the surrounding area. For his efforts, Sergeant Smith has been nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor, the military's highest honor. As my colleagues know, the Medal of Honor is awarded in the name of Congress by the President of the United States. Only some 3,400 men and women who have distinguished themselves, as the famous words state, ``at the risk of his life, above and beyond the call of duty,'' have received the Medal of Honor since its inception in 1861. The last action in which the Medal of Honor was awarded was in 1993 posthumously, to two soldiers who died fighting in Somalia. Sergeant Paul Smith's courage under pressure and his undying honor to protect the men under his guard make him the perfect candidate for the Medal of Honor.

While Sergeant Paul Smith epitomizes the phrase ``American hero'' and will not be forgotten because of his fearlessness and conviction, he will always be remembered as a devoted husband, a loving father, and a deserving son and brother. Not only did he leave his men in the battlefield that day, but he also left behind his wife, Birgit, and their children, Jessica and David; his mother and stepfather, Donald and Janice Rvirre, and two sisters and a brother. I hope they understand the importance of what Paul did that day and know that America thanks him and his family for the incredible sacrifice he made.

Mr. Speaker, for these many reasons, I believe that naming the Holiday, Florida, post office, which is just miles from where the Smith family now resides, after Paul is just one small way we as Americans can show our appreciation for the most precious sacrifice Paul made for us and generations to come.

Ronald Reagan once said, ``Freedom is never more than one generation

away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.''

Mr. Speaker, may Paul Ray Smith's memory be eternal, and may God bless the Smith family, and may God bless America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a good friend and outstanding public servant, Congressman Doug Bereuter.

I have become familiar with Doug and his work having served as a member of the U.S. House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which he chairs. I have participated in numerous congressional delegations abroad which he has led and was always impressed with his knowledge of world affairs and his determination to increase understanding among NATO partners.

Doug also has been a tireless advocate for his Cornhusker State constituents during his twenty-six year House tenure. He has served longer than any other Nebraskan, during which time he has penned many laws to help his diverse constituency, including ones to promote his state's agricultural exports, improve health care and child welfare, end international hunger, and protect Native Americans.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to call Doug Bereuter a friend and colleague. His constituents and our country are losing an honorable and dedicated public servant, the likes of which bring credit to this hallowed institution in which we are so fortunate to serve. I wish him and his wife, Louise, health and happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a good friend and outstanding public servant, Congressman Doug Bereuter.

I have become familiar with Doug and his work having served as a member of the U.S. House delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, which he chairs. I have participated in numerous congressional delegations abroad which he has led and was always impressed with his knowledge of world affairs and his determination to increase understanding among NATO partners.

Doug also has been a tireless advocate for his Cornhusker State constituents during his 26 year House tenure. He has served longer than any other Nebraskan, during which time he has penned many laws to help his diverse constituency, including ones to promote his State's agricultural exports, improve health care and child welfare, end international hunger, and protect Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to call Doug Bereuter a friend and colleague. His constituents and our country are losing an honorable and dedicated public servant, the likes of which bring credit to this hallowed institution in which we are so fortunate to serve. I wish him and his wife, Louise, health and happiness in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Pasco County Sheriff's Of earning national commendations for its efforts to control crime, make the community safer, and improve the lives of Pasco County residents, many of whom live in my congressional district.

The office, led by Sheriff Bob White, recently became one of the first law enforcement agencies in the country to receive accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA), an honor which only about one of every four law enforcement agencies ever earn.

The Sheriff's Office received this accreditation after an exhaustive review of its policies and procedures. The Office began preparing for its assessment in early 2003 by reviewing its readiness for such a formal and comprehensive review. The men and women in its employ scrutinized hundreds of policies and procedures and revised and rewrote those which needed altering to comply with CALEA standards.

The formal assessment for CALEA accreditation then began last summer. CALEA assessors descended on the Sheriff's office to conduct an inspection which lasted four days. They reviewed files, toured the agency, inspected personnel, tested equipment, listened to presentations, and rode-along on patrols. They then recommended the Office, which met or exceeded nearly all of CALEA's standards, receive full accreditation late last year. The Sheriff's Office must continue to comply with these standards and will undergo the same scrutiny every three years to maintain its accreditation.

