Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution because I support the road map plan for peace. Those of us who care so deeply about the State of Israel and its security know that there is no alternative to a peace plan led by the United States, but the Palestinian people must understand that in order to attain the state they justly deserve that their terrorist attacks of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah must be defeated, and one of the ways that America helps defeat terror is to stand 100 percent behind Israel's right of self-defense.

The President was mistaken last week when he condemned Israel's right of self-defense in effect, and he made a distinguishing mark between the way the United States acts and the way Israel acts.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I oppose it because it prohibits Americans from using their credit cards for behavior that is entirely legal. Pari-mutuels, horse tracks, dog tracks, and jai lai frontons are all legal in many States. They are heavily regulated. They pay taxes. They provide jobs, and in many communities are an important part of the tourism industry and local culture. That is why the National Governors Association is against this amendment.

Pari-mutuels employ thousands of Americans and provide enjoyment to millions more. The horse racing industry generates $34 billion a year and creates 472,000 full-time jobs in America. Greyhound racing is a $2.3 billion industry creating over 30,000 jobs in America. They both provide very needed tax revenue to our States. It makes no sense for Congress to usurp States' rights with the result being a loss of employment of Americans and State revenue.

The underlying bill rightfully bans credit card use for illegal gambling. Casino-style offshore Web sites are not regulated. They do not pay taxes, and they do not employ Americans. They are illegal, and American banks should not help facilitate them. But the issue here is whether Congress is going to make a policy that says Americans cannot use credit cards to engage in behavior which in their State is legal. Not illegal, but legal.

I would respectfully argue that Congress should do no such thing and should oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, for the past several years, Dr. Lyushun Shen has served as Deputy Representative of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (``TECRO'') here in Washington. TECRO is Taiwan's unofficial embassy in the United States and works to strengthen the already strong ties between the United States and Taiwan. Dr. Shen has been an important diplomat in TECRO's ongoing mission, and he has been a prominent participant in the ongoing dialogue between the United States Congress and the Taiwanese government.

This is Dr. Shen's third posting in Washington, and, although he has developed a strong network of friends in Washington, the Taiwanese government has decided to name him as Director General of TECRO's office in Geneva, Switzerland. In his new position, Dr. Shen will work to enhance Taiwan's position with the many international organizations based there including the World Health Organization, which still does not count this vibrant democracy as a member, despite the strong endorsement of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, those of us who have come to know Dr. Shen will miss our discussions with him and his passion commitment to U.S.-Taiwan relations. While we regret he will be leaving Washington shortly, we know that he will

do an excellent job in Geneva, and we wish him continued success in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, to get our economy growing again, we need policies that encourage investment and job creation, especially in high-technology industries like telecommunications.

Just this past month, FCC Chairman Powell tried to encourage more facilities-based competition in the local exchange markets. That balanced approach, however, was abandoned in favor of keeping most of the old rules and regulations, despite predictions that it would discourage plant upgrades, new network installation, and new jobs. Surprisingly, the White House was silent when the plans of its own FCC chairman were sidelined.

Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration took a strong pro-growth, pro-jobs approach in the technology and telecom sector. The Bush administration, in contrast, seems wedded to an almost unchanging policy of benign neglect. I have over 50 facilities and 900 workers in my district that cannot tolerate this benign neglect. Under the present administration, America has lost $2 trillion in the telecommunication industry, computer investment has been erased, and 300,000 American technology workers have lost their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I share the hopes of Mr. Bereuter for a peaceful, just and lasting settlement to the long-standing Cyprus issue.

Like many of my colleagues, I was disappointed that a comprehensive agreement to support the United Nation's proposal was not reached in March.

We must not allow the recent setback to get in the way of future negotiations and a lasting settlement of this issue. I hope that both Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders will renew their commitment to bridge the divide that separates their people.

In this vein, I was very pleased to hear that Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Denktas has taken positive steps to initiate a new process of dialogue and consultation. Last week, in a detailed letter to Greek Cypriot Leader Papadopoulos, Mr. Dentkas proposed lifting all overseas trade, transport, travel and cultural activities from or to both parts of Cyprus. He also expressed his willingness to meet with Mr. Papadopoulos to discuss the core issues of a comprehensive settlement.

It is my understanding that Mr. Denktas' proposal was not accepted by the Greek Cypriots. I agree with the Greek Cypriot sentiment that talks should be concluded under the U.N. framework. However, I am hopeful that Mr. Denktas' letter can be a catalyst to restart dialogue and to achieve a comprehensive settlement.

