Chris Smith

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for H. Res. 26, a resolution recognizing the valuable contributions of Catholic Schools. This week marks the 29th Anniversary of National Catholic Schools Week, a week dedicated to honor the achievements and successes of Catholic Schools throughout the U.S. More than 2.6 million children are enrolled in the 8,114 Catholic Schools in our country. As Pope John Paul II said, ``. . . the purpose of Catholic Education is to communicate Christ to you, so that your attitude toward others will be that of Christ.'' A Catholic education challenges students through a combination of high standards, strong motivation, effective discipline, and an emphasis on personal responsibility. It is an education that goes beyond preparation for a secular life; it is an education that prepares students for a Christian life. Placing a premium on both academic standards and moral responsibility has proven to be a successful formula for Catholic schools. Consider the following facts. Catholic school student test performance in the three grade levels of the National Assessment of Educational Progress exceeds public school test results by an average of 4.5 percent in math, 4.8 percent in science, and 12.5 percent in reading. Only 3 percent of Catholic school students drop out of school, compared to a 14 percent dropout rate in public schools. In addition, 83 percent of Catholic highs school graduates go on to college, as compared to 52 percent of public high school graduates. Children do not form their core moral values on the sole basis of what schools teach them. Learning a respect for life and respect for the rights of others does not just start at school. It starts at home. Accordingly, the Catholic school curriculum recognizes parents and family as primary educators and seeks to foster a shared vision among the two. As the father of four children who have attended Catholic schools, I know that Catholic schools strive to create a special bond between families and educators. Schools and families work hand-in-hand reinforcing family values, ethical behavior, social responsibility, and academic achievement. There are more than 167,000 men and women who constitute our Catholic school faculty nationwide. Lay men and women represent 91 percent of the full-time equivalent teaching staff in Catholic elementary schools and 92 percent in middle schools. Parents know that the job of a good school teacher is not an easy one. The teachers and staff in our Catholic Schools are allies and supporters in helping parents instill solid moral lessons in our children. They deliver a curriculum that accentuates academic aptitude and moral responsibility. The Catholic school family--the teachers, administrators, librarians, and support staff--are all working every day to help parents rear and prepare America's next generation of leaders. Mr. Speaker, learning in a religious setting is not for everyone and America's public school system is critical to providing educational opportunities for all. We must continue to vigorously support our public schools at both the Federal and local levels. At the same time, however, we should support those who seek the benefits of Catholic school and choose a religious setting as the best educational environment for their children. In effect, parents of Catholic school children pay twice--they pay their fair share of taxes necessary to support the public school system and they pay tuition at the school their children attend. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this inherent unfairness and work for the passage of a tuition tax credit program--some time this year--as the best way to help offset the double payment endured by those who send their children to Catholic schools. In the interim, Mr. Speaker, as we work for passage of a tuition tax credit, all members can and should vote today for the passage of H. Res. 26 which appropriately recognizes the valuable contributions of Catholic schools across the Nation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today Mr. Evans of Illinois and I are introducing H.R. 100, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a bill to restate, clarify and strengthen the legal protections afforded our men and women who serve on active duty in our armed forces. This measure would modernize and rename the current Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act, which has had only a few changes since it was passed during World War II. While it has always provided extremely important legal protections, this law is badly in need of comprehensive redrafting in modern legislative language so that it has a more inclusive name, is easier to understand and interpret, and, most importantly, provides updated protections to reflect the considerable changes in American society that have occurred over the past fifty years. During the 107th Congress, I introduced H.R. 5111, a bill of the same name. H.R. 100 is a continuation of that initiative, and it may be possible to make more improvements as the new bill is considered. I think the timing of this legislation is important. Our Nation is engaged in a war against terrorism and once again contemplates the possibility of a war to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing weapons intended to terrorize the world. Our servicemembers need to know their elected representatives are working to reduce the burdens they and their loved ones face as they protect our freedoms and way of life. That is why we are introducing this bill on the first day of the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 100 is intended to make the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act (SSCRA) easier to understand by restating it in plain language, to incorporate generally accepted procedural practices, and to adjust its provisions to developments in American life since 1940. Major improvements to the SSCRA in H.R. 100 would: 1. Expand the SSCRA provision temporarily suspending legal proceedings that may prejudice the civil legal rights of military personnel to include administrative as well as judicial proceedings; 2. Add a section pertaining to Legal Representatives that clarifies the term ``servicemember,'' as used in the Act, and incorporates by reference the concept of a legal representative (the SSCRA is silent on this issue); 3. Establish a 90-day automatic stay of proceedings when military duty requirements materially affect the servicemember's ability to appear in a judicial or administrative proceeding; 4. Clarify the 6 percent interest rate cap by specifying that interest in excess of 6 percent per year is forgiven; 5. Improve eviction protections by precluding evictions from premises occupied by servicemembers for which the monthly rent does not exceed $1,700, rather than the current ceiling of $1,200; 6. Add leases to the provision protecting servicemembers who, prior to entry into military service, have entered an installment contract for the purchase of real or personal property by prohibiting creditors without court action from terminating contracts and repossessing property for nonpayment or breach occurring prior to or during military service; 7. Expand the termination of the real property leases provision by adding a clause stating that, if a servicemember while in military service executes a lease and thereafter receives military orders for a permanent change of station (PCS) move or a deployment order of 90 days or more, the servicemember can terminate the lease by giving the landlord written notice; 8. Clarify that protections regarding taxes on personal property include all forms of property owned by a servicemember or jointly held by a servicemember and the servicemember's spouse; 9. Add a provision that states ``a tax jurisdiction may not use the military compensation of the non-resident servicemember to increase the tax liability imposed on other income earned by the nonresident servicemember or spouse subject to tax by the jurisdiction''; and 10. Include legal services as a professional service specifically named under the provision that provides for suspension and subsequent reinstatement of existing professional liability insurance coverage for designated professionals serving on active duty. Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress, with Public Law 107-330 we amended the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to expand coverage to National Guard members activated under title 32 to respond to national emergencies declared by the President. Just in the past few days, some members of the reserve components have received notices that they will be called up for active duty, and Congress should consider more ways to encourage citizen service in the armed forces both by reducing its burdens and increasing its incentives. I hope to do that during this Congress. What was once called the Militia is now the National Guard and the Reserves, but the purpose remains the same, to give the people themselves the opportunity and responsibility to voluntarily contribute their time and talents to the national defense. Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that the House will consider and pass H.R. 100 early in this session. Our servicemembers should be uppermost in our minds and in our prayers during these dangerous times. As we depend on them, we must also do our part.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 241, the Veterans Beneficiary Fairness Act of 2003. This legislation, which is cosponsored by my friend Lane Evans of Illinois, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will correct a deficiency in the law that negatively affects some surviving spouses of disabled veterans. Currently, if a veteran dies while a claim for VA benefits (other than insurance and servicemen's indemnity) is being processed, but before his or her claim becomes final, the surviving spouse is entitled to no more than two years of accrued benefits when the claim is decided in the veteran's favor. H.R. 241 would repeal this two-year limitation so that the veteran's survivor may receive the full amount of the award and not be penalized by VA's failure to resolve a claim in less than two years. Mr. Speaker, while VA has made great efforts to lower claims processing times, the fact remains that it can sometimes take more than 2 years to correctly determine and adjudicate a claim. When this process takes an inordinate length of time, it is simply not fair to prevent veterans' survivors from receiving disability or pension benefit payments the veteran would have received if VA had been able to process claims in a timely fashion. H.R. 241 would ensure that a veteran's survivor would not suffer because the veteran died while waiting for the claim to be adjudicated. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention that the Veterans' Affairs Committee consider this bill as soon as possible during the 1st Session of the 108th Congress. It is a matter of fairness and I urge all of my colleagues to join in this effort.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, next week following the NATO conference in Prague, President Bush is scheduled to meet with President Putin in St. Petersburg, Russia. It is expected that the two leaders will discuss such vital issues as the war against terrorism, the policies in Iraq, safeguards against weapons of mass destruction, and expanded energy cooperation between the United States and Russia. I would urge Mr. Bush to include on the agenda the continuing conflict in Chechnya. At this time, the Russian Government and its people are still recovering from the horrific events of last month, when a group of armed Chechen terrorists seized approximately 700 hostages in a Moscow theater and threatened them with execution if the Putin Administration did not withdraw its forces from Chechnya. After three days of terror, Russian special forces captured the theater, apparently killing all the terrorists. In the preliminary gas attack to neutralize the terrorists, over one hundred hostages lost their lives. This terrorist attack was appropriately condemned by the Bush Administration, and we all sympathize with the innocent victims of this attack. But, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that we should not step back and seriously examine the circumstances that have driven some elements of the Chechen resistance to such suicidal extremes. Perhaps it is because the Russian military, in its drive to suppress Chechen separatism, has employed means which virtually guaranteed to drive a despairing civilian population into the arms of a radicalized resistance. In the three and a half years since the war reignited when Chechen militants invaded neighboring Dagestan, the Russian military has embarked on a campaign of carnage, destruction, and looting against the civilian population. There are credible and ongoing reports of atrocities committed by members of the Russian military--indiscriminate shelling and bombing, murder, assault, rape, torture, arrests ``disappearances,'' kidnaping and holding civilians for ransom. It is imperative that military personnel who commit such egregious human rights violations face criminal charges but the Russian military and judicial system has yet to demonstrate its commitment to bring such criminal actions to account. Nor should we have any illusions about some elements among the Chechen fighters, who have murdered hostages, kidnapped civilians for ransom and used them as shields during combat operations, and embarked on a campaign of assassination against fellow Chechens who work for the Russian civil government in Chechnya. And, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Steve Pifer testified before the Helsinki Commission, ``We have seen evidence of individuals or certain factions in Chechnya who are linked to international terrorist elements including Al Qaeda.'' Without a doubt, war criminals and terrorists should be brought to justice, wherever they are and whomever they serve. In the wake of the attack on the theater in Moscow, President Putin has hardened an already uncompromising position against the Chechen fighters. But, it should be clear that the Russian scorched-earth policy against Chechnya and the Chechen people is not bringing peace to the region. Rather, such policies are sowing the dragon's teeth of hatred and conflict for generations to come. The distinguished Newsweek commentator Fareed Zakaria recently wrote: Terrorism is bad, but those fighting terror can be very nasty, too. And the manner in which they fight can make things much, much worse. It is a lesson we had better learn fast because from Egypt to Pakistan to Indonesia, governments around the world are heightening their repression and then selling it to Washington as part of the war on terror. Russian officials called the Chechen fighters ``rebels'' or ``bandits'' until recently. Now they are all ``international Islamic terrorists.'' Secretary of State Colin Powell continues to call for the observation of human rights and a political settlement in Chechnya, while consistently and properly supporting Russia's territorial integrity. But as the Danish Foreign Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, recently summed up the issue, ``We, of course, support Russia in the fight against terrorism ... but it is not a long-term solution to the Chechnya problem to launch a military action and bomb the country to pieces.'' In addition, the war in Chechnya has affected thousands of refugees, who have fled the constant carnage. In September of this year, I and 10 other colleagues from both the House and Senate wrote President Putin regarding the plight of the internally displaced persons escaping Chechnya to the neighboring province of Ingushetia. We urged the president to resist the forcible return of internally displaced persons seeking refuge in Ingushetia, elsewhere in the Russian Federation, or to any location where the security situation is unstable and proper housing unavailable. However, I have recently learned of 300 Chechen families who are currently facing expulsion from Ingushetia and are seeking refugee status in Kazakhstan. I hope the Russian Government will not expel these individuals, but instead will take all possible actions to alleviate the situation for the many innocent victims of the brutal violence. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge President Bush to include these important issues in his talks with President Putin when they meet in St. Petersburg.