The CALEA accreditation means that the Pasco County Sheriff's Office has met accepted law enforcement standards in preventing and controlling crime, increased agency effectiveness and efficiency in the delivery of law enforcement services, improved coordination with other law enforcement agencies, and bolstered employee and community confidence in its goals, objectives, policies, and practices.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Pasco County Sheriff's Office is one of the most dedicated and professional law enforcement agencies in the state of Florida and around the country. I am both proud and thankful that Sheriff Bob White and his charges are on the job protecting me and my constituents and representing the law enforcement community so ably and honorably. I hope that our colleagues are as fortunate as my constituents are to have such dedicated men and women protecting them.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight, I guess it is tonight, to talk about the Medicare Modernization Act. I will say that I was proud to be a part of that small conference committee that worked hours, weekends, weeks that produced this landmark bipartisan legislation. I am the first to say, and I have said it oftentimes to many of my colleagues, and certainly members of the staff, that this law is not perfect. It is far from perfect. But it targets an awful lot of money towards the areas where it will do the most good; towards the areas that will do the most good. The poorest and the sickest among us will certainly benefit the most from this new law.

Back in the mid 1960s, Mr. Speaker, the Congress passed the Medicare bill. Since then, there have been very few major changes made to it. The bill today, the law today regarding Medicare would offer Medicare beneficiaries the basic part A and part B coverage. It would offer very, very little preventive care. In fact, until a few years ago, it offered no preventive care at all.

We added a few things in a few years ago. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and I got together and we added some preventive care to the bill. No prescription drug coverage available. Very little choice in plans available. If you live in a rural area, much harder to get access to that Medicare.

Today, we have a plan as a result of what this particular Congress did that adds some form of prescription drugs to those benefits. It also adds in an awful lot of preventive health care by way of what we call ``Welcome to Medicare,'' so that when a person is eligible to get on Medicare, Medicare will cover a physical, which is intended, of course, to pick up things that can get an awful lot worse as time goes on. It certainly will result in a lot of savings of money. But the point of the matter is that, hopefully, it will result in a better quality of life for that particular beneficiary because you are picking up something early.

It also provides for much better access in rural areas. One of the fears that Medicare beneficiaries have, those that have retired or their families are retired from some of the larger companies that have given them tremendous retirement coverage, particularly in health care, there is concern as to whether or not they would lose that particular coverage in spite of the fact that over the last few years, and it has nothing at all to do with this Medicare bill, but something like 40 percent of all coverage has been dropped as the result of the high cost of medical costs. But there is some form of protection in this bill. And an additional preventive health care provision is disease management. And there are other areas in it, but those are the additional things.

So, what are the fears or what are the concerns among the beneficiaries out there? God knows an awful lot of Members of this body are certainly working on those fears and on those concerns. Many are concerned that they will lose their traditional fee-for-service coverage. We keep harping on the fact that the bill does not take away that option from them. They can retain traditional fee-for-service and not do anything at all regarding this piece of legislation. There is nothing mandatory whatsoever about it. They can retain fee-for-service and decide to additionally pick up this legislation. So they have the best of two worlds, if you will, if they are in love with the traditional fee-for-service plan that they now have.

I have already said it is not a mandatory plan. People can keep exactly what they have. We have placed money in there to try to encourage employers to keep from dropping. Something has been happening, like I have already said, something like 40 percent over the past few years have already dropped their plans. But we have put some seed money in here, if you will, if you can call $80 billion seed money, to keep employers from dropping plans, and, of course, better accessibility to rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, the history of, let us say the other party, the Democrats, insofar as prescription drug coverage is concerned, is that back in 1999, during the 106th Congress, my friends from the left introduced a bill for prescription drugs, H.R. 1495, which they called the Access to Prescription Medications Act of 1999. Given this legislation, I am puzzled as to why they are having so much difficulty with the benefits in our bill. Why are they having so much difficulty with those benefits? What did that bill, led by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), et al, offer?

