Peter Deutsch

Mr. Speaker, the Republic of China (Taiwan) has once again tried to return to the United Nations this fall. In recent years, Taiwan has repeatedly expressed its strong desire to participate in the United Nations and other international organizations. I am pleased that the United States has pledged to support Taiwan's bid to become an observer in the World Health Organization and to obtain OAS (Organization of American States) observership for Taiwan. Many of us in this body have long supported that. In fact, in our Taiwan Policy Review of September 1994, we declared the intent to build stronger and more active support for Taiwan's participation in appropriate international organizations. The United Nations is such an appropriate organization.

The United States has supported Taiwan's membership in the Asian Development Bank and the World Trade Organization and its admission to the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Group; Supporting Taiwan's bid to return to the United Nations is the next logical step for the United States. In doing so, we will demonstrate to the world that the United States supports democracy and freedom in Taiwan. We will prove, yet again, that the United States is on the side of free and democratic people.

It is indeed grossly unfair to see Taiwan and its 23 million people excluded from the activities of the United Nations year after year. When SARS hit Taiwan in the spring of 2003, Taiwan, without United Nations membership, was denied the World Health Organization's expertise and assistance for weeks. Taiwan's doctors had difficulty obtaining information about SARS, and as a result, Taiwanese SARS patients suffered and waited.

Taiwan's immense population is also worth noting. Its 23 million people constitute a population that's larger than those of two-thirds of UN member states. Small states such as Andorra (population 54,000) and San Marino (population 23,000) have UN membership while Taiwan is denied?

Furthermore, Taiwan's exclusion from the UN clearly violates the UN principle of universality. The UN's mission is to ``reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations large and small.'' What of the rights of the 23 million people on Taiwan? Don't we believe that the Taiwanese populace counts?

Taiwan is a democracy. It endorses the UN's ideals of peace, human rights, and development. It has been a responsible global citizen, contributing to aid projects like relief supplies for Afghan refugees, AIDS prevention in Africa, and the dispatch of a rescue team following earthquakes to El Salvador in 2001.

If Taiwan were allowed to return to the United Nations, reconciliation and rapprochement between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China would help to stabilize the entire Asia-Pacific region for generations to come, while making the United Nations a much more representative body.

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan's exclusion from the United Nations is unjust. We must speak up for Taiwan, our friend and ally, this year and every other until this injustice is corrected.

Mr. Chairman, I would, actually, in a sense, not dialogue but mention several things in response to my good friend and one of my closest friends in this chamber, the last speaker, that I do not have the good fortune of having been born a Cuban-American, but having represented the district closest to Cuba for 10 years and having over 200,000 Hispanics, tens of thousands, if not more, Cuban-Americans in my district and having just completed a statewide run where at least all democratic Cuban-Americans had the opportunity to vote for or against me, I think I have a feel for Cuban-Americans and their perspective.

But beyond that, I think that, as my good friend also knows, that for over 20 years, I have stood side-by-side with him in doing everything humanly possible to fight the dictatorship. And I think what needs to be clear on this particular issue and this particular amendment today, that this is not the travel ban issue, this is not the embargo issue, where I have stood side-by-side for the last 12 years with my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart) in fighting, successfully,

against many of those who today might be joining me in this amendment with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Again, let me just be clear for my colleagues and my friends who are listening, that I have fought for 12 years in this House and for 10 years prior to that as an elected official in the State legislature with my friend and colleague in the State legislature, when we could deal with issues to support freedom in Cuba and for the Cuban people.

But this is a very, very specific and a very narrow issue that I think, in fact, goes against everything that we have fought together for, for over 20 years, and it is a very, very, very specific issue. This is not repealing the travel ban. I would be standing here and rigorously fighting if that proposal were here, as often as I have for 10 years, and would be speaking against it and lobbying against it and working against it rigorously, but that is not what this proposal is about.

This is a very specific proposal that deals with very specific things, only family members and changing the rule today that does not let, or until the President implemented the rule, that does not allow free travel, does not allow free access, does not allow free flow of capital to the dictator. Even that restriction was limited, limited to once a year, limited to emergency situations, true emergency situations, not made-up emergency situations, not going to a dance or graduation, but true emergency situations that have been elaborated on and mentioned earlier today. So there were several restrictions even.

I would say to my colleagues that if we actually look at this in terms of capital to the dictator, I mean these are people who are staying with relatives. This is not staying at five-star or tourist hotels. Let us think about what this actually is. It was a mistake. This policy is a mistake. It was a mistake. It was not a thought- through policy in the specifics in terms of the implementation.

I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, supporters of the embargo, opponents of the embargo, supporters of the trade ban, opponents of the trade ban to join in the support of this amendment which is narrowly drawn, very specific, to just deal with a very, very humane issue that deals with not taking a stand on what is the best policy, but on the narrow issue, which is a human issue. I can tell you that not only for the Cuban Americans that I have talked to, but for all Americans, this is a position that has close to universal support throughout this country and throughout the State of Florida.

Mr. Speaker, there is an expression those of us in Florida occasionally use that there are two types of Americans, those that live in Florida and those that want to live in Florida. And if people live long enough, generally that might be where they end up.

I remember the first year I came to this Chamber, and I see many of my

colleagues who joined me that first year, Congressman Diaz-Balart, Congressman Hastings, and others. Right after Hurricane Andrew was the last time our State experienced something of the magnitude of what we are experiencing today. My colleague from West Palm Beach just used the words that were the catch words after Hurricane Andrew: we will rebuild. In fact, we rebuilt and we rebuilt stronger and we rebuilt more significantly and a better community after the disaster of Hurricane Andrew. I am confident that we will do the same after Frances and Charley.

One of the advantages and disadvantages of literally living in paradise is that we actually are a location on the planet Earth where hurricanes find their way on a pretty regular basis. I am proud of the response of the people of Florida during this last disaster. I look forward to the continued effort and prayers and specific things of everyone in this country. The President is planning on coming back to Florida tomorrow, an unexpected visit sooner than after the Charley disaster. Unfortunately, at this point I do not expect to be able to join him because I hope to be on this floor passing this, as has been mentioned, hopefully unanimously, the $2 billion.

In the 12 years since Andrew, we have had many supplementals of disasters that have faced this country. I think it is really part of the greatness and the really shining moments of this Congress when we acknowledge our debt and our relationship to every other citizen of the United States as we pass this supplemental tomorrow. I urge its adoption.