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the bill which is before the House represents a compromise measure that has been worked out with the Senate on a number of benefit-related measures considered this year. In May of this year, the House considered and passed H.R. 4085, the Veterans and Survivors Benefits Expansion Act. There were three major provisions in that bill: (1) the annual cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans and the survivors eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation; (2) a revision to the eligibility for survivor benefits so that surviving spouses of veterans who died of service- related causes could retain their eligibility for veterans' benefit even if they remarried after age 65; and (3) a reduction in the loan fees payable by reservists who use the VA home loan program. The Senate stripped all but the COLA from H.R. 4085 at the end of September and returned it to the House. We agreed to the clean COLA bill, which was signed by President Bush and is Public Law 107-247. The Senate also sent us a benefits bill, S. 2237, which has become the vehicle for the compromises worked out by the two committees for the provisions previously contained in H.R. 4085 and a number of provisions contained in the Senate bill passed last month. Because of an evolving budget situation, the committees found themselves forced to offset virtually all of the PAYGO costs associated with the bill. The Senate bill had basically none of the provisions originally contained in H.R. 4085. Instead, it proposed to expand eligibility for service-connected hearing loss and allow veterans to obtain a ``hybrid'' adjustable rate mortgage using their VA home loan eligibility. The compromise includes modified versions of these important Senate provisions. It does not include the DIC change proposed by the House, although it provides eligibility for CHAMPVA for surviving spouses who remarried after age 55. They must apply for this benefit within one year of the date the President signs this legislation. This and other changes were made in order to keep the bill within strict budget guidelines governing direct spending, or PAYGO. The compromise includes a House-passed provision authorizing the placement of a memorial at Arlington National Cemetery honoring veterans of the Battle of the Bulge. It includes as well a provision which originated in the House to raise the Medal of Honor pension to $1,000 monthly and to make retroactive payments for those who were awarded this medal. A provision is also included to extend coverage under the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act to members of the National Guard who are called to active service for more than 30 consecutive days to respond to a national emergency. Many members expressed an interest in this particular provision, and I commend Mr. Evans for a similar proposal in H.R. 4017. Senator Wellstone was the author of a Senate proposal, and I am pleased that our compromise agreement on this is built upon their work. For the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the Record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bipartisan measure for our Nation's veterans. Explanatory Statement on House Amendment to Senate Bill, S. 2237 S. 2237, as amended, the ``Veterans Benefits Act of 2002,'' reflects a Compromise Agreement the Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs have reached on the following bills considered in the House and Senate during the 107th Congress: S. 2237 (``Senate Bill''), H.R. 2561, H.R. 3423, H.R. 4085, H.R. 4940, and H.R. 5055 (``House Bills''). S. 2237, as amended, passed the Senate on September 26, 2002; H.R. 2561 and H.R. 3423, as amended, passed the House on December 20, 2001; H.R. 4085, as amended, passed the House on May 21, 2002; and H.R. 4940, as amended, and H.R. 5055 passed the House on July 22, 2002. The Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs have prepared the following explanation of S. 2237, as amended, (``Compromise Agreement''). Differences between the provisions contained in the Compromise Agreement and the related provisions of S. 2237, H.R. 2561, H.R. 3423, H.R. 4085, H.R. 4940, H.R. 5055, are noted in this document, except for clerical corrections, conforming changes made necessary by the Compromise Agreement, and minor drafting, technical, and clarifying changes.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to reiterate, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill that will follow it if the rule does pass. Let me again point out that this bankruptcy reform conference report contains an unrelated provision that was not included in the bill that passed out of this body that discriminates against peaceful, pro-life protestors, and that is why I oppose this. Mary Ann Glendon wrote an incisive analysis that every Member should read. The Catholic Conference has put out a very strong statement pointing out how unjust this language is. This takes the FACE bill passed back in 1994 over the opposition of my good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and myself, and makes it even worse by making civil fines that are levied nondischargeable. Much has been made about the Starr memo, which I would respectfully submit misses the point by a mile and is unworthy of Ken Starr. He argues, for example, and the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) made this point a moment ago, that rigorous intent requirements; i.e. law- breaking, are included in the conference report. Martin Luther King was an intentional law breaker. We rightly honor him with a national holiday. A tremendous man who went to prison--served short prison sentences--and faced modest and proportionate penalties in his quest for social justice. For Dr. King, law breaking was a means to an end. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, are subjected to ruinous penalties for the same acts of civil disobedience. Nonviolent civil disobedience, obstruction, getting in the way, as was mentioned by one of my colleagues, kneeling in front of a door, praying at an abortion clinic, is construed to be a violation of the FACE Act and then, when the penalties are levied, the pro-lifers cannot discharge the ruinous judgements imposed on them. Mr. Starr also says that section 330 is evenhanded. That, I say to my colleagues, is unmitigated nonsense, it is misleading, and it is false. Section 330 only has the appearance of evenhandedness. Other activists, labor activists, antiwar, PETA, all the groups that use civil disobedience as a means of bringing attention to their cause get a slap on the wrist, a 30-buck fine, they are out of jail the next day. Not so for pro-life protestors. They are under the FACE Act and are discriminated against and singled out for ruinous monetary penalties and criminal penalties and, again, we are talking about nonviolent activities. Back in 1994 I would remind my colleagues I offered the substitute amendment to FACE on the floor that said for those who throw bombs or kill at abortion clinics, are jailed and appropriately fined. But for peaceful protestors, those men and women whose only motive is to try to deter an abortion, another act of violence, to say there is another way, so they have a sit-in. Perhaps they sit in front of a door or they have a pray-in. These things happen all the time. A successful complaint made by the abortion clinic, for example, would be nondischargeable under this legislation. So to say section 330 is evenhanded when the underlying statute is applied unevenly to pro-lifers versus all other activists is unmitigated nonsense, and again I am very discouraged that Mr. Starr would put out such a misleading memo. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Some of my colleagues were not here back in 1993 and 1994 when we debated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which penalized pro-lifers in a way that was totally unfair and discriminatory, mandating ruinous lawsuits, criminal penalties and the like, for doing the same thing that some other nonviolent civil disobedient person might do. If you stood in front of an abortion clinic, you could have the book literally thrown at you, and do the same thing in front of NIH or somewhere else and have a whole different set of penalties. Today we are dealing with the same thing but an extension of that very, very wrongheaded and misguided piece of legislation. In 1994, Chairman Sensenbrenner said this about the same language we are debating today: ``Political protest has been at the forefront of social change. From the Boston Tea Party to the abolitionist movement, from the antiwar protests to the activism of the civil rights movement, civil disobedience has been an intimate part of our history. This is perhaps the first time in our Nation's history''--this is the second, today-- ``that those in the power have so openly sought to use the authority of government to broadly suppress the legitimate actions of a movement with which they do not agree. The legislation, FACE,'' which this makes it worse, you cannot discharge a civil complaint that has been brought against you, the penalty, ``sweeps with broad and heavy hand to target peaceful, nonviolent, constitutionally protected activities on the same terms as violent or forceful acts.'' Chairman Sensenbrenner had it right then. He went on to say that this was McCarthyism. What we are dealing with today, with all due respect, is McCarthyism. Much has been made about the Starr memo. Let me say this: The difference is if you are from PETA or some other organization where sit-ins and civil, nonviolent disobedience, where you get arrested, is part of the intent of what you want to do to bring a focus, and Martin Luther King certainly had intent when he protested and got arrested more than a dozen times or so. The fundamental issue here is that pro-lifers are treated differently. Under the FACE bill, ruinous lawsuits, extreme penalties are leveled against nonviolent protestors. I urge a no on the rule.