Gary Ackerman

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his strong initiative. I rise in support of the Terry-Ackerman amendment, which, as we have heard, would add $2 million for the critical facility maintenance program at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, which is located in my district on the north shore of Long Island. The academy plays a vital role in maintaining the economic and national security of our country and is one of the five Federal Service academies. Kings Point's mission is to train young men and women to serve and to lead in our Merchant Marine, our Armed Forces, and in the transportation field. In times of peace, these Merchant Mariners contribute to our international trading prosperity. In times of war, it is the Merchant Mariners who enable our country to move troops and materiel anywhere, anytime. Despite rising costs over the years, the funding has remained nearly static for each of the last 5 years. The result of this level of funding is a real dollar budget cut for Kings Point. The 55-year-old infrastructure is in need of millions of dollars of capital maintenance repair projects. Included in these projects are barracks renovation, Y2K compliance requirements, maintenance of the 220-foot training vessel, the King's Pointer, instructional technology and training requirements, and improvements in waterfront renovation. Congress has already recognized the need for additional funds for the Merchant Marine Academy. In their report for the Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1999, the House Committee on Armed Services said that they are ``concerned about the deteriorating material condition of the physical plant of the midshipmen barracks at the Merchant Marine Academy.'' They go on to say, ``The plant is antiquated and in need of replacement before it becomes a health and safety concern to the midshipmen and the staff.'' It is to this facility, Mr. Chairman, that, as Members of Congress, we nominate some of the finest young men and women so that they might study and become graduates of the academy. We must work to ensure that the academy is safe and conducive to this training. This funding for fiscal year 2000 will help it achieve this goal so that the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy can achieve their mission of providing our country with the highest quality Merchant Marine officers. I ask all of our colleagues to join with us in supporting this critical amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I will not object if we do that after the closing statements.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to understand that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), under the unanimous consent request of last Friday I believe, has the right to offer an amendment, that this being withdrawn does not give the gentleman the right to offer a different amendment, and that that is not his intent.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think we are seeing a rather unique occurrence here on the floor today. Indeed, we usually enjoy doing battle with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). He sometimes is really a lone warrior on this issue, the overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives voting against his amendment. But, nonetheless, we have never come to the point where we have forced him into a full retreat on the floor of the House, and that is too bad, because we do appreciate hearing his point of view, in the minority though it might be. The gentleman's amendment is being withdrawn because it is flawed, as is his logic, as are his arguments. The gentleman's intent, as it usually is, is to come to the floor, as he has time and time again, to bash India. And his intent here was to cut aid. And, instead, the flawed amendment would indeed allow an increase in aid to be sent to India. Instead of sending a letter bomb, had his amendment passed, he would have sent a Valentine's card. The gentleman's intent was basically to hurt the most vulnerable people of the Indian society. Our assistance programs help children and the elderly and pregnant women. The gentleman from Indiana comes to the floor as a champion of human rights. Does he not know that in Kashmir there is an elected government, democratically elected; a government that is under continuous assault from secessionist terrorists who are responsible for numerous serious abuses, including extrajudicial executions, torture, kidnapping and extortion? Mr. Chairman, the fountainhead of human rights violations in Kashmir is state-sponsored terrorism from across the border in Kashmir. Just recently, we bore witness yet again to the fact that India was being victimized by an egregious invasion of forces from across the border in Pakistan. This invasion would have become a full-fledged war but for the commendable restraint shown by New Delhi. India has demonstrated that it is a responsible nuclear power, that it does not get provoked easily, and it knows that real power means acting with restraint. India should be recognized for its exceptional conduct during the recent Kargil aggression. This amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) does just the opposite. Who are the people terrorizing that he speaks of? These people are terrorizing the peace-loving people of the Indian state of Jammu Kashmir, Hindus and Muslims alike. They are the victims of terrorism for the last several years. It is terror that is unbridled and violent, and it is let loose by the Mujahidin members brought in from all over the world from overseas and aided and given arms by the Pakistanis. That is the real cause for human rights abuses in Kashmir. Mr. Chairman, the real violators of human rights in Kashmir are the numerous terrorist outfits owing allegiance for the fundamentalist religious groups. It is these religious fanatics belonging to such groups as the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, recruited, trained and unleashed by Osama bin Laden and his