[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 69 (Friday, May 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3967-H3971]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        TAX BREAKS FOR THE ELITE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, as so many of my Democratic colleagues this 
afternoon brought forth, it is amazing to all of us on this side of the 
aisle that the Republicans would bring up this tax cut legislation 
which basically just gives money back to wealthy individuals and does 
nothing to help the economy, and at the same time we face this huge job 
recession throughout the country.
  The most egregious part of it was today when the Democrats tried to 
bring up their alternative as a substitute, the Republican majority 
under the Committee on Rules refused to allow the Democratic substitute 
to even be brought to the floor, refused to even have a debate on a 
Democratic alternative which we believe very strongly would provide 
economic stimulus, create jobs, grow the economy, and bring us out of a 
recession, one of the worst we have had now long-term for the last 
couple of years.
  All the Democrats were asking for was an opportunity to debate. I 
think the fear on the part of the Republican leadership was that if the 
Democratic substitute was allowed to be considered today, perhaps some 
of the Republicans might have voted for it, or at least the public and 
the media's attention would have been focused on an alternative and 
have shown that the Republican proposal was not a good one and just 
basically was a tax giveaway to millionaires.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation is in a job recession with 2.7 million jobs 
lost since President Bush took office, the worst jobs record in 40 
years. For 3 years the Republicans have had the power to turn this 
recession around, and they failed miserably. When I listen to the 
Republican leadership and the President, it seems like they are just 
coming into office, and they forget they have been in office almost 3 
years; and during that whole time the economy gets worse every day.
  For the past 2 years alone, the President and the Republicans in 
Congress have repeatedly chosen tax breaks for the elite, and the 
American people are still waiting for one job to be created. Keep in 
mind, this is a failed economic policy. This Bush policy, the 
President's policy, he has had an opportunity. He passed tax cuts last 
year, and since those tax cuts were passed, we have had a loss of 
another 1.7 million jobs. This is not something new. This is a policy 
that was tried over a year ago; and after it passed in the time it has 
had to take effect for the last year, the economic situation has gotten 
worse.
  What do the Republicans say in response? They say let us try it 
again. They have a bill on the floor that amounts to another payback to 
the wealthiest Americans in our Nation. Tax cuts last year for the 
wealthy, and tax cuts again for the wealthy. They disguise it somehow. 
They say it is a little different this time because it is going to give 
breaks on capital gains and stock dividends; but these are two 
proposals that economists conclude will not create jobs or growth in 
the near future.
  When our economy needs a true jolt to reverse America's economic 
skepticism, the Republican proposal will not stimulate the economy, and 
the Republican record on economics is uninspiring and one that should 
not be extended today.
  I am not the only one saying this, and Democrats are not the only 
ones saying this. If we look at some of the columns in the media and 
the economists around the country, they all are saying the same thing. 
But one of the best statements was made in today's New York Times by 
Paul Krugman called ``Into the Sunset.'' I just wanted to read certain 
parts of it because I think it points out very dramatically that this 
is a failed economic policy, that this tax cut, this plan that the 
Republicans had us vote on today, is just an extension of their failed 
Bush economic policy.
  If I can read sections from Paul Krugman's opinion, it says that the 
tax cut package the House is expected to pass today is a package that 
relies on exactly the same bait-and-switch tactics used to sell the 
2001 year tax. Here is the story:

       In 2001, some swing Senators insisted on a budget 
     resolution limiting the size of any tax cut. No problem. 
     House-Senate negotiators pushed through a huge tax cut 
     anyway, saving several hundred billion dollars by making the 
     whole thing expire in the 10th year. Among other things, this 
     sunset clause implied that heirs to large estates would pay 
     no tax if their parents died in 2010, but would face 
     significant taxes if their parents made it into 2011. At the 
     time, I suggested that it be renamed the Throw Mama From the 
     Train Act of 2001.
       So we remember the kind of tricks that were played last 
     year. We were told this was going to sunset, and everyone was 
     running around saying does that mean I have to decide what 
     year I am going to die?

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Krugman says:

       Needless to say, last year's bill was silly by design. The 
     administration didn't intend to compromise. It fully expected 
     to get the sunset clause repealed in a future Congress and 
     President Bush was soon out there ridiculing the way the tax 
     cut was programmed to expire, implying that the expiration 
     date was imposed by scheming liberals when in fact it was a 
     trick perpetrated by his own congressional allies. Now 
     Congress is voting on more tax cuts. This time we're already 
     running a record budget deficit and the long run prospect is 
     bleak. Still the administration claims to be making a 
     concession by agreeing to scale back its $726 billion tax cut 
     to a mere $500 billion.

