[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.
____________________