terror network, who are fanning the flames of human rights violations in Kashmir. The Indian troops that are there are there to maintain the peace and stability of their State of Jammu and Kashmir. The rights that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Burton) would seek to protect are the rights of Mr. Bin Laden, who has blown up U.S. embassies all over the world. Is that who we are concerned about? I think not. It is these terrorist groups and training camps that we have to target, not Democratic India, as violators of human rights. India is a beacon of unity and diversity. It is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-cultural, and multi-religious civilization with a commendable record of tolerance. This is not the time, as the gentleman of Indiana (Mr. Burton) recognizes, to bring this amendment up. It is not the time to bash India and to reward Pakistan. It is not time to punish the victims and to reward the aggressors.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ACKERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today marks the 25th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, and I rise with my colleagues to sadly commemorate this tragic event. I have always supported efforts, including legislation, calling for the end of the tragic separation of the island of Cyprus. I am proud to be a cosponsor of important legislation calling for a just and peaceful resolution to the current situation on Cyprus (H. Con. Res. 81), and have also called for an immediate end to the militarization of Cyprus. I have also written to President Clinton numerous times to point out instances of Turkish aggression on the island. Lastly, I have also supported the Republic of Cyprus's application for entry into the European Union. It goes without saying that the situation on Cyprus is of great importance to the United States and to me. The appointment of Ambassador Richard Beady as special emissary for Cyprus demonstrates this importance to the Clinton Administration. I believe that after 25 years of stagnation, the situation on Cyprus demands a fair and comprehensive solution. The UN Security Council has condemned the declaration of independence by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and has called for the withdrawal of all Turkish troops. The Security Council also called on all states not to recognize the purported state of the ``Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.'' In fact, no country in the world recognizes the so-called ``TRNC'' except for Turkey. UN resolutions since 1974 have called for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Cyprus, the return of all refugees to their homes in safety, and respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. Several rounds of negotiation have taken place, all of which have failed because of a lack of political will on the Turkish side and its refusal to abide by international law and to comply with Security Council resolutions. Turkey has also continued to upgrade its military presence on Cyprus despite the fact that the Republic of Cyprus decided recently not to deploy Russian S-300 missiles on Cyprus. The TRNC has further blocked progress by setting two preconditions for the resumption of peace talks by requiring the recognition of the ``TRNC'', and the withdrawal of Cyprus' application for membership in the European Union. Neither of these are acceptable to the Republic of Cyprus, and only serve to continue to block any kind of possible resolution. I therefore call on this Administration, in this 25th year, to take a hard sand on Cyprus, to help enable the people of Cyprus to live under a government chosen by their people. The United States must take the lead in finding a solution to Cyprus, and demonstrate to the world that people of different ethnic backgrounds and religious beliefs can successfully coexist. The people yearn for it and the country needs it.

Mr. ACKERMAN

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to table this amendment with the understanding that it would be untabled at the appropriate time.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, oh, that I wish it was as simple as the proponent of the amendment suggests. This is not a simple amendment. This is plain and simple and surely an amendment to bash India and another attempt to do that in a long series of failed attempts over the last several years. Sure, it would be easy and nice to say well, they should vote with us at least 25 percent of the time at the United Nations. Well, guess what? India does that. Mr. Chairman, 77 percent of the votes in the United Nations, 70 percent of the time that they have an issue, it is done by consensus, with the agreement of India, along with the United States and the other people represented in the United Nations. What the gentleman refers to as only some recorded votes are quite different than all of the matters considered by the United Nations. Votes in the United Nations on U.S. aid should not be used to reward somebody in order to bribe them to vote the way we think. India is a thriving democracy, the world's largest democracy. In addition to that, this would be a terrible time to send that message. This would ironically reward Pakistan, that has just invaded India's side of the line of control in Kashmir and Jammu. When India has exercised complete constraint as the world's newest nuclear power and handled itself admirably and appropriately in the eyes of the whole international community, what a horrible message for us to send out now. India has been our friend; they are progressing as a democracy. The gentleman's amendment would cut off even the economic support fund, if he reads his own amendment, and that would be a terrible thing to do.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes divided equally so that we could afford the distinguished chairman of the full committee one of those minutes.