  What Mr. Krugman is basically getting at and I think this is an 
aspect of this tax plan that we need to bring out, is that the 
President comes forward and says, I want a huge tax cut that is going 
to go mainly to millionaires and wealthy people and then some 
Republicans either in the House or in the other body come forward and 
say, oh, that is too big, we have to make it half of that or a third of 
that, and then one House or the other passes a bill that is maybe half 
the President's proposal and they play around back and forth and 
ultimately come up with something that is somewhat less than what the 
President proposed, but the bottom line is it is a huge tax break 
still, it breaks the budget, it creates a deficit and it primarily goes 
to wealthy individuals. So they play this game over and over again.
  Paul Krugman goes on to say:

       The new tax cut plan echoes the 2001 scam in other ways. In 
     2001 a tax cut that delivered about 40 percent of its 
     benefits to the richest 1 percent of families was marketed as 
     a tax break for ordinary folks. The same is true this time. 
     In fact the extent to which the House bill favors the rich is 
     breathtaking. The typical family would get a tax break of 
     only $217 next year but families with incomes above $1 
     million would get an average of $93,500 each. The estimates 
     are that over the next decade, 27 percent of the tax cut, 
     about the share that goes to the bottom 90 percent of the 
     population, will go to these very high income families who 
     comprise a mere 0.13 percent of the population.

  So we are talking about very, very few people that benefit from this. 
But

[[Page H3968]]

the bottom line is, it would not matter even if I was a millionaire. I 
would not want this tax cut to go into effect because it does not do 
anything to stimulate the economy. Even if you had $1 billion, why in 
the world would you want a tax cut that does not do anything to turn 
the economy around, because in the long run you are not going to make 
as much money because the economy continues to spin downward.
  So he says in this op-ed, Paul Krugman:

       Finally, as in 2001, we're being told that this tax cut 
     will create lots of jobs. But why should we believe that? 
     It's hard to find an independent economist who thinks the 
     Bush proposal would create the 1.4 million jobs claimed by 
     the administration. And as I have explained in this column, 
     even that many jobs would be a poor payoff for a tax cut that 
     big. And bear in mind that Bush-style tax cuts now have a 
     track record. Of the 2.1 million jobs lost over the last 2 
     years, 1.7 million vanished after the passage of the 2001 tax 
     cut.

  So the problem that we have is you can look at this in any way. If 
you are rich, even though you might be getting a nice, big break, the 
bottom line is your investments are not going to grow and you are not 
going to make much money because as the economy continues to trend 
downward, your investments are not going to be worth anything or 
certainly not worth as much. From the point of view of the budget, it 
is a disaster because it creates a larger deficit. And as we borrow 
more money and more money is taken out, that is not available to the 
private sector, it is very hard for new investments to be made by small 
businesses or other corporations in the private sector because they 
cannot borrow the money, it is all being taken by the Federal 
Government. And so that has a downward impact on the economy. And then 
the other thing that it does is in borrowing, you are taking money from 
the Social Security and the Medicare trust fund. So you are 
jeopardizing those funds as well. There is not anybody who can make a 
legitimate argument that this Bush plan makes sense. What Krugman is 
saying and I think is so true is, we already tried it last year and the 
economy continues to get worse. So why should we repeat it again?
  Finally in this op-ed Paul Krugman says:

       The odds are that this scam, like the scam of 2001, will 
     succeed, the tax cut will be passed and the budget will 
     plunge even deeper into the red and one day we'll realize 
     that international investors are treating us like a banana 
     republic, that they won't finance our trade deficit unless 
     they are paid very high rates of interest. Have I mentioned 
     that the dollar has just fallen to a 4-year low against the 
     euro? And everyone will wonder why.