It offered a $200 deductible. It offered a 20 percent cost sharing up to $1,700. It offered catastrophic coverage after $3,000 out-of-pocket. I would ask Members of Congress, through you, Mr. Speaker, to relate those particular provisions with what we are doing in this bill. And there was no defined premium. The program would have used PBMs, which is what we call pharmacy benefit managers. They take issue with that in our bill, but this is what they would have done. Now, you may ask how a PBM would have been selected? How? By competitive bidding, no less. Furthermore, the contracts would be awarded on, among other things, shared risk, capitation or performance.

I make these points, Mr. Speaker, to highlight how far we have come and how obvious it is that Democrats simply want to play politics with seniors' medication needs. Now, the bill they had was not perfect, and I have already said, nor is ours. But what I am wondering about is if it was good enough for them in 1999, what is wrong with it in 2003 when this legislation passed?

I would also be remiss not to address the notion that some of the fatal flaws in their legislation back in 1999 is that they would have placed numerous onerous requirements under the winning bidder, which would have likely raised drug prices for seniors.

In 2000, the Democratic budget substitute for fiscal year 2001, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) their ranking member on the Committee on the Budget, included $155 billion for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. All of their leading leaders over there supported this figure. Our bill is at $390 billion, $395 billion, depending on what figure you want to believe. They had $155 billion. We are well over twice that.

In 2001, the Democratic budget substitute for fiscal year 2002, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), upped the ante and called for a $330 billion reserve fund to help create a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Their leadership all supported that figure.

I wish I could tell you what the Democrats support in 2002 and their fiscal year 2003 substitute, but I cannot, because they did not offer one. Of course, that did not stop them from offering a $1 trillion benefit during committee consideration of H.R. 4954, the Medicare Modernization and Prescription Drug Act of 2002.

The fiscal year 2004 budget resolution offered, Mr. Speaker, by the Democrats this year, does not reference a specific dollar figure regarding Medicare modernization and prescription drugs. It just says that the cumulative effect of Medicare reform and programs for the uninsured cannot increase the deficit by more than $528 billion over a 10-year period. Yet they still busted their own budget by offering a drug bill that CBO estimated would cost, what? $1 trillion.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, the point here is obvious. No matter what Republicans commit to Medicare reform and prescription drugs, the Democrats will always outbid us in an attempt to scare seniors and score political talking points. Unfortunately, for them, the Republican majority, along with President Bush, has put $400 billion on

the table to craft a prescription drug benefit that will greatly assist our Nation's seniors. And that is why it was endorsed by AARP and a long list of others that I might read into the record as time goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I will now yield at this point to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), a member of the Subcommittee on Health to supplement and complement my remarks

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood). He has worked hard; and he has been a real leader on this subject and, frankly, on all health matters, because I chair the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and he is a very vocal and active member of it.

I would like to say that we have heard all sorts of arguments against what we have done. The doughnut hole, which is a gap in terms of dollars and what benefits can be acquired during that time and before and after that, the Democrats, as I have already said, have in their 1999 bill a $200 deductible and they had a cost sharing up to $1,700 and then catastrophic coverage after $3,000 out of pocket. So they had a doughnut hole from $1,700 to $3,000. We also have a doughnut hole because of the limited dollars that were available.

Our doughnut hole goes from $2,250 to $3,600. So they had a $1,700, as I understand it, as I interpret it, up to $3,000; and we have a doughnut hole from $2,250 up to $3,600. So we learned about the doughnut hole from them.

