Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Would it be our understanding that this amendment coming into order, that we would have to defeat the motion to rise?

Mr. DEUTSCH. So the fact is the Porter amendment would not automatically be made in order at the end of this bill.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, could we make a unanimous-consent request that that would be done at this time? As I understand, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] would be willing to do that, but it would not prevent any other Member to make that motion.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Well, I would not if the gentleman would just make clear that we would have the opportunity to debate the amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Daniel D. Cantor, who is being honored June 14, 1995 by the Joint Commission on the American promenade in Israel for his outstanding contributions in fostering and sustaining favorable relations between the State of Israel and the United States. Mr. Cantor was chosen for this honor because of his appointment as the founding father from Florida to the State of Israel of the American-Israel Promenade. The American Promenade in Israel is a further tribute to the continuing friendship between our two countries. To be built at the gateway to Jerusalem, the Promenade will consist of 50 marble, 20-foot-high monuments bearing the flags of and the official seals of the 50 States as well as the United States-Israel Friendship Botanical Garden featuring Biblical and State trees, flowers and wildflowers. Mr. Cantor provided the leadership to bring about this significant gesture. Mr. Cantor served in the U.S. Navy in 1942 immediately following graduation from New York Law School. Following his service in the Navy, Mr. Cantor went on to become a successful builder and developer and operator of shopping centers and homes for the aged in Florida and New York. In addition to the American Promenade, Mr. Cantor has remained active in Jewish organizations in south Florida. He is the president and chairman of Israeli Bonds of Greater Fort Lauderdale and a life vice president and past campaign chairman of the Jewish Federation of Fort Lauderdale. He is also the president and founder of the Daniel D. Cantor Senior Center in Sunrise, FL, and chairman of the Daniel D. Cantor Charitable Foundation. Again, I salute Daniel D. Cantor for his lifetime dedication to his community. He is eminently worthy of the honor being bestowed upon him.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, while health care reform legislation has been temporarily set-aside for other pressing business, we can not neglect the important issues raised during the health care reform debate. A major focus of several of the proposals involved the need to increase the number of doctors providing primary care services. Today, too many new physicians elect to practice specialized medicine where they can earn higher salaries. As a result, there is a deficiency in the number of physicians that practice general family health care or primary health care. I would like to direct my colleagues' attention to the efforts of Dr. Robert Ross, chairman and founder of Ross University School of Medicine located on the Island of Dominica in the Caribbean. Dr. Ross has greatly contributed to reversing the trend in the declining numbers of primary care physicians. Dr. Ross opened Ross University in 1978 with just 13 students. Since that time, over 2,500 students have received medical degrees from the university. In fact, Ross University celebrated its 33d commencement on June 3, 1995, at the United Nations. Ross University graduates have continued on into medical residency training and medical practice all over the United States. Ross University is committed to academic excellence and requires its students to complete the basic sciences portion of the curriculum in Dominica.Then, they return to the United States to complete their clinical clerkships in teaching hospitals. Recently, I toured the campus in Dominica and found the facilities to be of the highest quality--utilizing state-of-the-art technologies. In addition, many Ross University graduates have set up their primary care practices in rural and urban areas that would otherwise go without the attention of a physician. These foreign-trained medical students help fill the critical shortage of primary care physicians. In fact, over 20 percent of the practicing doctors in the States of Michigan, North Dakota, Illinois, Connecticut, and Delaware were educated outside the United States. In New Jersey, the figure is 33 percent, and in New York this number is nearly 50 percent. Dr. Ross and Ross University provide a valuable service to the American people. I urge my colleagues to examine the contribution foreign medical schools can make with respect to primary health care.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a provision in the fiscal year 1996 American Overseas Act [H.R. 1561], related to unresolved commercial claims between United States nationals and the Government of Saudi Arabia. This section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export and Control Act to require congressional oversight and scrutiny of all arms sales to the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until such time as the Secretary of State certifies and reports to Congress that the unpaid claims of American companies described in the June 30, 1993 report by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to section 9140(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1993, Public Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1939, including the additional claims noticed by the Department of Commerce on page 2 of the report, have been resolved satisfactorily. For more than 2 years now, Gibbs & Hill, Inc., has been waiting for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to honor commitments to it and to our Government to favorably resolve its $43.4 million debt owed to it by the Saudi Arabian Government. The claim is one of the long outstanding claims designated for resolution by the Saudi Arabian Government, by its Embassy here in Washington, under the special claims process which was originated by this body following hearings on May 9, 1992 on the commercial abuses of American companies by the Kingdom. As recently as 3 weeks ago, United States Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Raymond Mabus, advised Members of Congress and the company that he had been assured by a member of the Saudi Royal Court, on the authority of the King, that the Kingdom was soon to pay the claim. Despite this assurance, the Saudi Arabian Embassy here in Washington continues its efforts to delay, obfuscate, and avoid payment of the debt. This outrageous situation cannot be allowed to continue. This section will show the Congress intends to stress upon the Saudi Arabian Government that the claims issue must be successfully concluded through the payment of this last remaining claim. The claim of Gibbs & Hill dates back more than a decade. In 1978, Gibbs & Hill went to Saudi Arabia to provide its engineering expertise to the Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu in connection with the design and construction of the Yanbu industrial city. Gibbs & Hill was hired by the Royal Commission to help design the desalination and related facilities which are a major component of this industrial complex. The Royal Commission required significant additional services of Gibbs & Hill to perform the work, committing to compensate Gibbs & Hill for the added services, benefiting from the work performed, and highly praising Gibbs & Hill's work product, but the Royal Commission refused to pay. Gibbs & Hill's attempts to seek redress through the Kingdom's court system was useless, as the court merely upheld the wrongful acts of another agency of the Kingdom. Gibbs & Hill was decimated by the financial losses suffered on this project as a result of the commercial abuses of the Kingdom. We have an opportunity now to bring the special claims process to a successful conclusion through the full and prompt resolution of the Gibbs & Hill claim. This is a stated policy objective of our Nation, which is currently supported by some 50 Members of Congress and Senators from both sides of the aisle. This section will ensure that in the future, American companies are protected from the type of commercial abuses suffered by Gibbs & Hill at the hands of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to highlight a question to the distinguished chairman. Last year the facts regarding the program were the same, and in your subcommittee, I was curious about the Republican Members of the Republican leadership in terms of their response to the attempts with the program last year.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we are taking up the Coast Guard authorization bill we are also taking it up on a day that is truly a dark day in the Coast Guard's history and in America's history. This is a day that the U.S. Coast Guard has joined forces with one of the evil regimes in the world and in world history, the Castro government. The U.S. Coast Guard, who has had such a glorious history over hundreds of years, today escorted people for the first time in American history back to a Communist dictatorship. It truly is a dark day not just in the Coast Guard's history but in America's history. It is a policy which has never been done before and hopefully will never be done again. There are many of us in this Chamber and throughout this country who are urging the President to stop this policy. Coast Guard vessels which have been used to save lives for hundreds and hundreds of years, in fact within the last year have saved hundreds of lives, thousands of lives, were used today to bring 13 people back to what we do not know, what might be death, what might be torture. It is totally naive by this administration to believe that those people will not be suffering for their consequences. It defies the logic of history, it defies what we do know. It defies recent history where this Government has continually pointed to the Castro regime as one of the worst human rights abusers in the world, in fact in the history of the world, and yet that is what our Government's resources and our Coast Guard was involved in today. Now is not the time to particularly reduce Coast Guard authorization for that action. But our hope and I believe again the majority of the Members in this Chamber and a majority of people throughout this country is that this policy will change and will change in short order.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, at about 12 o'clock this afternoon, a United States Coast Guard vessel brought 13 Cubans who had left Cuba in a raft back to a military base inside of Cuba. That Coast Guard vessel was escorted by two Cuban naval warships in this act. It is a first time. Today is truly, unfortunately, a dark day in American history, a dark day for the Coast Guard, a day which hopefully will be a very short day and short time period in American history. But if we do not act, it will be a day that in years to come people will look back, I am sure, with remorse and regret, the first time in American history that the U.S Government has repatriated people to a Communist dictatorship. It is a symtomatic problem of a Cuban policy by this administration that has been schizophrenic, at best. We were told during the Guantanamo exodus that it was impossible to blockade the island. Yet the administration, in fact, has blockaded the island with the help of the Cuban Government and