  That is the bottom line. I think that the Republicans basically 
figure, well, nobody is paying attention, we will have this huge tax 
cut and when we have to pay it back, that will be somebody else's 
problem down the road. The amazing thing is that it would be so easy to 
try something different, to try an alternative, one that the Democrats 
have put forward, that would actually do something to make a difference 
in the economy. Of course, I am saying this because as a Democrat I 
like the Democratic plan but I would argue, if the other plan of 
constant tax cuts does not work and has not worked, why not try 
something new? We can call it the Republican plan if you like. I do not 
care. I just want to pass it so that we can do something to turn this 
economy around.
  Let me talk a little bit about this Democratic proposal that we tried 
to get considered on the floor of the House of Representatives today 
but, of course, the Republicans would not allow us to consider it. They 
would not allow it to be even debated. We have several provisions in 
this Democratic proposal that I think would do a lot to create jobs and 
stimulate economic growth, both in the short term as well as in the 
long term. First, tax cuts for working families, not for wealthy people 
but for the average guy. The Democratic plan provides an immediate 
increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child. For low-wage 
working families, this credit is refundable and will reach more than 
2.6 million children not covered by the current law.

  Furthermore, the Democratic package makes immediate both the 
expansion of the 10 percent tax rate brackets, now slated to occur in 
2008, and key provisions to eliminate the marriage penalty. Within 
months, these provisions will put money in the pockets of average 
Americans, boosting consumer demand and the jobs and business 
investments needed to meet it.
  Secondly, investment tax incentives for business. The Republicans act 
as if they give a big tax break again to the wealthiest Americans, that 
somehow they are going to reinvest that in the economy. But there is 
nothing that says they have to and experience shows that they often do 
not. What the Democrats do is they target any kind of tax credit. We 
have an investment tax incentive for business. The Democratic plan 
provides tax incentives to businesses to generate investment and jobs 
now. The plan allows small businesses to expense up to $75,000 of the 
cost of new investments through 2004, triple the current limit. For all 
businesses, the plan restructures last year's bonus depreciation 
provisions so that firms can write off a 50 percent bonus for the next 
12 months and only a 30 percent bonus for the balance of 2004. Domestic 
manufacturers get a tax break in the Rangel remedy to a World Trade 
Organization case against the United States. And all business tax 
components encourage investment now when the economy needs a boost. So 
we are saying that we are going to give the businesses these incentives 
but they have got to invest it back into the economy now, create jobs 
now. That is how we turn the economy around. That is a big part of it.
  A third point. The Democratic plan targets assistance to those 
looking for jobs. A large part of the debate today on the floor was the 
fact that the Republicans would not consider an extension of 
unemployment compensation beyond the end of this month. Part of that, 
of course, is because we are concerned about people and how they are 
going to make ends meet, but the other part of it is we know that if 
you extend unemployment that money immediately goes into the economy. 
People buy things. Because they do not have a lot of money, they have 
to spend, for food, for necessities, whatever. So the Democratic plan 
extends unemployment benefits for 26 weeks that expires at the end of 
the month and that increases the level of benefits and also provides 
temporary aid to States to broaden coverage to low-wage earners and 
part-time workers. This assistance for those looking for work is the 
most effective stimulus for the economy and consumer demand by putting 
money in the pockets of those most likely to spend it.
  Lastly, I wanted to mention money going back to the States. A big 
part of the economic downturn now is the fact that the States have 
contracted their spending because many of them have deficits. So they 
are spending less money, less money is going into the economy and as a 
result people lose jobs and there is less consumer spending and all the 
other things that come about because there is less money circulating. 
The Republicans, we have asked them to do something to give money back 
to the States. They refuse to do it. It is not part of their plan. So 
in our Democratic plan, we give money back to the States and 
municipalities to create jobs through expenditures on infrastructure, 
homeland security, education and health care. The Democratic plan 
provides States with funds to avoid the State cuts that have been 
occurring in New Jersey and other States and to address critical needs 
in areas including Medicaid, homeland security, transportation and an 
additional fund for one-time assistance to help those hurt most by 
unemployment and a stagnant economy. Basically what we do is increase 
the amount of money that the Federal Government gives to the States for 
these various purposes. The States have to pay less, the Federal 
Government pays more, and so the States do not face the fiscal crisis 
that they now face. That is another way of providing more money into 
the economy, creating jobs, creating new highways, new infrastructure, 
water projects, sewer treatment plans, that type of thing.
  I just wanted to make a few points in comparison between the 
Democratic and the Republican plan. Again I know some may say, Why are 
you talking about this Democratic plan? You didn't even have an 
opportunity to bring it up today. But I think it is important to talk 
about it even though the Republicans would not allow us to bring it up

[[Page H3969]]

because I think if you make the comparison that I am about to make, you 
will see that ours is better and that is why they did not want to let 
it come up because they did not want to let it see the light of day.
  First of all, only the Democratic plan maximizes job creation now. It 
uses a proven approach to create jobs and grow the economy by putting 
money in the pockets of families most likely to spend it and providing 
tax relief to businesses most likely to invest it. It will add 1.1 
million jobs to our economy this year, 2003. By contrast, the House 
Republican plan focuses on untested and indirect provisions, such as 
the dividend tax breaks and capital gains tax cuts.