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations to the people of Turkey for their elections held on November 3. Witnessing the peaceful change of government is a change that is significant for both Turkey's citizens and for their neighborhood. Many of Turkey's neighbors need to see that such a transfer of power is possible, for the people of these countries have for too long suffered under the illusion that they must live with their repressive regimes that maintain power through undemocratic means. It is also important to keep in mind that the Turks, seen by some as a model for the countries of Central Asia, are not new kids on the block--former President Demirel was an original signer of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. As Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), I have followed closely the developments in Turkey. With a particularly keen interest in the protection of human rights which has such an impact on the lives of individual men, women and children, I continue to be concerned about the ongoing use of torture, violations of religious freedom and threats to civil society. Through the ballot box, the Justice and Development Party, known as the AKP, received 34.3 percent of the vote, giving them a clear majority of 363 seats in the 550-seat Turkish Grand National Assembly. This entitles the AKP, led by former Istanbul Mayor Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to govern without sharing political power. He will not be without challenges to his authority though. On November 8, the anniversary of the death of the Turkish reformer Kemal Ataturk, General Hilmi, Ozkok issued a statement vowing ``to protect the republic against all types of threats, especially fundamentalism and separatist activities,'' reiterating strongly the military's view of itself as the historical guarantor of Turkey's secular system. Mr. Speaker, while the transition appears peaceful, it is not without its strains and stresses, even with the potential of the military stepping in like it has done repeatedly in the past. We can only hope that is not the outcome of this transition. As an original participating State of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Turkey has accepted a broad range of human rights obligations. As head of the U.S. delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I have worked with my parliamentary colleagues from Turkey to encourage protection for these commitments. With a new government not obligated to continue the ways of the old, there is a welcome opportunity for such initiatives to be undertaken. There are a few specific matters that I urge the incoming government to address without delay. Four Kurdish members of the Grand National Assembly have been in prison since March 1994. I call upon the new government to free Layla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan, and Selim Sadak and remove the trumped-up charges from their records. They were convicted for, among other things, speaking their mother tongue in and out of the parliament building. As Mr. Erdogan himself has said, such convictions should not stand. Also, past efforts to return the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced Kurds to their homes in southeastern Turkey have proven ineffectual. The government should take concrete steps to ensure that refugees are allowed to return to their own homes in safety and dignity, which may well require the clearing of land mines and repairing of villages. Mr. Speaker, without reciting the lengthy list of Turkey's human rights violations, including the use of torture, it is fair to say that Turkey's record of implementation of OSCE human dimension commitments remains poor. While progress has been made, the authority of police officials must be checked by the rule of law. All claims of torture must be seriously investigated, no matter where the investigation leads. It is important that anyone who commits torture--especially police, the security forces or other agents of the state--must be taken to court and tried for high crimes. The Forensic Medical Association should be allowed to carry out its professional responsibilities and act without fear in its attempts to document torture. Victims of torture should be paid due recompense by the state. I am very concerned about the continuing difficulty no-governmental organizations face throughout Turkey, particularly the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey. The Human Rights Foundation exists in an uncertain environment, with arbitrary shutdowns and having its officials harassed, intimidated or arrested. Property has been seized and not returned. Religious freedom in Turkey, whether for Muslims or other religious communities, had suffered from heavy-handed government involvement and control. The government allows Turkish Muslims to only attend state- approved mosques, listen to state-funded Imams, and receive religious education from state-funded schools. The Directorate of Religious Affairs, which regulates all of Turkey's 75,000 mosques and employs Imams, has been criticized for only promoting Sunni branch of Islam. I would encourage the new government to bring to a close its regulation of all religious institutions. The wearing of headscarves has also been regarded as quite controversial since it is seen as a religious totem in a secular state. Women who choose this expression of religious conviction are denied the ability to attend state-run universities and work in public building, including schools and hospitals. The public sharing of religious belief in Turkey with the intent to persuade the listener to another point of view is severely curbed for both Muslims and Christians. A number of evangelical Protestant groups throughout Turkey have reported being targeted because of their religious free speech, which contradicts OSCE commitments on religious liberty and freedom of expression. Turkey's Office of Foundations has contributed its own difficulties for faith communities, as it has closed and seized properties of ``official'' minority religious groups and unrecognized faith communities. Several religious groups, most notably the Armenian Apostolic and Greek Orthodox churches report difficulties, particularly on the local level, in repairing and maintaining existing buildings or purchasing new buildings. The continued closure of the Orthodox seminary on Halki Island remains a concern. Furthermore, religious groups not considered ``official minorities'' under the Lausanne Treaty are provided no legal route to purchase or rent buildings to meet, and are thereby forced to hold meetings in private apartments. In response, provincial governorships, after receiving a letter from the Ministry of Internal Affairs last year, have initiated efforts to close these meeting places, leaving the smaller Protestant communities without any options. The lack of official recognition is an insurmountable hurdle for minority religious groups wishing to practice their faith as a community. Turkey is at a critical crossroads. I am hopeful that the new government will take this opportunity to move forward, and craft policies which are consistent with OSCE commitments and protective of all peoples living in Turkey.