I would now gladly recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) to talk more specifically about the Medicare-endorsed prescription drug card program, because as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has already shared with us, the prescription drug provisions go into effect in January of 2006. So during that interim period of time, we wanted to be able to afford some help to the potential beneficiaries, and that is where the discount card program came into effect.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, day after day we hear a good deal of criticism about many aspects of this new Medicare discount card that the gentleman from Texas was referring to. We hear, of course, criticism about the entire thing, but particularly that. Some will say that the savings are not large enough. To that I would say that the savings available through these cards, and, more importantly, as the gentleman from Texas said, the $600 per individual transitional assistance for the poorest of our seniors, are a heck of a lot better than what many seniors were getting before this Congress and this President acted to provide Medicare beneficiaries with prescription drug coverage. I have always maintained, I have already said it, that since we have limited resources available to us, we should target our resources to those who need help the most, the poorest and the sickest. The transitional assistance available under these cards will provide a lot of help to an awful lot of people.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware that other Members will argue that the high number of drug discount card sponsors will needlessly confuse seniors. We have had a presentation, and there are a large number. Granted there is some confusion there. The system still has a few kinks that need to be worked out. I agree that some beneficiaries will need extra assistance in choosing the card that is right for them. But, Mr. Speaker, I would enter into the Record here a 1966 article in The Washington Post that is entitled Medicare Bug, Thousands Fail to Pay Premiums. It

goes on to say, Thousands of elderly workers have gotten off to a bad start with Medicare by failing to pay their premiums on time. The Social Security Administration has reported delinquency rates for the $3-a-month payments are running as high as 50 percent in some parts of the South, a spokesman said. Nationally it is about 30 percent. The payments were due July 1. The slow payments, it goes on to say, represent only one of several bugs to appear in the massive machinery of Medicare during its first 6 weeks of operation. It goes on to say, however, the program generally is working better than expected and an official said, he is quoted in here, We think there is some confusion.

There was confusion in the mid-1960s. If the Congress had taken a look at that confusion and all those problems and whatnot and done what so many in this body on the other side of the aisle do, complaining about it and calling it names and trying to discourage the seniors from going into it, we would not have Medicare today.

[From the Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1996]

Medicare ``Bug,'' Thousands Fail to Pay Premiums

(By Philip Meyer)

Thousands of elderly workers have gotten off to a bad start

with Medicare by failing to pay their premiums on time the

Social Security Administration has reported.

Delinquency rates for the $3-a-month payments are running

as high as 50 per cent in some parts of the South, a

spokesman said. Nationally, it is about 30 percent. the

payments were due July 1.

The slow payments represent only one of several bugs to

appear in the massive machinery of Medicare during its first

six weeks of operation. However, the program generally is

working better than expected.

The problem of delinquent payment affect only the group of

2 million Medicare beneficiaries who are still working. Those

who have retired have the monthly $3 checked off their

retirement benefits.

Elderly workers who signed up for Plan B, the part of

Medicare that covers doctor bills, were billed for $9 to

cover the program's first three months. Payments of $3 or $6

also are accepted.

3 Months Grace Period

No one has yet lost any benefits for failure to pay, a

Social Security spokesman said. The grace period is three

months.

Biggest lag in premium payments is in Southern States,

where as many as 50 percent of the beneficiaries who are

supposed to pay in cash failed to send in the money on time.

``We think there's some confusion,'' an official said.

The $3 premium is matched by another $3 from the Federal

Treasury to support the program. It pays 80 percent of doctor

bills after the first $50.

That $50 deductible is also causing some confusion, the

official reported.

``Some people thought they had to pay the first $50 charged

by each doctor they saw,'' he said, ``Others thought it was a

premium they had to pay whether they needed a doctor or

not.''

As the rule actually works, the $50 deductible must be met

only once in each calendar year.

Another problem reported to the Social Security

Administration headquarters by district offices is that many

people who turn 65 are late in signing up for Plan B.

Should Join Before 65

Those who wait for their 65th birthday to enroll miss the

first month of eligibility. The proper time for joining is

from one to three months before the birthday.

Once enrolled, many persons have caused themselves

unnecessary inconvenience by becoming ``overly protective''

of their Medicare cards.

The wallet-sized cards are issued to identify beneficiaries

to doctors and hospitals. Some people are so afraid of losing

them, they have rented safe deposit boxes to store them in.

Others have sent them to sons or daughters in distant cities

for safekeeping.

``The card isn't all that important,'' the Social Security

spokesman said. ``It's nice to have, but losing it won't keep

you from getting benefits. The worst that can happen is the

inconveniences of apply for a new card.''