  You understand what we are saying. If you look at the Democratic 
plan, the money is going directly in the pockets of people, directly 
into the States for expenditures on infrastructure. The Republicans 
assume that somehow tax breaks for stock dividends or capital gains are 
going to be reinvested because that is what people are going to do and 
there is no guarantee they will. Secondly, only the Democratic plan 
protects long-term economic growth with fiscal discipline. Our plan, 
the Democratic plan, is fully paid for. We do not make budget deficits 
worse over the long term. So you do not have the negative consequences 
of creating a larger debt that I described and many of my colleagues 
described before under the Democratic proposal. This fiscal discipline 
helps to keep interest rates low and builds the foundation for a strong 
economy now and in the future. By contrast, Republicans are proposing a 
plan that will make the deficit much worse. I say much worse, a lot 
worse. Already, the $5.6 trillion surplus President Bush inherited has 
been replaced by a $2 trillion deficit in the 2 years or so that he has 
been in office. Now Republicans are proposing tax cuts costing more 
than half a trillion dollars, part of an overall tax agenda that would 
add an additional $1.2 trillion in deficits over the next 10 years. 
Large, long-term deficits harm the economy by driving up interest rates 
and undermining business investment and job growth. If you look at what 
the economists predict with this tax cut, we are going to be back into 
the deficit situations that we were in 15, 20 years ago. And we are 
going to create a long-term recession. Anyone will tell you that that 
is the case. Yet the Republicans persist.
  Another point. Only the Democratic plan is fair. It puts money 
directly into the hands of average Americans, the very people most 
likely to spend the money. It provides a balanced package of tax relief 
for businesses to encourage additional hiring and investment. But the 
Republican proposal, because it centers on the stock dividends and 
capital gains, provides very small tax cuts to the average American 
while providing huge tax cuts to the very few. So not only does it not 
work but it is unfair.
  Another point. Only the Democratic plan prevents tax increases and 
service reductions by States. Again I mentioned this before. Because of 
the fiscal crisis that the States are facing and they are forcing 
themselves to have tax increases or cuts in critical programs, the 
States ultimately undermine jobs and economic recovery. But the 
Democratic plan provides States temporary assistance to avoid these tax 
increases and service cuts at the State level and prevents the job 
losses that would otherwise occur. None of the Republican proposals 
provide any funds to address the States' budget woes or give money back 
to the States.
  Finally, and I think this is very important, too, only the Democratic 
plan uses honest accounting. The Democratic plan contains no gimmicks 
or unstated costs. Over 10 years, the cost of the package is fully paid 
for, so the plan does not increase budget deficits. By contrast, the 
House Republican plan includes the artificial expiration of many of the 
plan's components.
  As I mentioned in that op-ed by Paul Krugman, at the end of 2005, and 
because it is unlikely that Congress in fact would allow these 
provisions to expire, the true cost of the Republican plan is probably 
even larger because they will make a lot of these tax cuts permanent 
and that will only burden the economy with even greater deficits.
  Again I would like to end my discussion, Mr. Speaker, of the 
Republican tax and economic plan with some references to some 
editorials in the New York Times, because I always worry that someone 
will listen to me and say, well, he's saying that because he's a 
Democrat. I like to have third-party validators if I could. There were 
two editorials that appeared in the New York Times in the last couple 
of weeks that I thought were pretty wise in terms of their analysis of 
what the Republicans are proposing as opposed to the Democrats. One 
talks about the misguided nature of the cuts that the Republicans have 
proposed and the other talks about how because all these cuts are 
taking place, we are going to see major problems that face the public 
because there will not be money for education, there will not be money 
for homeland defense, there will be continued problems for the States, 
and also the fact that there is nothing in the Republican plan to 
extend unemployment benefits.
  Let me start with that. On April 26, the New York Times did an 
editorial called The Forgotten Half of Budgeting. It says:
  As Congress returns to business this week with leaders bent on 
pushing President Bush's tax cut, there is little talk about the vital 
programs that face future cutbacks in the budget. At least $168 billion 
across the decade is scheduled to be wrenched out of domestic spending 
as more than $2 trillion in deficits and borrowing is rung up under Mr. 
Bush's growth program. It may be pitifully wishful thinking at this 
point but instead of enacting another swath of tax cuts, Congress 
should keep the revenue and direct it at some of the following 
priorities. And they talk about them. First, fiscal relief for the 
States, which are slashing health care benefits for the needy as they 
wrestle with booming deficits that cannot be rolled over into some 
other administration's debt-besotted future. Many Senators favor 
emergency aid on the order of $35 billion, much of it for Medicaid 
because States are taking children and adults off the Medicaid rolls 
because they cannot afford to provide health care for low-income 
people.