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the latest outrage perpetrated by the regime of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenka. Last week, immediately after leaving the U.S. Embassy in Minsk, the Chairman of the opposition United Civic Party, Anatoly Lebedka, was picked up by plainclothes police officers and driven to KGB headquarters for interrogation. Anatoly had been at the Embassy to pick up the invitation for a conference on Belarus to be held this week here in Washington. In a clear effort at intimidation, Lukashenka's KGB thugs accused him of maintaining ties with supposed ``intelligence agents'' and other foreigners, purportedly for the purpose of undermining Belarus. Mr. Speaker, this accusation is patently absurd. I know Anatoly Lebedka, having met with him in Washington and at several meetings of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, most recently this past July in Berlin. It is clear to me that Mr. Lebedka is an honorable man committed to his country's development as an independent, democratic nation in which respect for human rights and the rule of law is the norm. There is no doubt in my mind that the real reason for the harassment of Anatoly--and this is not the first time--is his opposition to Lukashenka, to whom democracy and human rights are anathema. Sadly, this is only the latest in a long list of human rights assaults by Lukashenka. Just within the last few months, we have seen the passage of a repressive law on religion, the bulldozing of a newly built church, the jailings of three leading independent journalists, the continued and persistent harassment of the political opposition, independent media and non-governmental organizations, and the effective expulsion of the OSCE presence there. These tactics are in keeping with the climate of fear which Lukashenka has sought to create. Moreover, we have seen no progress on the investigation of the missing and presumed dead political opponents--perhaps not surprisingly, as credible evidence links the Lukashenka regime with these murders, and growing evidence also indicates Belarus has been supplying weapons and military training to Iraq. Both in Berlin and in Washington, I have had the honor of meeting with the wives of the disappeared. Mr. Speaker, the state of human rights and democracy in Belarus is abysmal, and the manifest culprit is Lukashenka and his minions. The longsuffering Belarusian people deserve to live in a country in which human rights are not flouted. Those in Belarus, like Anatoly Lebedka, who struggle for human rights and democracy deserve better. The Belarusian people deserve better.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, today, I take the opportunity to let my colleagues know that October was National Spina Bifida Awareness Month. I think we should all pause for a moment and pay tribute to the more than 70,000 Americans--and their family members-- who are currently affected by Spina Bifida. After all, Spina Bifida is the nation's most common, permanently disabling birth defect. The Spina Bifida Association of America (SBAA), an organization that has helped people with Spina Bifida and their families for nearly 30 years, works every day--not just in the month of October--to prevent and reduce suffering from this devastating birth defect. The SBAA was founded in 1973 to address the needs of the individuals and families affected by Spina Bifida, and is currently the only national organization solely dedicated to advocating on behalf of the Spina Bifida community. As part of its service through 60 chapters in more than 100 communities across the country, the SBAA puts expecting parents in touch with families who have a child with Spina Bifida. These families answer questions and concerns and help guide expectant mothers and fathers. The SBAA then works to provide lifelong support and assistance for affected children and their families. Together, the SBAA and the Spina Bifida Association of the Tri-State Region, which is based in Flemington, New Jersey, work tirelessly to help families meet the challenges and enjoy the rewards of raising their child. I would like to acknowledge and thank SBAA and the Spina Bifida Association of the Tri-State Region for all that they have done for the families affected by this birth defect, especially those living in my district. Their work is truly a labor of love. For those colleagues who don't know, Spina Bifida is a neural tube defect that occurs when the central nervous system does not properly close during the early stages of pregnancy. Spina Bifida affects more than 4,000 pregnancies each year, with more than half ending tragically in abortion. Many times, unborn children with Spina Bifida are killed by abortion because of a false belief that nothing can be done to help victims of this disease. The truth is that today, approximately 90 percent of all new born babies diagnosed with this birth defect live into adulthood, approximately 80 percent have normal IQs, and approximately 75 percent participate in sports and other recreational activities. With proper medical care, people who suffer from Spina Bifida can lead full and productive lives. However, they must learn how to move around using braces, crutches or wheelchairs, and how to function independently. They also must be careful to avoid a host of secondary health problems ranging from depression and learning disabilities to skin problems and latex allergies. During this month of October, the SBAA and its chapters make a special push to increase public awareness about Spina Bifida and teach prospective parents about prevention through proper nutrition and pre- natal care. Simply by taking a daily dose of the B vitamin folic acid (which is found in most multivitamins), women of child-bearing age have the power to reduced the incidence of Spina Bifida by up to 75 percent. That such a simply change in habit can have such a profound effect should leave no question as to the importance of awareness and the impact of prevention. While consumption of folic acid helps with prevention, we must do more to ensure a high quality of life for people already living with Spina Bifida so more families choose the blessing and joy of having a child. The challenges of raising a child with Spina Bifida are significant, but the challenges can be overcome. Fortunately, Spina Bifida is no longer the death sentence if once was, and now most people born with Spina Bifida will likely have a normal or near-normal life expectancy. The challenge now is to ensure that these individuals have the highest quality of life possible. I call upon my House colleagues to provide $3 million in much-needed funding to establish a National Spina Bifida Program at the National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (NCBDDD) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure that those individuals living with Spina Bifida can live active, productive, and meaningful lives. In addition, I urge the House to take up the recently passed Senate version of the ``Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities Prevention Act of 2002,'' (S. 2980), which takes many critical steps that will work to prevent Spina Bifida and to improve the quality of life for individuals and families affected by this terrible birth defect. I am hopeful that we will act shortly to pass the measure so it can be sent to the President for his signature. I again wish to thank the SBAA and its chapters for all of their hard work to prevent and reduce suffering from this birth defect, and for their commitment to improve the lives of those 70,000 individuals living with Spina Bifida throughout our nation. Much more work still needs to be done, and I am confident this fine organization and its chapters will lead the effort for decades to come. I wish the Spina Bifida Association of America and the Spina Bifida Association of the Tri-State Region the best of luck in their endeavors and urge all of my colleagues and all Americans to support their important efforts.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I rise in support of the pending conference report on the Bob Stump Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003. I would like to commend the conferees for their hard work in bringing this report to the floor, and particularly for including several provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that will increase the cooperation and resource sharing between medical facilities and programs of the Armed Forces and those of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Sections 721 through 729 of the conference report would mandate new health care resource sharing programs between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, and would provide strong, unprecedented incentives for the Departments to work as true partners in delivering health care to the military-veteran community. Mr. Speaker, last June, I along with Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Lane Evans and others, introduced H.R. 2667, the Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Health Resources Access Improvement Act of 2001, legislation designed to increase the level of cooperation and sharing between the health care systems of DOD and VA. Despite legislation authorizing resource sharing being on the books for two decades, these massive health care systems of VA, Army, Navy and Air Force, have failed to take significant or even commonsense actions to cooperate and collaborate to share their resources when and where