Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last week the world witnessed a tragic setback in the search for a peaceful settlement on the Island of Cyprus. Nearly 30 years after Turkish troops invaded and occupied approximately one-third of the territory of Cyprus, the United Nations' efforts to achieve a negotiated solution appeared to have a real chance for success. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan convened the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities to a meeting at the Hague last week, and asked them to agree to hold a democratic vote on the U.N.'s plan to establish a bi-communal federation. The President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, speaking for the Greek Cypriot community, agreed to the referendum, despite reservations with the details of the plan. Unfortunately, Mr. Rauf Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, rejected it, out-of-hand.

Mr. Denktash's veto of the U.N. peace plan was not only a rejection of the efforts of the world organization, and the interests of its member states, but most importantly, in direct

contradiction with the interests of the Turkish Cypriots themselves. This community has recognized that they have the most to gain from reunification, and have strongly supported the U.N. plan, as demonstrated by unprecedented popular expressions of support from within the community. Mr. Denktash has thwarted the will of the people he purports to represent.

The reunification of Cyprus would help to enhance the local and regional stability of this island nation located a little more than a 100 miles from Israel, Lebanon and Syria, to the benefit of all of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece, the U.S., E.U. and the whole world body. Reunification would be a great boon economically to the Turkish Cypriots, as the Greek Cypriot community is about to join the E.U. and command the many political and economic advantages of membership in that cgmmunity. A settlement would have allowed the Turkish Cypriots to join in those benefits. Failure has condemned them to suffer without.

If the civilian and military leaders in Ankara were serious about achieving a negotiated settlement on Cyprus, they could clearly prevail upon Mr. Denktash to deal in good faith. By doing so, Turkey would not only be helping the Turkish Cypriots, but would be acting in its own self-interest, as Turkey's own bid for E.U. membership hinges to a significant degree on its playing a constructive role in ending the division of Cyprus. On March 4th of this year, the E.U. warned Turkey that ``if Cyprus settlement efforts failed, the E.U. would find it very difficult to start accession talks with Turkey'' since Turkey would find itself in the untenable position of not only failing to recognize a member of the E.U.--Turkey still does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus--but also occupying militarily part of E.U. territory.

As in any process of negotiations, both sides have to give up something. The Greek Cypriot side has, over the years, made one concession after another in the search for peace. The most recent plan put forward by Secretary General Annan forced the Government of the Republic of Cyprus to make many difficult decisions. Still, at the end of the day, President Papadopoulos--who was just recently elected in free and fair elections--was willing to put the Plan before the people in a democratic manner.

On the other hand, Mr. Denktash, who has been in power for three decades, was unwilling to concede on his demand for two separate states--a goal completely contrary to the reunification favored by the people of Cyprus and the entire world community. Mr. Denktash is apparently afraid of what his own people would say when given a chance to express their views at the ballot box.

This latest setback need not be a fatal one for the peace process of Cyprus. President Papadopoulos has left the door wide open to resuming the process of negotiations. After the Hague meeting, President Papadopoulos said that the Greek Cypriot side will ``continue the efforts for reaching a solution to the Cyprus question both before and after Cyprus joins the E.U.'' Furthermore, on his return from the Hague to Cyprus, Mr. Papadopoulos pledged one more time to ``continue the efforts for a Cyprus settlement that would properly serve the interests of both Cyprus communities, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots,'' adding that there ``are no last chances'' for a Cyprus solution.

Our State Department has been clear in expressing its disappointment over Mr. Denktash's rejection of the U.N. referendum proposal, and in voicing hope that the process can resume. But now it's time for our government to put the necessary pressure on Mr. Denktash and the government of Turkey to negotiate in good faith and agree to a referendum. Continued obstructionism by Mr. Denktash should trigger coordinated U.N. sanctions against the Turkish Cypriot leader. The new government of Turkey must recognize its share of responsibility in the current stalemate, and show leadership in guiding Mr. Denktash back to the path of peace . If Turkey refuses to accept that responsibility, and Mr. Denktash continues his intransigence, the government of the U.S. must consider those policy prescriptions, of the highest orders, to bring the parties back to the table. The peace of the region, and the well-being of the Cypriot people, are too important to allow Mr. Denktash to destroy all our hopes for peace.

Mr. Speaker, I fear we are doing a terrible disservice to our Nation's physicians and the patients who depend on them. We are deceiving them by passing a bill that does not ensure that doctors will actually benefit from these caps.

As a representative of southern Nevada I am all too familiar with the medical liability issue. Nevada has faced a serious medical malpractice crisis for years. Doctors cannot afford insurance premiums and they are threatening to leave the State. Some have and some are refusing to accept new patients.

In August of 2002, Nevada passed a carefully balanced tort reform bill which limited noneconomic damages to $350,000 and allowed for judicial discretion in particularly egregious cases. Nevada passed caps. But the medical insurance companies have refused and have failed to reduce their premiums.

This Congress cannot for a minute pretend that we have addressed the real problem of skyrocketing insurance rates if we limit our prescription to liability caps. We must also provide doctors with insurance reforms as well.

Medical liability reform is worthless if we ignore all of the evidence demonstrating that the current crisis is due more to insurance company miscues than liability claims. We must combine them both and I urge you to reject this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.

As a Representative of southern Nevada, I am all too familiar with this medical liability issue. Nevada has faced a serious medical malpractice crisis for the last year. Doctors cannot afford insurance premiums and are threatening to leave the State. Some have or are refusing to accept new patients.

I convened discussion groups of doctors and lawyers at my home to try to understand the medical malpractice issue, and it's a regular conversation in my own home as my husband and I, a doctor and lawyer, have searched for effective solutions to this crisis.

Nevada's problem is not one of obscene awards and lawsuits, but of poor calculations and bad decisions on the part of insurers over the past couple of decades.

Nevada's problem is the result of artificially inflated profits, over saturation and price slashing by the insurance company and when Nevada was no longer profitable, St. Paul Insurance Co. withdrew from the market. When that happened, 60% of Nevada's doctors lost their insurance carrier and the remaining medical malpractice insurance companies raised their rates to unconscionable extremes.

In August of 2002, Nevada passed a carefully balanced tort reform bill which limited non-economic damages to $350,000 and allowed for judicial discretion in particularly egregious cases.

Nevada passed caps, but the medical insurance companies have refused and have failed to reduce their premiums.

The evidence demonstrates that judgements are not the full, or even a large measure of the problem. And therefore caps will have a very limited effect on solving this problem.

This Congress cannot--for a minute--pretend that we have addressed the very real problem of skyrocketing insurance rates if we limit our prescription to liability caps. We must also provide doctors with insurance reforms as well.

Medical liability reform is worthless if we ignore all the evidence demonstrating that the current crisis is due more to insurance company miscues than to liability claims.

It is fundamentally unfair and bad public policy to limit jury awards without directly addressing reform of the insurance industry. If this Congress is going to pass tort reform, it should be accompanied by insurance reform so that insurance companies will pass along the savings, and doctors become the direct beneficiaries of cap limitations.

Anything less will fail to solve the malpractice crisis in my State and in this Nation.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this Rule. We are doing a terrible disservice to our Nation's physicians and to the patients that depend on them. We are deceiving them by passing a bill that does not insure that the doctors will actually benefit from caps.