Mr. Speaker, I would also say in that connection, there are companies which have already said that they would offer pharmacy assistance programs around the low-income subsidy for the drug card. So once these poorest seniors among us use up that $600 that they have available, the $600 per individual, $1,200 per couple, these companies have come into the picture and said they would go ahead and not charge them anything extra.

Merck. Under the Merck program, once a beneficiary has exhausted his or her annual $600 traditional assistance allowance, Merck will provide its medicines free to that beneficiary's participating discount card plan.

Johnson & Johnson. After Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the government's $600 transitional assistance allowance have exhausted this benefit, they can receive medicines made by Johnson & Johnson- operating companies free of charge.

Eli Lilly will partner with government-approved programs to make the LillyAnswers program available to seniors with incomes below 200 percent, considerably better than just the real low-income, below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level and who do not currently have prescription drug coverage.

Abbott will partner with drug-discount cards approved by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to offer Synthroid tablets for $5 per monthly prescription. It goes on and on.

Pfizer. The Pfizer Share Card program provides qualified low-income Medicare beneficiaries, those with gross incomes less than $18,000 single and $24,000 couple, with access to up to a 30-day supply of any Pfizer prescription medicine for a flat fee of $15 per prescription.

As a result of what we have done here, we have partnered with an awful lot of the pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), another terribly valuable member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to continue on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate particularly the gentleman's emphasizing the discounts because fortunately for America's seniors, and we will not hear this from the other side, the principles of competition that drive this new benefit are already showing real, real results. And CMS found during the first week, and I am talking about the first week in May now, the first week in May, which was really when all this started in terms of posting prescription drug discount card pricing information, et cetera, the CMS found that the discounted prices available through the program had already fallen 11\1/2\ percent for brand names and 12\1/2\ percent for generics over that first week.

I do not know what the current picture is. I have not looked into that.

But the fact of the matter is we can see what will happen here with competition. And these discounted prices are already less, already less, than what seniors without drug coverage are paying for their medications.

And that is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so disappointing that some continue to demagogue this issue. When I learn of a partisan analysis, if you will, of the prescription drug discount card benefit that concludes that the program is a failure, before a single beneficiary uses the card, before a single beneficiary uses the card, it makes us all wonder. But I guess we do not have to wonder too much. Scare tactics are designed to frighten, to confuse seniors. That will only ensure that some beneficiaries would choose, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) said, not to access a benefit that could save them hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars annually.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan) to continue on in this conversation. Newly added to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I am very proud to say.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Before I yield again to Mr. Greenwood, I have in my hand four pages worth of supporters of the Medicare conference report. These are all patient groups. I am going to read off just a handful of the long list:

AARP; ALS Association; Alzheimer's Association; American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association; American Diabetes Association; Arthritis Foundation; Coalition to Protect America's Health Care; Coalition to Protect Health Care Access; Cuban-American National Council; Epilepsy Foundation of Florida; Florida Coalition on Hispanic Aging; Hepatitis C Global Foundation; Kidney Cancer Association; Latino Coalition; Mental Health Association of Central Florida; Montel Williams Foundation; National Alliance For Hispanic Health; National Alliance For the Mentally Ill; the National Council on the Aging; Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation; Robbie Vierra-Lambert Spinal Cord Organization; Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California; 60-plus Association; United Seniors Association; We Are Family Foundation; Women Heart Group.

This is just a handful of the long list here, Mr. Speaker, which I will include for the Record.

Groups Supporting the Medicare Conference Report

patient groups

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman so much for his contribution tonight and all through the years. I would again remind all of us that the PBM, the pharmacy benefit managers, was an idea, an invention of the other party, and we did learn a few things from it. We learned about the gap, if you will, or the donut. We learned about the PBM and that sort of thing. We took the best, I think, of their ideas and cranked them into this and made some minor changes.

Mr. Speaker, this new prescription drug benefit also functions, and this is something I guess we do not talk about as much as we should, as a sort of insurance program, when you stop to think about it.