As for Turkey's role, which I know has been criticized by some in Washington and Europe, I am optimistic that Prime Minister Erdogan and his government are truly committed to a fair settlement on the issue. Mr. Erdogan has offered to bring Turkish and Greek Cypriots together ``with the three guarantor countries, Turkey, Greece and Britain.'' Furthermore, Mr. Erdogan and Foreign Minister Gul will be attending a Balkans summit in Belgrade this week, where they will meet with Greek leaders to discuss steps to resolve the Cyprus issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to take an even greater commitment from the United States and the international community to a achieve lasting settlement of the Cyprus issue. I believe the debate we are engaged in today is a clear signal that Congress will remain firmly engaged on this issue, and that we are serious about achieving a comprehensive settlement that benefits both Greek and Turkish Cypriots as well as the entire region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which cuts the President's $1 billion request for wartime aid to Turkey. I too join in the commendation to the sponsor of the amendment for his patriotism and to the goodwill for those Members that support it. But with all due respect, and I was with the gentleman from Michigan in Turkey 2 weeks ago, the suggestion that Turkey, in the exercise of her democracy, is somehow responsible for putting American soldiers in harm's way I believe is a misplaced and inaccurate argument.

We are not at war with Turkey. We are at war with Iraq. Do not transfer the atrocities of Iraq to the decisions of a longtime democratic ally. What is being discussed in the essence of this amendment, I would respectfully suggest, is a very short-term American memory; and if we really want to calculate what advantage the American men and women, the brave American men and women who are on the battlefield now have gotten or not gotten from Turkey, why are we not calculating the last 12 years where Turkey has provided the authority for American and British pilots to control northern Iraq and contain Saddam Hussein?

One of the principal reasons why the disparity of power is so great and so much in our favor in the fight right now is because Turkey allowed the United States for the past 12 years to diminish the capacity of Saddam Hussein and diminish his atrocities; but there is no mention of that with respect to this amendment.

Following September 11, Turkey demonstrated a steadfast commitment to aiding the United States by leading the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. Let us not underestimate that. When we were attacked in New York, in Washington, in Pennsylvania, when it was our blood that was being spilled and when our forces left Afghanistan, whom did we hand it over to? We handed it over to a willing Turkey, a country that is almost 100 percent made up of Muslim citizens; and they took our battle and they took it willingly. And to suggest that because they exercised their democracy, even though we may be disappointed by the decision, that they are somehow responsible for the letting of American blood I do not believe is the message that the United States should ever suggest to an ally like Turkey.

We are fighting in Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but I also thought we were fighting to liberate the Iraqi people, to help them install a democracy. So what is the message? That the United States is their friend if they are a democracy only when they decide in agreement with what we believe?

Is there no room for allies in the midst of a hot debate, in the midst of competing interests to have honest discussions, and do there have to be catastrophic consequences if a country disagrees?

If I were an ally of the United States today, the message that I would get from this amendment is they are only as good as long as they agree 100 percent, but if they spill their blood with the United States for 6 decades like Turkish soldiers have done shoulder to shoulder with American soldiers, if they spill their blood for 6 decades, but they exercise their democracy and come up with a differing result, then the United States says all bets are off.

We are better than that. We are better as a people, and we owe it to our soldiers that are fighting now to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking Democrat on the Europe Subcommittee, I believe my colleagues in Congress will be interested in the following letter sent by the Turkish Cypriot Leader Rauf Denktas to the Greek Cypriot Leader Tassas Papadopoulos on April 2, 2003. I am hopeful that Mr. Denktas's letter and its content will be a catalyst for renewed dialogue between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and a positive step toward a comprehensive resolution to their long-standing issues.

In this letter, Mr. Denktas provides a detailed proposal to lift all overseas trade, transport, travel and cultural activities from both parts of Cyprus. He calls for freedom of movement to be facilitated between the two sides and restrictions on the movement of tourists to be lifted as well. His measures also include allowing Greek Cypriot refugees to return to the Greek Cypriot sector of Famagusta. Finally, Mr. Denktas expressed his willingness to meet with Mr. Papadopoulos to discuss the core issues of a comprehensive settlement with the objective of reaching an agreement between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

While I understand that the long-standing Cyprus issue cannot be solved without great sacrifice by both sides, it is incredibly important that the United States and the international community work together to resolve this issue. Please know, I remain firmly committed to helping both Greek and Turkish Cypriots overcome obstacles and bring about a lasting peace for future generations.

April 2, 2003.