                              {time}  1630

  ``Extended benefits for unemployed Americans whose emergency benefits 
program expires May 31. The Nation continues to hemorrhage jobs, and 
everyone who is trying to find employment is not succeeding in this 
economy. The cost of continuing the emergency benefits is about $1 
billion a month, a fraction of the cost of the lowest denominator tax 
cut.''
  So why not extend benefits to these people who cannot find work? They 
are trying to find work. They cannot.
  Next: ``More money for education, which faces a $20 billion cut over 
10 years in the budget.''
  Do the Members remember when President Bush talked about no child 
being left behind and we passed his education bill last year that no 
child was going to be left behind? It is facing major cuts over the 
next 10 years because of the President's tax cut plan, and many 
children will be left behind.
  The New York Times says that ``if Congress skipped the tax cut, 
education funds could easily be made whole, and the administration 
could match the rhetoric of the President's no-child-left-behind 
promises with adequate financing. Lawmakers could also cover the cost 
of educating children with special learning needs, a Federal mandate 
that is short by billions of dollars annually.''
  And finally, funds for homeland security. We have talked about the 
war against terrorism. We have talked about how we have to fight it 
both abroad and at home. But these tax cuts make it very difficult, if 
not impossible, to fund the homeland security needs that so many States 
and localities are depending on.
  ``The gap is quickly growing,'' The New York Times says, ``between 
Federal directives to localities and financing. The Senate sought, then 
dropped, extra financing for vulnerable ports and budget negotiations. 
And for all the homage to first responders, cuts loom for local law 
enforcement.'' So, again, we cannot even meet the homeland security 
needs.
  And finally more recently, last Friday, in fact, The New York Times 
issued an editorial called, ``Misguided Cuts in Washington.'' I think 
this really kind of sums it up, and I would like to end this portion of 
my Special Order

[[Page H3970]]