Most senior citizens that I represent are very risk adverse. One of their great fears is to fall victim to a debilitating illness that will wipe out their life savings and burden their families.

Since prescription medications are obviously crucial to the treatment of a myriad of conditions, it goes without saying that a long-term chronic illness will most likely result in high spending on prescription drugs.

Under this bill, seniors who elect to join the program will pay around $35 per month for their Part D coverage. This premium buys them two things: First, it buys them the peace of mind that if they suffer from a catastrophic illness, that seniors will pay only 5 percent of their medications after spending $3,600 out of their own pocket; insurance, if you will, for if they really get sick. We all have life insurance and all sort of insurances that, God help us, we will never use. We do not complain about it.

Beneficiaries who qualify for low income assistance will not pay anything once they reach this threshold. The others will pay 5 percent after spending $3,600 out of their pocket.

Second, the premium buys them very good first dollar prescription coverage. After meeting the $250 deductible, their Medicare prescription drug plan will pay 75 percent of the drug costs up to a $2,250 limit. I have already said the Democrat plan had it up to $1,700, so we even go above that. Over half of Medicare beneficiaries spends less than this in a year, so for them, this is really a great deal.

Mr. Speaker, the benefits of the bill are clear: Superior assistance for those on fixed incomes, peace of mind for all seniors that a catastrophic illness will not devastate them financially, and excellent first dollar coverage that will benefit millions of American seniors.

There are a lot of folks who want to see this new bill fail. They will say and do most anything to scare senior citizens in their quest to discredit this program. I think they are going to fail.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Tampa Bay Lighting for winning the 2004 Stanley Cup.

The Lighting is a remarkable success story. Many people, including me, wondered whether this expansion team could compete against traditional hockey powerhouses when they joined the league 12 years ago. We wondered whether a sport played primarily in Canada and the northern-most regions of America could survive in an area where sand and sun are the two top attractions. We wondered whether the community would embrace a team dominated by foreign players playing a sport with rules unfamiliar to many of us.

The answer to these questions is a resounding yes. The Lighting has shown what can be accomplished when you combine skill with hard work, determination, and an unyielding will to win. Tampa Bay won the Eastern Conference championship this year, posting a stellar 46-22-8-6 record along the way. Then they defeated perennial hockey powers New York Islanders, Montreal Canadians, and Philadelphia Flyers to reach the Stanley Cup finals.

The Lightning then endured a grueling seven game final against a talented Calgary team which used its physical-style of play to batter and bruise the boys from Tampa Bay. Goalie Nikolai Khabibulin posted one strong game in goal after another. The under-sized but over- achieving Right Winger, Martin St. Louis--once a Flame--rifled shot after shot by and around Calgary defenders. His remarkable season ended with being named league MVP. Center Vincent Lecavalier played with a toughness which inspired his teammates, as did Left Winger Ruslan Fedotenko, who despite being slammed head-first into the boards in game five, returned to score both of Tampa Bay's goals in game seven.

I want to congratulate Tampa Bay's coach, John Tortorella, for devising a winning strategy and keeping his charges together during the season's many tough times. I also want to commend Brad Richards, winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy for finals MVP, and Dave Andreychuk, the team's captain, who finally hoisted the Cup after an exemplary 22 year career.

I am proud that Tampa Bay's players won with class and its fans celebrated with sportsmanship. The Lightning refused to engage in the thuggery and cheap shots which contributed to Calgary's demise. Their fans showed that you can celebrate victory and revel in championship without the rioting, looting, and lawlessness in which fans in other so-called big-time sports cities engage. Let there be no doubt; Tampa is a big-time sports city, one whose teams and fans set a standard which others would do well to follow.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent the hard-working men and women of the Tampa Bay area in Congress. I am especially gratified that two of its professional sports teams, the Buccaneers and now the Lightning, have reached the pinnacle of their professions and shown the spirit, determination, and sportsmanship that have come to exemplify Tampa Bay, or as others should call it, Titletown. I commend the Lightning on winning the 2004 Stanley Cup and for capturing the imagination and hearts of a city along the way. I wish them well in next season's title defense.