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I do so reluctantly only because of the great respect that I have for the sponsors of the amendment, both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Let me start for a moment at the beginning, if I may, to just give the framework of what this is really all about. North Korea is a rather isolated country, probably the most isolated country on the planet Earth. It is a country that the very few of us who have been there have come to realize is almost like a country in a bubble. They are absolutely paranoid. Madam Chairman, 99.9 percent of the people have never been outside of their country, including the leadership of the country. The people have no idea what is going on in the real world, and they have all been indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing that the entire world is lined up against them and the United States and South Korea at any moment about to invade their country and usurp their way of life. It is very difficult to deal and to negotiate with the North Koreans who have very, very little experience in the field of dealing with the outside world, let alone the ability to negotiate the way most societies can. There came a time, Madam Chairman, when we and others were very fearful of the very fact that North Korea had nuclear capability; that it had nuclear reactors; that it was producing nuclear energy; that these were heavy-water nuclear reactors; and that these reactors were producing weapons-grade plutonium that could be used in weapons of mass destruction. At around that time, Madam Chairman, discussions were held with Kim Il Sung, the then leader of North Korea, in which he and others within his government were persuaded that it would be in their best interests if they were allowed because of their financial need and because of their great desire to get assistance, to be able to do away with their very dangerous heavy-water reactors and exchange those heavy-water reactors for light-water reactors. The difference between those two kinds of reactors, Madam Chair, is that the light-water reactors make it very difficult, if not impossible, to produce nuclear weapons-grade materiel. The world would be much safer if they had light-water reactors rather than the heavy- water reactors which were, indeed, already producing this fissionable material. The North Koreans entered into an agreement only on certain terms. They said, if we turn off our heavy-water reactors in order to substitute light-water reactors during the interregnum, we will have no power for our poor country, after making tremendous investment in the heavy-water reactors, albeit for reasons of energy as well as producing weapons of mass destruction. So they had a mixed reason. But they were willing at that time and signed an agreement that said they were willing to swap. But what happens to us, they asked realistically, in the meantime, when we have no power to run our plants and to meet the energy needs of our country? We led an international consortium that was put together, mainly funded by our friends in Japan and South Korea, in which they said, those other countries said, we will put up the billions of dollars to build the reactor. The North Koreans want the prestige of U.S. leadership and participation, and the U.S. at that time agreed that we would supply them with the money for oil and other alternative sources of energy other than nuclear while they closed down one reactor system and substituted it for another. That is good common sense. This is a very small investment on our part financially, and especially compared to the huge commitment being made by our other international partners in what is known as KEDO. We have been working on that. What this amendment would do is this amendment would take away our ability to participate in the project that switches the heavy- to the light-water reactors. Madam Chairman, if the goal today is to see North Korea resume its nuclear weapons program, using their heavy-water reactors, then we should vote for the amendment with the gentleman from New York, because that is the likely outcome of adopting that amendment. By unilaterally adding new criteria to this agreed framework, the amendment sets out conditions that the President cannot possibly certify. It guarantees failure. The amendment requires the President to certify North Korean intentions instead of actions. Who in their right mind would certify anybody else's intentions, let alone the intentions of North Korea? It is their actions that we should be asking the President to certify. In addition, the amendment requires the President to certify North Korean adherence to the joint declaration on denuclearization, an agreement that the U.S. is not even a party to. The adoption of this amendment will tell our allies in Seoul and Tokyo that we are not prepared to follow through on our commitments. It will also confirm, unfortunately, the worst distorted suspicions of the North Koreans who already believe that we never intended to uphold our portion of the agreement. Madam Chairman, the underlying assumptions of this amendment is that the administration has not been tough with North Korea in demanding that they adhere to the agreed framework. In fact, as the inspection of the suspected site at Kamchang-Ri indicated, where everybody thought they were rebuilding their original nuclear facilities and which proved to be a vast, empty, cavernous system of caves, we found that the administration is holding North Korea to its commitments. The purpose of the agreed framework was to freeze the North Korean nuclear program and it has done so. That is an inconvenient fact for my friends on the other side of this issue; but nonetheless, it is the fact. The fastest way to unfreeze that program is to abandon the agreed framework as this amendment would do. Madam Chairman, I ask my colleagues to seriously consider whether the world is more secure if North Korea has nuclear weapons. I think not, Madam Chairman; and therefore, I urge all of my colleagues in the House to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.