Dear Mr. Papadopoulos: Since our return from the

Netherlands on 11 March 2003, I have been trying to reassess

in depth the negotiating process resulting in the stalemate

at The Hague.

Based on our re-evaluation and the responses given to the

UN Secretary-General's proposals by both sides, I am now

convinced more than ever that we have for too long overlooked

the significance of the socio-psychological dimension of the

problem, and especially the deep crisis of confidence between

the two sides.

The Turkish Cypriot side sincerely wishes a lasting

settlement to the forty year-old question of Cyprus. In

achieving a sustainable and viable settlement that would be

acceptable to both sides, the first meaningful step should,

without doubt, be the improvement of the political

environment within which we could allow for the evolution of

a working relationship between the two sides through the

building up of trust and confidence. This would enable us to

resolve pending issues, thus preparing the ground for a

comprehensive settlement. The island is, no doubt, the common

home of the two co-owner peoples in Cyprus. In this context,

I wish to share with you the following ideas and suggestions

which I believe could initiate a process of dialogue and

consultation leading to a working relationship between us.

This would greatly enhance the prospects for and paved the

way to a mutually acceptable comprehensive settlement based

on the political equality of the two sides and bring tangible

benefits to both parties.

(i) As a first step, the fenced area of Varosha south of

Dhimoktrathias street, including the area extending to the UN

Buffer Zone, will be transferred to the Greek Cypriot control

to be opened for resettlement.

(ii) Parallel to this, all restrictions on overseas trade,

transport, travel and cultural and sportive activities from

or to both parts of Cyprus will be lifted. I am convinced

that Turkey and Greece will also positively respond to this

by removing the restrictions which they apply to the Greek

Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides respectively. We shall

invite the UN and EU to acknowledge and give effect to these

arrangements.

(iii) The freedom of movement will be facilitated between

the two sides, subject only to minimal procedures. The

restrictions on the movement of tourists will also be lifted.

(iv) Steps will be taken gradually for the normalization of

the flow of goods between the two parties on the island.

Cooperation shall be also encouraged between the institutions

of both sides to identify and develop joint projects.

(v) The Turkish Cypriot side will lift the measures

regarding the movement of UNFICYP of July 2000.

(vi) A bilateral Reconciliation Committee will be

established with the objective of promoting understanding,

tolerance and mutual respect between the two parties. This

Committee will make specific recommendations for promoting

bilateral contacts and projects. These ideas and suggestions

constitute a package and should be regarded as an integrated

whole. The acceptance and implementation of this package will

neither prejudice our respective positions, nor will it be a

substitute to a final settlement. I am prepared to discuss

with you the above points and their modalities with the aim

of initiating a cooperative relationship. In doing this, we

could benefit from the assistance of the UN and the EU. These

measures, I believe, would bring about a positive climate to

the island and to our region. On the understanding of the

above, I am also ready to talk with you the core issues of

the comprehensive settlement and matters related to EU

membership with the objective of reaching a mutually

satisfactory conclusion. As we both supported the good-

offices mission, I am taking the liberty of sending a copy of

this letter to the UN Secretary-General.

Sincerely,

Rauf R. Denktas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for bringing this bill to the floor today and for his effort in drafting this legislation.

He has been a champion of human rights issues, and this bill today is just the most recent example of his leadership.

In 1986, the Congress adopted the Northern Ireland Peace and Reconciliation Support Act, legislation establishing the International Fund for Ireland. This legislation today seeks to revitalize this critically important program, and it is most appropriate that we do so.

When the original International Fund for Ireland was established, Northern Ireland suffered from serious unemployment and economic stagnation. The purpose of the fund was to encourage economic development and cooperation between the Catholic and the Protestant communities in economically deprived areas of Northern Ireland. I am delighted that it has contributed to the economic success and growth in that area.

The economic stimulus that the fund sought is less necessary today than it was when this program was created. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, in which then-U.S. President Bill Clinton played a key role, marked an important step forward in reconciliation in Northern Ireland. We have seen progress in reducing violence, although we have not achieved the full peace that all of us seek.

The changes to this legislation we are considering today will permit this program to continue to expend resources for projects and conflict resolution for the critical support of human rights training for police and for programs to foster peaceful mediation in neighborhoods where conflict still exists.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 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. Chairman, I find it deeply troubling that as this country prepares for war and unites in support for our troops, the House Republicans would push forward a deeply partisan, environmentally destructive budget, hoping that a nation focused on war abroad will not notice this domestic attack.