Cuban Navy in a one-way blockade, preventing people from leaving. The island could have been blockaded several months ago, in fact, even up to a year ago, to prevent a migration which did occur of tens of thousands of people. Our country has become a partner with Castro in repression of his people at this point in time. The 13 people that have been returned to Cuba were not sent back to Canada, were not sent back to Mexico, were sent back to a country which this Government has continuously called, and by accurate, independent accounts from Amnesty International, press accounts, the most repressive government in this hemisphere, a terrorist government, a government in terms of world history that stands out as one of the worst abusers of human rights in the history of this planet. The Attorney General, in announcing this change in policy, said that those who returned to Cuba were to be guaranteed no reprisals. I asked the Attorney General this evening why then the secrecy in the return, why then the delay in the actions? These people were picked up in a boat on Friday. Today is Tuesday. It defies logic, based on the history of the country of terrorist incidents that occur in Cuba almost on a daily basis that we know about, obviously scores that we do not know about, that there will not be reprisals. It defies logic. You do not have to be the Secretary of State of the United States, you do not have to have gotten a Ph.D. in international relations to understand the nature of the Cuban Government. And again, I asked the Attorney General why into a military base, why not into Havana Harbor where there would have been at least some foreign press to record the incident, some stringers incident? There is a real question as well in terms of the process of determining political asylum of those 123 people while they were on the vessel. The administration has given myself as well as other Members of Congress who have inquired totally conflicting reports in terms of the status hearings of those people. This administration and, in fact, this Congress is faced with a choice. We cannot have it both ways. We all profess that our desire is to bring down the Castro dictatorship, which we must bring down, a relic of decades past, an evil empire 90 miles from our shore. And yet in order to do that, we have the resources at our disposal to do it. Yet we have chosen not to.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I thank the Chair. Mr. Speaker, article I, section 7 of the Constitution specifically states that revenue measures must originate in this Chamber, in the House of Representatives. It is an infringement of the House prerogatives when that is not done, and in fact this House has consistently ruled that as a question of privilege when that occurs. It consistently occurs when the other body does a revenue provision. What occurred in this case, as most Members at this point are well aware, is that this revenue measure which did originate in the House, then went to the other body, went to a conference committee. A provision was put in in the conference committee which clearly did not originate in the House, which provided for a direct benefit of $63 million to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. And then at that point the Constitution of the United States and the prerogatives of this House were violated because that provision did not originate in this Chamber. The House has consistently held that that type of instance is a violation of our prerogatives. Furthermore, the Chair has consistently ruled that on issues of this nature the House has the right, and the appropriate action is for the House to decide itself what is a prerogative and what is a violation in terms of the privileges of the House. Mr. Speaker, if I might, if I may yield to at least one or two other Members.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am recognized for an hour.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker----

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege under rule IX of the House rules and I offer a House Resolution No. 131.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry: Are you required to tell this Chamber who in fact has objected to the discretionary decision of the Speaker to take up this particular motion that the Speaker himself had said he would favor taking out but has not been taken out?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Again, are you required to say which particular people have not cleared it?

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do take up House Concurrent Resolution 55, requesting the President to return the enrolled bill (H.R. 831) and providing for its reenrollment without the targeted tax benefit contained therein. Mr. Speaker, this deals with a provision, a tax provision, that was put in the bill providing $63 million to Mr. Murdoch.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, this House passed legislation that provided for a $63 million gift to Rupert Murdoch. It was done in the most sleazy, offensive way to this institution. And, yes, it was done. Mr. Archer, what a shame on you, and what a shame on this institution, and what a shame on the Speaker that it was done. We have the ability to correct what was done. Yesterday I attempted to offer a joint resolution to take out that obscene provision. I have tried to do that today. I have spoken to Mr. Armey this morning and asked for his consent, because it does require unanimous consent to take out that provision. I urge you, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who talk in good faith about this institution and about how things need to change, to do in deed what your words have said. Mr. Archer, I ask you--you are sitting here right now--to do in deeds what your words and your Speaker have said, take out that provision.