by referencing this editorial in The New York Times.
  It starts out by saying: ``The political dichotomy is breathtaking: 
as State and local politicians struggle with deepening deficits and 
rising taxes, President Bush plays the fiscal Nero, the virtuoso 
fiddler for ever more tax cuts. If the Washington wing of the GOP is 
deaf to the cries of pain from the Nation's statehouses, surely it must 
hear the measured warning from Alan Greenspan, the Nation's economic 
guru, that new tax cuts are definitely not needed now. They will 
probably harm the economy, not help it, he cautions, compounding the 
Republicans' feckless deficit spending while pushing up the national 
debt along with interest rates.
  ``But, no, the detaxation mania continues apace as House and Senate 
leaders press towards a Memorial Day deadline that will be a rendezvous 
with foolhardiness. By then, they hope to enact a Bush tax cut and 
spending plan adding $2.7 trillion in deficits to a coming decade of 
red ink, this only 2 years after the first Bush tax cuts helped wipe 
out an anticipated $5 trillion surplus.'' We had a $5 trillion dollars 
surplus anticipated when the President took office.
  ``No so coincidentally, Congress will have to raise the $6.4 trillion 
debt ceiling immediately to help pay for borrowing that is likely to 
last even longer than the easy careers of our detaxation politicians.
  ``The most feverish concern discernible right now among Republican 
leaders is not the fate of the emergency unemployment benefits that are 
due to expire this month, affecting 3.9 million Americans. It is the 
preservation of as much as possible in the President's disastrous 
dividend tax cut plan. A pitifully small group of Republican resisters 
is holding out, demanding $200 billion less.'' We know that is not 
going anywhere.
  ``Cutting the dividend tax rate may make some of Mr. Bush's key 
supporters happy, but there are two things it really will not do: juice 
up the economy or significantly reduce most taxpayers' total bills as 
the burden shifts downward. The pending Bush tax cuts will cost the 
States at least $64 billion more over 10 years . . .
  ``The Federal Government's failure to help localities pay for 
critical services during a slumping economy has sent State and 
municipal taxes soaring. And although the President is selling his cuts 
as a fast job-creating stimulus, it is hard to find any serious 
economist who agree, particularly when it comes to the dividends tax . 
. .
  ``A private forecasting specialist estimates that the dividend cut 
will mean very little in comparison with the instant bang for the buck 
that would come from an extension of jobless benefits and an infusion 
of emergency aid to the States.''
  Mr. Speaker, someone could say he is just saying that because he is a 
Democrat. The bottom line is we have tried the Bush economic policy. We 
have tried it now for almost 3 years, and this is simply a repeat of 
the same thing. It is not working. Normally when something does not 
work, we say okay, let us scrap it and try something that does; and for 
the life of me I do not understand what motivates my colleagues on the 
Republican side, and the President in suggesting that we do more of the 
same unless I guess we just figure they are catering to the special 
interests and wealthy individuals because those are their friends and 
those are who finance their campaigns. But even if I were a 
millionaire, I would not favor this tax cut plan because I do not think 
it helps anybody; and ultimately if the economy does not grow, it does 
not matter whether one is rich or poor, they are going to still not 
benefit.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my presentation 
tonight that relates to the economy, and I wanted to mention two 
foreign policy issues that very much need immediate attention and have 
been in the news the last few weeks. I would like to start out, if I 
could, for about 5 minutes talking about the stalled peace process in 
Northern Ireland. I want to express my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, 
that the peace process in Northern Ireland has once again been 
derailed. With Prime Minister Tony Blair's announcement of the 
indefinite postponement of the elections in Northern Ireland, I worry 
that Great Britain is bowing to the demands of Unionist radicals in 
Northern Ireland who obviously oppose the Good Friday Accords.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Members may know, last October Prime Minister 
Blair suspended the Belfast Assembly in Northern Ireland. Since then, 
Prime Minister Blair and Prime Minister Ahern of the Republic of 
Ireland have held meeting after meeting to bring the Good Friday 
Accords back on track and reinstitute the Northern Ireland Assembly in 
Belfast.
  With the clock ticking towards the scheduled elections on May 29, 
Prime Ministers Blair and Ahern held numerous and made subsequent 
statements that led many media outlets around the world to report that 
the Northern Ireland Assembly was close to being reinstated, but at the 
11th hour, Prime Minister Blair asked the Irish Republican Army to 
declare their commitment to the Good Friday Accords and disarmament. 
While the IRA was not an original signatory of the Good Friday Accords, 
they still welcomed the Prime Minister's questions. The IRA, both 
through a recently released statement and through statements made by 
Sinn Fein's President Gerry Adams, made several clear and unambiguous 
statements pledging their peaceful intentions.
  The IRA stated quite clearly: ``We are resolved to see the complete 
and final closure of this conflict. The IRA leadership is determined to 
ensure that our activities, disciplines and strategies will be 
consistent with this. Furthermore, the full and irreversible 
implementation of the agreement and other commitments will provide a 
context in which the IRA can proceed to definitively set arms aside to 
further our political objectives. We are committed to playing our part 
in creating the conditions in which unionists, nationalists and 
republicans can live together peacefully.''
  It is obvious to me that the IRA has clearly stated their peaceful 
intentions to bring a complete and final closure to the conflict in 
Northern Ireland and they have committed to disarmament to bring a 
final end to the insurrections. But in the final days before Prime 
Minister Blair's announcement of the postponement of the elections, he 
continued to press the IRA to clarify their intentions. While much of 
the international community, Mr. Speaker, and the press viewed the 
IRA's statements as a giant step towards peace, Prime Minister Blair 
oddly continued to claim that they were not going far enough. Then 
suddenly the Prime Minister cancelled the elections in spite of 
opposition from the Irish Government and every political party in 
Northern Ireland, except the Ulster Unionists.
  For the last 5 years, Blair has been urging the IRA to make a 
statement pledging their support for peace. Now when the agreement is 
about to fall apart, the IRA stepped up to the plate and the Prime 
Minister let a home run pitch pass him by. It seems that rather than 
working for what is truly important, peace, he is carrying the water of 
the Ulster Unionists.
  So the question is, Does Prime Minister Blair really want to see a 
peaceful resolution to the situation in Northern Ireland, or has it all 
just been a big political ploy to get the Irish Republicans to pledge 
peace and then force them back under the control of the British Crown? 
And I certainly hope the latter is not the case.
  I call on Prime Minister Blair to first announce a June date for the 
Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Then he must bring the parties 
back to the table to reinstate the peace process and most importantly 
the Assembly. Now at this critical time, Mr. Blair must show true 
leadership and prove that he is not simply a pawn to Protestant 
Unionist Radicals in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Speaker, this is a truly remarkable and historic time in Northern 
Ireland's history. I can honestly say a lasting and just peace I think 
is within reach, but now it is up to the Prime Minister to do what is 
right and allow the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to 
decide for themselves who should govern their provinces.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could just turn to another foreign policy issue and 
then I will conclude this afternoon. I have been very concerned over 
the last month or so about the fact that even though the time seems to 
be right for a settlement between the Greek and Turkish sides in Cyprus 
that it has not