appropriate. Our legislation was designed to jump-start this process through practical and achievable means. On March 7, 2002, our Subcommittee on Health held a joint hearing with the Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel to examine H.R. 2667. At that hearing, we received significant support from veterans' organizations, Administration officials and Members of both Subcommittees. Using the feedback from that hearing, we were able to achieve a significant compromise that is now incorporated in the Conference Report. Specifically, the Conference agreement would: Mandate, rather than permit sharing where feasible; require VA and DOD to jointly plan for the future of both health care systems; provide funding incentives for facilities that have forged ahead and demonstrated the advantages of sharing resources--initially limited to three sites; make VA and DOD develop information systems and management structures to allow their respective pharmacy services to become interoperable; and encourage combined training for health care providers. Let me be very clear what these provisions do not do. They do not combine the Federal health care systems; they do not merge the two systems; they do not reduce overall delivery of medical services; and they do not lower the level of funding for either health care system. Rather, this legislation takes advantage of opportunities to better serve both populations--when and where it makes sense. By sharing equipment, facilities, technology or personnel, VA and DOD can achieve efficiencies that would then be reinvested to provide expanded services to even more veterans, active duty military, retirees, and military dependents and survivors. I am pleased to report to my colleagues that the Conference language on sharing has the support of The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Military Veterans' Alliance, the Military Coalition for Health Care, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Disabled American Veterans. While legal authority for resource sharing between the departments has existed for 20 years, the level of sharing between the VA and DOD remains abysmally low, accounting for only two-tenths of one percent of their combined $40 billion health care budgets. My committee staff made 16 site visits last year to DOD-VA sites, and just recently during our August recess Health Chairman Moran and fellow Committee Member Jeff Miller visited the Navy Medical Center in Pensacola, Florida and Eglin Air Force Base. They reported to me that this particular Panhandle area, with so many military facilities and a growing population of older veterans and military retirees, is ripe for additional DOD-VA sharing. All our visits to sites where VA and DOD health care activities are in very close proximity are carefully documented in a Committee staff report filed earlier this year. I commend that report to all the conferees here today, but let me briefly give you a couple of compelling examples of what we believe are the kinds of problems this legislation can solve. Charleston, South Carolina is home to a Navy Hospital and a VA Medical Center. During a visit last year by our Committee staff, the Navy Hospital's Executive Officer, in the course of discussing the issue of resource sharing, talked about the difficulty he had in recruiting and retaining pharmacy technicians to handle a daily backlog of 500 prescriptions. Directly across the street from the Navy Hospital is a VA Consolidated Mail-out Pharmacy, which fills 60,000 mail-out prescriptions daily for VA's patients. The Navy hospital officer was completely unaware of this facility's capabilities. Crossing the street with my staff, they visited the VA pharmacy for the first time, took a tour, and talked to the chief pharmacist, who said that he would have no difficulty filling 500 daily prescriptions for the Navy, an amount barely noticeable in his massive workload. To date, a year later, it appears nothing has changed. It's inexcusable in my view to waste such opportunities. I know from my own experience how difficult it can sometimes be to just get the four service branches to cooperate between themselves. My own congressional district in New Jersey over the past 22 years has either contained or been in close proximity to several military installations, including the Army's Fort Dix, the Air Force's McGuire Air Force Base, and the Navy's Naval Research Laboratory in Lakehurst. I remember visiting them some years ago and it seemed as though you needed to get a passport just to cross from Fort Dix to McGuire. We all know of institutional resistance to change, but that resistance must be overcome. With the demand for health care services rising, and the cost of care also going up, we cannot wait any longer to take real, meaningful actions to find ways to serve both populations more effectively and more efficiently. For two decades, VA and DOD have had the authority and the charge to improve sharing of health care resources, and the results have been dismal. We don't need more studies or more reports; we need action. Our VA-DOD sharing language in the Bob Stump Authorization Act will be a major step forward in that regard, and I commend the conferees for retaining the provisions in the final conference agreement that is now before the House. I want to thank our Committee's Ranking Democratic Member, Lane Evans, Health Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Moran, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Bob Filner for their hard work in this legislation. In addition, I want to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Bob Stump, a former Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Ranking Member Ike Skelton, Subcommittee Chairman Bob McHugh, and Ranking Member Dr. Vic Snyder, for all of their work to reach this agreement. Mr. Speaker, the conference report also includes language providing additional benefits to military retirees who have incurred significant combat related disabilities. Unfortunately, this agreement is not as generous as an earlier provision on concurrent receipt that was approved by the House and I expect that many Members will be working on this issue during the 108th Congress. I will support these efforts. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the opportunity pass without also adding some words to commend my dear friend, predecessor and long-term colleague, the Honorable Bob Stump. It is indeed a fitting tribute to Bob Stump that this measure be titled the ``Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003''. Bob Stump has been a friend of those who serve in the Armed Forces since his own experience as a Navy corpsman serving in the South Pacific theater during World War II. Although Chairman Stump has been known to shun the spotlight, his words and actions speak volumes about his dedication to all those who served. For those who may not be familiar with some of his more notable legislative accomplishments, I would like the record to reflect the following list of his accomplishments during the six years that he served as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs from 1995 to 2000. Working on a bipartisan basis in cooperation with veterans' service organizations, the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs achieved significant legislative success on behalf of our Nation's veterans and their families. The following items only highlight what was accomplished during the six years of Bob Stump's chairmanship. VA Health Care Budget--For fiscal year 2000, Congress provided the largest budget increase for VA health care in history, $1.7 billion. Health Care Eligibility Reform--In 1996, under Chairman Stump's leadership, Congress passed eligibility reforms that removed barriers to outpatient care and allowed greater flexibility to the VA so it could pay for care closer to where the veteran lives. 1998 Benefits Expansion--In 1998, Congress passed a significant benefits expansion totaling $1.5 billion over five years for improvement to veterans' and survivors' education benefits and benefits for disabled veterans and surviving spouses of totally disabled veterans. Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits Act--What has been called the Millennium Act is the most comprehensive veterans' benefits improvement legislation in decades. Some of the more significant provisions mandate nursing home and long-term care and allow the VA to pay for some emergency health care services. Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement--Public Law 106-419 increased the value of the monthly education benefit by nearly $100 per month to $650. During the six years of Chairman Stump's tenure, the Congress increased the monthly benefit by 48 percent. National Cemetery Expansion--Since 1997, 7 new national veterans' cemeteries have opened, including one in Oklahoma that was required by the Veterans' Committee as part of the Millennium Act. Under Chairman Stump's guidance, Congress also required the VA to begin immediately the planning for 5 national cemeteries in Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Oklahoma, Sacramento, and Detroit. Arlington National Cemetery--Legislation was enacted in 1999 to expand the boundaries of Arlington National Cemetery, extending its useful life beyond the projected closing date of 2025 so that in-ground burials of veterans can continue until approximately the year 2041. Chairman Stump also cared passionately about preserving the integrity of the Nation's premier National Cemetery at Arlington, Virginia. During the 105th, 106th, and 107th Congress, Bob Stump sponsored legislation that was approved by the entire House of Representatives to codify eligibility requirements for Arlington. His legislation would have preserved eligibility for career service members while denying eligibility to Members of Congress who did not have the requisite military service. For these and all of the other measures which Chairman Stump helped to move through this and many preceding Congresses, I extend the gratitude of the millions of veterans of this nation who benefited so much from Bob Stump's leadership. We all wish him the very best as he returns to his home in Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this Conference Report. It deserves to become part of Bob Stump's legislative legacy.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the hard work and community service exhibited during the past school year by the students of Veterans Memorial Elementary School in Brick Township, New Jersey. It is my honor and privilege of representing these students, and their parents and teachers in Congress. During this past year, the students invested many hours of service in projects to help make life better for their school and greater community. For example, in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the students honored local fire fighters who participated in rescue and recovery operations at Ground Zero. They also sent thank you notes to New York City police and fire fighters, and wrote letters to a local serviceman stationed overseas. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the students'community service did not just begin, nor will it end, with their outstanding efforts related to September 11th. To highlight the importance of a clean and safe environment, the students commemorated Earth Day by decorating grocery bags with environment-friendly messages. These bags were then used by patrons of a local supermarket so they could take home the students'messages about how we must protect for our environment. They also implemented a school-wide paper recycling program, and worked to beautify the school's grounds. To enhance their own understanding of the challenges that older Americans face, the students visit with senior citizens in their community, exchanging ideas, and striking up new friendships. They make special holiday gifts for the seniors and also put on concerts, including one full of patriotic songs. It's the students' way of thanking America's ``greatest generation''; a generation that risked all to secure freedom at home and abroad. As chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, I am especially grateful for the outreach our students have initiated with seniors and veterans--the namesakes of their school. When a peer's house tragically burned to the ground, the students of Veterans Memorial Elementary School responded by holding an emergency fund-raiser. They also collected warm winter coats for students in need and helped their school buy new books and playground equipment. While this is only a small sampling of community service activities performed by the students of Veterans Elementary, it is clear that these children, while learning the subjects and skills they need to succeed in academia, are also learning the generosity, compassion, and service needed to be outstanding members of their community. I am proud to congratulate the students of Veterans Elementary School. Their leader and my friend, Principal Joe Vicari also deserves our thanks for his many years of hard work and generosity and the dedicated teachers and support staff at Veterans Elementary School also deserve high praise and recognition. I wish them all the very best of success for another year of outstanding community service, and I look forward to working with them in their endeavors in the years to come,

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, nationally, only about three in ten veterans seeking jobs through the Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS), which is managed by the Department of Labor, are finding work. And the work they are finding isn't necessarily in career-type jobs. This federally-funded program, which is carried out through a partnership with the States, must do a better job. The Committee's bill, H.R. 4015, as amended, would revamp VETS to allow it to work better within the framework of the recent Workforce Investment Act. One of the bill's most important provisions would require the Secretary of Labor to carry our a program of financial and non- financial performance incentive awards to states to encourage them to improve and modernize their employment, training and placement services for veterans. The bill would also require any poorly performing states to develop and implement corrective action plans. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to imply that states are not doing a good job. In fact, many are. I am confident that with the enactment of this legislation, the states with poor records will be given the flexibility and incentives they need to improve. The result will be that many more veterans will find good jobs and taxpayers will get a much better return on their investment in this program for veterans. I want to commend the Chairman of the Benefits Subcommittee, Mike Simpson, for the extraordinary effort that led to a bill commanding the broad support needed to make this bill happen. I also want to commend the previous Chairman, Jack Quinn, the current Ranking Member, Sylvestre Reyes, and the former Ranking Member, Bob Filner, for their bipartisan support of this important bill. I also want to thank the leadership of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Chairman John Rockefeller, and Ranking Republican Arlen Specter, for their consideration of the House bill and the many improvements they suggested. The legislative process has produced a strong bill that we can be proud to send to the President. This is a significant step toward improving the employment services a grateful Nation offers those Americans who have served in military uniform. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 4015, as amended. For the benefit of my colleagues, I include at this point in the Record a joint explanatory statement describing the compromise agreement we have reached with the other body: Joint Explanatory Statement on Senate Amendments To House Amendments to

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3253, as amended, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002.'' H.R. 3253 will provide the federal government with another tool to prevent, or if necessary, respond to future acts of terrorism against the United States. This legislation will mobilize the strength of the VA heath care infrastructure in defending our nation against future acts of terrorism. Almost exactly one year ago today, on October 15, 2001, I chaired a hearing of the Veterans' Affairs Committee to examine the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs in homeland security. At that hearing, I proposed to use VA's expertise in biomedical research to help in finding treatments and vaccines against deadly chemical and biological threats posed by terrorists. Just two days later, Congress was itself facing anthrax attacks from letters that had been sent through the main post office in my congressional district in Hamilton, New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I know from my own experience during these anthrax attacks that our nation needs to quickly develop new tests and treatments for anthrax and other dangerous biological and chemical agents that could be used by terrorists. When anthrax was discovered in the Hamilton Post Office, I was astounded to discover that there were no existing protocols to