This outrageous budget cuts more from crucial environmental programs than even the President's proposals. Without bothering to explain where these cuts will come from, House Republicans slashed more than 10 percent for the 2004 environmental funding, over 3 billion dollars. Incredibly, these cuts continue through the next ten years, providing for less than minimally required to maintain the existing levels of enforcement and environmental protections Americans rely on to protect our health and natural world.

Perhaps most deplorably, this proposed budget dictates our nation's environmental policy for the near future. It is a back-door way to open one of America's most precious wilderness areas to oil drilling. My Republican colleagues claim that this budget is `silent' about oil drilling in the Arctic. If this budget is silent, it is certainly not neutral. The $1.1 billion cut over 10 years will all but force the federal government to use income from oil drilling in ANWR to reconcile deep funding cuts to balance their budget.

While Secretary Norton may think that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is ``an area of flat, white nothingness,'' my constituents understand that the Refuge is an unique, irreplaceable coastal plain and home to more than 100 specifes of wildlife and birds whose habitat would be undeniably devastated by this reckless drilling. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a gem of the national wildlife system, created over one hundred years ago by Teddy Roosevelt, and the area of proposed drilling, Area 1002, is the ecological heart of the refuge.

Slipping ANWR `silently' into this budget is dishonorable procedure and dangerous environmental policy. I urge my colleagues to oppose this handout to big oil companies and to support the Spratt substitute, which will protect an invaluable American treasure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. I do so because the proponents of this bill would have the country believe that the issue before this Congress is whether or not there is a medical malpractice crisis in America.

There is a medical malpractice crisis, but the issue before this Congress is how do we resolve that crisis? How do we minimize the premiums that doctors have to pay in order to participate in our medical society?

The reason we are in this position, according to a recently released report, particularly as it relates to my State, the State of Florida, by the group Public Citizen, is that a small number of negligent doctors and the cyclical nature of the insurance industry are largely to blame.

The Public Citizen report found that 6 percent of all doctors are responsible for one-half, 50 percent, of all medical malpractice cases. Six percent of doctors are responsible for 50 percent of malpractice cases. Yet the bill before this Congress does not at all address peer review of physicians, nor does it address the insurance aspect of the medical malpractice crisis, nor, most importantly, does it require insurance companies to pass on the savings from the alleged cap that would occur, pass that money on to doctors in the form of lower premiums.

In the State of Florida, which amounts to about 16 million people, in the last reported year there were 230 cases of awards in excess of $250,000, yet the proponents of this bill would argue that we will resolve this problem by limiting the excessive number of lawsuits that amount to excessive damages. They do not exist, these lawsuits, in the excessive number that they claim.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is with a heavy heart that I rise today to honor an outstanding visionary leader, former Member of Congress, and dear friend, Wayne Owens. Today is a sad day in the Middle East and here in our own country, not only because violence and terror continue unabated, but also because one of the greatest believers and promoters of peace in the Middle East has passed. That man was Wayne Owens.

It is with profound respect, admiration, and sadness that I wish to pay tribute to him today.

In my tenure as a Member of Congress I have traveled with Wayne to the Middle East on numerous occasions, witnessing firsthand his remarkable ability to bridge the gap between international leaders and promote dialogue, understanding and accord.

Wayne was the quintessential peacemaker because he never wavered in his steadfast dedication and commitment to the future of the Middle East. His expertise on this issue was the focus of his professional life, from his years in the House of Representatives, to his time as the President and driving force behind the Center for Middle East peace. Wayne's unique efforts promoted understanding and communication in a time of great uncertainty and despair in the Middle East. At a time when hostility, hatred and terror permeated current events, Wayne would travel to the epicenter of the conflict to encourage diplomacy and peace.

At a time when no one could envision a resolution to the most contentious issues in the Middle East, Wayne consistently offered creative answers and an optimistic spin. At a time when doors began to close in the region, Wayne dedicated the end of his life to opening the channels of peace, bringing American ideals to the region, and offering a glimmer of hope to leaders and people in the Middle East.

Wayne Owens was a truly remarkable man who leaves behind a legacy of compassion, leadership and hope. Wayne was a beautiful soul, an extremely kind man who loved his family and cherished life dearly. I wish to convey my deepest condolences to his wife Marlene and the rest of Wayne's family and offer my wholehearted sympathy at this most difficult time. Wayne's contributions to history will be forever remembered as will his unyielding dream of harmony and peace. Wayne, you will be missed by those who care for you, and I consider myself one that thinks of you like a brother, an older brother, a very dear person and we will all miss you very, very much.