[[Page H3971]]

occurred, and we still have not had negotiations start up again since 
they fell apart a couple of months ago. And I basically came to the 
floor this evening to highlight actions taken last week by President of 
the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos that will help continue the 
process of reunifying the people of the island of Cyprus despite the 
fact that a political settlement has still not been reached over 
Turkey's 29-year illegal occupation of 37 percent of the island.
  On April 30, President Papadopoulos announced several measures aimed 
at enabling citizens living in the Turkish-occupied territory the 
ability to enjoy all the benefits other citizens of Cyprus enjoy. The 
President and the Council of Ministers finalized measures covering the 
fields of transportation, including the movement of goods and vehicles, 
employment of Turkish Cypriots, measures to help relatives of missing 
Turkish Cypriots and critical measures working for the improvement of 
medical care, education, and telecommunications.
  While the President said that his government will do everything in 
its power to effectively implement these measures, he also strongly 
stated that these measures should not be interpreted as a substitute 
for the efforts to reach a political settlement in Cyprus.
  Mr. Speaker, these measures show the length the Cypriot Government is 
willing to go to ensure that Turkish Cypriots no longer have to endure 
the poor economic conditions they have been living under since the 
occupation in 1974. The measures come less than 2 months after peace 
negotiations came to an end thanks to the intransigence of Turkish-
Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash. Despite the giant setback, President 
Papadopoulos stressed the Greek Cypriot side will not only continue 
efforts to reach a solution but also once again pledge to continue the 
efforts for a Cyprus settlement that would properly serve the interests 
of both Cyprus communities, and the President's action last week 
clearly shows he plans to back these words up with action.
  Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks, we have witnessed another 
milestone, the free movement of Cypriots from both sides of the wall, 
something that has not occurred since the occupation. The action came 
after the Turkish Cypriot regime eased restrictions on movements of 
residents to and from the occupied areas. At the same time, the Turkish 
Cypriot regime said it would allow Greek Cypriots to cross into the 
occupied areas but put restrictions on this travel, including the 
showing of passports. The United Nations estimates that since the 
easing of restrictions, more than 170,000 Greek Cypriots have crossed 
into the occupied area, while 75,000 Turkish Cypriots have made the 
reverse trip.
  This peaceful and orderly movement of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots 
during the last couple of weeks clearly demonstrates their shared 
desire and ability to live together on a reunited Cyprus. The actions 
have also disproved Denktash's claim that the presence of the 
occupation army and the maintenance of a dividing wall area are 
necessary for the security of the two communities. It shows his 
statements to be both false and, I think, totally unfounded.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the only solution to the 
Cyprus question must be sought through negotiations conducted on the 
basis of the Kofi Annan United Nations plan, and I also continue to 
believe that the Bush administration did not put enough pressure on the 
Turkish Government to force Denktash to negotiate in good faith. Turkey 
must finally realize that by supporting Denktash's intransigence, it is 
causing harm to its own long-term interests as a potential full member 
of the European Union. After the setback of the U.N. efforts, the Bush 
administration must redouble its effort to persuade Turkey and the 
Turkey-Cypriot leader to work constructively within the U.N. process to 
achieve a negotiated settlement to end the division of Cyprus; and I am 
hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that the Bush administration will change its 
policy and finally exert pressure on the Turkish Government.
  I think it is time for all the citizens of Cyprus to be reunified so 
they can all reap the economic awards available with the nation's 
recent accession to the European Union; and I only hope that both these 
cases, in both the cases of Cyprus and Northern Ireland, that we can 
see a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

                          ____________________