test, quarantine, or threat victims. The confusion that followed discovery of anthrax made a bad situation even worse. We must learn from that experience. H.R. 3253 will marshal some of our nation's best and brightest scientists in a focused effort to develop new protocols for testing, vaccinating and treatment our citizens who may be victims of biological, chemical and radiological terrorism. Although it may come as a surprise to many, the Department of Veterans Affairs operates our nation's largest integrated health care network, with over 200,000 health care practitioners, 163 medical centers, more than 800 outpatient clinics, 115 medical research programs, affiliations with over 100 schools of medicine and a $25 billion annual budget, including over $1 billion for its research programs. The VA health care system must be an integral component of any homeland security strategy. In fact, VA already does have defined roles in both the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) and the Federal Response Plan (FRP) in the event of national emergencies. Among VA's current specialized duties are: conducting and evaluating disaster and terrorist attack simulation exercises; managing the nation's stockpile of drugs to counter the effects of biological and chemical poisons; maintaining a rapid response team for radioactive releases; and training public and private NDMS medical center personnel around the country in properly responding to biological, chemical, or radiological disasters. H.R. 3253 was developed in order to apply the existing experience and expertise of VA's health care research programs as a defensive tool in the war on terrorism. As amended, H.R. 3253 will authorize VA to establish four National Medical Preparedness Centers. These centers would undertake research and develop new protocols for detecting, diagnosing, vaccinating and treating potential victims of terrorism. In particular, the Centers would focus on ways to prevent and treat victims of biological, chemical, radiological or other explosive terrorist acts. The new centers would conduct direct research and coordinate ongoing and promising new research with affiliated universities and other government agencies. These Centers would serve as training resources for thousands of community hospital staffs, hazardous materials ``HAZMAT'' teams, Emergency Medical Technicians, firefighters and police officers, who must be first medical responders in the event of terrorist attacks. The emergency preparedness centers would also be charged with establishing state-of-the-art laboratories to help local health authorities detect the presence of dangerous biological and chemical poisons. The funding to support these centers would come from the additional funds provided for combating terrorism and would not use or otherwise reduce funding for veterans' health care. Under the compromise agreement reached with the Senate, VA's authority to provide emergency medical treatment would be expanded to include first responders, other Federal agencies, veterans not enrolled in the VA health care system, active duty service members and other persons receiving VA care in declared domestic emergencies. Reimbursements collected for the cost of care, whether coming from FEMA, the Defense Department or an insurance company, would be credited to the VA's Medical Care Collections Fund, the same as in other VA collections efforts. In addition, a new assistant secretary for preparedness, security and law enforcement would be established at VA. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the compromise bill would codify in title 38 of the United States Code various provisions from Public Law 107-188, the ``Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002'', that pertain to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extended my remarks and that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 3253, as amended. Mr. Speaker, with our approval today, H.R. 3253 will go to the President for his signature and enactment. I urge all Members to support this vital legislation.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I am proud to rise today to pay tribute to Elsie Bailey, a constituent of mine from Whiting, New Jersey, who was recently elected President of the American Legion Auxiliary. Mr. Speaker, on August 28th, in Charlotte, North Carolina, Elsie Bailey was sworn in as President at the American Legion Auxiliary's 82nd National Convention. The American Legion Auxiliary is the world's largest women's patriotic service organization, with more than 10,500 units in every state and some foreign countries. Founded in 1919, the Auxiliary consists of women whose husbands or other male relatives are members of the American Legion. The Auxiliary has over a million members today, including more than 15,000 in New Jersey, and operates hundreds of volunteer programs. Their dedicated and generous members provide thousands of hours of service to our Nation's veterans and to the communities in which they live. Through their efforts, millions of dollars have been raised to support veterans programs, as well as to support both national and local charities. Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud of the fact that Elsie Bailey is the first woman from New Jersey in more than 75 years to serve as President of the Auxiliary. And the American Legion Auxiliary could not have found a more caring, compassionate and capable woman to lead them. Elsie Bailey was born in Hillsborough, New Jersey, later lived in both Somerville and Bridgewater, and is now a resident of Whiting, in the heart of my congressional district. She worked for 23 years at the Somerset Medical Center, retiring as personnel director. Throughout her life, Elsie has been active in her communities, having served on the Somerset County Teacher Credit Union, the Parent Teachers Association and the Employees Activities Committee. She is currently a volunteer mentor, a member of the Whiting Rescue Squad Auxiliary, and a parishioner of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church. But perhaps her proudest accomplishments are her two children and four grandchildren. In 1961, Elsie Bailey joined the Stevenson-D'Alessio Auxiliary Unit 12 in Somerville, quickly becoming secretary of that unit. She has continued to serve in leadership roles at the unit, department and national levels, including serving as state President for New Jersey and as National Vice President. Now as National President, Elsie has already begun implementing an ambitious agenda for the Auxiliary. She plans to travel across the country to every state and perhaps even to some foreign countries, in an effort to boost the Auxiliary's already impressive membership rolls. A lover of country music, Elsie has established a membership theme called ``Country Hearts in Celebration,'' which she intends to use to recruit new members. She has also taken on a special project called ``Veteran's Pot of Gold'' designed to raise funds to assist homeless veterans, an issue that has been a large part of my agenda as Chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I look forward to working with Elsie in this most noble mission to help the estimated 275,000 veterans who are homeless today. Mr. Speaker, as our Nation fights a war on terrorism to keep America free and secure, it is comforting to know that there are people like Elsie Bailey supporting our veterans and our communities. I am confident Elsie Bailey will serve as new National President of the American Legion Auxiliary with the same distinction she has demonstrated her entire life. Through her service to our veterans, our communities and our Nation, Elsie Bailey has earned our respect and I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to her today.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 90 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me note that the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has been very gracious. The time for the Committee on International Relations was supposed to end a half hour ago. We have had so many speakers, some of whom have waited. In the case of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), he has been waiting for 2 hours; and he has been very kind. We want to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a man who lost friends in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a courageous war hero from Vietnam and former POW. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a combat Vietnam veteran who was wounded during his service and is chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), a senior member of the Committee on Rules.